Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

Karina on SpoutBlog

  • Cannes: Nerves on the CHE Red Carpet

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Che  (2008)

    I’m watching the red carpet arrivals for the Che premiere right now via the Festivals closed circuit TV station. “Steven Soderbergh looks somewhat worried,” says the English translator. No shit. The director, wife Jules Asner and Che star Benicio Del Toro not only looked like they were walking into a hanging, but they couldn’t contain their apprehension when asked totally innocuous questions by the official red carpet interviewer. Examples:

    Red Carpet Guy: “Steven, why did you want to make a movie about Che?”

    Soderbergh: “I didn’t want to do it. They made me do it.”

    Red Carpet Guy: “How did you become Che?”

    Benicio Del Toro: “I don’t think I did it. But we tried.”

    Soderbergh: [looking around] “It’ll be an interesting evening, one way or an other.”
    Red Carpet Guy: “Are you nervous?”
    Soderbergh: “Yeah!”


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • Cannes Diary: Che and the Quest For Relevance

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    It’s Che day. Steven Soderbergh’s Guevara epic has its world premiere this evening at 6:30, and as of this 9am writing, ticket-less gawkers are already lining up outside the Palais, some with Cuban cigars, all with signs declaring their need tickets. From a press and industry perspective, people are definitely talking about the film, but everyone seems less interested in what’s going to be on screen tonight than in how it’ll eventually be seen.

    Che is screening here for the press and the public as a single, four-hour film, but it’s playing in the market for buyers as two separate pieces, The Argentine and The Guerilla. This leaves open a number of possibilities: a) the film(s) could be released franchise style, ala Kill Bill; b) the two films could be picked up by different distributors (unlikely, but not impossible); and c) one half of Che could be seen theatrically whilst the other does not. Rumor has it that the second half of the story is currently in better shape than the first; it remains to be seen what would be lost if half of Che was demoted to straight-to-DVD.

    And then there’s the competition. The competing film so far most popular with critics is probably Arnaud Desplechin’s Un Conte De Noel, a messy masterpiece of a family drama that––we think––has absolutely no shot of impressing a jury under Sean Penn’s mandate to give the Palme D’Or to a filmmaker “very aware of the times in which he lives.” If we’re to take that pullquote to mean that Penn intends to select a film with Something to Say about the horrors of war, than Waltz with Bashir is the only competition feature to screen thus far that really applies, and buzz on that one seems to be petering out as the fest moves along. There’s certainly room for Che to make an impression, especially on a jury with more than one prominent Hollywood name, who may be inclined to hail one of their own; again, as of this writing, it’s too early to say whether or not the film will deserve it.

    One film that *doesn’t* deserve plaudits, but which may be able to ride the wave of relevancy to release nonetheless, is Born in 68, an 173 minute French prestige film screening in the Marche. Laetitia Casta stars as a young libertine who becomes involved with two student wannabe revolutionaries in Paris in May 1968. The three move to a farm and start a commune and have babies and make a lot of expository statements about whether or not they’re Doing Anything For The Cause. After the first hour, the film moves through years at a laughable pace (watch Baye’s hair become progressively grayer so that she doesn’t have to act!), and eventually tracks the children born on the commune through the 80s and 90s.

    There’s potentially a thread of interesting critique going on here: the 60s counter culture was in theory about changing the world, but in practice, it was really about sex, drugs and theory; future generations picked up the mantle, but left the theory behind, dispensing with the charade that a youthful interest in politics is anything but excuse to party. Casta’s son celebrates the fall of the Berlin Wall by hooking up at a gay bar to the sound of “99 Luftbaloons,” but is this any worse than his mom, responding to the riots of ‘68 by abandoning Paris in order to make babies, goat cheese, and have stony orgies? Interesting stuff, but unfortunately, the film doesn’t really take it up, preferring instead to indulge in the soap opera aspects of the story (although, I must admit: when said gay character announced in the late 80s that he was waiting for the results of some blood tests, I walked out). Hell, who am I to complain––at least it makes for a lot of nudity.

    Born in 68 isn’t terribly made––it’s actually shot rather beautifully, although the script could use some work––but it is offensively milquetoast. It’s basically the French The Best of Youth, which was in turn the Italian Forrest Gump. I guess we’re looking at a new genre: the Overlong Ensemble Piece Condensing 40 Years of a Single Country’s History As Seen By Innocents With A Knack For Showing Up At The Right Place At The Right Time. The fact that only one of these movies is blatantly about a person with mental deficiencies is only a technicality.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • Cannes: Two Lovers

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Two Lovers  (2008)

    I don’t entirely buy James Grey’s Two Lovers, and typing this having just walked out of the far superior Un Conte De Noel, I feel strange even praising it. I freely admit that even as certain elements are effectively  thrilling in their depiction of tortured passion, it’s all put to the service of a narrative that is occasionally offensive in its total lack of surprise. But, but, but: after dozing on and off for the film’s first twenty or thirty minutes, I awoke to see Joaquin Phoenix breakdancing his way into the arms of Gwyneth Paltrow, and for whatever reason, from that point on I was sort of into it. About an hour later I became totally sucked in, when that moment of dance floor silliness met its dissonant counterpoint with a second, far more desperate scene of Phoenix dancing his way into Paltrow’s arms.  It’ll be too little too late for some, but in its final third, Two Lovers becomes an extremely strong parable about the madness of romantic love, and maybe even its impossibility.

    That scene…it looks like a classic romantic high, until you realize that there’s almost no color on the screen beyond the white-gold wisps of Paltrow’s windblown hair dusting the frame. It hits you that the characters think that what they’re doing is going to save them both when in fact (and maybe this is where the generic story arc becomes a bonus), we know it’s only going to make everything worse. It’s bleak. It’s beautiful.

    Two Lovers is implicitly concerned (and this should be familiar to most New Yorkers) with the way romantic relationships give us an opportunity to slide back and forth across class lines. Both Paltrow and Phoenix play adults who allow older men to pay their rent. For Paltrow, it’s a stock slimeball married guy who keeps her, a well-bred bad girl, stashed in an apartment in The Old Neighborhood––part easy alibi (his mama lives nearby), part obvious fetishistic class regression/emotional slumming (his mama lives near by). In Phoenix’s case, the older man is his father, an Israeli-born dry cleaner who wants to ensure his own comfortable retirement by making sure his wannabe photographer son hooks up with the daughter of a business partner. Too bad Phoenix is constantly running off to answer text messages from Paltrow, whose bought-and-paid-for pad is visible from Phoenix’s childhood window.

    Leonard begins relationships with both women simultaneously, and much of the film is devoted to the ways in which he immerses himself in the pleasures offered by one to ameliorate the disappointments of the other. The dry cleaner’s daughter (Vinessa Shaw) says she wants to “take care” of Phoenix, but she probably shouldn’t––at worst creepily unstable and at best just something of a bore, he’s a 30 year-old boy who has moved back in with the ‘rents after a failed engagement and at least one suicide attempt. In turn, Paltrow (more impressive than she has been in years cast against type as a roiling ball of need) exploits Leonard’s proximity (emotional, physical) as a salve for the constant pain wrought by her married boyfriend’s distance.

    The film’s tone can be fatally contradictory, and it’s hard to say whether Grey thinks that his obviously troubled protagonist’s ability to seduce two gorgeous women (and, most problematically, that he stuns both ladies into a state of love via swift administration of his dick) makes for comedy or tragedy. It doesn’t help that Phoenix himself, starting at the moment of seduction and carrying through to the end of each scene, seems like he’s playing a completely different person. A comment on the transformative nature of sexual attraction, or inconsistent filmmaking?

    I can’t decide, but ultimately, I didn’t mind. In the film’s second to last shot, Phoenix locks a single, tortured eye on the camera from behind the embrace of the woman who he’s just, by default, given a diamond ring. It’s a single shot that undercuts any possibility that this apparent traditional romantic happy ending is in fact what it seems. It would be difficult to look at that image and still believe that anyone in this movie has actually been in “real” love since they stepped on screen, to not feel a cynical, momentary jolt that romantic love itself is never really more than a collision of circumstance and impulse, a way of taking care of a need via the most readily available means. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but that’s not to say it doesn’t bear repeating.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • Cannes: La Vie Moderne

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    La Vie Moderne, playing here on the Un Certain Regard sidebar, is the third documentary portrait of a group of rural French dairy farmers that Raymond Depardon has made this decade, and as such, comparisons between Depardon’s overall project and Michael Apted’s 7 Up series are not unapt. But where Apted’s seven films across forty years have come to define a changing Britain through the personal evolutions of a single generation, Depardon paints a portrait of a region and a way of life that seems on the verge of almost certain collapse due to nothing more than the natural passage of time and collision of generations. Taking on the triple role of interviewer, cameraman and narrator, the filmmaker’s affection for and rapport with his subjects is obvious, his tenacious patience a welcome contrast to the aggression employed by so many self-referential documentarians.

    Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation. In long, often unbroken takes, he slowly, gently chips away at his subject’s defenses until, apparently without realizing, they begin to unpack their own statements and reveal their true meanings

    The film is structured as a year-long roadtrip. Through footage shot on a camera mounted to Depardon’s dashboard, the filmmaker takes several minutes in between each location to envelop us into the terrain ahead of his destination, as Depardon goes from farm to farm and family to family, catching up (and catching us up) on what went on whilst he was away. It’s a documentary in which no event is actually directly documented; each subject simply sits down in front of Depardon’s camera and explains their version of events past and present, and a few months or years later, Depardon comes back to repeat the process and track how things have changed. More than anything else, this is a movie about the passage of time.

    The over all mood is somber, resigned. A once-dominant culture has become a sub-culture, and from there it’s petering out completely as patriarchy and matriarchs die. The younger farming families send their kids to boarding school and encourage the children who stay home to avoid the family business. Without family connections, those who wish to become farmers find it impossible. This is partially due to lack of demand, but there’s also the question of authenticity and legitimacy.The young mother from Lyon who wants to build a goat cheese business seems like a carpetbagger compared to the lifers caught on Depardon’s camera, who have never lived elsewhere and never contemplated an alternate career.

    There’s not a superfluous moment in the film, but most of the Moderne’s core ideas come across most beautifully in the narrative thread about the Privat family, who have appeared in each of Depardon’s farmer films. Brothers Marcel and Raymond are in their 80s, and though both still tend to their goat and sheep daily. When the film begins, nephew Alain has just married a woman he met via personal ad, and has moved his new wife and stepdaughter into a separate house on the Privat farm. Alain’s uncles never married, and they bristle at the introduction of an independently-minded woman an her young daughter into this “family of bachelors.” Within a long, funny and seemingly unedited single-camera interview, Depardon gently breaks down the Privats’ polite defenses. “I don’t like being pushed around,” Marcel finally complains. The threat posed by Alain’s wife to Marcel and Raymond’s solitude and autonomy is a neat metaphor for the anxieties that run spoken and unspoken throughout the entire film, about the encroachment of technology on tradition and the passage of time.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • Cannes Market Watch: Sex and Breakfast

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    In what will hopefully end up as my stupidest move at the Cannes market this year, on Monday I went to a buyers screening of a film called Sex and Breakfast. The suspiciously unspecific description in the Marche guide: “Two couples uncover what it takes to achieve a long-term romance while maintaining a healthy and satisfying sexual relationship.” Just from those two scraps of information, we can immediately deduce that this film is one of two things: A) so-bad-its-good Euro softcore, or B), not-quite-bad-enough to be so-bad-it’s-good throat clearing from a first-time American indie filmmaker who hasn’t yet figured out that working one’s personal sexual fantasies out on celluloid really only befits aged masters (and most of the time even then, it’s questionable.)

    Since I knew that Sex and Breakfast was in English, I knew from the start that it almost definitely fell into the “B” camp. So why waste my time? Three words: Starring Macaulay Culkin.

    The basic thrust of the story (ah, puns): Culkin can’t make his sexpot girlfriend come, so she suggests they go to a sex therapist who specializes in proscribing polygamy. Meanwhile, in some alternate universe section of Los Angeles where everyone not only takes cabs, but hails them on the street, Eliza Dushku gets upset when her hunky boyfriend with an identifiable foreign accent admits that he masturbates, and they go to the slut shrink, too. Dr. Orgy (a woman of maybe 70, which might be a Dr. Ruth reference, or might just be to make sure we know that sexual experimentation is a bad idea from the get go, because it’s associated with the idea of old ladies fucking) eventually hooks the two couples up, of course, but she takes almost the entire film to do it. This leaves a lot of time for long dialogue scenes, in which Culkin gets to say things like “What’s important? Pussy, and lots of it!” and Dushku attempts to repair her boyfriend’s ego by saying things like, “Shut up, I love your penis!” The couples do finally get around to Doing It, but it’s the most boring sex scene of all time, all above-the-shoulders shots of one swapped couple kissing intercut with the meaningful stares of the other couple from across the room.

    The trailer, embedded above, makes a lot of promises (Dushku-on-Girl Resembling Jessica Alba action! Post-coital grown-up Culkin!) on which the film itself can’t really deliver. The lesbian plotline is, actually substantial, but never consumated. Culkin, who still doesn’t look old enough to be having sex, is actually appropriately cast as the boyfriend without balls; pity about his inability to deliver a believable line reading. And the real kiss of death: there’s isn’t even any nudity. I’m all for shameless schlock––see my continued show of love for the life achievements of Lloyd Kaufmann–but there’s nothing worse than a film that sells itself as cheap and dirty but ultimately turns out to have earnest things to say about relationships. The only thing shameful about Sex and Breakfast is its unwillingness to get really shameful.

    Sex and Breakfast is already available on DVD in the States––in fact, the entire thing has been uploaded to YouTube––but I didn’t know that until after the screening. I’d tell you that if I had known, I wouldn’t have gone to the screening, but I don’t know who I’d be kidding. The YouTube clips aren’t embeddable, but if you want to skip directly to the ludicrously unsatisfying sex scene, go here.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • Cannes Diary: Karaoke

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    My first couple of nights in Cannes, I was in screenings until almost midnight, and then I’d go to meet the people I’m staying with at the Grand Hotel, where we’d have drinks and then eventually share a long cab ride back to our place. The Grand is, apparently, Where Everyone Goes, which has it’s charms, but it also inevitably results in 30 minute waits amongst a partially-tuxedoed mob around the bar in order to have the privilege of paying 10 Euros (about $17, I think) for a single cocktail. Apparently, it wasn’t always like this. “Where’s the Cannes dive bar?” I wondered aloud to a group of veterans. The answer: “The Grand WAS the dive bar.” Whoops.

    So when I heard that Alamo Drafthouse and Fantastic Fest founder Tim League was planning on throwing a renegade karaoke party in Cannes last night, I really, really wanted to see him pull it off. But it seemed impossible. So what if he had brought his portable karaoke system all the way from Austin? Where was he going to find a bar––in Cannes, during Cannes––that would be amenable and available to a bunch of scrappy Americans looking to scratch a drunken irony itch? And with the exchange rate being what it is, how would any of us be able to afford the amount of alcohol necessary to fuel such an endeavor?

    But he pulled it off.

    It was a triumph of collaboration. Instead of a bar, Tim set up shop in a falafel place called Twins, which agreed to stay open until 2 and sell wine and cans of beer for 2 Euros. He borrowed a microphone from Salon.com’s Andrew O’Hehir––the same tiny, directional mic that Andrew uses to record podcasts. I don’t remember where they said they got the P.A., but I think I remember someone saying it had to be returned to someone at the Finish Film Society at the end of the night. And filmmaker and sometime Spout blogger Michael Lerman sent out emails to spread the word.

    The crowd spilled out of the tiny Twins and filled the cobblestone street, blending with the throngs pouring out of the Petit Mejestic at the end of the block. Eventually, someone from that hotel came around and huffily stacked their tables and chairs adjacent to Twins. No one left just because they couldn’t sit down. Brit Withey of the Denver Film Society shot an iPhone video of me performing “Love is a Battlefield,” which I sincerely hope never sees the light of day. Lloyd Kaufman showed up at one point, and Tim grabbed the microphone and begged the Troma genius to sing. I tried to stop him as he made his escape, and he promised me he was just going to an ATM and would be right back. Lloyd Kaufman lied to me.

    Sometime around 1:30, just as Glenn Kenny was gearing up to sing “Mack the Knife,” the cops arrived. Something about noise complaints. They said we could have one more song, and Tim tried to get the whole crew to join in on a mass sing-a-long of “We Are the World.” No one was into it––at the end of the day, no one really ever wants to sing “We Are the World.” Of course, it didn’t matter––any party broken up by uniformed officials counts as an unqualified success.

    My camera is broken, so I didn’t get any pictures of the festivities (hence the above graphic). If you’ve got any or have seen any (preferably less incriminating for Your Blogger than that iPhone video), let us know in the comments.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement