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

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Tulpan Review, Telluride 2008

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

    Highway  (1999)

    In The Dark  (2004)

    Tulpan  (2008)

    Telluride is celebrating a great talent coming out of Kazakhstan this year, Sergei Dvortsevoy. Although he’s here with only his first feature film (which, incidentally, took four years to make), there’s a slate of documentaries he’s brought that the festival directors tout as “must sees.” In the Q&A for his first feature film, Tulpan, Dvortsevoy described shooting the first scene of the movie, a 10 minute long take of a ewe giving birth. He showed it to his small cast of Kazakh actors and non-actors and said, “That’s what we have to live up to.” And it’s true. If there were a Best Non-human Actor Oscar, this sheep would have it (although the Academy would probably give it to one of these damn Disney chihuahuas). Fortunately, the cast lived up to the animal’s authenticity with each scene and breathed life into a simple fable.

    Asa is a young man living with his sister’s family after a stint in the navy. They’re nomadic sheep herders and Asa works for his older brother in law, Ondas. He’s anxious to start his adult life and for him it will begin with marrying Tulpan, the title character. But neither Tulpan nor her parents are interested in the arrangement. Asa’s not established himself as a herdsman. He begs his brother-in-law for a herd, but he can’t get a herd until he’s married. Therein lies Asa’s dilemma he must face to go from boy to man. But it’s Dvortsevoy’s meticulous direction that creates a cinematic experience.

    It’s not just the performances that are enamoring, it’s the sheer starkness of the environment. You see, Tulpan is not just the only girl for Asa. She’s literally the only girl, which sounds ridiculous until you see the Hunger Steppe of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is the largest landlocked country on the planet, and the steppe is a vast, flat sea of dust. From the family’s yurt–a tent that looks like a giant wicker basket turned upside down and covered in wool blankets–there’s 360 degrees of flat horizon and nothing to break it. Not even a telephone pole. A constant wind buffets the earth and its droll is only broken by the sharp cries of one of Ondas’ children, his sheep or the engine of a tractor-turned-truck driven by a porn loving courier, Asa’s only outside friend.

    The isolation is unnerving, but it also clarifies the inherent drama of this family. There’s no need for Dvortsevoy to impress us with symbolism. The reality is the metaphor. For Ondas, when he can save a lamb, he insures his children’s survival. Dvortsevoy’s long, uninterrupted takes pull up the quiet angst of their life. We don’t have to hear Ondas say, “Life as a herdsman is really hard,” because it’s a fact we become intimate with. So, in Tulpan when it’s time for a sheep to give birth, we’re right there, hanging on every moment. And that sense of The Other that Sasha Baron Coen used to make his Kazakh character Borat so funny, is nowhere to be found.

    (Sergei Dvortsevoy’s documentaries are also playing at Telluride’s Backlot: Paradise, Highway, Bread Day and In the Dark.)


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Helen + Joy Review, Telluride 2008

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

    Helen  (2009)

    Christine Molloy and Joe Lawlor, who screened short films at Telluride in 2005 and 2006, brought their debut full-length work to the festival this morning. The 74-minute Helen was preceded by Joy, a 9-minute short featuring some of the same actors, settings and situations, which Lawlor described before the screening as “a slightly more philosophical primer” for the feature. The filmmaking duo place both works within the context of their Civic Life series, “community-based” films cast with local non-performers, in which the socio-economic issues relevant to modern England and Ireland are improbably but successfully folded into a pure cinema marked by long traveling takes, atmosphere in place of action, and a notable economy of speech.

    In Joy, a female police officer faces the camera and explains that we’re watching a staged re-enactment of the disappearance of an 18 year old girl that will appear on local television, in the hopes of jogging the memory of anyone who might have seen a clue. As we watch Joy’s stand-in Helen (Annie Townsend) retrace steps through a park before disappearing into the woods, the cop’s voice-over explains how she calms the parents of a missing teenager by encouraging them to look at best case scenarios. Joy, she says, “might have been one of those young people who wanted to get lost.”

    The feature focuses on how and why Helen came to “play” Joy, and how the other girl’s absence left a gap amongst her friends and family waiting to be filled. Joy––who we never see, but are told Helen bears a striking physical resemblance to––came from a loving, upper middle-class home, played in a band and dated an attractive yuppie real estate agent. Helen has been living in the custody of the state since she was a child, spends her after school hours working as a maid in a hotel, and has never had close friends, let alone a boyfriend. Though their film is comprised mainly of long, contemplative shots of Helen transversing the landscapes of the city, her school, and the woods where Joy disappeared/the reenactment takes place, much of it set to the sound of Helen’s internal dialog with Joy, Molloy and Lawlor use these languid poetics to the service of a story about class passing. Helen clearly wants to emulate, if not out-and-out replace Joy in the lives of Joy’s parents and boyfriend, to suck up both the privilege and love that the lost girl left behind.

    But it’s not as Vertigo-esque as it might seem; as conveyed by her imagined messages to Joy, Helen is not a cynical opportunist, but a pragmatic (if semi-delusional) optimist. She convinces herself that the police officer is on to something, that Joy got lost on her own. She does move in on the other girl’s absence as the opportunity she’s been waiting for to correct her dreary lot, but does it as if pretending that she and Joy had a silent pact to help one another remake their lives.

    Helen is lovely to look at and ultimately compelling, but it does test patience, not least with its radically uneven performances. Though their casting process is usually fairly arbitrary (Molloy said before this morning’s screening that as a matter of course, “whoever turns up that day gets to be in the film”), for the first time Lawlor and Malloy held actual auditions to find a young woman to play the title role in Helen. Though Annie Townsend is no more a professional actress than any of Lawlor and Molloy’s collaborators (she’s actually a player on Newcastle United’s ladies football team), it’s her remarkably naturalistic, bizarrely seductive performance that breaks through the static of Helen’s sorely untrained cast, sleepy pacing and mildly too-futuristic premise, to really make the film something special.

    A question/quibble: Lawlor noted before the screening that the decision to screen Joy and Helen together was made by the festival, and that the filmmakers had not necessarily intended for the works to be seen consecutively. Maybe two of Joy’s nine minutes are incorporated directly into Helen; one assumes that the rest stands alone because the filmmakers didn’t want the feature to depict the re-enactment literally, and the film is probably more haunting for it. But as long as that literal re-enactment exists, would it really be preferable to see the two films playing at the same festival apart?


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Jeff Goldblum: The Media Diet, Telluride 2008

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

    Being There  (1979)

    L'eclisse  (1962)

    Masculin/Feminin  (1966)

    Rosemary's Baby  (1968)

    Tokyo Story  (1953)

    Vertigo  (1958)

    Adam Resurrected  (2008)

    Man on Wire  (2008)

    Jeff Goldblum is at Telluride to promote his new film, Adam Resurrected, directed by Paul Schrader. The film follows the story of a Holocaust survivor who also happens to be a clown. Committed to an asylum after the war, he becomes a ring leader of sorts. On the opening day of the festival Goldblum was graciously hugging young fans and striking odd poses for snap-shots. We got a chance to ask him about his media intake, which includes a substantial amount homework from Schrader.

    Spout: What movies have you seen and enjoyed lately?

    Jeff Goldbloom: I’ve gone to the movies theaters recently and saw two movies I really enjoyed. The Woody Allen movie, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, I had a very very good time at that, loved that. Then I saw this documentary called Man on Wire. It’s really, really good, I enjoyed that to no end.

    Spout: Have you been watching anything lately on television that has compelled you?

    Goldbloom: The Democratic Convention.

    Spout: Yes, I see your Obama t-shirt there, that was pretty good stuff. What about on the internet, in terms of reading or watching any video online?

    Goldbloom: Hhhmm, haven’t seen much of that recently, that I can say.

    Spout: If you were on a desert island, and you had five pieces of media, they could be books, they could even be websites, they could be movies, to entertain you until your death, and you are all alone, what would you bring with you?

    Goldbloom: Oh God, very difficult. I’m reading now Talks With Ramana Maharshi, I guess I’d bring that. I like… let me see… let me see… oooooh… oooooh…

    Spout: What about a movie, a favorite all-time film that you will never get sick of?

    Goldbloom: How about Rosemary’s Baby, or Being There. I like those movies Paul Schrader suggested I see before we made Adam Resurrected: Rules of the Game, Tokyo Story, l’Eclisse by Antonioni, Masculin Féminin by Godard, Vertigo, his favorite Hitchcock, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul

    Spout: That is a great movie, we (FilmCouch) discovered that about a year ago, I don’t know how Paul found it, but it’s incredible.

    Goldbloom: Yeah, it’s really something. Seven Men from Now, Budd Boetticher, he puts that on his recommended list.

    Spout: That’s a great list, thanks for your time.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Benjamin Button Backlash? Telluride 2008

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

    It has come to my attention, via the Rope of Silicon post and SpoutBlog commenter Gould, that there is bad buzz in Telluride surrounding David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I’m in Telluride, and I hadn’t heard this bad buzz––the handful of people I’ve spoken to who saw the show reel either last night or this morning had generally positive things to day, aside from some general skepticism as to what the film’s reported two and a half hour final cut will look and feel and play like.

    As I responded to Gould’s comment on this post:

    …it’s hard to tell from this reel whether or not the film is going to hold together. I don’t get the sense that he’s going for whimsy or magical realism, but it does seem like a real departure for Fincher. Hopefully the fanboys looking for another Fight Club won’t burn Fincher at the stake for branching out a bit.

    Telluride is not like, say, Comic-Con; the crowd doesn’t boo or scream, and most attendees are less likely to walk out of a screening with a firmly settled opinion than they are to spend the rest of the weekend talking it out. This doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m right and the naysayers are wrong, but I do hope this movie doesn’t get a leg cut off before the picture’s locked thanks to the entire internet jumping to conclusions.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Prodigal Sons Review, Telluride 2008

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

    Prodigal Sons aroused a bit of a frenzy in Telluride leading up to its first screening on Friday––with a line around the block an hour before the screening, many pass holders were turned away––and no doubt in part due to the Orson Welles factor. As per the Festival program notes, in the film director Kimberly Reed, who “once was a male named Paul,” revisits her “tumultuous relationship” with her adopted brother Marc “and chronicles Marc’s discovery: he is the grandson of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth.”

    But Sons is hardly the exploration of starry ancestry that the logline might lead you to believe, at least not in much of a direct way. Though Reed does travel with Marc to Croatia, where he appears in another documentary and bonds with Welles’ ex-girlfriend Oja Kodar, ultimately she’s less concerned with Marc’s geneology than in his unlikely status as anti-social “other” in a family in which he’s the only sibling without an LGBT identification.

    We’re told that Kim and Marc have been estranged for ten years before Kim decides to head back to their Montana home town to introduce her relatively new, female self at her 20 year high school reunion. (Assuming there’d be a story in her homecoming, Reed hired producer/cinematographer  John Keitel to travel with her to Montana for the reunion, and the project just kept going.) Less than a year the former Paul’s senior, Marc insists he was “popular” in high school, but he couldn’t hold a candle to his then-brother, the co-captain of the football team and in general the classic specimen of the all-American teenage boy. Marc’s resentment has continued into near-middle age, even as his brother has become his sister and has sought to kill all vestiges of her male past. But her former, seemingly ideal masculine self won’t die so easily. As she puts it, she and her brother are “haunted by the same ghost.”

    From certain angles, the all-grown-up Mark is the splitting image of his grandpa–if his grandpa was a modern day, middle-American lump in a too-tight wife beater, fanny pack and shorts, with a receding hairline no longer quite obscuring the scar of a massive head injury incurred via an accident incurred during celebration of his 21st birthday. There are intimations that Marc was difficult before his accident––that he constantly sought attention, that he felt frustrated and anxious over his inability to be like Paul––but by the time we check in, things seem to have become much worse.

    Even on meds, Marc flips back and forth between irrational (and sometimes violent) rage, and self-pitying contrition. Eventually, after a number of scary incidents (most captured via quaking handheld camera, sometimes with the action just outside the frame because the person shooting is actually being threatened or assaulted), Kim gets involved in trying to get her brother medical help, but one wonders why an intervention took so long. Even if Kim wasn’t around to see her brother’s deterioration, didn’t his wife, mother or other brother ever feel the effects?

    It would be fascinating if the answer to that question was the stuff of a 1930s horror movie––that something went horribly wrong when the great beauty Hayworth and the genius Welles mated, and 50 years later, their union somehow led to major dysfunction in an otherwise happy Montana family––a rising of old Hollywood’s repressed sins in the Heartland!

    Unfortunately, in reality, Marc’s blood relations were/are only incidental to his problems as an adult, and Reed’s handling of his heritage in relation to his wider issues is not particularly purposeful or focused. Most frustrating, she allows Marc’s bloodline to pop up as a possible salve to his sickness, without examining how it might actually be responsible when miracles fail to take hold. Reed’s most successful when she’s allowing the Welles relation to just hang in the air as supporting evidence to her family’s structuring irony: as a high school jock and valedictorian turned extremely well-adjusted transgender lesbian, she’s moved through life with incredible ease compared to her adopted brother, whose Hollywood DNA couldn’t protect him from severe mental illness.

    Prodigal Sons ultimately falls into the unfortunate trap of so many post-digital personal documentaries: it’s an Everybody Has One movie. Everyone has one tragic/triumphant story that, if shaped correctly, could make sufficient fodder for a film––but that doesn’t mean that everyone is a filmmaker. Best case scenario, Everybody Has Ones serve as calling cards for a filmmaker’s storytelling capabilities and aesthetic sensibilities. In this case, Reed’s autobiographical portrait has its fair share of meaty bits, but it suffers from both the director/producer/star’s lack of perspective on the material, and a general indifference to craft from both Reed and her cameraman/producer. It takes a certain type of personality to put one’s most painful moments on film; unfortunately this type of personality is not necessarily compatible with filmmaking acumen.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Waltz with Bashir Review

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

     

    Waltz with Bashir is a stunning exploration of war, memory, and the disturbingly subjective nature of truth. It’s one of the few films that can claim to be both a documentary and an animated feature, and it uses both forms to a superb end. 

    The film opens with an animated Ari Folman, the writer/director/star, having a drink with an old friend from the Israeli Defense Force during the war with Lebanon in the early ’80s. His friend tells him of a recurring dream in which exactly 26 vicious dogs rampage through the streets on their way to devour him. The pack seeks revenge because of an incident in which he had to kill 26 Palestinian watchdogs so as not to be detected during night patrols. This exchange leads Folman to realize that he has almost no memories from that time. In an effort to piece together what happened and how he was involved, he begins to talk to others who were there.

    A conversation early in the film strays from foggy war stories and onto the topic of memory itself. A friend tells Folman about a study in which 8 out of 10 people, when showed an photograph of a fair that has been digitally altered to include themselves as a child, will claim to remember the event, even though the memory is entirely false. It’s a strange point to make at the beginning of a film which is ostensibly about reconstructing memories to arrive at a clearer picture of the truth. Ultimately, Folman’s inclusion of that bit of pop psychology is a key step in helping it rise above films with similar subject matter. While the film does communicate a requisite amount of history, it’s really about the effect of war on soldiers, civilians, and how the sketchy nature of memory plays a role.

    Watching the film, I couldn’t help but think of it as a cross between Richard Linklater’s Waking Life and Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. I do not mean to accuse of Folman of making a knock-off of either film, Waltz with Bashir is nothing if not unique. But there are striking parallels in the flowing, roto-scoped dreamscapes of Linklater’s film. Animation allows Folman to control the image to a breathtaking degree, while keeping everything one step away from reality. It might be truth, but we can’t forget that it’s an artist’s interpretation, a memory, a dream. 

    As the realities of a brutal massacre come to light, an interviewee points out that Folman’s memory of the event can’t help but be influenced by his knowledge of his own parents’ experiences in Auschwitz. The parallel to Schindler’s List is not simply a mingling of subject matter, but rather the way both films probe the murky question of how humanity reacts (or doesn’t react) in the face of inhuman cruelty. While Spielberg’s film approaches this subject in classic, high-drama Hollywood style, Folman’s animation allows him to illustrate, quite literally, that war is always an inhuman act.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog