Catherine

Poll: 1950′s Film Recommendations

16 May 2012 8 Comments

by Catherine in Poll, To See Tags: 1950's film, Poll, Recommendations

In about 5 days I’ll be leaving the 1940′s and entering the 1950′s. This clearly means I’ll be looking for some film recommendations! I already have a list that I’ve made to work off of. Problem is, as always, it is far too long to feasibly work my way through. So I’ll need help narrowing down which films I should make a point not to miss. I will admit there are a handful of these I have as absolutes already. But I still want an idea of what I simply ‘must’ see out of these.

I am also taking recommendations not on this list, which can be done in the comments section or in the space for ‘Other’. If it is not on this list, there is a chance I have seen it. Even so, please comment with other picks! For a reference point, I’ve seen around 150 films from the 1950′s altogether.

Be sure to comment and/or participate in the poll! There’s so much to see but I can only stay with this decade for roughly a month!

Screening Log: May 1st-14th, 2012 – Films #124-145

15 May 2012 Leave a Comment

by Catherine in 2012, Uncategorized, Weekly Screening Log Tags: 1940, 1940's, 1940's film, 1941, 1944, 1947, 1948, 1949, 2012, A Canterbury Tale, adaptation, Beauty is Embarrassing, Belgium, Brighton Rock, British, Carol Reed, China, Damsels in Distress, Dardenne Brothers, Documentary, Douglas Sirk, Edward G. Robinson, experimental, Film Noir, France, George Stevens, Iran, Italian neorealism, Italy, Jafar Panahi, Joss Whedon, Lured, Maya Deren, Meshes of the Afternoon, Musical, Nicholas Ray, Night Train to Munich, Odd Man Out, On the Town, Paul Williams Still Alive, Powell/Pressburger, psychological thriller, Robert Wise, Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Shoeshine, short, Spring in a Small Town, Superhero, The Avengers, The Devil and Daniel Webster, The Kid with a Bike, The More the Merrier, The Queen of Versailles, The Red House, The Set-Up, They Live By Night, This is Not a Film, Vittorio De Sica, Whit Stillman

All grades are ultimately arbitrary and representative of ‘gut feeling’ subjective responses.

124. The More the Merrier (1943, Stevens): A-

125. Meshes of the Afternoon (1943, Deren & Hammid): B+

126. Paul Williams Still Alive (2012, Kessler): B-

127. Damsels in Distress (2012, Stillman): C+

128. The Queen of Versailles (2012, Greenfield): B+/B

129. On the Town (1949, Donen & Kelly): B/B-

130. Odd Man Out (1947, Reed): B+

131. The Red House (1947, Daves): B/B-

132. The Avengers (2012, Whedon): B+

133. Night Train to Munich (1940, Reed): B-

134. A Canterbury Tale (1944, Powell & Pressburger): A-/B+

135. The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941, Dieterle): B+

136. Beauty is Embarrassing (2012, Berkeley): B

137. Spring in a Small Town (1948, Fei): B+/B

138. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947, McLeod): C+/C

139. This is Not a Film (2012, Panahi & Mirtahmasb): A

140. The Kid with a Bike (2012, Dardenne Brothers): A

141. The Set-Up (1949, Wise): B+

142. They Live By Night (1949, Ray): B+

143. Shoeshine (1946, De Sica): A

144. Brighton Rock (1948, Boulting): A

145. Lured (1947, Sirk): A-/B+

Review: This Is Not a Film (2012, Panahi & Mirtahmasb)

13 May 2012 2 Comments

by Catherine in 2012, CriterionCast, Film Review Tags: 2012, Iran, Jafar Panahi, Review

Posted on CriterionCast May 13th, 2012

I am unreservedly ashamed to admit I have never seen a Jafar Panahi film. The seminal Iranian filmmaker, whose work which includes Crimson Gold, The Circle and Offside, is familiar to me in name only. But you do not have to have seen anything by Panahi to feel the staggering act of defiance that this non-film represents.

It also serves as a treatise on the stifling state of Iranian cinema where talent is certainly in abundance (case in point; A Separation, the first Iranian film to win the Foreign Language Oscar). The Culture Ministry’s recent decision to disband the House of Cinema, the only domestic independent film organization, has been a critical obstruction to the already censorship-ridden national cinema. Painstakingly constructed subversiveness is no longer an option for Jafar Panahi. The 51-year old Iranian filmmaker has been handed a 6-year jail sentence and a 20-year ban on filmmaking, leaving the country or giving press interviews of any kind.

This Is Not a Film, shot by Panahi’s documentarian friend Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, seemingly takes place over one day, although it was shot and edited over ten days. Panahi and Mirtahmasb clearly have some idea of what they wanted to be contained within, although how much of that was discussed we do not know.

The finished self-described ‘effort’ shows Mirtahmasb coming over to film Panahi, who is under house arrest and has been waiting for the verdict from the court appeal of his sentence. Mirtahmasb expresses how important it is to document Panahi’s struggle. Mirtahmasb’s presence slyly exonerates Panahi from formally directing. If he is merely in front of the camera, in his natural state, he is breaking none of the bans placed on him.

There is a structure to This Is Not a Film. We start with Panahi and the camera, which Mirtahmasb left with him and told him to keep on. He eats his breakfast seeming somewhat awkwardly aware of the camera’s presence. He speaks with his lawyer on the phone. Then Mirtahmasb comes over. Neither knows what the end goal of this ban-dodging experiment is or should be. This uncertainty is what lends the non-film its structure.

Panahi’s thought-process launches an intellectual and emotional journey beset with rumination. He spends much of the film working through his recent rejected screenplay, trying his best, with descriptive mise-en-scene and masking tape, to paint any semblance of the picture he meant to one day create. To see this is to see an artist at work; it is heartbreaking to witness the man’s crystal-clear filmic map merely described, and his and our simultaneous understanding that it will never come to life.

Describing the story and its blocking does bring it to a sort of half-life in this film, and its seemingly meek half-existence is a courageous statement within the larger courageous statement that is this ‘film’. Panahi eventually stops, overcome by the apparent pointlessness of trying to create something in an unnatural fashion. He goes through clips of a couple of his previous films, frustrated by what actual production brings and what he no longer can do through paltry reenactments. He wistfully speaks of the unpredictable nature of working with actors, how the act of filming captures something that cannot be planned, blocked or staged. Showing clips from his previous films incorporate his works into a new artistic context, and is another way Panahi exercises as much control as he can over a situation he has no control of.

We see Panahi taking pictures and videos with his iPhone (because surely he can make use of the phone’s video features), on the day of Fireworks Wednesday, signifying the Persian New Year’s. He ponders aloud, goes online where most websites are restricted, watches the news, and looks outside. A neighbor comes by and asks him to temporarily watch her yelping dog Micky. His companion throughout is his pet iguana Igi who languidly slurps around.

There is constant fascination by the film’s very existence and its contents. At times it became surreal that I was actually sitting in a theater and seeing this complete with trailers and ads. Hell, there was even a spot for the new ABC Family show “Bunheads” before the film started. That this made its way into a theater that was accessible to me and everyone in the surrounding area goes beyond words.

Throughout, the sense of restlessness that we can only imagine he experiences minute-by-minute is forced upon us. There is also a simultaneous transmission of suffocation. We cannot imagine what he is going through, but this effort gives us a sad and bitter taste of his claustrophobic experience. Is it a coincidence that Buried, the story of a man helplessly and powerlessly encased in the ground, is the most visible DVD on display?

The immediate affinity that we feel for Panahi somehow heightens this already heartbreaking human rights issue. He comes off as kind, mild, realistic and emotionally beaten down by his circumstances (though this work’s existence proves him as anything but). We immediately care for him, beyond the empathy inherent in the situation.

The spontaneous final scene and image is something to behold. I will let you discover it on your own.

There is so much to think about and unpack in This Is Not a Film, and hopefully these initial thoughts do some basic pondering. This may be the last participating effort from a director whose voice has been irrevocably muffled. It represents the concrete fact of creative expression being snuffed out. To say this film should be seen is an understatement; it must be seen. This statement has been made many times in relation to this film but I make it again; if you care about cinema, about the right we have to tell stories and why we tell them, and about human rights, you must seek out This Is Not a Film.

List: Top 30 Summer Films to See (May-August)

08 May 2012 8 Comments

by Catherine in 2012, 2012 list, List, To See Tags: 2 Days in New York, 2012, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, Animation, August 31sr, Austrailia, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Beyond the Black Rainbow, Brave, Christopher Nolan, Collaborator, Compliance, Documentary, France, G.I Joe: Retaliation, Hirokazu Koreeda, Horror, I Wish, Inc., Indie Game: The Movie, Japan, Joachim Trier, John Hillcoat, Joss Whedon, Julie Delpy, Killer Joe, Kumare, Lawless, Lee Byung-hun, Leonard Cohen, Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present, Moonrise Kingdom, Nick Cave, Oslo, Paul Williams Still Alive, Pink Ribbons, Pixar, Polisse, Prometheus, Revisionist Fairy Tale, Ridley Scott, Science Fiction, Searching for Sugar Man, Sleepwalk with Me, Snow White and the Huntsman, Summer 2012 film, Summer film, Superhero, Take This Waltz, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Imposter, The Intouchables, The Invisible War, The Loves Ones, The Queen of Versailles, To See List, Wes Anderson, William Friedkin

This is a list of the 30 films I most look forward to seeing. As far as I can tell, all of these films are set for summer releases. I’m sure more release dates will be announced throughout the months. The ones I am eagerly awaiting to get release dates are Shut Up and Play the Hits and Alps. Both have distribution, with LCD Soundsystem’s final concert show doc acquired by the late great Adam Yauch’s Oscilloscope Laboratories.

There are several films on this list that I have already seen due to IFFBoston. I included them where I would have placed them before seeing them. Those will be bolded. I’m feeling pretty passionate about these 30 films as a whole. After the 30, I have a massive list of films that are on my to-see list and it should be kept in mind that they range from films I really want to see (Farewell, My Queen, Lovely Molly and Whores’ Glory. The latter would be on the list if I weren’t too lazy to shuffle it around) to films like Men in Black III (for Josh Brolin) and Dark Shadows (Burton completist) which I am largely unenthusiastic about but would still see at some point.

What films are you most looking forward to this summer?

First, an honorable mention:
G.I Joe: Retaliation. Why you ask? That looks positively idiotic. Well, first because the trailer makes it look like some honest-to-goodness fun. But really truly my reason boils down to this:

If you can deny the sexiness of Lee Byung-hun then I put forth that you are soulless. The promise of shirtless Lee Byung-hun is enough to get me to pay and see this.

30. Marvel’s The Avengers
Kicking off with a film I and the rest of the world have seen, this was at the top of most lists of this kind. I was looking forward to The Avengers, but as a Joss Whedon fan, not as a Marvel fan. I’m not a superhero film person or at least, I’m a tough sell in most cases. Thankfully, I thoroughly enjoyed The Avengers, more so than most films in this genre.

29. Untouchable (aka Intouchable)
Summary: After he becomes a quadriplegic from a paragliding accident, an aristocrat hires a young man from the projects to be his caretaker.

Reasons: It is hard to overstate the cultural phenomenon this film has been in France. It is the second most successful of all time at the French box office. Looks like a hearty crowdpleaser and it has Francois Cluzet, one of my favorite French actors. Color me curious.

28. Marina Abramovic: The Artist is Present
Summary: A documentary that follows the Serbian performance artist as she prepares for a retrospective of her work at The Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Reasons: I know nothing about Abramovic outside of having heard of her and knowing of her importance. So this seems like a great opportunity to get some insight into her and her work.

27. Compliance
Summary: When a prank caller convinces a fast food restaurant manager to interrogate an innocent young employee, no-one is left unharmed. Based on true events.

Reasons: The most controversial and divisive film at Sundance. Reason enough for me.

26. 2 Days in New York
Summary: Marion (Delpy) has broken up with Jack (Two Days in Paris) and now lives in New York with their child. But when her family decides to come visit her, she’s unaware that the different cultural background held by her new American boyfriend Mingus (Rock), her eccentric father, and her sister Rose who decided to bring her ex-boyfriend along for the trip, added to her upcoming photo exhibition, will make up for an explosive mix.

Reasons: Saw this at IFFBoston (embargo prevented review), but this would have been placed here because of Julie Delpy’s directing/acting/writing involvement.

25. Sleepwalk with Me
Summary: A burgeoning stand-up comedian struggles with the stress of a stalled career, a stale relationship, and the wild spurts of severe sleepwalking he is desperate to ignore.

Reasons: Really strong response everywhere it has played, starting with Sundance at the beginning of the year.

24. Kumare
Summary: A documentary about a man who impersonates a wise Indian Guru and builds a following in Arizona. At the height of his popularity, the Guru Kumaré must reveal his true identity to his disciples and unveil his greatest teaching of all.

Reasons: A doc about deception on a mass scale. Acquired by Kino Lorber. Interested to see what kind of perspective it takes.

23. Beasts of the Southern Wild
Summary: Faced with her father’s fading health and environmental changes that release an army of prehistoric creatures called aurochs, six-year-old Hushpuppy leaves her Delta-community home in search of her mother.

Reasons: The film that took this year’s Sundance by storm. Haven’t seen the trailer in my newly implemented effort to abstain from most trailers but the buzz surrounding it is more than enough to pique my interest.

22. Snow White and the Huntsman
Summary: In a twist to the fairy tale, the Huntsman ordered to take Snow White into the woods to be killed winds up becoming her protector and mentor in a quest to vanquish the Evil Queen.

Reasons: As if we need more takes on fairy tales. However! This one actually looks entertaining even if it is preposterous that Theron would not be the fairest of them all against Kristen Stewart. Most people mean this as a knock on Stewart, but I don’t. Don’t get me started on the nonsense insults heaped onto her. It’s a testament to Theron. My main two reasons are: 1. Charlize Theron who looks like she is chewing some delicious scenery. 2. Look at some of the cast list for the dwarves: Ian McShane (!), Eddie Marsan, Bob Hoskins, Toby Jones, Ray Winstone and Nick Frost. Case closed.

21. Collaborator
Summary: A playwright whose marriage and career are in a free fall has an explosive run-in with his former neighbor, a right-wing ex-con.

Reasons: Olivia Williams in a starring role = I’m there. Martin Donovan’s first directorial effort.

20. The Loved Ones
Summary: When Brent turns down his classmate Lola’s invitation to the prom, she concocts a wildly violent plan for revenge.

Reasons: Ever since this Australian horror film was released back in 2009, I have been hearing about it. This will be the first time I will actually get to see this oft-talked about work. It is finally being released in the US.

19. Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry
Summary: AI WEIWEI: NEVER SORRY is the first feature-length film about the internationally renowned Chinese artist and activist, Ai Weiwei. In recent years, Ai has garnered international attention as much for his ambitious artwork as his political provocations. AI WEIWEI: NEVER SORRY examines this complex intersection of artistic practice and social activism as seen through the life and art of China’s preeminent contemporary artist.

Reasons: This doc, like many on this list, has been getting a lot of attention and I’ve been hearing about it for a while now. I think its pretty obvious that this sounds completely fascinating.

18. The Queen of Versailles
Summary: A documentary that follows a billionaire couple who live in a 90,000-square-foot mansion inspired by Versailles, built on the success of the time-share industry.

Reasons: Saw at IFFBoston. You may ask yourself why you should care about these people, but the film allows you to feel disgust and empathy without compromising itself. I had wanted to see it since the buzz surrounding it started and I can tell you it is well worth seeking out.

17. Pink Ribbons, Inc.
Summary: Breast cancer has become the poster child of corporate cause-related marketing campaigns. Countless women and men walk, bike, climb and shop for the cure. Each year, millions of dollars are raised in the name of breast cancer, but where does this money go and what does it actually achieve?

Reasons: Another doc that looks like it is asking some imperative questions and is able to come up with some telling information. I cannot wait for this.

16. Lawless
Summary: Set in the Depression-era Franklin County, Virginia, a bootlegging gang is threatened by authorities who want a cut of their profits.

Reasons: I expected this to be a lot higher, especially considering this was directed by none other than John Hillcoat and boasts a screenplay and music by Nick Cave. And take a look at that sick cast. The last time these two teamed up we received the gritty existential western gift that is The Proposition. I have high expectations for this, but I admit that the trailer (which in hindsight I should not have watched), presented a more conventional looking film. I keep in mind though that the business of trailers is to make things look conventional. The one thing that really stuck out to me was Guy Pearce who looks creepily searing. I’m still highly anticipating this. The Proposition is one of my favorite films.

15. Polisse
Summary: A journalist covering police assigned to a juvenile division enters an affair with one of her subjects.

Reasons: Been waiting for this since it premiered at last year’s Cannes, precisely one year ago. Word has been strong. Oh and it has the beauteous Nicholas Duvauchelle.

14. Beyond the Black Rainbow
Summary: Despite being under heavy sedation, Elena tries to make her way out of Arboria, a secluded, quasi-futuristic commune.

Reasons: Seeming to blatantly and proudly take from Cronenberg, Kubrick and an endless amalgam of mind-bending influences, this seems crafted with cult status in mind, which tends to make me weary. But I cannot deny this looks awesome and I cannot wait to see if it can deliver and earn the status it desperately wants.

13. Searching for Sugar Man
Summary: Two South Africans set out to discover what happened to their unlikely musical hero, the mysterious 1970s rock ‘n’ roller, Rodriguez.

Reasons: Like the majority of the films on this list, there’s been a lot of strong buzz surrounding this one. I don’t know what else to say besides it shooting up to the top of my to-see list since reading about it.

12. I Wish
Summary: 12-year-old Koichi, who has been separated from his brother Ryunosuke due to his parents’ divorce, begins to believe that the new bullet train service will create a miracle when the first trains pass each other at top speed.

Reasons: New Hirokazu Koreeda. Need I say more?

11. The Dark Knight Rises
Summary: Eight years after Batman took the fall for Two Face’s crimes, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham’s finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy.

Reasons: I don’t really need reasons here. This is clearly the most anticipated film of the summer along with one or two more on this list. Admittedly, Nolan’s Batman work is my least favorite stuff of his and I merely like The Dark Knight. The last third left a bitterly dismal taste in my mouth that I’ve never been able to wash out. But I trust in Nolan; its obvious he’s remarkable at what he does and we can justifiably expect a lot from him. But I’m still not sold on Hathaway.

10. Indie Game: The Movie
Summary: Follows the dramatic journeys of indie game developers as they create games and release those works, and themselves, to the world.

Reasons: Talk about this has been really prominent (don’t you love my original reasons?) and to get an inside look at what it takes to be working on the fringes of this industry is sure to be rewarding on multiple levels.

9. The Invisible War
Summary: An investigative and powerfully emotional documentary about the epidemic of rape of soldiers within the US military, the institutions that perpetuate and cover up its existence, and its profound personal and social consequences.

Reasons: A topic that makes for essential viewing, this is a problem that needs to be brought to the forefront of conversations. Hopefully this film will help this happen. From Kirby Dick, director of This Film is Not Yet Rated.

8. Paul Williams Still Alive
Reasons: Saw at IFFBoston. Basically you should see this because its a documentary about Paul Williams. And Paul Williams is a genius. And if you don’t like Paul Williams I don’t want to know you.

7. Brave
Summary: Determined to make her own path in life, Princess Merida defies a custom that brings chaos to her kingdom. Granted one wish, Merida must rely on her bravery and her archery skills to undo a beastly curse.

Reasons: Um…a new Pixar film that is not part of the Cars franchise? That’s just for starters. My two main reasons are the following. First, it is the first Pixar film featuring a female protagonist, and it looks like a refreshing rejection of the traditional expectations of women. The sprightly and flame-haired Merida looks like a much-needed role model for young girls that can counteract the toxicity they are exposed to on a daily basis. Second, this looks to be the most visually stunning Pixar setting since Finding Nemo. Every time I see a picture or trailer for the film I am blown away by how absurdly gorgeous this looks. I want to live on this world already. I want to escape into this film and I haven’t even seen it yet.

6. Killer Joe
Summary: When a debt puts a young man’s life in danger, he turns to putting a hit out on his evil mother in order to collect the insurance.

Reasons: And the list takes a turn as we transition from Pixar to the NC-17 rated film from the bunch. William Friedkin and Tracy Letts collaborating again, adapting one of Letts’ plays, after 2005′s claustrophobic Bug which is one of my favorite films of the aughts. I’ve been dying to see this for a while now. It looks brutal, funny, and brutally funny.

5. Oslo, August 31st
Summary: One day in the life of Anders, a young recovering drug addict, who takes a brief leave from his treatment center to interview for a job and catch up with old friends in Oslo.

Reasons: I admit I’m not the biggest fan of Joachim Trier’s Reprise, although I won’t deny its status as one of the more assured pieces of debut filmmaking I’ve ever seen. Still, I’ve been anxiously awaiting this since last year’s Cannes debut. Its placement should indicate just how much I am looking forward to this one.

4. The Imposter
Summary: A documentary centered on a young Frenchman who convinces a grieving Texas family that he is their 16-year-old son who went missing for 3 years.

Reasons: Saw at IFFBoston and it’s going strong as my favorite 2012 film so far. It would have been this high on the list regardless. I’ve been hooked since reading the one sentence summary above. Don’t read any reviews. Don’t watch any trailers. Just see The Imposter.

3. Take This Waltz
Summary: A happily married woman falls for the artist who lives across the street.

Reasons: Written and directed by Sarah Polley, I am counting down the days til this film’s release. The summary sounds like this story has been done a million times. But all signs point to a uniquely honest and complex telling of the grey areas of relationships, feelings and monogamy. It looks challenging and uncompromising. And it’s named after a Leonard Cohen song.

2. Moonrise Kingdom
Summary: A pair of young lovers flee their New England town, which causes a local search party to fan out and find them.

Reasons: New Wes Anderson. Case closed.

1. Prometheus
Summary: A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race.

Reasons: To me, the trailer for Prometheus is the advertising equivalent of dropping the mic and walking off the stage. Every time I see this trailer in theaters, my thought is that everyone should just pack it on up and go home. I’m trying to avoid Ridley Scott’s contradictory and increasingly distracting comments. I’m trying to go into this as blind as I can outside of that first full trailer and general unavoidable information about the film. I’m also trying to keep my anticipation to a controlled level as I tend to be let down for films I get this excited about. But damn if this doesn’t look like its going to own the summer movie season.

The rest unordered:
The Woman in the Fifth
Klown
Farewell, My Queen
5 Broken Cameras
Lovely Molly
Savages
Lola Versus
Where Do We Go Now?
The Good Doctor
Planet of Snail
Side by Side
Your Sister’s Sister
The Awakening
The Dictator
Paranorman
Safety Not Guaranteed
Easy Money
Magic Mike
Seeking a Friend for the End of the World
To Rome with Love
Elena (Russian)
First Position
Dark Horse
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Jack and Diane
Bel Ami
OC87
Mother’s Day
God Bless America
Dark Shadows
The Bourne Legacy
360
Hope Springs
Hick
The Pact
Hysteria
Virginia
Ruby Sparks
The Expendables 2
Chicken with Plums
Premium Rush
Unforgivable
Chernobyl Diaries
Men in Black 3
The Watch
Little White Lies
Red Lights
Trishna
Total Recall
Neil Young Journeys
Whores’ Glory

Review: The Queen of Versailles (2012, Greenfield) [IFFBoston 2012]

06 May 2012 1 Comment

by Catherine in 2012, CriterionCast, Film Review Tags: 2012, Documentary, IFFBoston, IFFBoston 2012, Lauren Greenfield, The Queen of Versailles

Originally posted on CriterionCast on may 5th, 2012

When filmmaker Lauren Greenfield began filming the Siegel’s, the billionaire family was living on top of the world. They were in the process of constructing the largest home in the United States, the 90,000 square ft. Versailles, inspired by Louis XIV-era architecture. $260 million was put into the still-incomplete palace, which was to contain everything, and I mean everything, you could possibly imagine and then some. Even to see the thing half-done is overwhelming. This was the reason Greenfield started filming in the first place. And then the economic crisis hits, effecting even the richest among us. Greenfield became inadvertently able to track the before-and-after of what David Siegel himself refers to as a riches-to-rags story.

David Siegel is CEO of the real estate and time-share company Westgate Resorts. He comes from a humble background, building his fortune from the ground up. He firmly believes that if you have it, spend it. His fortune and success has also turned into his fatal flaw. Maintaining success of his scale does not come easy, and David’s world revolves around his business. His wife and family clearly matter to him, but there is a sense that he merely tolerates his wife Jackie as opposed to truly loving her.

There are judgments and preconceptions that will undoubtedly be heaped onto Jackie, the much younger queen, as the film begins. By the end, some of these will be disproved, and some become heightened. She seems genuinely kind-hearted yet entirely oblivious, living in her own world. There is not a purposely callous bone in her body. There is also genuine love she has for her husband, but he is quite cold to her by the film’s end as his stress continually mounts.

Jackie is a compulsive shopper and a bit of a hoarder. She spends because she can and it is pretty disgusting to see her spending habits in all its excessive glory. Seeing her go to Wal-Mart to buy, amidst carts and carts of toys, three copies of the game Operation and a bike which she brings home, only for it to get thrown in a mountain of unused bikes is nauseating. And that is just the tip of the iceberg; the most miniscule of endless examples. This woman has no shame and spends millions every year on herself and her family simply because she can.

There are pets everywhere; dogs, snakes, lizards, fish, peacocks, a tiger and who knows what else? They are frequently neglected once most of the staff has to be let go and the lizard starves to death. They have seven kids plus Jackie’s niece who the Siegel’s have taken in. Jackie states that once she realized that she could have nannies look after her kids, she just kept having them. Like David, she also comes from humble beginnings (she also has a degree in engineering), and has had her fair share of hardships, including an abusive first marriage. For someone so filthily rich, she seems uncommonly down-to-earth; she just happens to spend obscene amounts of money on herself and her family. She also sees no reason why going to McDonald’s in a limo may be a bit inappropriate.

The obvious question is why should we care about billionaires who are forced to become merely millionaires? The Queen of Versailles allows us to feel both disgust and sympathy for these folks, without forcing them to be mutually exclusive reactions. We may laugh, scoff and shake our heads in repugnance at them. But they are human and their very real struggles register as far more legitimate and dire than one would think possible.

Jackie is trying to maneuver in what seems to be a non-existent marriage. David, trapped by his own success, is trying to grasp onto what he once had, determined to his dying day to get back what he spent his life working for. Lauren Greenfield uses the absurdist 1% world of the Siegel’s to stand-in as a representative of what everyone went through due to the economic crisis, no matter what the scale.

It also represents what happens when the American Dream gets realized to such an extreme, that its inherent flaws of naïve greed and gluttony manifest in frightening ways. The teenage niece, who Jackie and David took in, lived in a very poor household. There is a point where she talks about how she used to watch people on TV with their huge mansions and think, if she lived like that, she would wake up every day with a smile on her face. She goes on to say that when one acquires that level of wealth, it is shocking just how quickly you gets used to having everything you want, constantly expecting more and more.

Watching people lose so much, yet still maintain more than what most people would dream of having, is tough at times. It may seem laughable and even distasteful to a point, to want to sympathize with their plight, but we do. Greenfield makes sure we get the sense of what they are going through. The film acquires an appropriately game-changing vibe to match the family’s situation. This is a huge ordeal for them. We get to feel the validity of their financial crisis and, up to a point, there is bona fide sympathy to be had for the Siegel’s.

The Queen of Versailles raises a lot of conflicting feelings in the viewer; and that is a good thing. People will argue about why we should care about these people. The Siegels become human to us; when we learn that Versailles cannot happen, we realize that this is someone’s dream being crushed. A ludicrous, outlandish dream that took unimaginable amounts of money, that surely could have been spent more productively, but a dream nonetheless. The Queen of Versailles is going to be an understandably tough sell for some, and Greenfield knows this, working this potential dealbreaker to her advantage. In the end, for all their misgivings, I honestly came to care for the Siegel’s.

The Queen of Versailles will be released on July 20th by Magnolia Pictures

Review: Paul Williams Still Alive (2012, Kessler) [IFFBoston 2012]

06 May 2012 Leave a Comment

by Catherine in 2012, CriterionCast, Film Review Tags: 2012, Documentary, IFFBoston, IFFBoston 2012, Paul Williams, Paul Williams Still Alive, Stephen Kessler

Originally posted on CriterionCast May 5th, 2012

The minute I saw that there was a documentary about Paul Williams playing at IFFBoston, I knew I had to go. My knowledge of Paul was admittedly limited. I first became formally aware of him much later than was retrospectively acceptable, considering how long his music had been unknowingly making such an impact on me from an early age.

It was about four years ago that I first watched Phantom of the Paradise, Brian De Palma’s awesome and excessively glittery glam-rock musical take on Phantom of the Opera, starring and featuring music and lyrics by Paul Williams. Williams is just about the opposite of the heartthrob Hollywood star; tiny but always swaggering and smirking with a scrunchy round face and a mop of blond hair. That he and the lanky bug-eyed and recently deceased William Finley were the co-leads of this film is just about the perfect antithesis to the standard leading man. I looked up who Paul Williams was and lo and behold, the man was responsible for having written some of the most important songs in my life.

I speak less of songs like “Evergreen” and “We’ve Only Just Begun” and more of his work on The Muppet Movie, The Muppet Christmas Carol and “Emmet Otter’s Jugband Christmas”. Laugh if you will, but it is impossible to quantify the place these songs hold in my heart. He has a penchant for consistently striking the perfect balance of expressing sentiment without being too saccharine whether it be a longing-filled ballad or a joyful jaunt. Songs like “The Rainbow Connection”, “Brothers”, “Movin’ Right Along”, “Thankful Heart” and “One More Sleep Til Christmas” are perfect creations that go right for my jugular, containing purified and encapsulating representations of joy, gratitude and acceptance.

All of this lengthy background sets up the fact that this was an individual that automatically had a personal connection with my interests, and at least on that level, the film would already be a success in my eyes. Director Stephen Kessler has this same connection which prompts him to make the film in the first place. Those looking to satisfy the seedy curiosity inherent in tell-all’s with Williams recounting firsthand experiences with drug and alcohol addiction, and his subsequent recovery, will be somewhat let down.

It turns out that Paul Williams has little interest in talking about the past. He is twenty years sober and living a more fulfilling life now than he was then, so what is the point of looking back? Paul Williams Still Alive is more about Kessler providing a narrative of the filming process as he slowly realizes this is not going to be quite the exposé he imagined. More importantly, it is about the evolution of Kessler and Williams’ relationship, which starts with passive-aggressive hesitancy and ends with what seems like the making of a lifelong friendship.

It cannot be denied that disappointment sank in as it became clear the film would be just as much, if not more, Kessler’s story than Williams. The film’s subject, admittedly admirably, refuses to be pushed into the biographical mold of the ‘rise and fall’. Yet even basic reflection on what led him to finally start taking steps towards recovery is not divulged. Nor is there any discussion of his music outside of a statement about his songs falling into themes of loneliness and isolation which, let’s face it, is pretty obvious. During the director Q&A, Kessler mentioned that Williams clearly loved music (he is the current president of ASCAP for goodness sake) but had little interest in talking about his work. So what is this documentary about?

There is certainly some biographical information, and Williams does touch on topics, even if it is sometimes vague. He interprets his own actions, equating his appearance in seemingly everything at the time to being addicted to attention, to feeling like part of the club. He talks a lot about the difference between being special and being different; how he always felt different and his fame was a constant strive towards being special. There is also a ton of archival footage that is effectively used to give that sense of being in that part of the 70’s where he really did seem to be everywhere.

Kessler captures the often unspoken awkwardness that organically comes about when a documentarian is incessantly following his subject around. Kessler gives the film a narrative streak littered with humor throughout as he continues to be unaware that he is the elephant in the room. Williams is at first quite passive-aggressive, and the director lingers on depicting the uncomfortable silences and the push-and-pull between filmmaker and subject. At one point Kessler uses a blatantly manipulative method to get a planned response out of Williams. It works, and he narrates that he felt bad and that he had gone too far. Throughout, Kessler bravely showcases just how unnatural making a documentary can be.

The director’s constant narration provides an in-the-moment interpretation of what the experience of filming was like from his point of view. There are times when Kessler allows Williams to get too far away from the film. In select portions it feels less like Kessler telling both his and Williams’ parallel stories and more like Kessler telling his own story that Williams happens to be present for.

Stephen Kessler is clearly devoted to his subject whom he can now proudly call a true friend. Paul Williams would not conform to a comfortable rise-and-fall arc. He is too happy and satisfied with his current life to immortalize himself in a documentary as just another musician who ‘lost it all’. He rightfully does not see it that way. Sadly, this leads to limited (but not absent) reflection on the ups and downs of fame, drug addiction and the road to recovery. Though unable to dig deep into its subject, Paul Williams Still Alive continuously entertains and amuses. Without being revelatory in any sense, it manages to examine the relationship between documentarian and subject. If the past of Paul Williams does not matter to Paul Williams, then maybe, just maybe, it should not matter to us. Now excuse me while I go listen to “The Hell of It” for the twentieth time today.

Results: 1940′s Film Recommendations

04 May 2012 5 Comments

by Catherine in Poll Results, To See Tags: 1940's film, Poll Results

Last week, I posted the list of 1940′s Films I came up with that I aspired to watch. I knew I would not be able to watch them all, so I asked for recommendations from readers about which films I should make it a point not to miss. Here are the results! What I will end up doing is making most of the films with votes a priority, with an additional few that received no votes. There are a few of these that are hard to get ahold of, and this may be an additional factor as to what gets seen.

I am definitely going to do this for the 1950′s when I get to them, and will put the list in poll form for next time.

Thank you to everyone who commented or tweeted their picks!

The Window and Ivan the Terrible Part 2 were recommended to me, films not on the original list, which I have added.

The films in bold are ones I watched during the week.

They Live By Night – 7
Meshes of the Afternoon – 6
Thieves Highway – 6
A Canterbury Tale – 4
Odd Man Out – 4
La Terra Trema – 4
On the Town – 4
Foreign Correspondent – 4
Ivan the Terrible Part 1 – 4
Shoeshine – 3
The Big Clock – 3
Brighton Rock – 3
The Small Back Room – 3
Whisky Galore! – 2
The More the Merrier – 2
The Red House – 2
Blood of the Beasts – 2
The Clock – 2
Crossfire – 2
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty – 2
The Set-Up – 3
The Devil and Daniel Webster – 2
Spring in a Small Town – 2
The 49th Parallel – 2
Stray Dog – 2
Fires Were Started – 2
The 47 Ronin – 2
Pride of the Yankees – 1
The Dark Mirror – 1
The Shanghai Gesture – 1
Cabin in the Sky – 1
Meet John Doe – 1
Miracle on 34th Street – 1
Oliver Twist – 2
Lured – 1
The Lodger – 2
The Children Are Watching Us – 1
Henry V – 1
Kings Row – 1
Night Train to Munich – 1
The Flame of New Orleans – 1
The Man in Grey – 0
The Man Who Came to Dinner – 0
City for Conquest – 0
National Velvet – 0
No Regrets for Our Youth – 0
The Seventh Veil – 0
Act of Violence – 0
The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry – 0
The Suspect – 0
My Favorite Wife – 0
Drunken Angel – 0
Listen to Britain – 0

Review: Wuthering Heights (2012, Arnold) [IFFBoston 2012]

01 May 2012 2 Comments

by Catherine in 2012, CriterionCast, Film Review Tags: 2012, Adaptations, Andrea Arnold, Romance, Wuthering Heights

Posted on CriterionCast May 1st, 2012 as part of IFFBoston 2012 coverage

Let’s just get this right out in the open; I do not like the story of Wuthering Heights. The novel, from the little I remember having read it in high school, never appealed to me. Cathy and Heathcliff’s dark and unresolved passion is admittedly bold as is the novel’s frank use of natural but ugly emotions such as revenge and rage. Yet I could never get past how unlikeable the tortured couple is. Even if this is purposeful, I am unable to locate a reason to care about their suffering-ridden plight. Part of my response to Andrea Arnold’s third full-length feature can be attributed to these pre-established feelings; but only part of it. To put it bluntly, the final hour of this refreshingly unconventional adaptation approaches intolerability. This is a shame, because by the end of the first half I was ready to proudly declare my love for Andrea Arnold’s bracingly original take on Wuthering Heights.

Two sets of actors play Cathy and Heathcliff and the film, which is succinctly sliced into two halves. Shannon Beer and Solomon Glave depict them as youths while Kaya Scodelario and James Howson play the ‘older’ youths.

Visually and aesthetically, Andrea Arnold is at the top of her game. There are few directors currently working with an eye that is entirely their own, and hers is distinct and freakishly unforced. After only three feature films, the word auteur is entirely applicable. Shooting once again in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, her voice is a vital and cherished one, with Wuthering Heights serving as further evidence of her immense talents. She takes the symbolically charged moors and portrays a fully-formed all-encompassing depiction of nature and the elements that encapsulate the wild and unexplainable urges at the core of this romance.

Has there ever been a film that has more fully entrenched the viewer in its natural environment? The effect is awe-inspiring.The audience is more than an observer; we tumble face-first into the mud of this unstable environment. Arnold’s priority lies with the landscape, concentrating on the environmental surroundings the characters inhabit. There is no score here, and all-natural lighting is used, allowing us to perceive their lives as they experience it. The intricate soundscape constructed to enhance the sense of being there is likely the most impressive that will be heard this year. Arnold alternates, entirely with handheld camera, between tightened close-ups and sparse wide shots.

The director has a knack for being able to show endless shots, of both the larger landscape and the miniscule components that nature is comprised of, without it ever feeling repetitive or redundant. It goes far beyond superficiality reaching the point where it becomes a central source of deeper beauty because of the muted absence of glorification.

As a young Cathy, Beer is well-cast; she has a gruff and adventurous spirit. Glove is fine, but the impenetrability of the character translates as a bit of a blank slate rather than someone filled to the brim with conflicting but incomprehensible emotions. Their chemistry is a bit lacking, but Arnold is largely able to cover this up. She has a way of allowing moments to play out viscerally and subjectively, seemingly in slow motion but not; in the first half we feel what they feel whether we want to or not.

This all sounds like a glowing review, and despite the unfortunate horrors that come next, this is still recommended viewing. Its strengths cannot be overstated.

When the film shifts into its second half, not even the visual palette that remains can pull it up out of its own misgivings. Arnold’s artistry is still present as ever but everything surrounding it sours, leaving a bad taste in the mouth. Some time has passed; Cathy and Heathcliff have gotten older. Thus we arrive at the first problem.

The actors playing Cathy and Heathcliff are a downgrade of the first degree. Beer and Glove, non-actors à la Katie Jarvis, share a natural interplay that feels like a real unspoken connection. Scodelario and Howson, two professional actors, are pretty people who simply cannot act (at least judging by this film). Scodelario is a stunner and Arnold takes advantage of this. Howson is capable of crying and banging his head against a tree and a door but somehow he never shows any actual emotion. It is clear from the get-go that these two are acting and incompetently at that.

The two have zero chemistry or depth, are devoid of presence and incapable of effective line delivery. Worst of all, the pair come off as wholly uninteresting characters. Cathy and Heathcliff are stripped of any iconic complexities and replaced with an angsty set of temper tantrums that give Bella and Edward a run for their money. Finally, the crucial carnal element that is supposed to drive the film is absent between the two actors.

This is only partly their fault; they have nothing to work with. The second half of this story is distancing enough as it is, as both characters actions are wrought with a selfishness that the audience cannot connect with, or even marvel at with perverse fascination.

Olivia Hetreed wrote the screenplay, with a rewrite from Arnold. The end result is scrawny and sparse in all the wrong ways. The first half of the film allows a certain freedom where Arnold can shine and the dialogue can comfortably fit the take-it-or-leave-it mold required of it. The second half of the story has a much higher degree of plot-oriented obligations. When the dialogue, what little there is, has to deliver, it cannot stand on its own two feet. Furthermore, with actors this dead-on-arrival, the raw emotion and self-destructive nature the two are supposed to generate never materializes.

Arnold is restrained by the story she has to tell in its final hour. That freedom is gone and a distance between her and material, and thus between us and the story, persists as it moves towards concluding. She desperately tries to remind us, through edits of moments between the two younglings, of what brought us to this place; that these are the characters we spent the first consistently moving hour with. The second half is also drawn out far past its capabilities and at a certain point, sadly, it almost becomes unintentionally funny.

Like any rational person I accept that everybody experiences films differently, each with their own unique take. Yet Wuthering Heights had me seriously questioning how anybody could feel caught up in, moved or satisfied by the final half of this film.

What ends as an empty masochistic jaunt through the moors, starts as a startlingly realized story of two people whose dark passion for each other simmers beneath the surface as children. In the first half, the level of subjective transference is uncommonly high. We feel what they feel, from the blustering wind and the harsh rain to the unspoken declarations and the physicality of their unknowable urges. The final half is the opposite; we become uninterested observers. Events take place but the film transforms into a fully passive viewing experience. Instead of feeling the characters emotions, we watch from a great distance while they self-destruct, as the film becomes more intolerable the closer it gets to ending.

Wuthering Heights begins as a must-see and ends as a must-avoid. Andrea Arnold is a master at her craft, and what she brings to the table is a first hour that is wholly immersive and rewarding on many levels. While my hatred for the second half has stayed with me perhaps more than my love and admiration for the first, Wuthering Heights demands to be seen, not least because the voice behind it is invaluable. Yet it just so happens that its final hour is one of the more insufferable chunks of film these eyes have had to see in years.

Be warned; there are a handful of murderous incidents of animal cruelty primarily involving a goat and a rabbit.

Review: The Imposter (2012, Layton) [IFFBoston 2012]

30 Apr 2012 2 Comments

by Catherine in 2012, CriterionCast, Film Review Tags: 2012, Bart Layton, Documentary, IFFBoston, IFFBoston 2012, The Imposter, True Crime

Originally posted on CriterionCast on April 29th, 2012 as part of IFFBoston 2012 coverage.

Warning: There are spoilers contained within this review for those who do not know this story.

There are certain films that provoke an externalized reaction that at some point you become conscious of. It is safe to say that I spent the majority of The Imposter, a stranger than fiction true-crime documentary that evokes a combination of Errol Morris’ The Thin Blue Line and Tabloid, with my jaw hanging open in utter disbelief.

San Antonio, 1994: 13-year old Nicholas Barclay goes missing. 3 years and 4 months later, he is miraculously found in Spain. Except it is not Nicholas Barclay. It is a 23-year old Frenchman named Frédéric Bourdin.

Bourdin does not belong anywhere. He pretends to be an adolescent in order to be accepted into a shelter for children. Desperately in need for a false identity, Bourdin infiltrates the shelter’s office at night, makes some phone calls and stumbles across Nicholas Barclay’s name. He decides to make a go of it, astoundingly convincing officials that he is in fact the missing teenager. But that is just the beginning of this peculiar tale.

The situation reaches the point where Nicholas’ sister, Carey Gibson, travels to Spain to meet her supposed brother and bring him home. Bourdin’s luck has seemingly run out. He looks nothing like Barclay and speaks with a French accent. Improvising, he quickly manages to dye his hair blonde, receive identical tattoos and cover himself up with sunglasses, a hat and scarf. Surely Carey Gibson will immediately recognize that this is not her brother…

This covers roughly a third of The Imposter. What happens next is pretty wild and Layton gives the tale an appropriately sensationalistic spin. The director displays a careful control over facts as well as imperative speculation, making it the film equivalent of a page-turner through the precise hierarchy and ordering of revealed information.

Frédéric Bourdin is at the story’s center and Layton allows for him to seemingly control the telling of his own story. Bourdin knows how to spin a tale, relishing his time in front of the camera. Looking like a young and in-shape French version of Joe Pesci, the man has a snake-like charm and undeniable smarts; the fascinating spell he casts makes it easy to forget that the man is a cruel and duplicitous liar. Bourdin is very upfront about his motivations for his actions and is even able to manipulate a drop of sympathy from his audience. Layton withholds his actual identity, and the context that comes with it, until close to the end, so that we have a blank slate of an imposter with no strings attached to contend with.

The Barclay family, which includes a mother, sister, brother-in-law and a deceased brother who overdosed, do not go far in disproving any Southern stereotypes. At times their comments inadvertently lend humor to the proceedings. Charlie Parker, a private investigator who is quite the character, speaking of ears and hotcakes, enters the story when he begins to notice discrepancies between Barclay and the imposter who has replaced him.

Cinematically produced reenactments are dispersed throughout the film. They often provide the right atmosphere that narratively situates the film and the actors who portray the real-life participants are freakishly uncanny doppelgangers. But in the first third these reenactments threaten to distract as events are meticulously tracked, paving the way for overuse of Layton’s techniques.

The Imposter ponders the impenetrability of truth with its outlandish story. The entire situation makes it clear that perception, denial and lies replace whatever factual reality once existed, becoming an irreplaceable artificial truth. The film leaves us with far more questions than answers, not unlike Capturing the Friedmans.

Did Barclay’s family actually believe that they had Nicholas back? Were they so desperate to believe that they accepted this stranger into their homes? Or were they actually dim enough to truly believe this man was Nicholas? When Bourdin is taken in as Nicholas what did I feel? A speechless pity to be sure, but also the realization of the impossible coincidence in Bourdin matching up with the one family who could be duped to this scale.

The Imposter takes a turn late in its runtime as it suggests a much more disturbing and haunting Southern Gothic twist to this true-crime scenario. Layton pushes his angle as far as he comfortably can without any actual evidence. He introduces the notion by having one of Bourdin’s statements inserted as fact. The film then pulls back and reassesses the statement, clarifying its speculative nature, but the point is explicitly made. I am not entirely sold on the suggestion, but the introduction of the mere possibility of it made my hair stand on end.

On the one hand, Bourdin is a pathological liar, making it is impossible to believe anything he says that substantiates suspicion. On the other hand, there are other people (an FBI Agent named Nancy Fisher, Charlie Parker, neighbors) who clearly suspect some level of foul play. The film touches on the troubling domestic dynamic of Nicholas, his mother and drug-addict brother Jason. The cops were at the house 2 or 3 times a month. Jason and his mother did drugs and Nicholas frequently got himself in trouble. At 13 years old, Nicholas had 3 tattoos, something that is not touched on but is certainly troubling. The Imposter gives too little investigative time to Nicholas’ home life and the film returns its focus on Bourdin when there is a craving for any other information on this family.

Everyone involved is duplicitous in some way and the film turns the supposed victims into seriously questionable folks. Either way, despite their enormous suffering, they become objects of bewilderment, whether that is because of their foolishness or their possible horrific actions.

That there are no answers is perhaps most unsettling of all and The Imposter ends in a way that leaves us wanting. Where is the line between unconscious and conscious denial? Going further, where is the line between conscious denial and hidden motivations for knowingly accepting the most ludicrous of situations? We will never know for sure if the second question even applies. No matter the case, the power of delusion is strong at hand.

In the end, we return to Frederic Bourdin, whose manipulative scheming brought us into this mess. Ending with transfixing footage of a younger Bourdin dancing, as Layton inserts Johnny Cash’s “God’s Gonna Cut You Down”, an image that visual representative of how bizarre these real-life events were. Yet it all starts with the actual disappearance of 13-year old Nicholas Barclay, a child whose unknowable fate looms over us. The Imposter is a stranger than fiction tale that will have you aghast on the edge-of-your-seat; it is truly mind-boggling to watch unfold.