Red Wine and Disappearing Ink

BATMAN RETURNS - a look behind the masks

2011-12-06T15:25:00.001-08:00

The film that was a large part of my childhood and has left its mark on me in more than one way has for a long time been my favorite comic book movie, and re-visiting it after (I am slightly certain) I haven't seen it for 10 years proved to me not only that Selina Kyle has formed my preference for difficult, leatherjacket wearing blondes with a hint of feminist idealism, Batman or colorful expressionism, but also that it is the film I had memorized and far more. Spoilers and all to follow...

Essentially the film centers on political and gender related themes. On one hand there is Oswald Cobblepot, nicknamed The Penguin due to his appearance, who is abandoned by his parents when still a baby due to his physical deformities. Raised by a russian circus, Cobblepot grows to be the leader of an urban terrorist movement that kidnaps the wealthy and powerful capitalist Max Schreck (who among other things leads a chain of supermarkets with a Mickey-Mouse-like mascot). Cobblepot then blackmails Schreck into helping him find the name of his real parents to determine his true identity. Schreck, however, realizes he can use The Penguin to his own opportunity: Shreck previously wanted to enlist himself as a candidate to become Gotham's mayor, but as can be seen in the scene in which he leaves his written speech at home, is less a leader than a puppeteer. Forced to come up with an improvised speech, he only comes up empty kitsch phrases. Cobblepot, however gruesome looking, is a gifted speaker and has the sympathy of the crowd due to his tragic past. Thus Schreck enlists his help and simultaneously tries to have Cobblepot elected mayor while he would become the force to pull the strings.

As the plan fails, Cobblepot decides to steal the "first borns" of each Gothamite and escort them to death in a clever WW2-metaphor. As Batman manages to spoil the plan, Cobblepot finally decides to destroy "his" city through his own private army of penguins, killing hundreds of thousands in the process, while he sits in his bunker. Batman spoils the plan, the Penguin falls to death and is escorted as an officer would be to his watery grave. This idea of a physically deformed fascist leader whose ground is readied by communists and helped rise to power by capitalism, who in the end targets the very rich and beautiful families that voted him out of jealousy, while they celebrate their egomaniac hedonism to "Can't Touch This", is so clever an allegory it would have been enough to make this film brilliant, but Burton even ups the ante by including Catwoman.

Selina Kyle, here an awkward and naive secretary, is thrown out a window by her employee, again, the capitalist Schreck, after she finds out about his plans to steal power from Gotham instead of providing it through a new plant (which is also a clever metaphor for capitalism, that is meant to provide luxury yet actually takes it in the form of money). Kyle survives (or, rather, is revived by cats in a truly haunting scene), and returns to her pink home with a pink phone and pink clothes. In a fit of rage as she listens to her answering machine (on which a commercial message is left that she should buy "Gotham Lady" in order to smell so good her boss might ask her to "stay after work for a very special candlelight dinner", as if a woman didn't have anything else to aspire to in her life), she destroys various symbols of her patriarchy-imposed, conservative gender identity (pink girlish clothes with cats on them and a pink room of a doll house, among other things) and destroys the letters of a pink lamp saying HELLO THERE to spell out her true opinion of her room of humiliating, condescending, pre-liberized feminine gender ideals: HELL HERE. Thanks to her feminine skills, she manages to make herself a new skin to fit her emotional state - Catwoman is born!!

As she returns to Schreck's office the next day, she not only recalls a number of memories that deal with females suppressing her sexuality (a nun being pregnant among other things), but also flirts with Bruce Wayne as a sign of her newfound sexuality. In their relationship, she is obviously the man.

She then goes on a rampage, scars what would have likely been a rapist in a non-PG film and informs a woman of her weakness to "wait for a Batman to come and safe you". After that, she goes on to behead mannequins wearing typically female clothes and blows up the entire consume temple. Meeting with Batman and The Penguin outside, it quickly becomes clear that we have here three opposing political forces: The right, the middle, and the left (it was also interesting seeing Kyle destroy a mall without killing anybody inside, a mirror of the german RAF's first generations acts of "liberation from consumerism).

After being beaten up by Batman, although it was her who used her sexuality to hurt him, she chooses to side with the extremist, Penguin, to destroy her "male enemy", but quickly realizes that Batman is not her enemy - he is only a more liberal, less radical fighter whose goals are the same as hers - and is almost killed by the Penguin. Realizing that Schreck, the figurehead of a capitalist society aimed at consumerism, is her real enemy (who oppressed her throughout, supports the image of a passive and conservative lifestyle and is at the heart of Gotham's consumerism - and in a way formed her).

At the same time she looks to celebrate her newfound sexual power by dating Bruce Wayne, but as, in one scene, he reveals her vaginal-shaped scar (which he himself caused), she refuses him. This scar is in a way her weak spot, exposing to Batman not just the identity of the crated feminist, but also of a woman who, after all, may be, in her own perception, weak through sexuality. She is not the man after all, and it induces a great fear in her.

Her thematic climax comes with a masked ball, in which her and Bruce are the two only attendees without masks (or, rather, wearing the masks they wear in everyday life). Repeating a line said by Batman earlier on in the film, Seline reveals herself (and so does Bruce when he finishes the line) - ironically, it is a line about the danger of a kiss when it is meant seriously (implying the power of sexuality both a man and woman can possess). In costume, Catwoman's "kiss" sees her licking Batman's face, proving that in her radicalized incarnation, Selina is unable to have a normal and fulfilling sexuality, and only able to perform a parody of a real sexual act. So Selina's costume, while liberating her to live out her character, also prohibits her to exert her own sexuality.

In the end, she is able to finally confront Schreck, her costume now torn (as her opposing, less radicalized femininity breaks free, symbolized mostly by her blonde, girlish locks), rejects Batman's offer to have a normal relationship in favor of her political agenda and kills Schreck with a spark inducing kiss. Batman, once again, is left alone, and visibly scarred by Catwoman, but finds in the snowy Gotham streets Selina's cat. A part of her has chosen to live with him, even if Catwoman, her dress repaired, rises above the city's rooftops once anew.

I was also surprised at how adult and sleazy some of the humor was (Penguin going "Now there's the pussy I've been looking for!" when Catwoman lies on his bed and Batman calling her a rug muncher were truly surprising). The german dub also includes a risky line when Catwoman says "I feel... dirty. I should lick myself right here." (in the english version she says "take a bath, right here") and while Penguin grins, starts licking her arm and brushing her head, freezing Owald's grin to a baffled expression. Same goes with some of the movie references, with Cobblepot a negative John Merrick ("I am not a human being! I am an animal!") and Gotham an ever-transforming Metropolis AND Blade Runner homage (and I wonder if Burton saw Jodorowsky's Santa Sangre).

Batman Returns is a brilliant film, dealing with politics and feminism as well as with the problem of identity of those who choose to live a life behind masks. The only downside is that Burton never managed to flesh out his version of a Riddler and Two-Face themed Batman Forever.

HARRY POTTER FILM MARATHON - Chamber of Secrets

2011-11-13T12:00:00.000-08:00

One of the first things that is evident in Chris Columbus second venture into the Potter is the passing of time. Thus, Chamber of Secrets doesn't inspire us to look forward, but rather to ponder the past - not just because Chamber of Secrets greatly differs from Philosopher's Stone, but because it is an entirely different universe altogether.

What I mean by this? Well, take a look at the first scene of the film. In Philosopher's Stone, the trio hardly seemed older than 8 (although meant to be 11) and Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills were nonexistent. Here, the kids look their age (12) and Radcliffe gives a troubled, angry performance that can be felt from the very first few seconds on. The first film, concerned with conveying to the audience the wonder and excitement of magic, was an homage to old-school filmmaking and Steven Spielberg, while his successor has learnt a few lessons from The Lord of the Rings and - of all people - Sam Raimi. Yes, the very Raimi who handed in his Spiderman in 2002, who brought the subjective angles that characterized his Evil Dead trilogy to mainstream cinema. Many of this technique, can be found throughout the second Potter, and there is the same mischievous, slightly sadistic and campy feel in Chamber that feels unique to Raimi's works. There's even an evil book at the heart of the matter! But I digress...

What makes, and breaks, Chamber of Secrets is that the film is based on the by far weakest book in the Potterverse. While more concerned with puzzle structures than Philosopher's Stone, both are swift whodunit's whose payoff is based on the lack of understanding of behind-the-scenes going on's on the side of the reader. Sadly, the book is written in such a fashion that almost anybody can guess the outcome after a few pages, including the books main villain, the secondary villain and the character responsible for the villain's "escape", which takes the punch from the punchline. There is also Dobby who may either be a genius comment on Jar Jar Binks (a character introduced late in a franchise due to it's cuteness whose annoying behavior is meant to appeal to children, here twisted into a masochistic troll who attempts to "save" Harry by harming him or exposing him to other great dangers) or the worst character in the entire franchise. Take your pick.

BUT, luckily, Columbus proves to be a skilled director here, as he manages to make the books shortcomings into the films strengths - Dobby is now a mischievous and campy semi-villain who DOES inspire some thought on his inclusion as a comment on similar characters on franchises, and it is a lot harder to guess what is actually going on, and only visible to the VERY attentive eye.

The positive traits go further than the adaptation: the additions to the cast are very strong, including Jason Isaacs as malevolent black magician Lucius Malfoy, who will play an important role throughout the rest of the arc, and , yes, of course, Kenneth Branagh's campy portrayal of a slimy, arrogant egomaniac. And indeed, the film does belong to the ginger's: the Weasley's shine as well and Rupert Grint improves considerably. Sadly, one of the films major shortcomings is the reduction of Ron to comic relief and moaning. It's strange the film spends so much time on him considering his one-dimensional writing.

However, while being Columbus fault, the intention may have been to further shed light on the films overruling theme, that of darkness in the innocent looking. While the world of Philosopher's Stone had a dark lord hidden, foes and a ghastly forest, the wonder of colorful magic was prevalent. Here, Harry and his friends learn that there are doors better left untouched, people better not addressed, paths that they have to evade. There is even the first mention of the "Mudbloods", those half wizard, half muggle - fascism even manages to creep into the imaginary universe of wizards.

Thus Ron's tendency to get into trouble and either cry or being ridiculed may suggest that the child slowly progresses into an adult world which he can't handle just yet, that the colorful is no longer prevalent, that darkness is slowly evading. Still, Ron breaking his wand, then taping it back together and performing utterly frustrating anti-spells for the rest of the film is one of the flaws that should have been fixed, no matter if the wand is of importance in the climax or not.

And just like the wand, the films shortcomings can be counted by either bad luck or Columbus desire to stay close to the book. It was very bad luck that this is Richard Harris last film - the veteran's failing health can be felt throughout his performance, as his voice is brittle and his pose at times painfully tired. It was a shortcoming of the book that the climax takes FOREVER and is, again, much too close to it's predecessor's revelation to really generate suspense. But still, most of the film, while managing to generate an atmosphere and some suspense, never truly generates the interest it should. For long stretches, Columbus relies on exposition rather than to show us real emotions, and while explanations and puzzle-cracking is relevant considering the nature of a whodunit, it doesn't make for a very magical experience.

Chamber of Secret's can probably best be likened to the age of the protagonists: 12 is the end of childhood, shortly before puberty. Harry and his friends slowly become aware of the power of Voldemort and the threats of not just the dark arts, but of vanity and egoism, and also of innocence and naivety (after all, two corrupted children are at the center of the narrative - one choosing to go down the road of egoism, the other being tricked to do so due to lack of experience). This clash of the "magical" world of childhood and the impending darkness of puberty, yet being somewhere between the two forces, results in an uncertainty in the protagonists as much as in the film. Harry even goes as far to ask himself if he may be the "heir of Slytherin" (thus the grand grand grand grand etc. grand son of the wizarding-world's first fascist), grimly foreshadowing his link to Voldemort, questioning his own spirit. While Columbus chose the style, mood and looks of a Raimi film, which works wonders on the source's more grotesque and campy elements, the film never goes all the way and never dares to cross the border of mainstream entertainment to become a work of art. It gives a promise of what's to come and entertains, but never really trusts its own capabilities, its own desire to be more than what it is.

So what is Chamber of Secrets? It certainly is an entertaining Potter film, but it is also lacking whenever it chooses to tell instead of simply show. It ponders on the good and bad in people and society and is rich with themes and symbolism. While dull in places, it never ventures into the territory of frustration though, so it still manages to please every fan who decides to give it a chance. Outshone by what was to come and triumphing over the franchise's worse titles, it rests somewhere between cinematic adolescence and adulthood, frozen and caught in time much like it's key villain.

P.S.: In addition, a thorough analysis of the films and novels many symbolic meanings can be found here.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: / / / / / / / wands out of 10.

HARRY POTTER FILM MARATHON - Philosopher's Stone

2011-11-08T14:33:00.000-08:00

When it was announced that Chris Columbus would helm the Potter franchise, my heart sank. It still does whenever I think of this utterly bland, quite uninspired choice, considering that Terry Gilliam, ex Monty Python and director of such classics as Time Bandits, Brazil and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, was writer J K Rowling's favorite for the position. He apparently met with producers, which resulted in a long meeting - the end of which saw Gilliam exit the office building, head for his car and drive full speed over the Mulholland Drive for hours as he was "that angry" that he, apparently, was not to the studio's liking.

So, I had only finished the first Potter book and found myself disheartened that the film could turn any good. Kicking off this series of articles on the various Potter films with Philosopher's Stone is as disappointing as sitting in the seat and watch the "fun romp" that is the first in the franchise unravel. Although, I must say, as I sat down last week to run through a lengthy Potter-film-marothon, the film revealed itself to be not quite as utterly horrible as I remember it being. To show you how sketchy my memory of that film was: I was absolutely sure that the exterior of Hogwarts was considerably changed on the DVD version to match the latter incarnation. However, a quick search found neither images nor accounts for a change. So this is not that horrible at all, is it?

Well, it depends. Chris Columbus had made a decidedly "kids" film, equipping a child-like gaze for his cinematography. Throughout, Columbus seems as enchanted by the magic on display as young Harry, who witnesses it for the first time. The sweeping camera highlights each and every quirk that can be found in this wonderland of living chocolate frogs, rubber-masked goblins and baby dragons. This is, after all, a kid's film. And one decidedly shaped after those of the past, namely Steven Spielberg's best work and 90s (or late 80s) B-movies.

Back when Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was released, one of the main problem critics attested was the "messy" use of old school effects and CGI. Yes, the rubber masked Goblins... Looking back, the film feels almost charmingly naive and old-school, even though some of the effect's do lack in subtlety and craft (Flitwick's look here, which is decidedly different from later incarnations, is that of a yellowish dwarf with flesh-toned hands and no facial movement whatsoever). The main problems that critics had with the film still feels glaringly obvious though. And, sadly, it lies with the cast.

Given how many good actors lend their names to this film (John Hurt as wand-maker Olivander was a very charming surprise), it is frustrating that the actor portraying Potter fails to deliver a fitting job - something both Rupert Grint and Emma Watson manage. Daniel Radcliffe not only doesn't meet with the rebellious side of his character, he also feels closer in acting to aforementioned late 80s kids movies, and rather resembles Kevin from Home Alone than Max from Where the Wild Things are. This is a dutiful and obedient Potter, and not the slightly mischievous outsider with the messy hair that can never be combed into order. So the most interesting element of the early Potter books is absent in the films - that of actual characters. But as mentioned previously, both Grint and Watson convey their parts rather well. And then we have, of course, Alan Rickman, who shines and almost OUTshines the entire movie with his depiction of Severus Snape, whose best moments were yet to come, and Richard Harris, who proves to be a wise, calm and sympathetic Dumbledore.

As far as adapting a source material goes, the film also stays true to the book, only skipping one large sub-plot (that of the baby dragon), which is not really missed as there is always something going on in the narrative - even if it is only a Quidditch match (one of the few moments that take the viewer out of the film and actually could have been left on the cutting room floor, if it wasn't to show Harry's skills). There is little here that can be analyzed as far as subtext goes - we have some interesting ideas on schizophrenia (although some of the books background is sorely missing) as well as an outlook on the franchise's latter themes of struggle with a bigger-than-life-power, none of which transcends what is depicted on film.

So let's jump ahead and take another look at the way the film is made - Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is an attempt to re-introduce the "old fashioned" blockbuster, the B-movie inspired fantasy film we all came to know from when we were kids. Sadly, there was something called The Lord of the Rings that sufficiently proved that something much grander, much more exciting was ahead for Blockbuster-movies. Thus, we are left, ten years after its completion, with an artifact of times passed - an homage to Spielberg, the B-movie, old fashioned, colorful, handcrafted films that made us excited for what was to come, that we begged our parents to watch dozens of times at the cinema in a row. It is sad, though, that Columbus lacked the subtlety and craft to inject the film with real quality and artistic interest. It is a spectacle, yes, and one that Hollywood seemingly has forgotten (compare this film to something like Green Lantern and the ten years will feel like decades), but it is also tame, watered-down, softened and, in the end, disappointing, even if its darkest moments may provide slight goosebumps. But what do you expect from a film that tames the protagonists messy haircut?

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: / / / / / / wands out of 10.

Ballad of a Thin Man - an analytical look at the mythos of Slenderman

2011-10-11T08:06:00.000-07:00

After five months, Damien had lost all will to go on. In his penultimate blog entry, posted on August 29, he writes:

Nothing about this thing is consistent. One minute he's passive, the next aggressive. Last night, he flung himself at my house trying to get in. Today, he simply appears inside. The bone warded him off previously. This time, he just casually inspected it. Watching him previously stopped him from pulling his disappearing act. I just saw him vanish before my eyes.

He's constantly changing. It's as though, with every encounter, he's never quite the same being twice. It's like there aren't any rules with him - he simply is.

How the hell do you fight that? How do you resist chaos?

A few days later, Damien posted his last update, a short, incoherent note that he couldn’t take it anymore. One week later, his brother, who apparently had found his blog, informed the readers of Damien’s suicide, and filled them in on the writings of a notebook Damien carried:

I don't know what is going on with this whole Slender Man nonsense, except it was something Damien became absolutely obsessed with, even before Ted died. After it happened, it only became worse. What rare moments I saw him, he was constantly glancing over his shoulder and making veiled reference to this "threat" to him from his "past".  Which, by the way, is highly fictionalized. The drawings he supposedly found are all new.

(...)

There's a reference in here to ancient cave drawing. I can only presume he used it to create this weird horse bone that are among his things. There's talk of being captured by the "cult" and being put down on a slab and sacrificed because "I have turned myself into a door for the unseen, and they wish me to be opened." A few pages on the theory that he is his own demon, "Slender Man" being merely a projection to stay his conscience.

(...)

I'm sure there must be some symbolism or deeper meaning in this story that my brother invented to keep himself living after he lost nearly everything. Clearly, it meant something to him. It feels like this desparate cry for help hidden inside a fictional account of actual events.

Preceeding those final moments of the Dreams in Darkness-blog are a number of entries spanning five months, in which Damien is followed by a mythical, nameless entity, known to those familiar to him as Slenderman, The Operator or Großmann. The stories read like accounts in a gothic horror story, something Edgar Allan Poe or H.P. Lovecraft could have dreamed up. Yet, the story didn’t take place in the beginning of the 20th century, Damien didn’t roam the dark sreets of Arkham - he lived in clean and well kept suburbs. And he’s not the only one.

On June 20 2009, a then anonymous user posted the following video onto youtube:

It was the first in a series of videos of raw footage recorded by the film student Alex Kralie. According to the uploader (who’s only known as Jay to the audience), Kralie intended to burn the tapes in 2006 , but could be convinced to hand them over to the channel’s owner. With the uploader analyzing the tapes one by one, a disturbing picture slowly unfolds in front of the audience – during the making of a low budget film, Kralie was followeed and observed by what seems to be a featureless, tall man in a business suit. At first, the man seemed to observe the film’s shoot, lurking in the distance and watching patiently. As the crew moved to the house of the young director, the faceless features soon appeared in front of Kralie’s living room window – both at day and night.

The footage amounts to a mix of highly realistical cinema-veritée recordings in the vein of The Blair Witch project and short, surreal collages that seemingly gain quality from their own cinematic limiations.

People got hooked to the channel quickly – Marble Hornets youtube Channel counted 25.987 subscribers if the autumn of 2010, with some videos amounting to more than 400.000 viewers. There was something haunting, yet also comforting in this vision of haunted suburbs and distorted videotapes, that seemed to draw viewers in.

It was quickly revealed that the mythological creature at the core of the narrative was first seen on the internet in a forum post which also provided rare photographs and some scarce background information on the entity - yet not much more was to be found. Until a few weeks into Marble Hornets, when suddenly the blogs started to pop up out of nowhere.

The first one was called „Just another fool“: What started as a harmless diary of a young man slowly delved into madness and tragedy as the silent, faceless predator started stalking him.

And then others started to come forward witht heir own experiences – some of them on the run from the creature for years, others oblivious to the supernatural occurrences until they were beyond the point of return. Marble Hornets also attracted a wide variety of bandwagon jumpers, who seemingly copied their MO for a place in the spotlight.

This „first generation“ of Slenderman-blogs came to the halt with the sudden appearance of the „Monolith“ (as its writer Jeffrey Koval calls it) Everyman Hybrids.

Starting out as a health-exercise-series that parodied the genre tropes of Slenderman-lore, the three protagonists soon found themselves not only followed by the eldritch horror, but also by a creature calling itself HABIT – a raving, arrogant and overtly violent voice without a body that communicated over the internet and mysterious packages that some of the viewers who participated in mini-games received. Going for over a year now, the series is still ripe with twists and turns, as some of the „players“ of the mini games got sucked into the narrative themselves and the friends of the three protagonists – Jeff, Evan and Vince – are slowly picked off one by one.

It is a challenging watch, but also highly rewarding, with inspirations ranging as far as Vladimir Nabokov’s books and Heath Ledger’s Joker to the records of the avant-indie band Animal Collective (who seem to occupy a very curious spot in the meaning of mysterious, surreal videos the in-game protagonists cannot watch).

Another very relevant work was the video-series „Tribe Twelve“ – seemingly starting out as a Marble Hornets-rip off, the series slowly started to come into its own, broadening its own mythology as well as creating what may be the most striking SFX-work of all series, it’s creator one of the most mischievous and widely creative writers of the entire movement.

Thus, the second generation was born. The creators of the new blogs and videos were much more content to approach the meta-aspects of the Slender-Universe. Some writers had collected information on the supernatural being that connected the stories and created elongated guides on their adventures, others seemed to have given up the fight, becoming violent lunatics and created dozens of surreal, non-narrative short films to channel their obsessions.

As of now, the Third Generation of Slenderman-lore is still going strong, with many interesting blogs and video series. Among the most interesting is the so called „TJ&Amy-Project“ – starting out as the making-of of a student film, two girls had to slowly realize they were stalked by the creature they meant to use for their story, but also by a masked being resembling a plague doctor. Seemingly inspired by real life issues, the series proved to be the darkest of all the video blogs so far, including symbolical representations of rape, domestic abuse and self-harm. The emergency brake was pulled when in one especially disturbing entry, the protagonists cut up their bodies with knives, admiring the self-inflicted wounds with a curious euphoria. Although the scene was – of course – faked, the video was removed from youtube, which led to the creators decision to end the series as of now (a spin-off is currently in the works and should start in the weeks following this article).

And there is the second season of Marble Hornets, which proved to be more complex, disturbing and visually more artistic than its predecessor.

So two years after its sudden apearance, the story of the Slenderman is still going strong, with no indicator as of where this creature came from or what it wants. Yet the question of interest here is not where this being came from, but why it attracts so much interest in its audience.One way of finding an answer to this question is further researching up in-game attempts of the so-called „Runners“, the victims who are content to escape the monster’s tentacles, to come up with an analysis of their pursuer, such as this one here: FOLLOW THE LINK

The idea that the Slenderman is a creature whose appearance is meant to induce respect and comfort in those who approach him rather than fear leads to the conclusion that this monster is sort of a modern „Ratcatcher“-phenomenon. This also fits with the original mythos, in which Slenderman’s appearances was connected to children, in some cases even to schools. Although the original mythos included various instances in which the monster would leave behind the empty bodies of its victims, their organs collected in plastic bags hung into trees (and wooden organs put into the bodies as replacement), there seems no real indicator as where these children are actually taken to, which leaves the possibility that the Slenderman has good intentions. Another early story states the creature would take those who would intend to do evil and cause others harm at an early age, making him a divine clean-up device.

But there are deeper connections that can be drawn. Interviewing some of the creators as well as fans, I actually encountered serious fear of this fictituous creature. The writer of one of the mythos most famous blogs wrote to me when I inquired if he feared the being:

„Since I was introduced to him back in January, whenever I come home from college, there has not been a single night where I have not had something wedged into the doorknob to prevent it from opening, because I don't have a lock on my door. This thing has me terrified to sleep in my own house at night. At college I'm fine, but when I go home, I am absolutely petrified, even now, eight or so months later.“

I was also reported some real-life instances, in which the creators and fans had experienced childhood trauma either on a bigger scale or just in one occasion, but that one connected to a fear of supernatural intervention.

Collecting these interviews was surprising in so far as it painted a broad picture of both the creators and the audience that made the Slenderman-fiction into a phenomenon. There was an overwhelming interest in a world that we ourselves only get glimpses of and that the adult mindset denies, a realm which decides our fate – and in the end, even comfort in a fictituous creature that both observes and induces fear.

So the Slenderman can be seen as a catharsis of both the hope and the fear of outer intervention into the lifes of its audience. The creature both carries these people away, but also gives them the opportunity to belong to something and find meaning in a more archaic lifestyle. While we are a generation used to getting everything we want, the writers seem to find comfort in writing themselves as anonymous entities roaming the streets, carrying with them only what they need to survive.

Observed from this angle, the Slenderman is an almost mephistophelic diety that, by fear, recruits new followers of an absurd religion that is as inspired by Zen Budhism as by the roots of christianity (this is especially vital once we realize the circular-X-symbol which the Runners have to scribble religuously wherever they go, further identifying their meaning of a newfound life).

And indeed, some of the more esoteric blogs speak of the Slenderman either as the center of the Universe or a means to „fix and guard its many gaps and holes“. So is the Slenderman just watching out that those who see the glitches in the Matrix don’t explore them? It would be an interesting turn of events if once a character would succeed in taking a look behind the scenery, yet also one that would reveal the Slenderman’s meaning (something that certainly would take from the individual’s story).

Another theory is based on the idea of „thoughts forming matter“ – that Slenderman was created by the dozens of minds of those who first encountered him, that reading or writing about him will call him. It is a modern twist of the Candyman and Ring-videotape mythos, in which the evil is so omnipresent it birthes itself, yet the creative ideas connected to this origin story seem to have gone stale.

But most likely, the explanation of the adolescent fascination with Slenderman can be found in what occupied the collective consciousness of the last decade. Following September 11, terror had become a faceless, autoritative threat that could seemingly strike everywhere at every time. This idea of a personal threat that could strike without a recognizable reason must have done its fare share on the minds of children and teenagers alike. The media – especially in america – further fed the individual impression that something unspeakably evil was out there waiting, leading to an almost religious fear of a faceless threat. The elongated arms and the business suit could even further lead the analyst down the road of a fear of capitalism, in which the atoritative system our life is based upon is content to decide our every move, a monster whose reach and grasp we can’t flee. Ironically, the runners seem to carry no possessions and seem to have no need to further acquire what may be seen as desired status-symbols, making Slenderman a mute, eldritch Patrick Bateman.

So now that the Slenderman is out there, he allows an entire generation to exorcize this abstract trauma of an unknown, omnipresent and autoritative creature that makes decisions based on rules only the creature seems to understand, finding comfort in a fictituous character and his illusion of leading a sober and conscious life.

So now that we have reached the third stage, where will the fourth stage take us? Going with a famous horror film cliché, the fourth chapter of our story might well take us into space – it might introduce the cosmic, socio-political and religious concepts that are the roots for the mythos. It could lead to further self-analyzation where previously the creators only exorcized their fears and defy the rules of space and time which the Slenderman himself doesn’t seem to know. If the first three stages have gone from introduction and curious genre exploration to individual, psychological adaptation, this next stage may introduce a messianic counterpart to the evil the protagonists face. And indeed – during the last few months of the third stage, the various characters and stories have, crossed over, some of them meeting each other on the streets, others openly collaborating on defeating their pursuer. The story of the Slenderman is, after all a combination of collective social trauma and religious quest. And we all know where that leads to.

rip

2011-10-05T17:00:00.001-07:00

RIP - thank you for creating something that will be with me for the rest of my life; the tool of the 21st century.

this makes me smile in a weird-old-man-nostalgic-way.

2011-10-04T15:51:00.000-07:00

Listen

so beautiful.

source: http://escapepod.org/2007/05/10/ep105-impossible-dreams/

reign in blood

2011-09-30T14:07:00.000-07:00

i am intrigued

enlight

2011-09-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

...this is too perfect to be real...

2011-09-24T16:49:00.001-07:00

in other news, i just saw a three-hour-version of this

it was beautiful!

good luck solo, mate

2011-09-22T04:17:00.001-07:00

or not?

FFF#25 Review: RABIES

2011-09-21T04:23:00.000-07:00

Films like Rabies are painful to watch for many reasons, however, last of all because they are intended to induce pain in the viewer. Hailed as "Israel's first horror film", the film does disappoint on that level. Take the poster to your left for whatever you want it to mean, but there is little creepiness or gruesome fantasy to be found in here. Rabies is pretty much a cinematic summation of the genre tropes Contrived Conincidence, Ten Little Murder Victims and Coincidence Magnet. Also, "Dirty Cop". And "Terrible Serial Killer is terrible at what he does". You see, Rabies, we have to talk...

The film opens with a clever shot in which a young woman is caught in an underground chamber/trap in the woods by, probably, an insane serial killer (although we have no idea why or how or... oh, never mind). Her brother comes to her aid (who obviously loves her in an incestuous way) but then is somehow wounded... it seems...

The film then jumps forward (urgh) to a few teens/20somethings that do nothing but dick around the israeli countryside to at some point get laid probably by Yael Grobglas. There are some lesbian overtones in the second female companion which are thrown in for good measures but do little to improve the action.

So the teenagers meet up with the slightly wounded and definitely annoying brother of said trapped girl who is his sister. The two boys decide to go with him into the woods to search the girl while the two girls in the car wait for the police that was called in for help. Meanwhile, a hunter (??) says goodbye to his girlfriend and goes about his own business in the woods (aka, he dicks around), gets his dog killed by... the serial killer or whoever that is, and finds the girl.

Meanwhile (sigh) the two girls are joined by the cops, of which one turns out to be a perverted, sleazy fucker who unceremoniously sprays his saliva over the two girls in a lusty manner, while the three boys in search of the trapped girl encounter bear traps and do what boys their age do (clue: they are annoying).

Does this sound like a horror film? Well, not to me.

Rabies is actually funny enough to entertain. Some of the "OH FUCK WTF"-moments are rather silly and truly life the spirit of the entire thing. However, there really isn't much meat to everything. The serial killer is not explained thoroughly (hell, we don't even know if he is one to begin with), the entire shabado happens because of two annoying incest teens, the last half hour drags along and tries to reveal even the latest bit of irony in its protagonists demises... in short, the film suffers from everything that episodic films suffer from if the scriptwriter thinks he's cleverer than the audience, yet has little to nothing to say about what is actually going on.

So, who really cares for good dialogue, detailed characterization, creative methods to dispose of protagonists and flashy cinematography if everything only ends with one of them making the wrong move at the wrong time, setting off a chain reaction that ends in an apocalyptic outcome? Coincidence rules everything and guides every characters step, ending in a contrived, only marginally interesting plot with little coherence - "Dumm gelaufen! - the movie"!

The film also follows the tendency to leave his viewers in a state of complete dumbfoundedness as to what the consequences of the actions depicted in the film actually are, apart of those who obviously die - some of the "plot resolutions" even seem to come completely out of nowhere and are never further explained to begin with.

But I sound harsh! Rabies is a fun film if you are drunk and with some buddies and want to see teenagers dick around the woods and get hacked to pieces by each other in creative ways. Yet, there is little atmosphere, no horror element, no truly intelligent twist, nothing of substance below its outer appeal. So in short: if you like good/funny dialogue and to look at Yael Grobglas, this films is potentially as good as long as she is on the screen, or as long as creative ways are found to bring the plot forward - both of those comprise 70% of the movie.

Rating - 7/10

FFF#25 Review: 22ND OF MAY

2011-09-21T03:44:00.000-07:00

Nothing can prepare the viewer for what he is about to witness in this film. Not Koen Mortier's first feature Ex Drummer (one of my absolute favorites and probably the most politically incorrect film ever made). Not the multitude of recent horror and crime themed arthouse films that spawned in Belgium recently. Not even taking a look at the obvious influences of 22nd of May - films like Persona, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or The Wrestler. 22nd of May is a unique, singular event that unravels in the midst of a european wave of fantastic films outside of genre conventions and pictorial regulations.

The film opens with roughly around 10 minutes of semi-documentary footage of a man waking up, eating breakfast, getting ready and making his way to his day job. There is little to nothing to distract us from the dry routine our protagonist goes through - a guitar strikes some notes in an attempt to generate a slight melody but ultimately looses itself in the sounds of footsteps and passing cars, the camera only concentrates on the man's back of his head, dialogue is almost completely absent.

As the man takes his position (he works as a security guard in front of a mall), we witness another five minutes of his day job, until finally, with eardrum shattering brutality, the glass entry behind him turns into a pile of dust and rubble, humans turned into torches, chatter into screams of agony as a bomb tears the building to shreds.

From this moment on, Mortier concentrates almost exclusively on the inner realm of this man, his imagination and his attempt at making sense of what just happened, overcoming his trauma, piecing together a puzzle that makes no sense - a story lacking context and clearance. Mortier calls back the spirits of those deceased in the bombing, the passers by and regulars, all of them guilty of some form of humane cruelty, all of them stopped in their pace of life to confront an uncertain destiny (it is never revealed with complete certainty who actually dies and who survives). He calls back the man who committed this crime, unravels the past of the unlucky protagonist and the life situations of all of them to show is a broader context of what havoc this crime actually wreaked.

Visually, Mortier takes his influences from a wide range of what could be labeled cinema's greatest - there are some shots that are clearly indicative of Ingmar Bergman's 60s period, some of the inner-realm-scenes are dark reflections of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the early scenes are reminiscent of Darren Aronofsky's latest forays into social realism, Tarkovsky's silent poetry seems to infuse other shots etc. But Mortier never fails to bring enough of his own dark aesthetic along to elevate the film above a bland homage. The vast, empty cityscapes of Belguim adding as much to the tone as the lost and often perverted characters who struggle to find meaning in life.

22nd of May is - yes - a difficult film, even one some may feel alienated and disturbed by. It doesn't look for comfort or to provide an answer for all its complex questions, yet it is proof that Mortier has joined the ranks of current directors who are among the best there ever were, that Ex Drummer was not just a one-off - and yet, ironically, proves to be so much different from the work that preceded it. Existentialistic fireworks - or nihilistic cherry-bombs.

Rating - 10/10

---

2011-09-19T16:08:00.001-07:00

it's been ages since i last saw this one... and i still don't have the poster...

...

2011-09-19T16:01:00.000-07:00

it's been ages since i last saw this one... and i still don't have the poster...

FFF#25 Review: RED STATE

2011-09-17T05:31:00.000-07:00

- "Knock Knock!"

- "Who's there?"

- "Anal Sex!"

- "Oh, it's Kevin Smith."

Summarized in these four lines lies the entire appeal Kevin Smiths has had ever since Dogma. Or Chasing Amy, dependent on how you want to look at it. Smith, once the auteur darling of an entire generation, the pastiche of Tarantino's slight political incorrectness and Linklater's skilled, dialogue based character pieces, has become irrelevant and has been a drag for over a decade. His detractors love to reduce his oeuvre to his most recent failure, the buddy-cop-comedy Cop Out with Bruce Willis, while actually neither Zack and Miri make a Porno, Clerks 2, Jersey Girl, two utterly despicable Batman comic-runs or Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back really managed to generate anything but yawns from an ever diminishing audience. Smith had respectively sold out, lost it or gone old in the minds of his fans. In this personal climate, one in which Smith was not only irrelevant but also became a living joke (as he was thrown off a plane for weighing too much), Red State seems not like a re-imagination as much as it is a call to arms, a destruction of everything that came before and probably the film that will endure in Smiths oeuvre.

Before I delve into the review, let me quickly sum up the scandal surrounding Red State's release. Smith released news of his film shortly before Sundance, where it would premiere. It was, in his own words, a horror film with a christian theme. Little to nothing else was known at that point. The film was self-produced, with no studio or production company involved. Smith brought his own team, friends and fans to the shoot, that allegedly cost around four million dollar. It was his vision, unaltered.

As Sundance approached, Smith released a disclaimer on his website, that no press tickets would be given out to review sites. Everybody who wanted to attend the premiere would be forced to get up at five in the morning, stand in row and hope that tickets would still be sold. This, Smith revealed, was due to the disastrous press reception of his previous films (although short sighted, a quite brave statement to hand out). There would be no press screenings. Just a premiere.

But even bigger news came when Smith announced that after the press screening, he himself would auction to rights for the film to the attendance. Again, nobody would be invited, all had to get up at five in the morning and get in line. Or send their employees to go get the tickets for them.

Thus, when the film premiered, not only was most of the US press attending (who had managed to get tickets), but also the big names of various studios and labels that wanted to get their hands at the rights for Red State. First tweets after the screening were mixed, speaking of strong performances, a 20 (!) minute sermon by leading actor Michael Parks and never ending shootouts. As the applause diminished, Smith took the stage and went on into a long tirade. Essentially, he called out to the press, mocking them for bashing his work in public, and spit continuous venom on the american studio system, in which stars were overpaid (20 million $ is around the standard fare for an a-lister alone, five times the amount of money Red State was shot with), scripts were hacked, the production was interfered by producers. And even once the film was done, the promotion would require large amounts of money to get a crowd into theaters who had no interest in this sort of film in the first place.

As the atmosphere in the theater got continuously worse, Smith left the stage to his producer, who would auction the rights. As he took the stage and asked for the first bid, Smith raised his hand: "20 Dollars!" - "SOLD!!"

Both in shock and awe, the attendance watched as Smith took the stage once again, explaining that he had fooled the attendance, that he himself would screen the film on a "tour" throughout the united states, without promotion or advertising it. He proceeded to spit a last few minutes of venom, then dropped the microphone to the ground and left the stage. I have included the entire Sundance bit below as a youtube video, if anybody is interested.

In the aftermath, Smith explained in a long post that his frustration about the studio system led him to the grotesque charade, that he wanted to proof that he would be able to not only make a good film without any studio funding, but also that he would succeed in making profit with the film this way (for the math: a film that cost 200 million has to make about 400 million to strike even, thanks to shareholders and PR getting their bits).

So, did Red State succeed? Is it a good film? Smith, by now, has his money back - everything that followed from a few months ago on is profit to him. As for the film itself - what follows now are slight spoilers of the plot. If you want to go in and see Red State unprepared (which could be compared to seeing Hostel unprepared), then stop reading here. All I can tell you is that Red State is a very good horror film with a very personal, important, socio-political message. For everybody else: go on.

The film opens with... anal sex jokes? Oh, Kevin Smith...

The opening ten to fifteen minutes are truly a drag, as our three teenage protagonists discuss hooking up with a woman one has found on the internet so they loose their virginity. Blah Blah Blah, some needless exposition later they find themselves in the clutches of what is a church under the steady gaze of pastor Abin Cooper and his family. Before I go on, one thing has to be noted: Michael Parks, who stars as Cooper, and whom most will know as Earl McGraw from various Tarantino ventures (really, pick your favorite, he is in a couple), is so good in here that he has to be nominated for an academy award. If he won't be, then this only tells so much about Kevin Smith pissing off the right people. He is, by far, one of the most outstanding villains in cinema and Parks is sure to finally be widely recognized as a truly daring and unique actor.

Parks' depiction of Cooper is both chilling and sympathetic. As he starts his (slightly cut down to about 10 minutes) sermon, we can't help but agree with various points the character makes, have to ponder if this guy really is all that evil, while right behind him a figure with a blanket over his body stands next to a cross. Smith succeeds in not only making us scared of these extreme, religious fanatics, he also provides us with good reason as to why Cooper is so dangerous: because he's got good arguments. He doesn't shout, he only needs to whisper to bring his followers to their feet.

Then the blanket is torn down. And then, the killings start. Although we have seen all these actors before - some of them in films, others in TV-shows; some we know the names off, others faint shadows of a role whose name we can't remember - nobody is safe. People are killed off in a matter of seconds, with no further ado. It makes for one adrenaline rush after the next, because, really - who knows what Smith is up to?

After a good amount of time, John Goodman is introduced as the leader of a special force unit that is assigned to take the Coopers down and the film slowly progresses from horror film into a dark neo-wester. After an extended shoot-out, he gets the order to take "everybody inside the house" out. The hostages, children - everybody. To which Goodman slightly objects, although the killing continues, until... well, until Kevin Smith uses one of the most stunning and baffling deus ex machina I have ever encountered in a film (quite literarily at that, also).

Nobody comes away safe - teenagers, hedonists, right wing christians, homosexuals, the police, executive and judicative. Smith does not target them individually - he targets ideologies. He targets the idea of one group to be superior to another. The belief system that one group has more right to do something than another. The idea that one ideology is the right one, that it is fine to betray (or worse) for a greater cause. Thus, he spits vitriol on every ideology, every believe-based system, every aspect of fanaticism, coming up with as bitter and cynical a film as one could be, summing up his own believes in the very last line spoken in the film before it cuts to unforgiving, pure black!

People will be pissed off! Many will not take the time to dig below the ideas present, and maybe will felt rub down the wrong way by Smith's approach in portraying his villains, whoever they may be. But first and foremost, Red State is the film to induce socio-political discussion, reflection and actual change! It's one of these films which, ten years from now, will be a big cult film with a steady following. If it wouldn't have been made by Smith, but by a newcomer, it would have been showered with praise already. In short: yes. He did it. He re-invented himself and came up with his best work yet.

Rating - 9/10

P.S.: Here is the full Sundance speech of Kevin Smith. Enjoy!

FFF#25 Review: STAKE LAND

2011-09-17T03:59:00.000-07:00

It is highly important to stress just how important atmosphere is to horror films. Clumsy characterization, bad special effects, plot-holes all matter little to an audience if the film manages to create a world of its own that stays with the viewer long after the last drop of blood has been shed. Images are more important than an original story or good dialogue if they manage to induce fear in whoever is watching. Stake Land may not be a perfect film. In fact it would be easy to pick out the various problems on display, yet the films existence is more important than that it succeeds on every level.

Co-written by star Nick Damici and director Jim Mickle, Stake Land is almost a Malick-ian twist of the horror genre. Almost. In the near future, the United States is overrun by a crude mixture of Vampires and Zombies, leaving only few humans to battle for survival. In this post-apocalyptic setting, we follow a young man (Patrick) and his mentor (a nameless vampire hunter) as they make their way through the country in search of New Eden, Canada. No, I didn't make this up, yes, I know it sounds crap. So, how does the film manage to become a rather unique entry into the modern horror canon? By taking itself seriously. Very seriously. The opening scene alone, in which we learn of the gruesome, gory demise of Patrick's family, is enough to convey a feeling of dread that spans over the entire coarse of the film. One especially harrowing shot succeeds in making the viewer unsure just how far the writing duo can take the depiction of violence (clue: they take it very far in the remaining 90 minutes).

The film then moves forward a few months to the two hunters searching the wasteland that once was a city. The cinematography indicates almost picaresque beauty. The quiet soundtrack recalls Nick Caves work on "The Assassination of Jesse James". Patrick recalls his past in a hushed whisper and reflects upon the state of the world. The haunting, melancholic atmosphere recalls road movies and coming of age films from the late 90s and the Western revival earlier this decade. Almost Malick-ian. A stark contrast of two forces in the new united nation: the beauty of landscapes and life contrasted by half-rotten bloodsuckers.

As the duo makes their way to the allegedly safe haven, they encounter a variety of human characters that all manage to generate enough interest in the audience to care, and meet a couple of allies that follow them on their way. Geez, I wonder whose demise is depicted first...

Thus we have here the one, big flaw of the film: it's typical set-up in terms of "characters we make you care about only to have them killed later." Yeah, it's rather easy to generate sympathy in an audience these days. Still, the script is content to flesh these persons out, their goals and dreams, who they are and what they want. We know little about them, but it is enough to make us connect with them. It's a shame though they do little more than die.

The second big flaw of the film is actually not a flaw. It's highly evident that the budget was small and that the ambitious approach would lend itself better to a full blown two (if not three) hour epic that delves further into the western themes introduced, as well as into the mythology of the villains and monsters. For example, a cult that believes in gods will to diminish the human race through the Vampire plague is introduced but only so much as to give us the bare bones of their believes and to be worthy villains once they put their plans into action. The anti-dogmatic message thus feels rather heavy handed and doesn't manage to fully bloom. The ending feels rather rushed as well and more like a set-up for a full fledged sequel that further illustrates character motivations and connections.

Still, with all these minor flaws, Stake Land somehow manages to shine and stand its own ground. It's a clever, daring and moving horror film that may cross the line at some points and stay behind its self-imposed ambitions, yet it's also another step towards the right direction: a modern american horror-cinema that combines artistry with genre tropes and relies as much on mood and beauty as on violence and the uncanny. Highly enjoyable, slightly socio-political and very welcome in a time where effects and jump-scares are regarded as the main attraction in horror films.

Rating - 8/10

P.S.: I decided to include a scene this time around, as neither the images nor the trailer are a good indicator of the films actual mood.

i know i should post more reviews...

2011-09-16T15:28:00.000-07:00

... but i have things to do.

she's preparing herself!

keep an eye open for her.

maya kulenovich - treason - 2010

http://www.mayakulenovic.com

FFF#25 Review: PHASE 7

2011-09-06T09:06:00.000-07:00

As a viral epidemic sweeps over the streets of Buenos Aires, the slacker Coco and his pregnant wife Pipi wait in their apartment for a governmental allowance to leave their apartment building, doing nothing much but eat cereal, play board games and test a blacklight-bulb as they have none other left to change the burned out ones. But once his neighbors have decided to wage war on one of the elderly inhabitants, he bonds with the highly paranoid, quite loony Horacio that lives next door, who has all the gear and resources to make this a long, action filled ride. He shaves his beard to slightly resemble Gaspar Noé, slips into a full-body-plastic suit (see images below) and slowly morphs into an urban Bruce Willis.

I find it particularly hard to review a film like Phase 7 - not because it bored me or because it is an uninteresting film. Quite the opposite: given that I have little to no knowledge of argentinian cinema, and that those I have seen recently operating rather as a set-back than a reminder that south american has a vibrant and interesting scene, this was a breath of fresh air. Well acted (studded by some of the countries biggest stars), colorful, wildly funny and action packed, with some interesting characters and a good pacing, I'd say that Phase 7 is one of the most successful 'summer blockbusters' if you count in world cinema releases. It's a whole lot of fun to watch and has everything to make a nice experience. It also has some inconsistencies here and there, and some parts are rather shoddily written (but hey, it's Nicolas Goldbart's first directorial effort, so even that can be excused), but that doesn't little the fun. What I find problematic though is to come up with things about this film that is really worth saying aside of... uh, watch this, if you want to have a fun ride.

So let's see - the film is weightless compared to other films taking place in tower blocks (like Attack the Block or REC). It does have characters which you can care for or identify with, but who are also stereotypical enough to make fun of them occasionally (granted, they are rather stupid).

You have a colorful cinematography that is closer to comic book aesthetics than arthouse or US-action-fare. You have slapstick that works at most times and dialogue that is occasionally funny. The plot development is a bit grim, but also optimistic - the twists are surprising enough although inoffensive. The violence, however, is rather offensive (luckily) and there are many scenes where I was surprised just how well the film used it to change the tone of what was going on. The villain is reasonably evil and still has a humane and interesting aspect.

However, nothing of all of this is a level up of a fun experience - nothing sticks with you, nothing really throws you off. I can't even proclaim that the director played it 'safe', as the violence and some of the twists are rather courageous to use in a film of this status. Maybe it could be compared to the recent Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies, in how it tries to blend genre tropes with black humor and interesting characterization. It's not quite as successful as Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead though.

So, would I recommend this movie? Oh, absolutely. It's solid, it's funny, it has some slight suspense - it's everything a black comedy that plays with a predefined genre can do right. It's sadly not much more, but if you want to have a good evening with beer and some friends, I can recommend this one as good pop-cinema entertainment. If you intend to watch a truly deep, artful, emotional film, however, I think you should better wait with Phase 7 until you desire some popcorn, cold beer, laughs and thrills. Oh, and of course a lot of mindless over the top violence.

Rating - 7/10

FFF#25 Review: YELLOW SEA

2011-09-04T03:26:00.000-07:00

One thing Yellow Sea taught me was that I definitely should check the runtime of a film first before I buy a ticket. Let down by the previous film, I decided to to go for Yellow Sea, which started at half past ten. Only when sitting in the theater and realizing that I had not eaten in hours, was very tired and that the film ran for two and a half hours I realized I might have made a slight mistake. Turns out it wasn't, as Yellow Sea was wildly entertaining, very well made and one of the most suspenseful and emotionally involving asian thrillers of recent years.

Taxi Driver Goo-Nam's wife left one year ago for Korea to find a job to support the family. To support his wife, Goo-Nam himself borrowed money from the triads, who now seem eager to re-collect their debts - shame that the protagonists wife has not called back ever since she moved away from mainland China. As Goo-Nam can't repay the money, the triad boss hires him as a contract killer to finish off a job in Korea, so that our unlucky hero can both pay his debt as well as find his wife and get her back to China.

Of course things don't work out properly and the plot spirals out of control as various syndicates target Goo-Nam who's also got the police on his heels and is busy finding his wife.

There are two reasons why Yellow Sea works so well. One is that the script, while filled with twists, never seems unrealistic. One plot point builds on another and they all weave an intricate web of deceive and interests. Director Hon-Jin Na is obviously interested in the point-of-view dynamics of crime, where the police seemingly has no clue of the bigger picture, while syndicates slowly try to unravel the reasons behind a murder plot and the conceived murderer himself is almost completely innocent of the going ons. Best compared to Infernal Affairs (and its US remake The Departed), the script allows the audience to puzzle the pieces together before all is revealed, keeping the viewer constantly at the edge of their seats when the bigger picture slowly creeps up on them.

The other reason is that this may be the best choreographed and directed gangster film in a long time. I have seen few films that succeeded as well in depicting crashing cars both realistically and as a piece of art, as the chase sequence here go on for what seems almost like half an hour, constantly coming up with new ideas and shock moments. The fights of the gangsters themselves reek of realism and could easily make audience members not used to this level of violence walk out. One action scene in particular, which sees one man up against dozens of other gangsters, is particularly grim and shocking, but the effect of suspense is always achieved (even though I wonder why nobody seemed to be fond of using guns, which would have made some of it a lot easier).

The cinematography almost seems documentary at times, jumping from HD to DV, making for a slightly nauseous but grim and dark look that heightens the illusion of realism.

The film is a far cry from being the next Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance as it never ventures into the field of brilliance, but as far as dark, shocking, realist gangster dramas with suspense, action and characterization go, this is a film definitely worth the money to see it on the big screen. It's not for the faint of heart and ultimately comes up with a rather nihilistic message though, but if you are into these sort of things, there is little competition right now.

Rating - 8/10

if morrissey would be a woman...

2011-09-02T15:08:00.000-07:00

... the smiths might have sounded like this.

FFF#25 Review: DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK

2011-09-02T10:26:00.000-07:00

It's become an ongoing routine that the opening film of the Fantasy Filmfest is regarded as a let down by many in the audience. It's never been fully established where this animosity stems from, as most films that screened as openers over the last ten years were at least decent or interesting, albeit some of them unspectacular. Thus, I feel sorry to say that Don't be afraid of the Dark, the Guillermo Del Toro produced remake of a 70s TV-horror film, was the one film that felt most like a let down to me.

The story starts compelling enough: a little girl finds herself threatened by small creatures in the new family home. Her father is busy polishing his ego and has little time for his daughter, while her step mother gives her best to bond with the kid (albeit unsuccessful). Due to a trauma, neither of her parents believe her in her plight that the house is haunted. Combine that with great set design and the usually reliable Guy Pearce, and it looks like a fun evening.

But something is wrong with this film - and it's the script.

Don't be afraid of the Dark simply makes many mistakes. The creatures are revealed too early, CGI animated and seemingly not a threat (whenever they try to kill somebody, they don't even manage to do that). Their backstory is lackluster at best (as is their motivation). The father only cares for architectural digest and little else, and is content to constantly put his traumatized daughter in rather troubling situations.

The step mother never realizes she's in a horror film as she sneaks from one genre-typical moment to the next (giving your daughter a polaroid camera instead of a flashlight when she clearly exclaims fear of darkness is sort of stupid, really). The girl is mostly unlikable (suppose you find a strange furnace in the cellar where creepy voices come out from - would you open it?) and acts like a teenager (both the situations she is placed in, her dialogue and her acting style remind more of a character that age - it is important to note that her character was created for the remake, the protagonist of the film it is based on is Katie Holmes character, and her husband has no daughter). Supporting characters only act as conveyors of exposition. The ending doesn't work and is not properly explained.

So we end up with a good looking film that lacks any scariness or individuality, interesting characters or food for thought. Del Toro's touch, however, makes it at least a decent experience, as one can indulge in enough stylistic beauty and great set-design to carry us through the film. But compared to other Del Toro productions (like 'The Orphanage') or successful haunted house horror films, Don't be afraid of the Dark disappoints.

Rating - 5/10

i should get myself to do the FFF#25 reviews...

2011-09-02T09:26:00.000-07:00

... but this is all I care about right now!!!

FFF 2011: Prologue - X-Men First Class

2011-08-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

In cinema, there are ties that can be stronger than blood. Franchises which, against your better judgement, become a part of ones life and manage to express what is a vital part of the individual who becomes so obsessed with them, drawing the viewer into their worlds and attracting them to even the weakest entries.

My entire life, I have been a Batman-guy. I watched the '66-series when I was a little kid, confusing the camp with genuine heroism (I guess if you are 5 years old, a crime fighter clad in nylons who is able to climb a building with the help of only a rope, effortlessly, is a truly amazing thing). When I was a bit older, I watched Tim Burton's first Batman movie on TV and re-watched the VHS countless times.

The moment Batman Returns hit, I was in utter awe of this dark, grotesque world that seemed like a marriage of silent films and my own dreams. And then, of course, came Batman, the animated series. I started to read comics. I got into Watchmen - and Alan Moore, while Batman lost his battle against the now world-famous rubber nipples.

In 2000, superheroes seemed superfluous, not only on the big screen, but also in my life. 9/11 was only a far away threat, nuclear plants seemed stale and safe. I was, however, struggling with my own teenage angst in suburbia - I felt a bit like an outcast, struggled in school and with who I wanted to become once puberty was over. And in this climate, the second big love of my existence as a fanboy hit, and it hit hard. X-Men was, although a flawed film from todays standards, a world unknown to me. These superheroes were not alpha males with inexhaustible bank accounts, they were physically and mentally broken creatures, full of flaws and trauma. Outcasts. Loners. Losers.

Wolverine became my new avatar. Two years later, it was Nightcrawler. I cautiously took a look into the X-Men comics, but to my frustration found myself lost in ongoing storylines, scratching my head at who was who, who killed who, who dated who and who who who. I grew out of puberty and started becoming cautiously optimistic about myself and my life when Bryan Singer left the franchise for - urgh - Superman Returns, and thus had no interest in X-Men 3: The Last Stand. It took some more years for X-Men Origins: Wolverine to hit and attract feedback as strikingly negative as only rubber nipples were able to bring forward previously. Of course I stayed away as well.

All in all, it took me nine years to ease my mind on the option of going to a cinema and watching a new X-Men film, but good reviews and curiosity got the best of me. In the advert of the Fantasy Filmfest, I decided to buy myself a ticket for a late night showing of First Class, two beers and check out the entire bunch of X-Men films on DVD. I will write a lengthy entry on the entire franchise soon, but only so much: no, Last Stand is not as bad as people make it out to be, although it is messy - yes, Origins: Wolverine is inexcusable and terrible, casting the seed of doubt in my mind. But then I got to the cinema, eased my behind into a chair and had the wave of awesome wash over me.

X-Men: First Class is in many ways the best X-Men film to ever be realized, and it casts the entire franchise in a different light. It may also be the best prequel to ever be made.

The film opens with three key scenes that set the tone for everything that is to follow: a very young Erik in a concentration camp (the opening is an exact remake of the first film's opening) struggling with his powers and Sebastian Shaw, a very young Charles meeting a very young (yet already skilled) Raven, and then Charles and Raven as adults in an Oxford pub. Although the first of those three may be the best and most memorable scene (including one single cut to a shot previously not established which changes the audience's perspective of the entire scene, proving what an intelligent and skilled filmmaker Vaughn is), the pub-scene stayed with me as my favorite. Why?

Vaughn is much more than just a skilled and intelligent filmmaker. Most of all, he brings a sense of personality and individuality to his films. Most modern comic book movies seem to struggle to erase any sort of personality of its creator - think of the images of Green Lantern, Thor, Daredevil, or Captain America, and even Spiderman or Iron Man. All these films have different directors, but if watched in a row, it is hard to distinguish which is made by Branagh or Raimi. They all seem to be intended as clean cut products. There are few The Dark Knights or Hulks, films that replicate the directors trademark style and prove a worthy addition to their individual canon.

Vaughn seems to be able to bring this highly personal style into each and every of his films, and this is the first scene where it is completely evident - the pub is not your average Hollywood-built stage, but feels strikingly authentic. Either Vaughn brought a team in to design and built this place, or he happened to shoot this in one of his very favorite places - the pub, after all, could be located nowhere but in the UK, adding a flavor absent of every Hollywood created 'cliché pub'. This is not an american superhero movie. This is a european one (much like Hulk was an asian movie in disguise)! Not to mention the stylish clothes and cinematic flairs that clearly position this as a period piece - it is also the first superhero film to depict the early 60s and not just aping styles, but depicting them as modern as they were back then.

We are then introduced to Charles, who is... a charming and clever womanizer. And Raven, who is... a strikingly beautiful girl, attracted to her best friend, who does little to comfort her. Professor X is not an a-sexual priest in a wheelchair - he is a playboy. Raven is not a kung-fu-stripper - she is a girl looking for self-realization in love and sexuality.

To say that Vaughn has realized who these people are is an understatement: he has perfected them for the big screen. The dialogue is very reminiscent of the mix of earnest high prose and ridiculous smart-assery of comic books, and the characters manage to combine the humane and the grotesque in the right dose. This is not a film by somebody who had a job, or somebody who liked a character - this is a film by somebody who understands each and every of his characters, manages to bring a sense of individuality to even those with the least dialogue (and high praise has to be given to the actors behind the minor characters here, as they manage to portray what could have been empty puppets as rich and colored as the leads manage with the main protagonists).

So we witness the X-Men 'find' each other and themselves. We watch Erik hunt down Nazis (another one of the most striking scenes takes place in an argentinian bar - seems Vaughn has a taste for these highly intimate yet also anonymous places, as two two key scenes of a character finding what he looked for take place in bars), Raven fall in love with Hank McCoy, Hank perceiving himself as a monster, Moira MacTaggert stripping to perceive Shaw, Shaw being utterly depraved, Emma Frost taking off her clothes and one by one, a team assembling itself both around Charles and Erik.

Singer chose to see the X-Men as one big metaphor for homosexuality (logically, as the theme is close to his own personality). While Vaughn acknowledges this, he also manages to create a much broader, thus more universal statement than just 'mutants = homosexuals'. Hank is the nerd who desperately wants to find a Mr. Hyde in his Dr. Jekyll. Erik is the racial (or religious) underdog who leads a fight of vengeance against his oppressors. Sean is a slight looser, whose only power is in his voice (which he can't control), mirrored by the attractive Alex, whose anger is - once released - a force of destruction. Raven is born in the wrong body, struggling with her sexuality and her 'real form', choosing a permanent disguise as a means to be seen equal. Charles is the one who, albeit different, has come to terms with his own 'mutation', the one to unite and help them. They are no longer one specific group: they are each and every kind of losers, outcasts and underdogs; no matter why or how they became who they are, they all are equal in their difference from normality.

They are opposed by Shaw's team, a dark reflection of Bond villains. The femme fatale (Frost), the quiet assassin (Riptide), the grotesque (and deformed) right hand (Azazel) and the diabolical Ex-Nazi-colportist-mastermind. Charles - or the pre-X-Men - seem to pose little threat: in another of the films best scenes, in which the teenagers show each other their powers, they end up partying to what was a wild rock song in '62. It needs Erik to fully channel his inner James Bond to finally face them.

By the time the film reaches its climax, Vaughn has managed to convince us that there is no good or bad in this fight - there simply are different forms of existence. There are mutant rights - those who regard themselves equal to humans in rights. There is mutant power, those who think they are superior to humans and who are looking for vengeance. And there is mutant pride, those who are happy with what they are and want to be accepted as different, but just as beautiful and realized as humans. And as the film progresses to this point, I was having as much fun as I could ever recall watching a superhero movie. Ever.

This may not be as good and fully realized thematically as The Dark Knight was, but granted, The Dark Knight was not an origin story that had to introduce and set-up its characters. Aside of that, First Class is superior to every other superhero film, probably even better than Batman Returns. It is complex and layered, it manages to combine pulp and arthaus aesthetics, comic and high prose. By the end of it, Erik will move a coin, and it may be one of the most moving, painful, beautiful and haunting scenes in modern cinema.

It is the film that gave me back my faith in superhero movies, and the film to give me back my faith in the power of the outcast. Once again, the X-Men changed my life. And for that, I give them all the praise they deserve!

Jean Luc Godard - Le Mépris

2011-06-26T10:51:00.000-07:00

Jean Luc Godards best film starts as some of the best things in this world started out - with a naked Brigitte Bardot lying on a bed.

Actually, the film starts even more daring than that - while a voice reads the credits for the film, a woman slowly walks down a road, accompanied by a camera on tracks. With this small collage, Godard re-invents his approach to cinema considerably: while he's used breaking of the fourth wall before, this time around he approaches a biographical story as a film-within-a-film experiment, fully embracing a post-modern approach that, in 1962, still seemed fresh and daring.

As the audience takes in the scene, it is unclear whether Godard is showing us the process of filmmaking, or just documents his making of Le Mépris: if we gaze into a mirror or if Godard has us gaze into a mirror that in return shows another mirror.

And as Godard moves on, we are witness to Bardot's naked body on sheets, next to her husband - her body entirely in red. The dialogue (partially drowned out by the rising soundtrack) concerns the woman's insecurities: her inability to love her own features, and the rising hate directed towards her husband (who, in consequence, must also hate her, if she is incapable of loving herself). As the dialogue goes on, Godard switches the color lenses - suddenly, the red color is gone, and Bardot's body can be seen in natura... only to have it obscured by a dark shade of blue moments later.

Why exactly Godard has chosen the "french flag" as superimposed color filters for this scene remains a mystery, but one can conclude that Bardot - the french nations symbol of their sexual freedom - is sort of "inverted" here: she no longer is as sexy as she is an everyday girl, ripe with insecurities and self-loathing. If this approach is taken, the overall theme of self-loathing can be applied to anything: the man who lies next to his wife is a cynic, who seems disinterested in the very fundament his life is built upon.

In consequence, the story of the film concerns the director and writer Paul Javal (Michel Piccoli) and his wife (Bardot) - a barely concealed re-imagination of Godard and Anna Karina (guess what sort of a wig Bardot puts on halfway through the film).

Javal is hired by an american producer Prokosch (Jack Palance) to perfect the script for a troubled production on Odysseus, directed by Fritz Lang (who plays himself, essentially).

While Javal is hardly interested in the material, and obviously prefers Lang's arthouse version of the script to what Prokosch envisions, he sticks around for the production and follows the troubled german and arrogant american (who, whenever Javal starts a discussion on the liberties of true art, picks up a small book, out of which he recites quotes by others - of course completely out of context and void of any understanding). Cold and rational, Javal doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the producer obviously tries to vow his wife - an affront to the same, who takes the ignorance on the side of her husband as a sign of their deteriorating emotions towards each other, and causes a rift that, as the film progresses, cracks further open, finally reaching a climax when the two are brought by Prokosch to his seaside villa, where Odysseus is to be shot.

The production seems to have been a troubling one - the (american) producers were apparently unhappy with the film, to the point where the producer insisted on having nude scenes of Bardot in the film because he apparently did not know how to sell a film he "hated". Godard was forced to use Cinemascope, but reportedly hated the entire ordeal of shooting the film. Lang was, by this point, almost blind. Bardot was chased by Paparazzi, who had to be fended off in-between takes (which concluded in a short documentary by Godard shot on-set), and Godard was apparently unhappy with her "unnatural" (read emotional) portrayal of her character, causing rifts, which seemingly caused Bardot herself to become depressed (it is very important to note that Godard worked with her again though, casting her in a small role for Masculin, Feminin, indicating the two did get along better than the press led viewers to believe).

So all in all, the shoot was a complete mess!! But of all these problems don't interfere in the slightest - the structure and narrative are exceptional and experimental, Bardot certainly performs one of her finest characters and the resulting film sucks the audience in like no other work of the french director (or any other film that has been made). Maybe the reason why Godard hated making it so much was not just due to the trouble with the producers, but also because the film does portray something alien to his work both before and after - a personal, individual point of view that is highly autobiographical, instead of a social or political thesis.

What makes Le Mépris such an utter joy to watch is not just Godard's approach to post modernism, Bardot's lovely face or Lang's enlightening comments on filmmaking ("Cinemascope is only good for snakes and coffins.") - it's the utter joy with which Godard takes apart each and everything that is dear to him and beautiful for the viewer. We see small glimpses of Lang's film, a visionary, poetic and experimental feature, only for it to be torn to shreds by its unsympathetic producer. We see Bardot walk around with, mostly, nothing on her skin, but she radiates an aura of hate and loathing. Nothing is safe from Godard - not filmmaking, not his idols, not the audience and definitely not his own marriage.

There are hundreds of nuances to be discussed, from the more than 30-minute long fight of the couple to the mirroring remarks of Lang and the producer, the philosophy of filmmaking and the de-mystification of relationships - but all the analyzing and theorizing is nothing against the sheer power of the film. A masterpiece!

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10 - a masterpiece, must be seen!

Dennis Hoppers The Last Movie (1971) - Filmanalyse

2011-06-26T09:16:00.000-07:00

I will continue with the Godard-reviews in due time, but up until then, here is an analysis I wrote in german on Dennis Hopper's unfairly maligned masterpiece THE LAST MOVIE I did some time ago. Enjoy!!

„The Last Movie“ (1971) war Dennis Hoppers zweiter Film als Regisseur und Drehbuchautor, und bedeutete für den damals 35-jährigen fast das Ende seiner Karriere. Das Wunschprojekt, das er bereits vor „Easy Rider“ umsetzen wollte, kostete über eine Million Dollar. Der Film wurde von Universal ohne Auflagen und mit Recht auf Final Cut bewilligt, und gewann in Venedig den Spezialpreis der Jury.

Doch das Experiment floppte in den Staaten, und wurde von Kritikern als inhaltliche Farce verrissen. Durch Vorführungen in Museen und Mitternachts-Kinos erreichte der Film schließlich den Status eines verkannten Meisterwerkes, das zu Unrecht abgestraft wurde, und in der Tradition europäischer Kunstfilme der damaligen Zeit steht. Bis zuletzt versuchte Hopper den Film auf DVD zu veröffentlichen – ein Traum, den er zu Lebzeiten nicht mehr verwirklichen konnte.

Im Zentrum des Films steht die harsche Kritik am amerikanischen Imperialismus. Der „American Dream“ dringt in eine unberührte, im Herzen unschuldige Welt ein und zerstört sie. Als Metapher für diese zwei Welten entscheidet sich Hopper für die fiktive, gestellte Welt eines Filmdrehs, dem die Bevölkerung einer peruanischen Kleinstadt gegenüber steht.

Ende der Sechziger Jahre befand sich die USA in einer Phase voller Spannungen. Der Krieg in Vietnam, Rassenkonflikte und das Ende der Hippiekultur bildeten den apokalyptischen Background für Hoppers filmische Visionen. Bereits mit „Easy Rider“ schrieb der Regisseur und Drehbuchautor seinen Abgesang auf die amerikanische Gesellschaft und schließt mit „The Last Movie“ an dessen Thesen zu Gegenkultur, Opferrollen und Tod an.

Als nach dem Tod eines Protagonisten die Dreharbeiten eines Westerns (im Film unter der Regie von Samuel Fuller) abgebrochen werden, entscheidet sich der Stuntman Kansas (Hopper), am Drehort in Peru zu bleiben. Dort hat er sich mittlerweile eine zweite Existenz jenseits aller amerikanischen Maßstäben aufgebaut: in der Prostituierten Maria (Stella Garcia) findet er eine naturverbundene Partnerin, und die malerisch Landschaft kommt für ihn einem Garten Eden gleich. Direkt zu Beginn des Films reitet er in einer Hommage an die goldene Ära des Hollywood-Westerns durch ein Feld von gelben Blumen; die schneebedeckten Berge und der blaue Himmel im Hintergrund. Diese im Film wiederkehrenden des Genres verweisen auf das Bild des „guten Cowboys“, der mit sauberem Hemd und edlen Absichten durch ein unberührtes Land reist und für amerikanische Werte (wie Moral, Gerechtigkeit und Güte) steht.

Hopper fängt Peru in ausladenden Panoramen ein - Standbilder und langsame Kamerafahrten vermitteln die Harmonie der Abgeschiedenheit. In diesen Aufnahmen zeigt der Regisseur sein Talent als impressionistischer Filmemacher. Ähnlich wie Terrence Malick nach ihm, zeigt er langen Einstellungen, Supertotalen und Totalen, sowie harmonischen Bildkompositionen die Natur als Ausdruck von Seelenfrieden und unberührter Schönheit. Diese Natürlichkeit spiegelt sich auch in anderen Aspekten des Filmes wieder: Hopper arbeitet fast ausschließlich mit natürlicher Beleuchtung, und die Indios (von denen viele tatsächliche Einwohner des Dorfes waren) geben ihre Rollen ungekünstelt wieder. Auch Hopper selbst hält sich als Hauptdarsteller angenehm zurück - keine Spur vom etwaigem Größenwahn, der ihm oft nachgesagt wurde

Als krasser Gegensatz zur visuellen Harmonie steht der non-linear gewählte Schnitt.

Nach Ende der fast sechs Monat andauernden Dreharbeiten zog sich Hopper nach Taos, New Mexico zurück, im Schlepptau etliche Stunden Filmmaterial. Inspiriert von dem Western El Topo (1970), lud Hopper dessen Regisseur Alejandro Jodorowsky zu sich ein, und bot dem gebürtigen Chilenen an, „The Last Movie“ zu schneiden. Nach zwei Tagen soll der Film fertig gewesen sein. Hopper zeigte sich begeistert. Universal lehnte die Fassung jedoch ab – es darf allerdings vermutet werden, dass Hopper sich stark von Jodorowskys typisch unkonventionellem Stil inspirieren ließ.

Für Hopper wird er zum Ausdruck der Innenwelt seines Protagonisten und formuliert dem Publikum dessen Gedankenwelt: sieht Kansas z.B. eine Kulisse, schlägt Hopper eine Brücke zu den Wünschen seiner Figuren nach amerikanischen Lebensvorstellungen. Verhalten sich die Figuren materialistisch, wird die Handlung durch eine Szene kontrastiert, welche die ursprüngliche Bodenständigkeit der Indios hervorhebt. Und immer wieder greift er Slow Motion Aufnahmen des Set-Unfalls auf, um Kansas Todesangst zu verdeutlichen.

Doch die westliche Kultur hinterlässt am Drehort deutliche Spuren: Einige der Einheimischen sehen sich vom Dreh inspiriert und stellen mit Attrappen aus Bambus ihren eigenen Film nach, und Maria fordert nach wenigen Wochen des Zusammenlebens ein Haus mit Pool, einen Kühlschrank und Pelzmantel. Garcia wirkt nun aufgesetzt und übertreibt in ihrer Darstellung, was dem Versuch ihrer Figur entspricht, sich amerikanischen Verhaltensmustern anzupassen (wodurch sie für Kansas natürlich jeden Reiz verliert).

Ebenso agiert der selbsternannte peruanische Regisseur wie eine Karikatur von Fuller, fuchtelt mit einer geladenen Pistole herum und verkündet zuletzt, dass Kansas, der „die Sünde“ ins Dorf gebracht hat, als Abschluss des „Filmes“ vor den Augen aller hingerichtet werden soll, um das Dorf vom Bösen zu befreien. Für die Indios besteht kein Unterschied zwischen Realität und Inszenierung. Was sie beim Dreh des Filmes sehen, ist für sie Wirklichkeit.

Angestachelt vom falschen (aber trotzdem realen) Regisseur verwunden die Indios Kansas schwer. Dieser kann gerade noch fliehen und bricht halluzinierend in einer Kirche zusammen. Hier bricht Hopper mit seinem ruhigen Stil: der Schnitt wird hektisch, wirr, manche Einstellungen dauern kaum eine Sekunde. Hopper fängt mit unruhiger, zitternder Handkamera Kansas Schmerz ein, verdeutlicht uns seine Halluzinationen noch mit eingefügten Sirenen, Schüssen und verstörenden Indio Gesängen. Ein Folk Song beginnt, bricht ab, Tiergeräusche und Babyschreie vermischen sich. Es herrscht pures Chaos, auf der Leinwand ebenso wie im Kopf des fliehenden Protagonisten.

Kansas überlebt, fügt sich jedoch in sein Schicksal und stellt sich den Indios. Als er schließlich seinen inszenierten Tod sterben soll, sehen wir ihn zu harmonischen Folk Klängen in Slow Motion rennen, wie er von einer Kugel getroffen wird und sterbend niedersinken. Doch Kansas steht wieder auf, lacht, klopft sich den Staub von den Kleidern und läuft aus dem Bild. Eine Sterbeszene folgt der nächsten, und immer wieder erhebt sich Kansas aufs Neue von den Toten, grimassiert, lacht. Auch der Zuschauer kann nun nicht mehr differenzieren: sehen wir grade einen Film, einen Film übers Filmemachen oder karikiert Hopper seine eigenen Dreharbeiten? Haben die Indios in ihrem Sünder, der das Unglück über sie brachte, einen Erlöser gefunden?

Zusätzlich zeigt Hopper Textkarten mit der Aufschrift „Scene Missing“, und scheint nun gar nicht mehr zu schneiden, zeigt Filmklappen und auslaufende Filmrollen, Crewmitglieder und ins Bild hängende Mikrofone. Hopper verdeutlicht seinem Publikum, welches den Film bis dahin unterbewusst als real wahrgenommen hat, dass es sich hierbei nur um eine Inszenierung handelt. Er bricht die Struktur des Filmes auf und enttarnt ihn als Farce, der mehr der Zerstreuung als der geistigen Bildung dienen soll.

Nach einer Laufzeit von zwei Wochen in New York wurde der Film schließlich abgesetzt - die Kritik hatte ihn zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits als wirre Drogenvision abgetan. Der wahre Grund für die negative Resonanz war aber weder die non-lineare Struktur, noch Hoppers Drogenexzesse (die im Dokumentarfilm „The American Dreamer“, der Hopper als bärtigen, hemmungslosen Junkie zeigt, festgehalten wurden), sondern die offene Attacke gegen das Hollywood-System und den „American Dream“. Für Hopper wird der Hollywoodfilm zum Symbol der amerikanischen Ideologie: jede Figur in „The Last Movie“ ist ein Produkt der „Traumfabrik“ Hollywood - pure Oberflächlichkeit, jeder Seele und Ideologie beraubt, die wiederum andere, im Glauben in eine sozial höher liegende Schicht aufzusteigen, inspiriert es ihr gleichzutun. Die künstliche Filmwelt gebiert in der Realität ihre Klischees.

Und so bildet die letzte Szene des Filmes den ultimativen, zynischen Abgesang auf die geistige Macht des Kinos: Kansas und sein Freund Neville (Don Gordon) sitzen vor einem Lagerfeuer. Die beiden sind auf der Suche nach Gold, und Kansas fragt, ob sein Freund wisse, wie man es findet. Neville entgegnet darauf: „Hast Du den Schatz der Sierra Madre gesehen? Wenn Walter Hudson Gold finden kann, dann kann ich das auch.“

Jean Luc Godard - Les Carabiniers

2011-04-05T06:49:00.000-07:00

There are few - if any - films as devoid of anything interesting or exciting as Les Carabiniers. I don't know if Godard had any kind of fun making this film - maybe it was as much a chore to make as it is to sit through. It is surely Godard's worst film by a mile. So let's get this over with...

The film opens with a text card, loosely explaining Godard's intentions. It then cuts to two men and their girlfriends in a hut, somewhere in a post-apocalyptic landscape. The four have meaningful names (Cleopatra for example), but not much comes of it.

Two soldiers arrive, with a letter, informing the two men that they are drafted. At first, they are not thrilled by the idea of going to war, but when the soldiers tell them that soon, they can come back and carry "all the riches of the world with them" and give them to their wives, the two agree and leave.

We are then presented with various montages of the two fighting - walking through post-apocalyptic landscapes, shooting people, occasionally fighting or talking to generals. The only narration present is provided through read-out letters of the two men. Accompanied is all this by some ugly shots, terrible bothering a-tonal music and a washed out look (which came from the old film stock Godard chose to deliberately make the film ugly).

So what happens? Not much. There are two or three scenes of interest (one being an execution, another is one of the two men going to a cinema for the first time, walking towards the silver screen and touching it), but all in all, the film has not much to say apart from the usual. War is bad and gets the worst out of people. Soldiers are exploited. Both sides are equally wrong. Nothing new or interesting here.

War concludes with the men returning home. As their partners demand the riches of the world promised in the beginning, they are offered thousands of postcards. Godard then goes on to have his protagonists throw the postcards into the air, describing them... for twenty minutes. Ouch. The film ends with the four walking into a city - turns out their side has lost the war. The two are thus smoothly executed by a former companion (as a text-card informs us).

Maybe money ran out, or maybe Godard already thought of his next venture (apparently, Hollywood had called). It is evident that politics are not Godard's best friends, rendering Les Carabiniers a disaster. One critic remarked the film was "hell for the first hour" but "exiting to think of afterwards" - ironically, the film only lasts about 70 minutes. So this one is "for Godard completists only", and even in that context I can't imagine anybody liking it.

Thankfully, Hollywood had called Godard before realizing this film. It seemed they were interested in funding his next film. Thankfully, Godard agreed.

FINAL VERDICT: 3/10 - a disaster, avoid at all cost!

Jean Luc Godard - Vivre sa Vie

2011-04-05T05:53:00.000-07:00

There are few films that have the emotional punch and intellectual weight that Vivre sa Vie offers. It is Godard's first perfect film, from start to finish a dark and surprisingly striking tale of a young woman's descent into prostitution. If A Bout de Souffle was a saccharine depiction of the dreams inside a teenagers head, Vivre sa Vie portrayed the same persons from an outside point of view, unmasking false dreams, loneliness and the influence capitalism has on ones soul. The film is told in twelve chapters, all starting with a "tableaux", in which the forthcoming events are summarized. While some chapters don't stand out, others are visibly separated from most of the movie, either thematically or in tone.

Most of all, this is Karina's movie. If she's been striking in the two previous films, her portrayal of Nana cements her as a giant of the silver screen. Albeit the story of Nana isn't too special - a young woman leaves her husband and infant child behind to become an actress. She works in a record store, sees men, has photographies taking of her and waits for the world to realize her ambitions. But he work doesn't guarantee high income, and her dreams seem to have vanished into hot air. And although the tragic turn her life will soon take is evident to the viewer, Nana seems to be strangely content to one day make it big. Although there are definite symbols that the girl is looking for self-destruction as a romantic way of liberation: In one early scene, Godard has his heroine go to the movies, to watch Carl Theodor Dreyer's "La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc", followed by an already iconic shot of Karina crying. The audience is already aware of the impending doom to come, and if Nana isn't, then she's surely quite in love with the martyrdom of young women around her.

And so Nana starts her life as a prostitute - although she seems to hold back at first, she quickly falls into a routine, and is picked up by a pimp, who takes her in and further promises to "look out" for her. Godard equips a documentary approach in those scenes of Nana's daily routine, including cold voice-overs that recount the proceedings step-by-step. Sexuality looses all of its personal and romantic traits, and even though some men seem interested in what's behind Nana's beautiful facade, they can't penetrate deeper than physically.

But Godard allows his audience to gaze deeper. One tableaux includes Nana looking straight into the camera, seemingly spilling her heart to the viewer. Another tableaux recollects Nana meeting a young philosopher in a Café, with whom she has a long argument about the difference in spoken and written word, and what it implies about the person "talking" through both (this segment is ironically followed by one in which Godard takes away the soundtrack to include a monologue of his own). Those moments provide us with a troubling realization: Nana is not a dumb girl who has fallen into prostitution by her own actions - she's rather an intellectual woman, whose mindset of naive dreams have catapulted her into isolation. While capable of intellectual realizations, her self-perception is utterly deranged.

Godard, throughout his film, hints at capitalism as the culprit: commercials, pop culture and americana have invaded the european mindset and introduced Hollywood and Coca Cola to the youth of today. Sex, drugs and status symbols rule the minds of the young, exchanging spiritual liberation with materialistic over-identification. To become something is evidently more important than to be something, and what we are is seen merely as a passing state that can only lead to something better. In other words - Nana's life as a prostitute seems - to her - to be a fantasy, out of which she could escape at any point, hardly realizing she is heading towards her personal doom.

In contrast to the dark plot, all of Vivre sa Vie looks absolutely astonishing! The film is full of visual beauty, be it in Karina's face, the streets and apartments of Paris or the cinematography. Of course Godard's many influences are felt - Renoir, Bresson, Dreyer - but he manages to emulate these influences into his own style and comes up with something unique and innovative!

As for Nana, her story ends in surprisingly un-Godardian fashion, and seemingly contradictory to the film. It's open to debate whether Godard saw this ending as a nod to american filmmaking or tried to further implicate the fantasy world Nana saw herself in. It is a slight departure that takes the viewer out of the film (and maybe it's only slight weakness) and feels rushed. There are some which dislike the film for its ending, and some who believe it is crucial to the narrative itself, varying on interpretation.

One way or another, Vivre sa Vie was Godard's triumph over cinema. He had made a film as important as it is beautiful, that still rings true fifty years after its release. It is forgivable that his next film would be an unwatchable farce. But more on that later...

FINAL VERDICT: 9.5/10 - a masterpiece, must be seen!

Jean Luc Godard - Une Femme est une Femme

2011-03-20T07:42:00.000-07:00

After the ban of Le Petit Soldat, Godard was practically forced to come up with sort of a crowd-pleaser, since another gloomy character portrait with political undertones might well follow its predecessors faith. And Une Femme est une Femme is strangely just that: Godard going "mainstream". Godard "selling out". A comedy. A musical. In technicolor. With all the usual romantic shenanigans of Hollywood. Oh boy...

However frustrating it may sound - Une Femme est une Femme is the first film where Godard accomplishes to fully realize his ambitions. Godard takes an idea from mainstream filmmaking and turns it into a semi-Avant Garde romp, which includes him breaking the fourth wall repeatedly, addressing his own and Truffaut's career (in one scene, Belmondo turns around to face a suddenly present Jeanne Moreau just to ask her how the shoot of Jules et Jim is coming along) and some of the most striking usage of color ever seen in a film.

The story of the film is actually quite pointless. We are introduced to an exotic dancer (Karina - today we'd call her a stripper), her boyfriend (Brialy) and his best friend (Belmondo). The dancer wants to have a child. Her boyfriend isn't very keen on this idea, thus leading the woman to approach his best friend to sleep with her. Chaos ensues, fronts vary, and in the end it's all back to where it began, more or less.

This makes it especially hard to point out the many amazing traits of this film - there are enough Godard's with a striking characterization or plot to watch apart from this light comedy. Most of the film has been made up in a matter of minutes. A mess of improvised acts, childish games and immature behavior. Not to mention the songs that could be straight out of any random Hollywood musical. So why bother?

One big reason is Anna Karina. After her rather small involvement in Le Petit Soldat, Godard allows her to fully explore her ambitions here, singing, dancing, goofing around, flirting and being gorgeous all around. It is her charm that carries most of the film, and her voice that shouts "Camera! Lights! Action!" over the titles in the first minute, and her girlish spleens allow the viewer to identify with her in a film mostly comprised of caricatures.

Another reason is Godard's visual style. It's not only the striking use of color and the great cinematography, but also his ability to supply his audience with information on characters and places without explaining them. One example for this is the girls neighbor who seemingly owns the single phone of the house. Every time the girl rings on her door, the neighbor opens just to let another different man (or is it costumer?) get out of her apartment. Some more can be observed in the couple in front of the house that seemingly never stops to make out, or in the run down, curiously empty and gloomy strip local. It's important to note that fellow Nouvelle Vague director Jacques Demy came, some years later, up with his own re-imagination of the musical genre, in which he took the elements provided by Godard and exaggerated them into what can only be summarized as a saccharine dreamscape. Like Demy or not, it's obvious that Godard provided food for thought just how far the musical genre can be stretched, further allowing artists like Baz Luhrman 40 years later to build upon his ideas.

But the main attraction here is Godard's amazing eye for experimentation, which allows him to come up with one striking and insane idea after another. Be it title cards, the aforementioned fourth wall breaking, the actors improvising or bursting into songs, or the wide array of ideas that Godard came up with on the spot. Near the end, the couple refuses to talk to another, lying in bed silently, refusing any kind of communication. Thus, the girl switches on the light, carries the lamp over to a book shelve, picks one up and returns to the bed, to give her boyfriend the book, insulting him through its title. The scene continues with each picking up a different book, the two characters communication by hurling books at each other.

Une Femme est une Femme is the first film where Godard finds his own language, which he went on to apply with every future film over the course of at least the next ten years. It is easy to watch and very entertaining, without using any of its artistic merit. It's one of those rare examples where an artist achieves to both woe his audience with his artistic vision and to entertain them. The film was - of course - highly successful, and is a stepping stone of Godard's career, which allowed him to continue with his cinematic experimentation in his next film, which once again would be a turn of 180 degrees in theme and style, and allow Karina to further proof that she was one of the most exciting actresses of her generation.

FINAL VERDICT: 9/10 - amazing, has to be seen!

Jean Luc Godard - Le Petit Soldat

2011-03-18T10:24:00.000-07:00

For three years, Le Petit Soldat didn't see the light of day. shot in switzerland right after A Bout de Souffle was premiered, the film was banned upon inspection of the ministry of culture, apparently due to a number of violent torture scenes.

It's not the follow up to A Bout de Souffle that Godard's growing fanbase had anticipated, that is for sure. Finally released in 1963, it can only be speculated what Godard's career would have looked like if this would have been released as his second feature, instead of the colorful and romantic musical comedy Une Femme est une Femme. Le Petit Soldat is bleak, political, demanding, intelligent and disturbing, and deals with questions about political intentions and their consequences as much as with film theory. It is shot on faded black and white film, and even though the cinematography is highly aestheticized, the film is nowhere near the beauty of A Bout de Souffle, and rather aims for a cinéma verité look.

It's also notable that this was the first film of Godard featuring his future wife, Anna Karina, who became his actress of choice and muse. It's also highly debatable what would have happened with Godard - the artist - if he wouldn't have cast her in Le Petit Soldat. As little as her role here is, she radiates with charisma and charm.

Our protagonist is a young french man: Bruno - 26 years old, a deserter of the algerian war who has fled to switzerland and works as an agent of the french government. At times even as an assassin. In flashbacks, which can hardly be discerned from the main narrative, the relationship of him and Karina's character is introduced: she, the girlfriend of a friend, asks the young man, who is a photographer and art-conoisseur, to take her picture. Upon agreeing, he is contacted by two agents, who force him to agree to assassinate a leftist activist that is working with algerian intelligence. Even though Bruno is suspected to work as a double agent he refuses, which leads the agents to plot an arrest warrant. Either the young man agrees to kill the target, or he is delivered to france by the police, where he will be charged for deserting his unit. But any attempt to assassinate the target fail, until Bruno is captured suddenly by arab intelligence, brought to an apartment and tortured.

Godard's focus in the main storyline lies with the lack of difference in the means of either side. Bruno himself is exploited both by the french and arab side, which use him for their means and care little for his own personal or political agenda. Even though the images of torture themselves are disturbing and repelling, the message that both sides are essentially the same and only differing in their political point of view (Bruno even mentions at some point that when the right gain power they reign like the left, and the left the other way around) was likely to be the true cause of the ban. In the end, in showing that the actions taken by both groups are more important than their agenda, Godard came up with a much dangerous message than any visualization of torture could be.

But apart from the political themes, the film also deals with art and cinema. During the photo shoot, Bruno talks a lot about his intention of photographing - how he thinks a photo has to capture the soul of the person in the picture, and that he refers to a photography as the truth (and continues that cinema is 24 truths per second - an often quoted statement). Throughout the film, he compares various things to paintings ("The sky looks like a Klee." "Her eyes were Velasquez grey.") and at some point even states he would like to open an art gallery. In those moments, Bruno is more than just a deserter or assassin - we see him as a young man of intellect with ambitions and dreams, who is caught in a web of international intrigue. During the last act, he even goes as far as to comment on the state of youth in politics. "Each generation had their revolution, but what have we?" This monologue shows Godard's lack of hope in politics, which led him to extreme socialism a few years later. From his point of view, the youth of the early 60s was tired and lacked a sense of purpose. Godard was hungry for a revolution (though one of art and intelligence instead of one equipping torture and assassination).

As for our protagonist, the entire affair ends in tragedy, rendering Le Petit Soldat even more bleak than it already is. Obviously, it didn't need a ban to make Godard decide that his next film would be the entire opposite. Le Petit Soldat, as great as it is, could only be followed by something light and optimistic.

Final Verdict: 8.5/10 - Very Good, should be watched

Jean Luc Godard - A Bout de Souffle

2011-03-17T10:19:00.001-07:00

In 1960, Pier Paolo Pasolini struggled with his directorial debut, Accattone - the story of a troubled roman pimp. He had shot some test material, which reportedly looked terrible, and wasn't able to formulate his thoughts into a coherent story. Thus, his friend Bernardo Bertolucci, recommended to Pasolini to go see A Bout de Souffle. Pasolini went, together with his friends - a wild mix of crooks, rent boys, pickpockets, all living on the streets, most teenagers, many of them having had affairs with Pasolini.

A few days later, Pasolini met with Bertolucci, and asked why he had recommended the film to him. Bertolucci answered that he thought it was an accurate depiction of todays youth and small time crooks. Pasolini laughed. "But I went with my friends, who are all gangsters. They laughed at the screen and mocked Belmondo! This isn't about gangster - it's about spoilt brats having nothing to do, boring the audience with their talk."

Upon inspection of A Bout de Souffle, two things are important to remember: one is that the film was written by fellow nouvelle vague director Francoise Truffaut, who went on to write and direct Jules et Jim. Both films share a common trait: their main protagonists are assholes. Dumb assholes, actually. Both Michel (Belmondo) and Catherine in J&J are not very nice, treat everybody around them like shit and only care for themselves. Why exactly Truffaut, who has proven with the Antoine Doinelle series as well as many other great films, seemed to deem it necessary to have unlikeable characters be his protagonists is quite baffling. When we are introduced to Michel - stealing a car, driving through the countryside, killing a policeman, spouting nonsensical banter - he's neither interesting nor charismatic in particular. Thankfully, the vibrant editing and beautiful cinematography distract from this fact. To be honest, A Bout de Souffle may be one of the most beautiful shot films of its era. Bu that doesn't distract from the non-existent plot or character development.

On the run from the police Michel drives to Paris, and in the one iconic shot of the film picks up a young girl (Jean Seberg) who sells the NY Herald Tribune. The two have met before (even if only briefly) and had an affair. Desperate to crash somewhere, Michel (after being rejected by her) breaks into her apartment and tries to convince the girl to sleep with him. What follows is one of the most bland second acts in any Godard film. The next 30 minutes comprise of the two talking about nothing of interest or meaning. While the girl tries to discuss books and music with Michel, he quickly shifts the conversation to sex. It's a weird scene for the audience to observe - here we have a girl, who name drops artists and musicians as if they were street names ("Do you like Faulkner?") and a guy who can only respond in immature jokes which reveal his lack of self-confidence ("Is that a boy you slept with?"). Both have nothing to say, and the girls interest in pop culture seems to stem from a lack of character than an actual understanding of or interest in the matter.

Indeed, Godard went on to further undermine the youth of the 60's in his future films. Both Masculin, Féminin and La Chinoise further proceed to depict the french youth as a pack of spoiled brats that spout political and ideological nonsense in the firm believe that their intellectual emptiness was actually a political manifest (in this, Godard was very close to Pasolini's opinion about the youth of the 60s, but more on that with Masculin, Feminin).

Here, however, Godard doesn't seem to criticize rather than glorify this believe system. And so, while both protagonists may look splendid lying in bed, their characterization takes a step back. We further get to know that Michel is an asshole, and that the girl has an interest in journalism (which leads to a scene which could be seen as a critique of the intellectual emptiness denounced later on in Godard's work: during an interview with a writer, the journalists fight almost physical over the literary star, shouting random questions at him, which he often negates and answers with sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek responses). But else, those two pretty puppets are empty and devoid of anything of interest. They are - as Holden Caulfield would put it - phony's. Poseurs of the highest order.

Of course this may be where the film did indeed succeed. The 1950s provided a large amount of cinematic heroes that had to stand in for a good cause or had meaningful and tragic situations to cope with. And even though most films of the 50s had the typical Hollywood Happy End, the road to happiness was rocky and littered with tears and melodrama. So protagonists who had nothing to do but sit around and talk about... well, nothing in particular, with no problematic than those they brought upon themselves, might have been a welcome breath of fresh air. But from todays point of view, the film would work a lot better if the characterization would match the vibrant and stylish photography.

In the end, the resolution comes as meaningless as it is sudden, with both the protagonists and the audience pondering why the characters decided to act the way they did. In one final moment of emotional and characteristic emptiness, Godard breaks every rule he had set up in the 70 previous minutes - maybe to end the film like one of the tragic film noir's of the 40s he adored so much (and paid homage to with many of his works). But the why of it all weighs heavy on the film, and in its closing minutes, this french version of Bonnie and Clyde feels rather like a stylisher, old-school version of Antitrust - just with Paris instead of computers.

But credit where credit is due: Jean Seberg is beautiful and at least fills the little she has to work on with a lot of grace, sex appeal and charm. The soundtrack, comprised of atmospheric jazz songs suits the film and enriches it. Paris may have never looked more appealing (or more like Chicago). And even though I am not the biggest Belmondo fan, he plays the asshole with a lot of dedication (maybe more than he would admit).

But all of these merits can't really help the emotional emptiness of A Bout de Souffle. Luckily, Godard would move on, and manage to portray entertaining and interesting characters and set up a clever and sophisticated plot.

FINAL VERDICT: 6/10 - OK with flaws, worthy a watch.

Jean Luc Godard - introduction

2011-03-17T07:40:00.001-07:00

Jean Luc Godard may be both one of the worlds most rewarding and disappointing filmmakers. His work ranges from masterful to utterly terrible, and during the 60s alone, he has dabbled in such varied genres as in war films, musical, sci-fi and political thriller, among others. Always colorful - even if directed in black and white, his films were an unique oddity back when they were conceived, and still stand out today.

However, there is one major problem with his body of work. As enjoyable as some of his films may seem, Godard himself has always tried to push his own intentions into the foreground, resulting in works that seem helmed by a professor of sociology rather than a director, bordering on boring and even wanky excursions on socialism and dadaism.

As curious I was in the beginning, the more cautious I have become with this mans body of work as I further followed his lead. Among the 16 films he directed during the 60s (resulting in a dead end - the two essay-films Le Gai Savoir and Un Film commes lest autres - but not before turning a documentary on the Rolling Stones into a raging and messy political manifest) are some of my favorite films and some which I hope I never have to lay an eye on again.

As I worked my way through these films, many I talked to about his work requested I should review or analyze his films one by one. So after finally finishing all 16 aforementioned works, and with Godard all over the news again (the now 80 year old was awarded with the lifetime achievement academy award as well as others, released his latest feature, Film Socialisme and will have eight highly experimental and divisive films previously not released in germany included in a DVD box-set), I decided to give this a go, and write down my thoughts on his run during the 60s.

But before I start, it is necessary to sum up Godard during that period of time. It is important to note that Godard did not start a filmmaker, but earned his money as a film critic of the popular journal Cahiers du Cinéma, mostly composing reviews not too keen on "classic filmmakers", such as Ingmar Bergman and Henri-Geroges Clouzot. It is of high importance that Godard himself felt frustrated with the filmmakers of his age, requesting a style to match his generation. With hardly any budget, he set out to direct his first short films "on the run" - with hardly a script and equipped only with a camera (mirroring the manifest of the Dogma-movement three decades later). No matter what one might think of Godard's opinion as a critic during that time, this approach has to be applauded, especially in a time in which shooting without a proper studio attached was unthinkable.

Thus, Godard was looking for the language of a generation. And he found it in two slackers.

For A.

2010-11-17T05:15:00.001-08:00

Thanks to David K.

--- .-. .--. .... . ..- ...

2010-11-07T13:41:00.000-08:00

1.) I'm moving into a new flat!! Yay!!!

2.) I'm currently re-writing "Any Other Day / Jeder Andere Tag". When I wrote the screenplay, I was very influenced by realist filmmakers, such as Michael Haneke and Takeshi Kitano. Reading it now, I found a few flaws - in general, it feels something so detached from my current style (or the style I intended it to have from the beginning) that the script needs to be changes, and whaddayaknow, since I got some time on my hands, I decided to re-write some parts of it. Can't tell how much it is as of now, but it'll be a lot darker and a lot closer to the psychedelic-noir style I intended the visuals to be.

I'm very proud of some parts though... thinking that the first rough draft/treatment was done three years ago is quite shocking, because it still feels so fresh and exciting. It just needs the right atmosphere and coloring.

3.) Some cool things ahead I don't want to talk about just yet. Ha.

five eleven

2010-11-05T07:11:00.000-07:00

The soundtrack for ABORT is finished!! Yes!!! Hooray!! And I'm terrified how great it is. Expect to see the film VERY SOON near you!!!

Apart from this, it's rather looking dire outside. It's a sea of yellow leaves on a dark grey sky - the sun hasn't shone for days, there's storms at night, and I seriously considered to go out and do an improvised short of two teenagers who live in a post-apocalyptic world, in which their parents called one of the Old Ones. No sun for weeks and 98% of the population gone, the kids have to swallow big red pills to stay healthy, now and then need to cover their faces behind masks in case one of the Old Ones walks/rumbles by and have pretty much nothing to do all day long... not sure yet if it's a good idea or is suited for a fun short, and I guess it's up to the people I'll ask if they participate if it is.

Apart from that, here's some more great stuff I've been checking out recently that I find to be quite inspiring.

Think I don't have to say anything to introduce Rosey. Perfect album. Buy it.

If there's something that screams instant fun to me, it's scene kids in comics (or film, I'm looking at you, KABOOM), and Suburban Glamour is pretty much what makes scene kids great. Imagine two teenagers who're living in the middle of nowhere, obsessed with pop culture and music, as realistic as they are ridiculous - there's not much apart of occasional sex, drugs, school and nagging parents, until our heroine finds out she's sort of in the middle of a faerie war. It's hilarious, and by the co-creator and penciler of Phonogram, which you hopefully have read by now. The book's also cheap as hell, you can get it for 7 Euros on amazon. Not bad at all!

Inspiration and True Blood

2010-11-02T05:58:00.000-07:00

3 things to make my day:

2010-10-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

Doing some coloring

Listening to the new Eno

Saying "Faboost" a lot

... . .... -. ... ..- -.-. .... -

2010-09-21T03:02:00.000-07:00

FFF Review: RUBBER

2010-08-31T09:45:00.000-07:00

Surrealism has come a long way, slipping into the obscure, hiding in the form of third class horror films in the lower cases on the shelves of rentals, residing on hardly frequented websites as fainted VHS copies or occasionally making an appearance as a supporting genre in films by arthouse directors such as David Lynch. There hasn't been a mainstream film that could be attributed a work of a surrealist in decades. Maybe there's never really been one to begin with... up until now.

Up until Quentin Dupieux, aka. Mr. Oizo, took up directing and made RUBBER. A film about a tire who can kill due to his... powers. And falls in love with a girl. And is chased by the police.

To tell you anything else about the plot would be to spoil the movie and the experience of watching it. If you intend to watch RUBBER, then do so with an open mind and without a clue what it is about, apart from including a killer tire as the protagonist. Because, most of all, RUBBER is a film about filmmaking. A film about nonsense, a film about the poetry of sheer silliness and about the surreal. A film about clichés, both of films and of life.

RUBBER could also have been labeled UN CHIEN ANDALOU 2. To be honest, if it would have been, it would have only improved its grandeur, because most of all, the film does introduce us Quentin Dupieux as one of the greatest artists of our age, placing him next to Artaud or Bunuel.

So if you watch RUBBER, do so in a cinema - the visuals are stunning. Take some friends and alcohol along, and prepare to laugh a lot!!! As the closer of this years Fantasy Filmfest, RUBBER allowed its audience to gaze one last time at the grandeur that is filmmaking aside the norm, aside of such boring productions like "The Sorcerers Apprentice" or "The Forgotten". Aside of everything logic and sane.

And thus, I leave the filmfest with one big question in my mind - to quote the film I have just seen:

"Why does the guy from Roman Polanski's THE PIANIST have to hide and live like a bum if he can play the piano so well?"

You think you know the answer? Oh, you have no clue...

Rating - 9.5/10

FFF Review: THE SILENT HOUSE

2010-08-31T09:12:00.001-07:00

In my last review, I ranted a bit about the problem of novelty in the horror-film genre. Well, consider the film I saw right after CAPTIFS to completely blow my prejudices away. THE SILENT HOUSE, this quiet and only secretly hyped ghost-house film from Uruguay (!!) is everything you can wish from a horror film and more.

Get this: THE SILENT HOUSE was shot in one single take, without any cuts!! From beginning to end, there is no pause. It's all one long shot!!

The film opens as a girl and her father approach a run down house. Why there are here is a unknown, a second man reveals that they will do work in the house, but what kind that is remains a mystery to us. So the second man leaves as father and daughter get inside the house and try to take a nap. However, the daughter is woken up by some strange noises from upstairs, and wakes her father. The old man tries to calm her down and then goes upstairs to take a look. The daughter stares at the ceiling in horror, as all she hears is her fathers scream and a loud thud.

THE SILENT HOUSE manages to convey the sense of dread and doom as the girl further searches the house for her father or for clues as to what is taking place around her. With minimal dialogue (and no subtitles, as those ran 20 seconds before their actual position in the film, causing the entire audience to ignore them), the film manages to suck us into the house - there are no cuts, no moment of rest or of re-assurance that all will be well - it's one long shot of creepy situation after creepy situations, with dozens of jumps and plenty of opportunities to calm down scared girls.

THE SILENT HOUSE is a masterpiece in its own right that will surely receive every bit of hype it has deserved. One of the most unique and atmospheric horror films in years, it has to be seen to be believed.

Rating - 9/10

FFF Review: CAPTIFS

2010-08-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

It's hard for French horror these days. Sure, they get a lot of funding, some of the best actors and technicians in the country and a wide release with good promotion. But if we leave those technical achievements aside, almost every film that came out after MARTYRS looked and felt like a bit of a let down. Maybe that is due to the quality of films like ILS, MARTYRS, FRONTIERS and INSIDE, but maybe it's also due to the one big problem the horror genre has suffered from for decades now: that of expectations.

A horror audience knows all great horror films of the last few years - at least those that are considered the recent classics. Hence, there are only two ways left to go - either you make a great film out of a plot constructed around clichés and well known genre-moments, or you come up with something completely new (you can also come up with something old and present it in a way it's never been presented before). CAPTIFS - or CAGED - settles for the former.

So here's our plot: a few nice doctors in the the Kosovo try to get from point a to point b. On the way, they are ambushed and taken into captivity. They try to figure out why the are held captive, until the scheme of the the kidnappers is unveiled. The rest of the film pretty much uses the same plot devices like most of those genre films (one in particular I don't want to spoil). So yeah, if you've seen this kind of film, you know what's coming.

However, CAPTIFS is quite well made. The highlights of the film are the first three minutes as well as a dream sequence, that prove that director Yann Gozlan is better at generating suspense than go for mindless horror territory that others have tread before him. If this is one of your first films of this kind, you will surely be amazed, due to the great actors, great cinematography and suspense in some scenes, but the film does leave a bit to be desired. However, for the aforementioned qualities of the film, it still holds up pretty well.

Rating - 7.5/10

FFF Review: AMER

2010-08-31T07:06:00.000-07:00

Like me, you'll be staring at those pictures here right now. That looks cool, doesn't it? Somehow, this would have been my summary for AMER, but I feel obliged to say some more about the film than just post pictures out of it.

AMER is most of all an homage to the Giallo-genre. If you have no idea what a Giallo is, just follow this link. If you do know what a Giallo is, you might be drooling all over your keyboard right now. But AMER is not a straight Giallo - it also includes elements of avant-garde cinema, reminiscent of the works of Kenneth Anger, Luis Bunuel's UN CHIEN ANDALOU or Alejandro Jodorowsky's EL TOPO. Most of all, it is a coming of age drama, and a film about sexuality.

Amer is the brainchild of two belgian artists: Helene Cattet and Bruno Forzani. The film is loosely cut into three acts: the first is centered on Anna as a little girl and both looks and feels very much like Dario Argento's classic gothic horror film SUSPIRIA, including some supernatural elements.

The second act concerns Anna as a teenager, rather resembling Lucio Fulci's early Giallo, such as LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN, than SUSPIRIA. Less colorful than the previous part, but with a great original 60s/70s soundtrack, this was my favorite part of the film. We really see the world through the eyes of a teenage girl, and feel what she feels.

The third act concerns Anna as a woman, inheriting the house she grew up in as a child. This one feels a lot like Argento's PROFONDO ROSSO, and is the act that is closest to the straight Giallo genre. This was in my book the weakest part - it still wasn't bad, but it was overtly cryptical and came quote out of nowhere. I'm not really sure if this is in synch with the other two parts, as it shows a side of Anna that has been obscured for the viewer and that isn't thoroughly explained.

Amer does belong on the big screen, even though it isn't a usual film. It follows nothing but its own rules, as the directors try to make us see and feel what Anna experiences. Close ups, silent sounds and subjective shots with mostly no dialogue set the atmosphere, and boy, is it a gorgeous atmosphere.

In the end however, the film leaves a bit to be desired. The ending is quite strange (as is the entire third act), and even though it's all quite easy to analyze and to understand, the background to the world of Anna is never fully supplied, questioning what else it is this woman has experienced in her life. We know her experiences - but we don't know her story.

But maybe it is this elusive plot that creates the magic of AMER, one of the most unique and thrilling films in recent years. I will re-watch this film as soon as I can, because I can see myself appreciating it a lot more the second time around, focusing a bit more on analytical subtext - but even without a second viewing, I am sure that this is a cult film in the making, pleasing both arthouse and horror fans!! There's nothing like it - really!!

Rating - 8.5/10

FFF Review: OUTRAGE

2010-08-31T06:47:00.000-07:00

After 10 years of poetic arthouse lyricism (DOLLS), blind swordfighters (ZATOICHI) and a trilogy of self-demontage-comedies, Takeshi Kitano is back at the genre he loves and helped to re-create - the yakuza film!

With films like HANA-BI, BROTHER, SONATINE and BOILING POINT, Kitano can be billed the master of the japanese crime-drama. All of these films are precise, sensual portraits of men closer to death than life. Kitano once reported that out of the gang that he was a member of as a teenager, only 8 of the 10 are still alive. Maybe it is a cynical life view, maybe it's just realistic, but Kitano knows that almost no gangster will end up on the top, and those that do stand on the dead bodies of their former friends.

Hence OUTRAGE is a bitter and realistic story: because the "chairman" doesn't like an underboss, he asks another underboss to start a fight with him - for no apparent reason. Even though the two are friends, the gangster agrees, and what starts out as a small fight soon becomes a blood feud with dead bodies, dismembered fingers and drilled teeth everywhere. The various gangsters all see the downfall of their direct opponent as a chance to rise to the top, and so they quickly start to scheme who could be erased by whom, and who could be set up against which foe.

Even though the film doesn't add anything new to the genre, there's a lot of substance and entertainment in OUTRAGE. However, Kitano's newest feature is by far not as sensual or playful as his earlier film (maybe that is an attribute of the previous trilogy of hysterical comedy films), but the bleak realism of OUTRAGE never fails to entertain. In the end, the film might be another stepping stone to something else, something bigger and more glorious, but as of now, it proves that Kitano is still one of the best directors worldwide.

Rating - 9/10

FFF Review: THE SCOUTING BOOK FOR BOYS

2010-08-31T03:40:00.000-07:00

This seems to be the right moment to mention a few things concerning this years filmfest. First of all, the FRESH BLOOD category was absolutely outstanding this year. There was no film I disliked, and according to the organizers, there was only one film that on a scale from 1 to 6 hasn't had a 1,x ranking (the irony being that FOUR LIONS, which I skipped, seems to take away the audience award is proof of just how good this year was).

Second of, this year was a great year for british films. Whenever I see an independent film from the UK, I can be sure it at least has something to it that makes it worth paying money for.

And last but not least, this years filmfest managed to pull some of the most stunning and brilliant independent films out of nowhere. Seeing that some actually criticized this trend to arthouse cinema, I can only wonder what they were anticipating, since most of these films were a lot more thrilling and shocking than the horror films that aired.

And with this, we are at SCOUTING BOOK FOR BOYS, the debut feature of Tom Harper, that tells a tale of two teenagers, living in a british seaside resort.

The film opens with Emily and her best friend David jumping over some trailers, with David falling off of one. The two know each other since childhood, being the only two kids in what is a tourist infested spot near the seaside - there's not much there but trailers and their parents, who in turn aren't very great when it comes to their parental duties. Emily, who slowly grew into a young woman, is sick of being under her mothers thumb, and so she comes up with a scheme - David must help her in retreating to a nearby cave, hoping that by disappearing, she could force her mother to love her.

However, David has other ideas. As Emily is very uncomfortable with living in a cave (well, who would like it?), the young boy comes up with new ideas to care for her - he brings her food and clothing, and tries his best at proving to her that he could be - maybe - a perfect boyfriend, able to take care of her - kudos to Thomas Turgoose and Holliday Grainger for delivering powerful performances as the teenagers in question. They are both believable and likable.

In the outside world, things don't go that easy as they do in the cave: Emily's mother panics after the sudden disappearance of her child (well, who wouldn't?) and calls upon the police, who start a huge investigation, and gradually come up with some raunchy facts about Emily, which slowly undermine David's sympathy for her, providing various reasons why she could hide in a cave that are much darker than parental abuse.

Shot in an aesthetic remarkably close to that of directors as Sofia Coppola or Shunki Iwai, THE SCOUTING BOOK FOR BOYS is a calm, haunting and beautiful film about the pains of growing up and the everyday problems of both teenagers and the british lower class. There was some discussion about the ending of the film (in short - those who found it realistic loved the film, those who didn't hated it), but all in all, this is one more remarkably well made and engaging british independent drama that I'll surely add to my DVD collection.

Rating - 9/10

FFF Review: THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED

2010-08-31T03:12:00.000-07:00

There is an unwritten rule for young filmmakers that is as logical as it is dull: if you shoot your first film, see that it is cheap. In fact, see that it is so cheap that it costs almost nothing.

Of course, in a time in which Christopher Nolan proves that 160.000.000$ are a worthy investment and in which Gaspar Noé takes some four years to shoot a film, this clause becomes all the more a painful obstacle for artists to re-create their vision. Trust me - coming up with a story including less than five actors in less than five locations is hard. Very hard.

So all I can do is applaud J Blakeson. He hasn't only managed to keep the budget down to a minimum, he also directed a well paced, stylish, engaging and - most important of all - suspenseful crime thriller, starring the absolutely stunning Gemma Arterton.

The film opens with the title-giving disappearance taking place. Alice Creed, a young woman with a rich father, is kidnapped by two crooks. They cuff her to a bed, rip off her clothes and shout at her. Now, telling you anything else is a spoiler, hence I leave it at that and rather concentrate on what is more important than the story: the actors.

Martin Compston and Eddie Marsan are absolutely great as the clever, yet clueless and clumsy kidnappers. As the story unfolds, we both feel resentment and sympathy with those two, as the situation really seems a bit much for them. But the film wouldn't be the film, and I wouldn't be me, if the biggest advantage wouldn't have been a lot more interesting and captivating than those two - and that is Gemma Arterton.

Arterton manages something truly unique here. We don't know anything about Alice Creed as we see her the first few times, and the british actress manages not only when it comes to conveying her terror and fear. She's one to fight back, to look for a way out, an advantage to get free. So Arterton does everything to convince both the kidnappers - and the audience - of what she is capable of. At one point helpless victim, in the next a tough negotiator and after that a raging fury, Alice Creed doesn't just give the title to the film but also its heart. Seeing as many actresses might have failed the part, one can only applaud Arterton for this achievement to act both convincingly and arrestingly well, turning the film into a one-girl-show.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED is not a perfect film though - which doesn't mean the film does have flaws. However, it is limited in space and money, and isn't creating the next DIE HARD as it is creating the next SLEUTH. But for what it is - a crime thriller set in an apartment with only three actors, one of it a naked woman (most of the time), the film is a stunning and suspenseful examination of three characters under pressure. You won't find many thrillers this year that thrilling.

Rating - 8/10

FFF Review: TETSUO 3 - THE BULLET MAN

2010-08-30T16:14:00.000-07:00

Let's all take a minute to let the idea of a third Tetsuo film sink in. That's right, a third entry in the avant-industrial-horror-saga by Shinya Tsukamoto. Let's all remember how awesome Tsukamoto's VITAL - his best work to date and one of the best films of all time - is, how disturbed SNAKE OF JUNE left us in our seats, how shocking HAZE explored our most inner fears, how utterly scary and beautiful GEMINI was... and let's remember, that NIN are doing the OST for TETSUO 3.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

This is awesome...

And as I sat down in my seat, opened a box of Sushi and started to eat, no way could I have ever imagined this to be the most painful film of the festival.

It's not that TETSUO 3 is bad. No, it isn't. If you get over the (intentionally) ridiculous plot, it's a lot of fun. Seizure inducing, messy, autism like fun.

But after some 50 minutes, I had to run out of the cinema. Screaming.

TETSUO 3 is one of the most over the top films I have ever seen. The action sequences are eardrum shattering, the visuals seizure inducing (you can't mention this one enough), the plot completely clueless of what it is or what it wants to be. Tsukamoto may have had fun with this, but it comes off like the work of a person suffering from autism - the director doesn't care what ends up on screen, he just does whatever he thinks is right in his head. Belonging rather in a museum of avant-gare video art than into a cinema - TETSUO 3 is a baffling, loud, messy and maybe even pointless affair, a techno DJ-set in film form, or something. It can be enjoyed, but the same goes for getting a tongue piercing. Personally, I would rate the film a 7, but the experience of watching it a 3. Maybe I will like, or "understand", this when it comes out on DVD, but as of now, I am deeply disturbed.

Rating - 5/10

FFF Review: THE APE

2010-08-30T15:52:00.001-07:00

A man wakes up. He seems in shock. His clothes are stained in blood. He washes himself, puts on new clothes, leaves the house. He mounts a bicycle and drives to work - he's giving driving lessons. His speech is aggressive, he suddenly snaps and shouts at his driving student. Shocked by his reaction, he leaves the car and walks away - not minding the disturbed woman he just gave the shock of her life.

He walks empty streets, stops by a car, kicks and punches it, then runs away. What's left for him to do? Sport - why not some sport?! He goes to play some tennis, trying to take his mind off of something, but soon he's shouting at a formless opponent. As he goes under the shower, he tries to make contact to a young boy. "Can you lend me some shampoo?" The boy throws the bottle at it, and another one, and another one. "Clean yourself" he cries out, "and then go home! Go home to your family."

Our protagonist cleans himself, puts on some clothes, and then goes to a mall to buy a saw.

THE APE is a sober and unforgiving piece of filmic realism. In contrast to films like L'ENFANT (which I regularly trash due to its clueless and underwritten plot and unbelievable characters), the film holds up pretty well. Most of the time, it is an intense, bleak and disturbing watch, but the film indulges so much in its aesthetic it hardly entertains or enlightens. Which makes the second half of the film a bit of a painful experience - all that is left for the audience to do is wait for a resolution, whilst our protagonist stumbles through his day.

So in the THE APE is a nice small arthouse film, slow, bleak and quiet as realist filmmaking is - sadly, it would have made a much better short film due to its own emptiness. However, the best moment of the film occurs in its last minute, nicely tying the plot together, and saving the film from itself.

Rating - 7/10

FFF Review: CHATROOM

2010-08-26T09:06:00.001-07:00

The Fantasy Filmfest this year came up with some pretty impressive highlights from the Cannes program - Kaboom, Outrage and The Silent House among others. One film however stood out, both due to its inclusion given the Cannes reception and due to the decision to make it the Centerpiece of this year. This film is Hideo Nakata's CHATROOM - according to various people on twitter "the worst film ever to be shown at Cannes" or "the worst film (the user has) ever seen)".

Given that the film was an adaptation from a play by HUNGER-writer Enda Walsh (and the script was also written by him), directed by Hideo Nakata - the guy who brought us RING and DARK WATER - and starred a variety of promising up an coming actors, it was almost unimaginable that this was the worst film to ever be shown at Cannes, let alone the worst film ever made. But it was even more curious the film was shown as the Centerpiece (maybe due to all the previous bad mouthing that went on). And oh boy...

As the film opens, we are introduced both to a setting and to a set of characters. So first the setting:

Nakata has decided to show the internet a a corridor with various side-rooms - each of them a chat room of its own. The surprising thing however is that Nakata - or rather the script - leaves most possibilities of the setting unused. We don't really see much of it apart from the aforementioned chat rooms - some of them may be darker and more morbid than others, but the ideas aren't explored in a wider context. Most of the time our protagonists sit around in their own Chatroom, talking to each other about rather superficial things. And there, we are with the characters...

All of the actors are great actors, and they all act well - with one exception: Aaron Johnson is truly terrible once he dons his Chatroom persona. He is the one that sets up the Chatroom and the one who tries to manipulate all the other characters, sure - but does he have to overact as "Mr. Evil" all of the time?

So anyways, William (Johnson) sets up a Chatroom called "Chelsea Teens", and the above cast joins rather quickly (Hannah Murray, Daniel Kaluuya and Imogen Poots are by far the most memorable here). All the characters are likable and realistic, aside from our protagonist. As the teenagers talk with each other, we become accustomed to their everyday lives, their dreams and their problems. Nothing wrong with those, apart from the fact that some of those are rather superficial. But then, after a good 30 minutes, the film shed aside all of the cast to focus on the suicidal Jim. William realizes his weakness and for no apparent reason develops the idea to make the boy kill himself because... well, why exactly? We get to know that William was, or is, suicidal himself and the son of a J. K. Rowling-esque writer who focused her book on his older brother. And from this point on, one should turn off his brain and not think anymore.

The problem here is that for a great start, CHATROOM doesn't really come up with anything substantial, logical or remotely realistic. It does neither fully explore the ideas presented visually nor the characters, and rather sets off to tell a quite boring tale of manipulation and intrigue. The Chatroom-scenes soon border on being unintended hilarious (like two of the kids kissing each other IN A CHATROOM... what did they do, type :* :* ??), and William develops more and more into the plot vessel his parents have already become (with his caring quiet mother and his raving and aggressive father).

By the end of the film, I found myself pointing angrily at the screen, shouting silent curses at the scriptwriter and the producer. Because at its core, CHATROOM is a very good film. It is well directed, acted and paced. It is even entertaining if you menage to stop to think about how stupid some of the plot is. The problem is just that we don't see a whole lot of it's qualities. However, it certainly isn't the worst film ever shown at Cannes by far - that prize may go to L'ENFANT. It rather is a clumsy try to say something important and honest about todays youth. But let's be honest - in the times of Facebook, who needs a Chatroom anymore?

Rating - 5.5/10

FFF Review: KABOOM

2010-08-26T07:06:00.000-07:00

According to the organizers of the filmfest, KABOOM may have been the film that they had to fight for most. Gregg Araki's tenth film was withdrawn from the Frightfest in the very last second, and not intended for screening on any other filmfest for possibly months. After all, how do you advertise a film like KABOOM, which consists to 75% of teenagers that are obviously WAY older having sex and spitting venomous, humorous dialogue at each other?

If there is no way to promote KABOOM properly, let me try: KABOOM is one of the best films of this filmfest and this year!! It's hilarious, it's confrontational, it's random, it's beautifully shot, it's sexy and has a brilliant soundtrack!!

The film opens with Dekker re-telling a re-accurring dream (the sequence can be watched on youtube). We then get to know the guy a little better: he is 18, suffering from teen-horniness, queer (that means bi-sexual), drooling for his ripped yet brainless roommate Thor and a huge fan of EXPLOSIONS IN THE SKY. From there, the film introduces us to dozens of completely over-the-top characters that seem to have no other reason to be there except to do random, very funny things. However, as the plot unfolds, we learn that there's more to Dekker and his everyday life than it seems at first. He seems to be followed by strange men wearing masks and soon some supernatural things occur to him and his best friend Stella, who is also bi and in a relationship with a witch...

Imagine one of those completely self-involved art/entertainment-porn films, just without the porn, and what you get is pretty much KABOOM. Closer to NOWHERE than to MYSTERIOUS SKIN, the film takes us back to the mid-90s works by Araki, yet is a lot more nuanced and well written, and thus closer to MYSTERIOUS SKIN than it seems on first glance.

When NOWHERE came out, the film was both a commentary and a testament to the Generation X and the 90s in general - KABOOM however is a timeless piece of hilarious over the top arthouse comedy. It is without boundaries and taboos and makes fun of heterosexuality and gay lifestyle alike, likely to offend extremists of both christian right wing and gay rights movements. The soundtrack spans from the 80s to last year and the cinematography is reminiscent of Kubrick and hardcore porn.

The actors range from Araki veterans like James Duvall and genre favorites like Juno Temple and Roxane Mesquida to aspiring indie darlings like Haley Bennett and Thomas Dekker. They all look, act and fit very well, tying the various elements of the film closer together, resulting in a perfectly shaped and polished film.

With KABOOM, Araki has come full circle - he has embraced trash queer and Cannes arthouse, has brought sex and fantasy, drama and comedy together. His next two projects will be "typical genre horror". We can only hope he stays on track, because if his next films are as great as MYSTERIOUS SKIN and KABOOM, there's nothing to stop Araki from becoming the next Gus Van Sant.

Rating - 9.5/10

FFF Review: CORRIDOR

2010-08-26T05:51:00.000-07:00

This years hardest decision was which film to skip and which to see - a stylish swedish DV-thriller starring Peter Stormare or a stylish horror film in which a german doctor assembles a human centipede. Against my own better judgement, I decided to watch the swedish film.

CORRIDOR is a nice little Thriller: when a medical student moves into his new apartment, he gradually becomes obsessed with a women living above him. At first put off by her friendly and genuinely interested behavior, they slowly become friends - until her jealous boyfriend suspects him to sleep with her, and the girl suddenly vanishes.

CORRIDOR makes the best of what it's got: a claustrophobic setting, Hitchcock-ian twists and Peter Stormare. It was entertaining and clever, and even though it had some flaws, it was thoroughly enjoyable and can be recommended for a lonely evening at home. But somehow, I wonder just how sick Dr. Heiter really was in the other film...

Rating - 7/10

FFF Review: WE ARE WHAT WE ARE

2010-08-26T04:41:00.001-07:00

There are few films that achieve what WE ARE WHAT WE ARE succeeds in. The debut feature of Jorge Michel Grau manages to combine elements of social realism with horror and poetic drama, very much like LA TETA ASUSTADA and EL NINO PEZ. However, compared to those highly flawed (and in the end boring) efforts, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE is truly a breath of fresh air in the genre!

When the patriarch of a small mexican family dies, three children suddenly find themselves in the awkward position to find a "successor" among them who is worthy to be the new leader of the family. The father obviously wasn't very good - quarreling with customers and spending his money for whores, the run down watch-repair-man put his family in a dangerous position. However, without him, the family is close to their doom. The two sons of the family realize this, and with their sister, quickly come up with a mysterious theme. There is talk of a ritual, that they have to "find someone". "You know what happens if by tomorrow we don't find one?" With the sister out of the running due to her gender, the two young men have to prove that one of them is worthy to be a successor.

What then follows is a gruesome, poetic, realistic and daring chiller, filled with great symbols and unforgettable images as the boys try to "hunt" somebody down. The film is cryptical in what the main intentions of its protagonists actually are, but it is safe to say that the film deals with the problem of the patriarchic hierarchy system - present in most of southern america - and poverty. The sons both try to come up with some sort of "companion" to be the new head of the family, both failing repeatedly due to their own nature.

WE ARE WHAT WE ARE won't be a film for everybody. It is a slow paced, quiet, brooding film, that indulges both in the fantastic, the macabre and realistic, rendering it dark, daring and non-conforming. Arthouse lovers might find it as cryptic as horror fans, but ultimately, seeing how the flawed and bland LA TETA ASUSTADA was showered with praise and awards, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE with its outstanding acting, shocking yet beautifully composed images and daring central message could easily be mexico's pick for the 2011 academy awards.

Rating - 8.5/10

FFF Review: THE WILD HUNT

2010-08-26T04:16:00.000-07:00

Every year, there's one BIG surprise at the Fantasy Filmfest - a film nobody's heard of, shot by an unknown with minimal budget, yet one of the best of the year. When I bought my tickets for THE WILD HUNT, little did I know that I was in for a BIG surprise.

As the film opens, we are introduced to a group of medieval warriors - celts, monsters, vikings - who go after their everyday business: that is, fighting, shouting and quarreling. It soon becomes apparent that something is off though, and it is revealed that the characters are all everyday guys doing Live Action Role Playing - that's right, grown adults dressing up as shamans, warriors and orks.

We then are introduced to Eric, a young man who seems to have a bad strain of luck: his father is terribly sick (probably suffering of dementia), his girlfriend has left him and on top of it all, his brother - who in LARP-world is the Viking-king Björn - has dragged her along to play a princess. Frustrated and weirded out by a guy who turns up on his doorstep dressed as a knight to collect some "mighty hammer", Eric decides to drive to the gamers camp to get his girlfriend back. However, not everything goes according to plan, and things slowly get worse.

There are many things that make THE WILD HUNT worth seeing. One of it is how Eric, who at first is a cynic who despises the role players, slowly turns into a medieval character himself, slowly adapting to his role as brother of "the Viking king" that is his brother Björn. Another reason is the hilarious dialogue and action. But the films biggest strengths lie in its story twists (which I'm not going to spoil - just as much, avoid the trailers and any kind of summary) and in its setting. Because apart from a comedy and a thriller, the film also works stunningly well as a low budget fantasy film, providing us with great characters, amazing visuals and some really bad ass action!!

One of the best films of the year, THE WILD HUNT needs to be seen on the big screen, but I assume the label might aim for a DVD release. One way or another - watch this film, tell your friends. May Ragnarok be with you!

Rating - 9.5/10

FFF Review: EXQUISITE CORPSE

2010-08-26T04:01:00.000-07:00

There's not much to find online about EXQUISITE CORPSE. There are no screenshots, and apart from a poster and the above trailer, it's hard to find anything on it at all. So, with only the resume from the festival program, I decided to watch this "gothic love story" about a "brilliant medical student" who apparently is able to revive his drowned girlfriend from the dead, using some cells by freshly deceased aka murdered women. Sounds like RE-ANIMATOR to you???

Scott David Russell's debut feature is a bit clumsy. Shot on HD, the film looks WAY too dark, and at times it seems as if Russell hasn't got a clue what he is doing. Or, more precisely, it feels as if the director hasn't researched like minded material, such as DEADGIRL or your next door Cronenberg film.

However, the film also has some positive points to it. Nicole Vicius is gorgeous and a great lead woman. The actors - even if a bit wooden at times - are likable and mostly believable. But most of all, even though we can see most of the plot coming (such as the VERY obvious ending), the film is still entertaining. Obviously shot with few to no money, EXQUISITE CORPSE is worth a watch, even if it can be improved upon.

Rating - 6/10

FFF Review: ENTER THE VOID

2010-08-22T04:31:00.000-07:00

Its shadow was tall, and hard to miss. Its cry was heard through streets and bedrooms. Film cried I AM ALIVE, and Gaspar Noé listened.

There is not one single frame in this film that is wasted, no shot that lingers too long, no second that can be cut out. As brilliant, as loving, as torturous, as brutal, as honest, as unique, as through and through genius as ENTER THE VOID is has nothing been for a very long time. before I continue, I must say this: ENTER THE VOID is what the title suggests! You enter a world of its own, and even when the film is over, you are still in this world - it changes your way of consciousness, your way of seeing thins, of feeling things.

The film opens with reel 1, in which our hero Oscar is in his apartment - the entire first reel has no visible cut. We are inside of Oscar, seeing what he sees, hearing his thoughts, our vision only obscured of some 2, 3 black frames each time he blinks. We learn that Oscar lives with his sister Linda (of whose boyfriend he is jealous), that he is a drug dealer and user. As Linda leaves, he smokes a drug (is it DMT, the drug that sets free a chemical the brain produces when somebody dies?) and we gaze with him at what he experiences: flowers and insects made of light, color, energy.

His telephone rings: he has to supply somebody in a bar. He tries to come down... a friend - Alex - rings his doorbell, and he lets him in. The two talk about the tibetan book of the dead (which Alex lend to m... to Oscar) and as we... the two walk through the streets of Tokyo, we gaze at the flashing neon lights around us, ponder what dying may be like, enjoy the last haze of the high...

But once at the club, something is wrong. There are screams... police?? I flee to the toilet, grab the drugs, try to flush them but some fall around the toilet and why doesn't it flush oh shit just take the pills and throwthemintherew hilsththepolicebangsatthedo orandfuckfuckfuckWHYD OESN'TITFLUSHWhyitflushesthankgod thewindownthewindowwon'topenit'sblockedhofuckinpolicethwwin

I am shot...

I am bleeding...

shotwhatsgoingonshiwashotbytheposho...

As the first reel ends, we die. With Oscar. We are with his soul now - no more thoughts, no more blinking. Where are we? Oh, above our body... where to go... Linda!! Where is she?? We fly over Tokyo, looking for Linda... entering the strip club she dances at, flying over the strippers, gazing at their naked bodies, entering rooms, leaving them, looking for Linda, finally finding her... there she is, not answering her phone... Alex must be calling her, he got away, he saw our body, he knows... but Linda, she is busy with her boyfriend, naked now, as we come closer to her body... enter that of her boyfriend, seeing through his eyes... feeling?? Felling... I can't feel, just see...

Where to go now? Past?? Present?? Future?? It all blurs, thoughts seem to get me into the situations I am thinking of, standing behind my back, gazing over my own shoulder... still looking for Linda, where is she? Where is Alex? Flying over the city, searching, searching... because there was a pact, a pact to never leave Linda, even after death, watch over her, stay with her, protect her...

As we follow the soul, no, BECOME the soul, we do nothing more or less than overlook a life... many lives. We do not just gaze at flat psychedelic effects, drug hallucinations, naked bodies or ponder buddhist philosophies, we are living another life. We experience something that is not us, yet it becomes us. The film manages what hundreds of thousands of films tried to achieve yet failed, and succeeds. ENTER THE VOID is far from being cynical, far from being dumb, far from being style over substance - the substance is a life (tell me how anything can be more substantial?)!! And we learn how beautiful life is, how unique.

Long after the film has ended, you will still be in its world, only slowly coming down, though you will have the feeling of being in Oscar's body, of seeing the world as presented in ENTER THE VOID. 48 hours after, I've still not come down from this film, my brain still trying to cope with all the images.

But there is one thing certain to me: ENTER THE VOID is a one time experience that no other film will ever come close to. It is possibly the best film of the decade, and because I am still speechless (even though I discuss the film with dozens of people - all as amazed by the film as I was, one of them director Christopher Smith -, after getting a handshake and signatures by Gaspar Noé, after hearing what he's had to say about the film), I can only give this film the rating it deserved, the rating that fits it, the rating that my best friend wrote next to its entry in my festival program. It is as wonderful, as hilarious, as stupid, as grand as life is. There is nothing like it!!

Rating - 100000000000000/10

RIP

2010-08-22T04:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, germany lost an icon. He will not be forgotten.

Farewell Christoph...

FFF Review: SYMBOL

2010-08-22T03:43:00.000-07:00

Cinema has a long history of men who wake up in an empty room with no recollection of how they got there or where they are. Vincenzo Natali visit this realm twice, with the haunting CUBE and the hilarious NOWHERE, Shinya Tsukamoto sent his protagonist to hell in HAZE, Chan Wook-Park's OLDBOY used it to start off a tour de force, SAW wasted the potential of the idea on stupid flashbacks and the promising BURRIED that will hit theaters soon is but a thinly veiled re-imagination of this theme. Somehow, the idea of being "lost" in a confined space, trapped by somebody we can't see and held due to reasons we don't understand, seems to be a central fear hidden in the subconsciousness. Maybe that is because we humans just love our freedom way too much, maybe it is because we fear of being treated as lab rats, but it strikes us every time once we see somebody in such a painful situation.

This is where actor/director Hitoshi Matsumoto comes in. But the director/star of BIG MAN JAPAN has not just done another CUBE-re-imgination - he twisted the idea of a trapped individual into an interesting, hilarious and engaging slapstick comedy.

So our nameless protagonist wakes up in... a white room, with basically nothing in it... except for... well, see above... as the plot unfolds, a few thousand of those will appear - when pressed, each will set free something completely random: eating sticks, a vase, manga-books, a pillow, a rope, sushi, a toy - you name it. However, the "buttons" have a tendency to come up with exactly the thing our hero needs/wants the least, causing foreseeable, but hilarious dilemmas.

Oh, and did I mention the dub plot of Escargot-Man, a (washed up?) mexican wrestler who seems not so keen on his upcoming match?? Well, there is.

Even if SYMBOL sounds like a mess - it is not. It is funny, it is daring and it is absolutely brilliant. The only flaw I could find was the ending, which was for its intended scope too small, yet with what came before in the film too ambitious. However, that seemed to just have been me, since everybody else loved the ending.

One way or another - this is one of the funniest films of all year!! An absolute must see!

Rating - 9/10

FFF Review: THE LOVED ONES

2010-08-21T05:35:00.001-07:00

It's still a bit early, but who cares? THE LOVED ONES is the best horror film of the year!!

I'm basing my judgement on my personal reaction to this australian shocker. More than any other genre, the horror film plot has to generate a variety of reactions in the viewer: you have to be scared, you have to be shocked, you have to be entertained, you have to feel sympathy for not just the protagonist but every single character on screen (something only few genre films achieve since they aim to make the bad guys as inhumane as possible) and yet they also have to make you laugh and cringe. This is a whole lot that has to be achieved, and THE LOVED ONES manages with ease.

So here we go: It's the last days of school for a group of australian teenagers, and the kids are looking forward to their "end-of-school-dance". All but Lola, who's in love with Trent - because Trent is in a relationship with Mia. Unbeknownst to her, Trent's still grieving for his father, who's died in a car crash with his son driving. Trent has fled into a world of heavy metal and self destruction. However, Lola only cares for the pretty outside. And so, she asks her dad to KIDNAP TRENT AND STRAP HIM TO A CHAIR, so she can re-enact with him her very own, perfect end-of-school-dance-night, which mostly consists of boring party games, sexual advances and torture.

So whilst Trent is beaten, slashed, cut, burned and all sorts of other cringe-worthy things, his best friend has his big date - a beautiful rock-chick (see above) who's way cooler then him, making him act like a complete idiot and an oversized teddy bear at the same time. And we are also with Mia, as she fears for her disappeared boyfriend and Trent's still grieving mother. All of those side-stories are flawlessly performed, absolutely perfectly written and well paced. We truly feel with those people, even more since we know what Trent goes through. And further, even though Lola and her father and disturbingly psychotic, the audience still feels with them, as one clumsy move after another, the two just can't help but loose to the good guys... or can they?

A mixture of terror-film a la TCM or MUM & DAD and John Hughs coming-of-age story, THE LOVED ONES is one of the most entertaining films I have seen in a very long time and highly recommended!!

Rating - 10/10

FFF Review: HARRY BROWN

2010-08-21T05:16:00.001-07:00

Honestly - in between trash triller, new french extreme and arthouse horror, it has become a rare occasion to truly be shocked by a film on the Fantasy Filmfest. That hasn't got anything to say about the quality about the films that are shown, but rather about their emotional construction. Characters have to be likeable so we care about them, the pace has to be right so the violence surprises and strikes us, the plot has to be so well constructed we forget we see a construct.

One of those rare occasions of a truly surprising, disturbing and haunting film is HARRY BROWN. The feature film debut by Daniel Barber surprises with brilliant cinematography, a haunting atmosphere, brilliant performances and Michael Caine in one of his very best roles. The opening - which I am not going to spoil and which, surprisingly, has nothing to do with the plot - is one of the most disturbing and gut wrenching scenes I have ever seen on the silver screen, and something I won't forget for a long time.

In the beginning of the film, we are quickly introduced to Harry Brown, an old man living somewhere in a bad neighborhood in London. We learn that his very sick wife is in the hospital, that his daughter died at the age of 13 and that his only friend and companion is stalked by a brutal teenage gang. A few days later, his wife has died, and the police knock on his door - his friend has been murdered by the gang that tormented him.

At this point of the film, we feel genuine sympathy with Harry, as he's lost everything left to him. Even worse, he has to watch as his neighborhood slowly transgresses into a battlefield of teenage violence. And so, Harry Brown makes the decision to do something.

What follows is one of the most dark, cynical and brutal films in recent years. Reminiscent of DEATH WISH or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE, Barber's debut feature succeeds in both shocking and gripping the audience. Maybe the best british film of the year (I'll reserve this decision until I've seen the also lauded SHANK), HARRY BROWN is a definite must-see for every fan of thrillers, Michael Caine and british film in general.

Rating - 9.5/10

FFF Review: MONSTERS

2010-08-21T04:57:00.000-07:00

It is always a joy to watch a unique, imaginative and daring film that 10 years ago would not have existed due to the high price of film equipment. Funding can be a pain in the ass (especially if you aim for a genre film, and ESPECIALLY if you aim for a genre film that breaks the genre's rules), so it's truly refreshing to see a film shot for approx. 8000$ in mexico, with two actors, dozens of voluntaries, a cheap camera and a 35mm filter.

A lot has been said about MONSTERS, how unusual the film is, how dedicated the director and how daring his work schedule: Gareth Edwards drove to mexico with two actors to shoot a love story in an alien/monster infested zone. As mentioned before, he had only a camera, a 35mm filter, a mike, and a van. Everybody apart from the two main actors are genuine mexican people going about their everyday work (acting is reduced to a minimum, with few lines spoken aside from the protagonists).

Instead of focusing on the monsters and their attacks, Edwards set out to explore the rich landscape of human emotion. As the two protagonists get to know each other better, so do we. In this aspect, the film is a lot closer to Lost in Translation or Y Tu Mama Tambien. However, it has to be noted that the visuals are absolutely stunning, the (very well done) CGI and special effects are gorgeous and the above pictured scene that takes place in a destroyed village is absolutely haunting nonetheless.

So what exactly is MONSTERS? It could be seen as an allegory for post 9/11 or post Katrina america, in which couples are not only faced with their internal struggles, but also the sudden realization that the world around them is crumbling. And this is where MONSTERS packs its punches: it makes the protagonists (and us) realize that life is too brittle to waste the chances that are given to us, because in a few more hours, we might be confronted with a lot bigger problems than that our camera was stolen, our food too salty or our partner upset about something we've done.

MONSTERS is not perfect - it is very slow, though could have lasted for another 30 minutes to convey the inner life of the characters - but it is an absolutely essential and stunning film that gives the promise of a brilliant director who's just delivered his debut feature.

Rating - 9/10

FFF Review: LA MEUTE

2010-08-20T05:59:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years, the new french extreme-wave has built up a reputation of ambitious horror films that deliver both in style an substance. Even if you didn't enjoy films like IRREVERSIBLE, MARTYRS or INSIDE, it was striking how quality filmmakers and A-list actors from france delved into genre material and blood-soaked horror films alike.

However, in recent months, the output of the newest generation of such filmmakers was rather disappointing. Last years MUTANTES for example was, whilst visually striking, just a re-hash of long established zombie film clichés. it had a twist of its own, but nothing new to tell.

So ironically, LA MEUTE has something new to tell, but somehow loses the plot midway in.

It all starts out well enough: a young bad-assed girl rides through the countryside, picks up a hitchhiker, picks a fight with some bikers and soon is taken in by a depraved backwoods-family. So far, so well. The cinematography is striking as well and the film has a gorgeous blue/silver/chrome coloring to it that looks very neat.

Even better, halfway through, the director delves into Guillermo-del-Torro-esque surrealism and presents a pretty nice mythological twist, but instead of taking off from there, we are never presented with a true mythology, never really introduced to a backstory or anything that could elevate this from what it soon turns out to be - a generic shoot-em-up-thriller, with some nice moments, but in the end nothing unique. As the credits start rolling, I wondered just what exactly took place, if any of the unexplained twists really had a meaning to them and if there was more to it than somebody in front of word thinking "Heh, THAT could be a nice idea for a horror film."

The audience received the film a lot worse than I did - sadly, since LA MEUTE still has many things that elevate it above the generic US-shocker. However, I doubt the film is more than what it feels like - a film by a fan boy that will make fan boys raving about how it can be done better.

Rating - 6.5/10

Unknown Cinema #2 - Arrebato (1980)

2010-08-17T02:02:00.000-07:00

Arrebato - RAPTURE

Ivàn Zulueta - 1980

(a film seen through the eyes of the silver screen)

More than any other art form, film seems to be surrounded by a cloud of the occult, of the perverse and seductive. Kenneth Anger's dark rhymes or Pier Paolo Pasolini's SALO have been subject of fascination and repulsion over the years, drawing as many admirers as haters. It seems as if film is capable of hypnotizing the viewer, making him its tool, at times draining him of all emotion and life that's left in his body. It was this idea of film as a living, breathing, occult entity that fascinated David Cronenberg in VIDEODROME and Hideo Nakata in RING as much as it inspired Ivàn Zulueta's ARREBATO.

(If there's nothing on TV, the dead will walk the earth)

When Ivàn Zulueta died on the 31. december 2009, he had only directed two feature films. In the last three decades, he worked as a poster designer for Pedro Almodovar, directed various short film for television and supposedly composed a small number of short films. Arrebato was released on DVD twice - as a free gift for a spanish daily newspaper (in a very bad quality) and as a limited restored edition that quickly was sold out. It is still widely unavailable, and even though it finally will get released by the Bildstörung-label in the very near future, maybe its obscurity is for its own good, as the ideas presented here could very well make some aspiring filmmakers quit their jobs and force them to social isolation.

(my mother only let me play with scary puppets, so I became a filmmaker)

As the film opens, we are introduced to José - a B-movie director who can't help but create helplessly bland horror films. As he comes home after making some inspired cuts on his newest work, we get to know our protagonist a little better: José is a heroin addict, and he's in a difficult on-off relationship with his ex girlfriend, who's just let herself into his apartment and now takes up most of the space of his bed. He's at a point in life where his addictions have outgrown his emotions - his dedication to direct a film has been replaced with a thirst for recording (even if it is just a bland work he's shooting), his lust for life has turned into self destruction. It's in this state when he receives a mysterious package. Inside the package he finds a tape and a film reel.

(Nobody ever sends me something fun)

The tape soon proves to be a voice recording of a friend - a young man called Pedro. However, his voice on the tape is altered, reduced to a haunting growl (something Pedro claims is a result of his "personal change" that he has documented). After Pedro recalls the first moments of their friendship, he insists on José to watch the film he included in the package. As the film starts rolling for the first time, we are confronted with a series of dark, surreal imagery, not unlike the haunted tape in RING. Pedro claims that the film holds the key to his "change", and as José and his now awoken girlfriend try to make sense of the pictures, the voice on the tape slowly unravels a macabre tale of the uncanny.

(Some uncanny ectoplasm)

More than anything, ARREBATO is a film of obsessions, of addictions and of a seduction. As the throbbing, beating film that was inside the package progresses, we are ourselves sucked into the film, both spectators of and participants in an occult session to summon something from beyond the screen. In this aspect, the film is maybe closest to the writings of H.P. Lovecraft (consisting of the ravings of madmen, their last words as they scribble down their inner terror before taking their life, the horror they have seen overtaking all their sanity in a rage of otherworldly fear), but it's curious to see how close the film is to such films as VIDEODROME, RING or POSSESSION - all films allegedly made with their directors unaware of the beast that Zulueta unleashed.

Single handedly, he has crafted a film that re-defines genres, creates an aesthetic of its own and comes up with a haunting thesis: that film has a life, a heartbeat, breath and a voice of its own. And just like José, we are visitors to its realm, witnessing its gurgling, croaking "I am alive!" from beyond the screen.

imdb

RYM

article (SPOILERS!!)

Unknown Cinema #1 - L' Éden et après (1970)

2010-07-26T07:14:00.000-07:00

L' Éden et après - EDEN AND AFTER

Alain Robbe-Grillet - 1970

(bored french teenagers)

Avant-garde filmmaking and the french Nouvelle Vague cinema both have the same problem: they rely to such an extent on style, that they easily loose focus, rendering the film in question meaningless. This problem is even more evident when both are combined. Such products of intellectual over-conceptualisation tend to feel dated, and rather seem shallow exercises than the political or sociological statements they were intended to be. For example, a film like Pierrot Le Fou - as beautiful and daring as it is conceived - in the end is little but a showcase of great cinematography.

Thus, it's surprising that Alain Robbe-Grillet's 1970 film EDEN AND AFTER not only succeeds in

marrying Avant-garde structure and Nouvelle Vague style, but also presents itself as a very unlikely and unique film.

(Even though it looks like a shot from Downloading Nancy, it's not)

The credits for the film are presented in a typically Godard-esque manner, as text and spoken word. The words "sex", "violence", "mirrors" and "reality" are repeated throughout, summing up the central core of the films storyline.

The film then continues to show us a group of french students raping and killing each other. We are quickly informed that what we see on screen is a game the students repeat every evening out of boredom. They invent shocking and repulsive situations and re-enact them, until one evening a stranger who has previously observed the kids enters their world. Introducing himself as Duchemin, the man offers an african drug to the kids. Here, the film suddenly shifts to a protagonist - the beautiful Violette (Catherine Jourdan).

(drugs are bad)

Violette takes the drug and experiences various nightmarish hallucinations. After that, she asks Duchemin to meet her later on and he proposes an abandoned factory.

In the factory however, there is no sight of Duchemin. Instead, Violette is greeted by her friends from the café Eden and one of her teachers, who unveils that only she knows the exit to the factory. "You must understand", she states, "this is an 8, you cannot leave on your own."

The statement is of a lot more significance than it seem, for here, Robbe-Grillet unveils his concept of the film to us: the structure of EDEN AND AFTER itself is repetitive and full of mirror images of what the film presented to us. When Duchemin turns up dead (or is he?) and a valuable painting that came into Violette's possession vanishes, she follows a lead to africa, where she is faced with mirror images of every character introduced to us before. The re-enactments from the beginning now take place for real, even though the audience is left to guess if the action presented to us on screen is just a game - or a drug induced hallucination.

Much like the magical theater in Hesse's Steppenwolf, each scene has a psychological counterpart that says a lot about the films characters. Violette indulges in violent sex with an artist - a suggestion that she was abused by her uncle, who gave her the now vanished painting as a gift - , whilst the artist crafts statues of trapped naked women in cages. It seems as if in africa, the visitors of the café Eden are invited to live their deepest desires and perversions.

(What does it mean??)

Surprisingly for such a stylistic experiment, there is a lot of subtext, as Robbe-Grillet shows the generation of '68 as a bunch of bored teenagers that entertain themselves with mindless rituals that aren't meant to enlighten, but with the sole purpose of entertainment. The students are revealed to only care for money and their own desires, finding no value in friendship or life. By constructing his film as a self-refferential labyrinth of mirrors, it serves the purpose of a mirror for the audience - after all, in 1970, this audience consisted mainly of the same art-school-students portrayed as the visitors of café Eden. Thus, the café itself can be seen as the cinema, the games as a re-enactment of the perversions and desires of the students. Cinema itself helps them to observe acts of sexuality and violence they'd be unable to act out themselves.

But most of all, EDEN AND AFTER is a stunning exercise in storytelling and a prime example of visual aestheticism. The striking colors and images serve very much the same purpose to the cocaine that is served in the drinks of café Eden: it makes a boring evening worthwhile and escorts the viewer into a spiral of surreal, freudian scenes, that have a lot more to say about the intentions of cinema and the desires of young people than many other films.

Highly recommended!

imdb

RYM

lengthy article