trendaway.com

I loved I’m Still Here (directed by Casey Affleck)! It was a constant combination of funny, sad, poignant, pretentious, ridiculous, brilliant and depressing. I am pretty fascinated with the bizarre celebrity culture and also with “artists” and how they deal with it (or in Joaquin’s case, how he apparently doesn’t deal with it).

As many others on the Internet have said, it’s quite difficult to know if this is a brilliant hoax or a striking portrait. There is ample “evidence” to either possibility but I chose to watch this film as objectively as possible. If nothing else, I’m Still Here is entertaining, but that makes me feel bad, if I’m being entertained by a person’s train-wreck of a life.

There were a lot of penises in this movie. A lot of smoking. A fair bit of drugs. Lots of bad rapping. Many temper tantrums and a few breakdowns, too. Some scenes made me laugh like I haven’t laughed in a while. The one that struck me the most was Joaquin rapping in Edward James Olmos’s face as we hear a voiceover of Admiral Adama giving a ridiculous motivational speech. It was priceless. It was also pretty interesting to see footage from pre- and post-Letterman.

Phoenix’s main issue seems to be about preconceived opinions of him and the struggle as to whether the “intense, tortured artist” is really him, or if he is living up to that expectation. I like that we are essentially in the exact same position in regards to how we perceive this film: Is this fact or fiction? Is Joaquin a brilliant method actor or a total screw-up? I don’t know, and I’m not sure if I care. All I know is that I want to see it again.

UPDATE (Sept 16):
Affleck Says Phoenix Documentary Wasn’t Real

I saw this movie by mistake. Just look at the poster! I did select it initially and then accidentally linked it, and then associated it with in my mind, to another film of the same name. So when the director’s wife/producer was introducing it, I was like.. “Russian? This isn’t a French film with Melvil Poupaud?… Uh…” Anyway, The Edge (Kray) (2010; directed by Aleksei Uchitel; written by Aleksandr Gonorovsky (story) and Aleksandr Gonorovsky) is a very Russian film indeed. It takes place in a post-WWII camp whose function I am not sure of. All I know is that there were a lot of women in the camp. And they were bitches!

A man shows up, a train mechanic. He is a pretty tough guy who was a hero of sorts on the Russian front. He hears legend of a missing train and a ghost in the woods nearby. He discovers that the “ghost” is a young German girl who had survived the last few years on her own, living in the train. He saves her and the train is fixed. Hurray!

I didn’t really like the movie. It was kind of boring and I didn’t see the point. There were, however, a couple of excellent set pieces, mainly the one where him and the German girl need to repair a bridge just enough so that they can get the train over it. That part was pretty amazing. There rest… meh. The Russians hating the German girl, and accusing the main guy of being a sympathizer is a pretty simple theme that frankly wasn’t very interesting. It was kind of cool how the trains end up acting like major characters – I do like that technique. But I wish I’d been staring at Melvil Poupaud for two hours instead of Vladimir Mashkov.

In case you don’t know what I mean:

Melvil Poupaud

vs. Vladimir Mashkov

My first of 30 screenings this year was Danis Tanovic‘s Cirkus Columbia (written and directed by Danis Tanovic; based on the book by Ivica Ðikic). It is a story about the end of a marriage at the beginning of a new era in the Balkans.

The story begins with young Martin awakening and rushing to try out a new antenna that his father-figure military leader neighbor has given him. Martin is part of a radio club whose members compete to see who can make contact over the greatest distance, the goal being America. He lives with his mother in a house that is soon to repossessed by a man who is returning to their small town after being in exile for twenty years.

I was pleased with the pacing of storytelling that Tanovic used. Throughout the film we are slowly given more information that informs us of who these people are, their relationships to each other and why they are doing what they are doing. The town and its inhabitants collectively play a great character. It is a rather sombre film, and Tanovic provides us with ample comic relief that is legitimately humorous and does not feel out of place or gratuitous. I also liked that this turned out to be a coming-of-age story, but contrary to what one would expect, it is not the young character Martin who changes.

Tanovic said in his introduction that he made a great many changes to the novel while adapting it for screen, and I’m curious as to what these changes were.

No Man’s Land (which won him the Foreign Language Oscar in 2002) is an excellent film and L’Enfer (which I screened at TIFF in 2005) was great, but I was a bit disappointed with Triage. There were some really amazing performances in this film, especially by Miki Manojlovic and Mira Furlan (LOST’s Danielle Rousseau!), who last starred together in 1985′s When Father Went Away On Business. It was pretty riveting and definitely had an emotional impact on me. I’m glad to have seen another solid film from Tanovic, especially one that is not as geared to North-American audiences.

This was a pretty boring movie, and surprisingly so, with a cast including Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson, Gabriel Byrne and Jim Broadbent. It was also a bit of a surprise that I didn’t like it since the previous year, director Ian Fitzgibbon’s A Film With Me In It was one of my favourites.

Perrier’s Bounty (directed by Ian Fitzgibbon; written by Mark O’Rowe) is a guns-blazing, comedic crime boss story that is way better in the hands of somebody like Guy Ritchie. I was pretty bored and disappointed in this one. I still remember a few scenes but that doesn’t mean I liked them. I don’t have much to say about this one. I didn’t really like it.

Cleanfix (written and directed by Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi) is a documentary on some of the major players in the “family-friendly” editing and rental/sales of movies in Utah. This is a relatively common thing in the Mormon community. Essentially what happens is they take a movie like Pretty Woman, edit all of the swearing, sex and allusions to sex, etc, and then rent and even sell these “edited” versions.

This is obviously illegal, but still being done, and rather openly in some cases. People behind these surprising lucrative businesses think one of either: 1. what they are doing is moral and right and they have the right to good, clean entertainment, so they don’t see it as being illegal, or 2. they don’t care because they are making a lot of money. Here is an example of one of these companies.

I could have used some more examples of the newly edited films, but there was probably enough in it. Interviews were interesting but nothing really blew my mind; I knew to expect people saying that they have “the right” to see these movies, but without the crap, etc. What surprised me was that some of the people involved were pretty damn sketchy. They were screwing around with minors, providing them with alcohol and doing other things that grownups aren’t supposed to do with minors. Yet they would edit the swearing out of “Back To The Future” because that’s baaaaad!

As a film lover, I always find it interesting to learn about why people watch movies, and what they want to get out of them. For me, story is everything and what is so fascinating to me about the medium is the way that the stories are told, using any combination of elements. Editing is obviously a huge factor in how a film tells a story, so to mess with that and cut out often crucial pieces is pretty upsetting!

James and Ligairi both come from Mormon backgrounds, and they chose to create a film that was rather ambiguous in regards to placing judgment or presenting facts with a moral skew. That being said, they obviously feel that this behaviour is wrong. I wonder what the Cleanflix version of this documentary will look like!

I don’t know how I feel about Gaspar Noé. He has a lot of skill, some pretty interesting ideas, great technique – and completely over-the-top shock-value that kinda makes you shake your head and think about how you could have totally gotten the point without all of the CGI-penises, 20-minute rape scenes and extreme violence. But then he wouldn’t be Gaspar Noé. He’d be somebody who wasn’t as seemingly arrogant and filthy who doesn’t make such memorable films.

Enter the Void (2009; written by Lucile Hadzihalilovic and Gaspar Noé; directed by Gaspar Noé) is probably one of the most visually striking films I have every seen. The opening credits were an attack and absolutely sets the tone. After they finished, there was applause. You can view them here. (I’m pretty sure, though, that the version of the credits I saw in the cinema was LFO’s music.)

The first act of the film takes place in real-time and had me pretty riveted, including the really long drug-trip that could have lasted anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes. You’re inside this guy’s head as he takes drugs and trips out… you hear his thoughts, and see through his eyes. It’s quite some time before he looks into the mirror and you actually get a look at who you are.

The film seems to keep going on and on. You’re Oscar’s soul/spirit, and he’s either floating above Tokyo or you’re seeing everything (mainly memories) from behind his head. Somewhere in his past is an extremely loud and sudden car crash which is showed over and over again. It made me jump every time and I started to hate it.

It was a pretty exhausting experience, watching this film. Technically and visually it was stunning, but it was a total assault to the senses. As things were winding down (and I mean a wind-down of about 30 minutes), a bunch of us in the audience started to laugh. You really need to see it to understand what I’m getting at here.

My friend John was with me and he couldn’t take the attack on his body from the sights and sounds, so he went to go take a break and hyperventilate in the restroom. Then he entered the theatre and another car crash happened, and he was like “Ok, I’m out!”. Apparently he almost left me there, but decided against it, so I didn’t have to get myself home in the rain in the middle of the night. Thanks for the ride, John!

I’d like to preface the following comments with the justification of why I saw this movie. I like to watch movies that are really popular, even when I know they’re going to suck. This is because even though I am a fan of good movies, I try to be aware of and on top of what the majority of people are watching and what’s going on in the general market.

I saw the first Twilight film with a good friend who loved the books. We watched with a third friend and, you know, that movie wasn’t so bad. Then we decided that the three of us should watch all of the Twilight films together, so we saw New Moon and it was pretty bad. This one, though I had slightly higher hopes for, because I figured that they wouldn’t allow the movies in this undeservedly huge franchise to get worse. I also think I enjoyed 30 Days Of Night and thought that maybe this film would have a darker feel to it and perhaps even a workable script or even some decent performances.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (based on the book by Stephenie Meyer; screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg; directed by David Slade) is a terrible movie. The dialogue is painful and slow and boring. The scary bad guys are not scary at all, especially the Volturi, who, headed by an extremely not-scary Dakota Fanning, look like a bunch of pathetic goth kids who got lost in a forest. The music isn’t bad (Howard Shore has proven himself many times) but the themes felt very inappropriate for this type of film. The story wasn’t very interesting. Taylor Lautner as Jacob seems to have just realized that he’s in movies, acting, and has decided that he needs to act now, and does so very intentionally (read: badly). The love scenes were long and tedious and not even remotely bearable.

I can go on, but I won’t. My biggest issues with these Twilight films are that, sure, the source material is pretty terribly written, but there are hundreds (if not thousands) of incredible writers out there who will work for cheap and could write an amazing adaptation. There are directors out there who actually care about good storytelling who will create films that aren’t embarrassing. But most of all, I’m actually offended that studios put so much money into, and then make so much money on, films that are clearly not good. I have no problem with blockbusters or cultural phenomenons; sometimes they’re not that good, but at least you can see that they tried. Eclipse feels like they were like, “We’re going to make hundreds of millions of dollars from this regardless of how good it is, so let’s make it suck.” THAT is what I disliked the most about this film.

I’ll still finish watching the series, though.

Samson and Delilah (2009, written and directed by Warwick Thornton) took me for an intensely emotional ride with glimmers of both hope and humour. It takes place largely in one of many Australian Aboriginal communities, which are characteristically defined by poverty, alcohol abuse and violence.

There are long sequences with no dialogue as we simply observe the characters go about their daily, monotonous routines. The terrible conditions in which they live are incredibly striking and discomforting, and it appears that they have essentially nothing to do – no jobs, no school, no purpose… except for those who are responsible for caring for the sick and elderly.

A big part of what makes Samson and Delilah so tragic is that stories such as this are rooted in fact. The horrific living conditions combined with the exploitation and abuse from within and especially outside the community are both heartbreaking and enraging.

The acting is amazing, especially considering that it is mainly dialogue-free. Thornton’s pacing is good and despite it being relatively slow, it is riveting. It is delivered in a very matter-of-fact manner and I was pretty blown away by this film – it had a great impact on me and its imagery and tone are still with me months later.

Fish Tank (2009, written and directed by Andrea Arnold) is Arnold’s second feature film (her first being Red Road, which I saw at TIFF07 and absolutely loved). This is an exceptional film. It takes place in ghetto UK (not sure where but it reminded me of some of Little Britain’s skits) and concerns a teenaged girl named Mia, amazingly portrayed by newcomer Katie Jarvis.

Mia is introduced to us brilliantly and you know right away not to mess with her – she’ll beat the crap out of you – but we’re also quickly exposed to her softer, vulnerable side: This is the side that loves to hip-hop dance, a major cultural phenomenon that proves to be not only a creative outlet but a powerful element necessary to communicate with in her family setting.

The plot is set up quite well and even though it contains some generic elements, it still kept me feeling like I didn’t know what was going to happen next. Arnold definitely learned the language of her subjects and both recognizes and acknowledges their cultural symbols, which include shouting profanities and dancing to hip-hop. Although it’s easy to feel that these elements are a bit weird, they are handled so straight-faced that you soon realize that what you’re watching is very real, and is probably as strange to us as our way more conventional and “nice” way of life is to them. These people pull no punches – they call it as it is; they’ll punch you in the gut and then let you know why – or not.

Michael Fassbender is brilliant as usual and it was great to see him deliver another fine performance, sandwiched between his grueling portrayal of Bobby Sands and his equally intense LT. Archie Hicox.

Andrea Arnold is 2 for 2 now and I can’t wait to see what’s next from her!

(UPDATE: This is what’s next from Andrea Arnold. Amazing!)

My fourth film of this year’s festival, Cracks (2009, written by Ben Court & Caroline Ip, directed by Jordan Scott), was also pretty unremarkable. Eva Green’s performance didn’t blow me away (and now that I think of it, none of them really have since her debut in The Dreamers).

The story was not very interesting to me and the boarding school film has been done many times before, and much better. It didn’t have an emotional effect on me the way other films in this genre did, such as Dead Poets Society and School Ties, to name a couple. But it was nice and moody, with a slight element of mystery.

It was also beautifully shot, although I felt that the luscious landscapes had some more potential than was used (unless that was intentional, as some kind of metaphor for the misdirected potential of the students..?). I saw the climax of the story coming from a mile away so there wasn’t even a worthwhile payout at the end. I don’t understand why this movie had so many great reviews. I was pretty bored while watching it and also felt kind of disappointed that Eva Green’s career hasn’t seen a high point since it began with a bang. She was there, though, and pretty striking, so maybe it was worth it, after all!

Also, what’s up with Juno Temple? She was in three of the TIFF films I saw this year. I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of her in the next few years.