Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Karina on SpoutBlog

  • BREAKING UPWARDS. SXSW Preview.

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

    BREAKING UPWARDS. SXSW Preview.

    Daryl Wein’s Breaking Upwards is one of my most personally anticipated films of SXSW 2009. Wein’s follow-up to last year’s SXSW doc premiere Sex Positive, Breaking is a narrative feature starring Wein and his real-life girlfriend Zoe Lister-Jones as themselves alongside a slightly-starrier supporting cast including Olivia Thirlby. Answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone, Wein talks about his film and stuff, but more importantly, he makes our second SXSW-related blow job joke of the day.

    Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out.

    Breaking Upwards follows a young, real-life New York couple who strategize their own break-up, in a fictional narrative loosely inspired by their open relationship.  The film stars filmmakers and real life couple, Daryl Wein and Zoe Lister-Jones, in addition to a cool cast including Olivia Thirlby (Juno, The Wackness), Julie White (Transformers, Transformers 2), Andrea Martin (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), Peter Friedman (The Savages), and Pablo Schreiber (The Wire, Vicky Cristina Barcelona).  I made it, in part, because it was a story that was quite close to me, but also because I felt there was a lack of complex portrayals of young people’s struggles with monogamy on screen, and I liked the uniqueness of this narrative, and these characters.  I also was drawn to the idea of me and my girlfriend performing our own story in the midst of an otherwise dramatized narrative. It provokes interesting questions about the nature of performance within relationships, as well as the narrative/documentary divide.

    It’s like Annie Hall meets Garden State. If Garden State was better. Snap!

    Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it.

    I used to be a babysitter, then I quit, filed for unemployment, and was able to sell a documentary I made called, Sex Positive.  Right now, I’m trying to write another movie before the river runs dry.

    Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin?

    Yes,  my feature length documentary, Sex Positive, was in the documentary competition last year.  I had a blast!  The funniest thing that happened while I was there was probably on my way back to the hotel late at night when a stranger handed me a joint out of the window of his car.  Aust-ome.

    Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature?

    Maybe Dr. Strangelove to laugh at the insanity of it all, and then Life is Beautiful to try to look on the bright side.

    There’s been some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?)

    I think it helped that I had a film in the festival last year.  But I kinda think that’s a half criticism. I think of all the festivals, SXSW is the least tied up in nepotism or celebrity pandering. As compared with a lot of bigger festivals, they still give a voice to truly independent filmmakers.  Also I slept with every staff member.  Lock. Jaw.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • TRUE ADOLESCENTS. SXSW Preview

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

    True Adolescents  (2008)

    TRUE ADOLESCENTS. SXSW Preview

    We have so many SXSW previews to get through in the next week leading up to the fesitival that some days, you just might get two. Today we’ll first take a look at Craig Johnson’s Narrative Competition entry True Adolescents, which is notable on paper for two reasons: it co-stars recently Oscar-nominated Melissa Leo, and it’s the film on which Mark Duplass and Lynn Shelton first discussed working on the film that would become Humpday. Answering The 5 Questions We Ask Everyone, Johnson marvels at comparisons to Kelly Reichardt, makes a blow job joke about Joe Swanberg, and names the two films that make him want to die.

    Tell us about your movie. Who did you work with, why did you make it? Give us the reductive, 25-word or less, “It’s like [pop culture reference a] meets [pop culture reference b]!” pitch, then explain what the quick and dirty sell leaves out.

    True Adolescents is a coming-of-age story about a drifting Seattle rocker dude who takes a couple of teenagers on a fun but somewhat harrowing camping trip. It stars Mark Duplass (Humpday, The Puffy Chair), Bret Loehr, Carr Thompson and Melissa Leo. It’s funny and irreverent but hopefully a little moving by the end. Someone described it as “like You Can Count On Me but younger and edgier”–which is immensely flattering since I think You Can Count On Me is one the better films of the last decade. What’s weird is that people have likened it both to Kelly Reichardt’s work (Old Joy, Wendy & Lucy) and to School of Rock! So I guess if Kelly Reichardt directed “School of Rock”, it may have looked something like True Adolescents –if you believe that kind of hybrid could exist.

    Do you have a day job/a non-filmmaking occupation that raises money for your filmmaking efforts? Tell us about it.

    I have a number of different day jobs. I teach filmmaking to teenagers, edit short films and videos, edit photos–though I did not put any of my own personal finances towards the film. I’m in enough debt from film school as it is. I just had a tremendous producer, Thomas Woodrow, who managed to raise enough money so that we could do it the way we wanted to do it. But believe me, I was ready to run out with a video camera and a microphone and shoot it myself if I had to.

    Have you been to SXSW before? If so, tell us about your funniest story from the experience. If not, what are you looking forward to re: the festival and/or the city of Austin?

    I have never been to SXSW or Austin before and I’m super excited. I’m from the Seattle area and people tell me Austin is a lot like Seattle–with better weather and even mellower people. I think SXSW is a the absolute perfect place for True Adolescents. The film has a strong music component that jives with the festival’s spirit and it stars Mark Duplass who is a SXSW veteran. I’m really excited for people to see Mark’s performance in this film-it’s unlike anything he’s ever done before. I think people will be blown away by him.

    Let’s get hypothetical: You’re on death row. The night of your execution, you’re allowed to watch any two films of your choice. What would you pick for your last-night-on-Earth double feature?

    Yikes. That’s a creepy question. All I can think about is what I did to get my ass on death row. I’d probably start with something wonderful and life-affirming like “Mary Poppins,” one of my all time favs. But then I’d be overwhelmed by the beauty and goodness in humanity and would want to live, so I’d have to wipe that feeling clean with “Salo” or “Funny Games.” Then I’d want to die, for sure.

    There’s been  some criticism that the only way to get into SXSW is by being a part of an “incestuous scene where everybody knows everybody.” So who did *you* have to sleep with to get in? (Metaphorically or literally: are there any SXSW filmmaker(s) past or present that you’re close with personally and/or professionally, and how have those relationships helped or hurt the process of producing your film and getting it seen?)

    So I gave Joe Swanberg one little blow job, so what? A guy’s gotta do what a guy’s gotta do.

    Just kidding. I’ve never met Joe Swanberg. You know, I’ve heard that criticism and I just think it’s silly. I don’t personally know any of the SXSW programmers, past or present, I’ve never been to the festival before. I cast Mark Duplass because I rented The Puffy Chair from Netflix and thought he would be perfect for the film, not knowing he was a SXSW rock star. For any festival, there is a certain amount of “name recognition”-whether it be actors, or the director or producers– that may or may not cause programmers to give your film a closer look when making their decisions. But, ultimately, I think programmers choose films because they think they are interesting films, regardless of who made them. I’d certainly like to think my film got in on its own merits.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • THE WAR AGAINST THE WEAK Review, True/False 2009

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

    THE WAR AGAINST THE WEAK Review, True/False 2009

    Director Justin Strawhand uses every known documentary trick in the book (as well as some tricks not in the book) to translate Edwin Black’s The War Against the Weak from 600-page doorstop of exhaustive, collaborative research into a smooth-moving filmed horror show that’s shocking, inventive, and seductive in the most disturbing sense imaginable.

    Black’s basic thesis — and slogan on his book’s website — ominously portends that “it began on Long Island and ended at Auschwitz…and yet it never really stopped.” “It” is the scientific study of hereditary genetics, named “eugenics” by Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, developed by American academic elitists to serve their inherently racist and discriminatory fear of the other, and eventually adopted by the Adolf Hitler, who, already obsessed with the notion of denerate peoples like Jews and Gypsies as a threat to Aryan supremacy, became obsessed with American eugenics literature whilst in prison in the 1920s, even writing “amateur anthropologist” Madison Grant a fan letter describing Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race as Hitler’s “bible.” Eugenics theory first resulted in questionable U.S. laws governing the civil rights of the blind, the epileptic, the feeble minded, and the generally lowborn, and ultimately the sterilization or euthanasia of the same. “Eventually,” Black writes, these same theories “led to the Holocaust, the destruction of the Gypsies, the rape of Poland and the decimation of all Europe.”

    In his review of Black’s book for Mother Jones, David Plotz noted that while some historians “have made a cottage industry of finding new ways to blame the Germans for the Holocaust, Black, by contrast, keeps finding new ways to put the onus on the Americans.” Weak was in fact his third book exploring ties between American history and Nazi war crimes. Strawhand’s film doesn’t shy away from exposing the direct lines between the American political establishment of the early 20th century (and even the personal discriminatory statements of some historical heroes, including Theodore Roosevelt and Oliver Wendell Holmes), but through a variety of stylistic choices, he steadily increases the horror as he’s marking fifty years of time, making the American mission to breed out the “submerged tenth” (ie: those destined for poverty and/or criminal behavior as a consequence of hereditary low birth) look quaint and relatively impotent next to the madness of Mengele and the Nazi’s attempted genocide of the Jews. The main theoretical thread is not really common thirst for extermination, but a common conception amongst one group that they have god-like rights and the power to determine the destiny of another.
    As Strawhand explained after a screening of Weak at True/False, his goal was to make the viewer feel like they were “inside” the story, and at that he suceeds. Various different styles of animation and text design, multiple narrators, talking head interviews with modern day Americans who would have been euthanized or sterilized if born in the wrong place at the wrong time — and one surviving German woman who was –– and reenactments are woven seamlessly together to recount the historical evidence. The result is a film that manages to unfold like a surprisingly linear stream-of-consciousness, one which builds to some of the most unsettling staged images I’ve ever seen in a nonfiction film. That The War Against the Week is incendiary in its subject matter is a given. But if we’re still arguing over whether or not any sort of use of reenactments in documentary is “dubious,” then Strawhand has fired an explosive round into that debate. This is a film that could exist based on archival material and talking heads alone, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who sees The War Against the Weak as stands would maintain that it should.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

  • FRONTIER OF DAWN Review

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

    FRONTIER OF DAWN Review

    When Philippe Garrel’s most recent film premiered in competition at Cannes last year, it carried the French title La Frontière de l’aube; that was translated in English in the Cannes guide as Frontier of Dawn, but the subtitle at the beginning of the film read, The Dawn of the Shore. None of these titles give any indication of what this film is: a story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge. I named it as the best undistributed film of 2008; now, IFC is screening it theatrically in series at BAM in Brooklyn (starting tonight) and at Cinefamily in Los Angeles (Saturday, March 14), before it premieres on VOD.

    When I reviewed the film last May at the festival, after it had been roundly booed at its Cannes press screening, I wondered if those critics who gave a dismissive but hardly as cruel reception to James Gray’s Two Lovers earlier in the festival would bother to grapple with the similarities between that star-studded American production and Garrel’s infinitely cooler, warm-toned black-and-white capital-A work of Art. For the most part, they didn’t, even though on paper, they’re essentially the same film: a Jewish photographer falls for a difficult, substance-dependent blonde; even though that relationship is clearly doomed from the start, it haunts him and prevents him from happily settling into a domestic routine with a still-beautiful but less troubled and exciting brunette. The big difference, at least narratively speaking: in Gray’s film, as the director told Andrew O’Hehir, the protagonist ultimately “does choose life.” Spoiler alert! The resolution to Garrel’s story is the diametric opposite.

    Movie star Carole (Laura Smet) is living half a world away from her filmmaker husband when she meets Francois (Louis Garrel, son of Phillipe, his eyes dark, as if eye-linered naturally), a photographer who comes to her hotel to take her picture. It’s not clear if Francois is a journalist or an artist or what, but the project seems to take him weeks to complete, and by the second photo shoot, Francois and Carole have fallen into bed. They pledge undying love, but the sharp violin/piano jazz-horror score alerts us right away that things aren’t going to work out. Gin-swilling serial suicide attempter Carole seems destined to go the way of Frances Farmer, and though she seems convinced that Francois can save her from herself, he can’t stop what’s coming for long.

    After Carole’s husband comes home suddenly and just misses catching Francois in her bed, Francois leaves and, despite Carole’s pleas, stoically refuses to come back. Carole’s heartbreak leads to a swerve into Shock Corridor territory. Meanwhile, Francois takes up with the lovely but fairly normal (and thus comparatively boring) Eve. A year after Carole violently exits the picture, Eve becomes pregnant; just as Francois has accepted that he’s about to become a father, the spectre of Carole comes back to try and drag his happy home life into the grave.

    Perhaps because there are more than a few members of the press corps who could be described as socially awkward Jewish males, there’s been a lot of attention paid to the fact that in Two Lovers, Gwyneth Paltrow’s character is able to push Joaquin Phoenix’s as far as she does because she embodies his bad girl shiksa fantasy. When in that film, the nice Jewish boy threatens to abandon his family and local community in order to run off with the dangerous blonde instead of settling for the sensible match of his same background and faith, it might be a mistake and it might be a disappointment to his parents, but it’s hardly a tragedy of biblical proportions.

    Garrel’s film takes the mystical threat of the shiksa far more seriously, literally turning her into something out of a horror-movie as the film morphs from classical, almost slight romance to a serious meditation on love, faith and eternity. Garrel tells us twice that Francois is Jewish––once directly, once implicitly (Francois thinks talk of concentration camp survivors is fit for pillow talk; amazingly, Carole agrees). Taking place in Paris, far outside Two Lovers’ world of Brighton Beach second-and third-generation immigrants, this information only seems significant after the final scene. At the risk of giving away more than I’d like to, the film’s denouement requires its Jewish protagonist to believe in an afterlife.

    When confessing his bind to a friend, the friend has no sympathy for Francois’ inability to concentrate on his impending nuptials and push Carole out of his head. “Bourgeois happiness,” says the friend, as snarkily as such an ultra-serious French film would allow. “Scary, isn’t it?” Apparently, it is. There are shots in this film’s second half that are spookier than anything I’ve seen in a horror film in recent years –– without the aid of any effect more special than a basic optical print –– and simultaneously, incredibly moving in their invocation of a love that won’t die. Or, at the very least, refuses to abide by traditional boundaries of love and death.

    This review appeared in slightly different form during the 2008 Cannes Film Festival.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth

 


Advertisement