nelsoncarvajal.com/blog

 

Years ago, the incomparable A.O. Scott (now of the New York Times, but back then a contributing writer for Slate.com), wrote of Scorsese's films of the prior ['89-'99] decade:

"They substitute intensity for emotion and give us bombast when we want passion. Why do we go to the movies? Pauline Kael used to say it was to be caught up, swept away, surfeited by sensation, and confronted by reality. Some of us keep going to Scorsese's movies because we still want to believe in that, and we leave wondering whether he still does."

As I write this on the last day of August, thus closing the books on summer 2009, I feel as if this was the same sentiment felt by an array of critics and moviegoers toward films like "Inglourious Basterds," "Tetro" and "The Girlfriend Experience." [I'm excluding Ang Lee's "Taking Woodstock" from this discussion because that is a "for-hire" film disguised as a "return to early comedic roots campaign." I mean come on, Lee made ONE English comedy--"Sense & Sensibility"--before heading down deadly serious territory for the next 12 years of his career.]

If you put aside the opening weekend commercial success of Tarantino's "Basterds" (a $30+ million dollar haul, largely due to the name "Brad Pitt" being on every piece of movie merchandise), the general masses were ultimately disappointed with his WWII [dialogue] epic. Editor Keith Phipps of the A.V. Club wrote of the film: "There’s a feast here [...] It’s just been placed on a huge table with no consideration of whether it adds up to a meal."

But "Basterds" got off easy. It was at least a big movie, with large set pieces, countless extras and explosions (people like shit blowing up I've noticed after looking at the near half billion dollar box office receipts from the latest Michael Bay travesty).  Francis Ford Coppola's intoxicating "Tetro" failed to find its audience this summer as well. Though mildly approved as a whole by the film critic party, many felt it too was bloated or as A.O. Scott wrote above, filled with "bombast" in place of "passion" (though I respectfully disagree). Todd McCarthy of Variety wrote: "Coppola's gradual lifting of the dramatic lid over the course of more than two hours frankly feels old-fashioned and labored."  Labored?  "Tetro" is the second self-financed film Coppola has churned out within in the last few years and it is one of his very best films. Yes, it is. The project was a labor of love for the Oscar-winning Director (as well as the first original screenplay he had written since "The Conversation"), and every frame of the mostly black and white film bleeds with a dangerous invitation to personal self-destruction. Anyone who blames the film for having an archetype plot revolving around the torments of a family patriarch should willfully burn their copies of "The Royal Tenenbaums" on the spot. Centered around an award caliber performance by Vincent Gallo, "Tetro" isn't so much a summer fling (of say your normal 4th of July kind of movie) as it is that renegade lover you elope with. It's full of flaws, yes, but every minute of the film is alive and actually echoes some of the work of Pedro Almodovar (especially the full frame color segments which feature ballet dancers who defy gravity) and his tendency to break narrative structure.

Yet ambition wasn't the only "No-No" for filmmakers this summer. Steven Soderbergh's minimalist "The Girlfriend Experience" (a perfect companion piece to his "Bubble") was accused of doing too little. Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer said "Girlfriend" was "coldly voyeuristic [...] a piece of cultural anthropology that doesn't even pretend to get into the soul of its characters." Really? Because the film that I saw followed an upscale prostitute who began to question the value system of the environment around her and once she took a chance on possible real romance, she ended up--well, you'll just have to see. Plus, foiled against "Basterds'" two and a half hour running time, "Girlfriend" clocks in at less than 80 minutes.

So why am I pushing for you to seek these masterpieces out when all I have done so far is point out negative bashing from other critics?

It goes back to the impression that Scorsese's "Bringing Out The Dead" left with A.O. Scott ten years ago & the opening quote above.

Though mistakenly perceived by the masses this summer, there will be a time down the road (hopefully soon) where intensity can be seen as an emotion or when bombast can be acknowledged as an abashed passion of sorts. You will be "surfeited by sensation" by Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" and the audaciousness of him actually rewriting history. You will be "caught up" with "Tetro" and the family parallels of betrayal. You will be "confronted by reality" as the elite class of America shares the same prostitute all while talking about the Obama-McCain Presidential race in "The Girlfriend Experience."

And that time will come.

And to answer that opening quote: Yes, Tarantino, Coppola & Soderbergh still believe in those elemental powers movies can possess. It's present in the work. It's just that most of you all haven't seen these works. That's all.

Right now, I understand the summer temperament. Give me bullshit, I'll give you attendance. I just checked BoxOfficeMojo.com and the top 2 films this past weekend were "The Final Destination: 3D" and "Halloween II." But as Cameron Crowe wrote in his screenplay for "Vanilla Sky":

"One day...people will read again!"

 

 

Posted by nelsoncarvajal at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

For the most part, the Cannes Film Festival has been the benchmark for film festivals. It's got all the glitz and glam of a Hollywood awards show minus the Jonas Brothers. It's a stretch of days where an auteur has more mass appeal than Ryan Reynolds. If there is a sense of juvenile sarcasm in my diction, then congrats on having a set of perceptive reading eyes.

In past years, films that have won prizes from the Cannes jury went on to a live a shelf life of noted greatness and were brought up amongst lovers of the cinema and teachers and mentors within extensive movie dialogue. Anyone who knows the names Dardennes, Haneke or Koreeda is someone who actually LOVES movies.  There are of course some common household names that make bill throughout the years: Coen, Anderson and Tarantino. Even when a big film winner from a Cannes fest goes on to North American financial and mainstream success (for example Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" or Polanski's "The Pianist"), it is considered a welcome feat and not "selling out." Why? Because they played with the big boys. Other artists from parts of the world we would otherwise never bother learning about. And they won.

However, 2009 marked the fest as a time when vagueness was probably confused with greatness. Two films in particular spurred up the biggest hub-bub: "Thirst" and "Kinatay."

Ebert wrote in his Cannes blog about the fest in retrospect: "Has there ever been a more violent group of films in the Official Selection? More negative about humanity? More despairing? With a greater variety of gruesome, sadistic, perverted acts? [...] And most of these films were not over quickly. Not that there's something wrong with a film running over the invisible 120-minute finish line, if it needs to, and is a good film. I regret that not all the 21 films in this year's selection were good. And that's not just me."

It wasn't. In fact, when Director Park Chan Wook collected the Special Jury Prize for his "Thirst" there were actual boos that could be heard in the distance. So why award him the prize? Is there the frightening possibility of an overlap between distribution deals and jury award merit now? You know the whole, 'If you really want this film to have overseas distribution, then it might help to slap a "WINNER OF THE..." thingamajig on that poster' kind of dialogue happening between some studio guy and a jury member with interest. Ah, but now I'm just letting my colorful imagination take the best of me.

A week ago I sat in a on a sneak preview screening of "Thirst" here in the great city of Chicago. With a packed house of eager "Oldboy" fans, "Thirst" seemed destined for greatness. I mean, it won the fucking Jury Prize right?? Well, while not a complete failure, "Thirst" seemed to be a weird offspring of an ingenious Director who suddenly had a plethora of neat commercial resources to hammer out a personal and much less needy story. If while watching "Thirst" you feel as if the film is physically bloated--it's because it is. What a concept though! A priest who suddenly becomes an unofficial vampire (note the lack of fang emphasis)! And now he wants to have sex too to boot! It's just dripping (sorry) with potency. But the truth is, "Thirst" is like the Coens' "Burn After Reading." Coming off the critical success of "No Country For Old Men" it just feels like they phoned it in. Eh, but one day it may show up on my Underrated Series column. Maybe a second life will find it one day.

And what about Brillante Mendoza's "Kinatay." It hasn't been released in the States yet, but this guy won the Best Director award for it. So if it turns out to be lackluster, I just might cry. And Ebert's warning doesn't look to hopeful: "The 2009 feature film jury awarded some reasonable prizes, and then lost its mind. In my opinion the Mendoza film "Kinatay" deserved no award [...] But why in heaven's name would you give him the award for best direction? The second half of his film is an illustration of directorial monomania--a willingness to drive audiences from the theater not so much by the violence (rape, beheading, vivisection) but by the directorial style itself."

Oh yeah, and "Kinatay" is about these shady cops kidnapping a woman and cutting her into little pieces I believe. 

Let's see.

 

Posted by nelsoncarvajal at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)