Hey folks, Harry here with Anton's latest rundown of the Toronto Film Fest... I've been lucky enough to have seen 2 of this group... WAKING LIFE and BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF... both of which are superior to an extreme. However, the film that most intrigues me out of this group is the documentary, HELL HOUSE about the Christian Haunted Houses that don't do HORROR in the traditional sense, but things like Incest, Drugs, Abortion... etc... I'm willing to bet that film is quite something to watch! Here's Anton with another fantastic report...
"I don’t use a pen. I write with a goose quill dipped in venom."
- Waldo Lydecker
Day Eight
I’m taking the morning off to try and catch up on some of these backlogged reviews- sorry, Istvan, I’ll have to wait until Taking Sides hits first-run to see it.
The fest is soldiering on as best it can, but the mood is decidedly different. Most of the parties have been cancelled; some prints and stars didn’t even make it into the city; other people are stuck in town for days or maybe even a week, depending on where they are going. It’s not so much a ‘the show must go on’ vibe as it is a ‘well, we’re stuck in town anyway so we might as well show some movies’ vibe.
I do have one funny story though- the other day, as he was leaving the second screening of Amelie at the Uptown, someone spotted Ricky Jay sitting in the audience. (Mr. Jay, of course, is in town to promote Heist, the latest Mamet film.) Anyway, the person spotting Ricky walks up to him and says, "Hey, isn’t Heist playing right now over at the Varsity?" Ricky looks at the guy, shrugs slightly and says, "I’ve already seen it."
Miramax, there’s your tag line right there. Amelie- it’s better than a screening of your own damn film.
Anton2001Fest@yahoo.com
Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001, directed by Christophe Gans)
Watching Brotherhood of the Wolf, in the darkness, with nearly a thousand howling Midnight fans around me, I had the same thought I had the first time I saw Crouching Tiger- slowly but surely, the action genre is slipping away from Hollywood.
The latest film by Christophe Gans (who directed the live action Crying Freeman) Brotherhood of the Wolf is the greatest 17th century martial arts monster movie ever made. Aside from a slight lurch from the script near the end, this film is beyond solid- it’s stupendous, and about the last thing you’d expect from a French film not directed (scratch that- even if directed) by that Besson guy.
The cast is superb. The trio of Marc Dacascos, Samuel Le Bihan and Vincent Cassel (who continues to prove with every role that he is one of the greatest leading men outside of Hollywood) kick mucho ass; the duo of Monica Bellucci and Emilie Dequenne have a somewhat different effect on a slightly different region of the body. Even the supporting actors and actresses deliver. This is one of those casts that just gels right before your eyes.
The direction, too, is excellent. Moving far beyond some of the clumsier choreography and editing of Crying Freeman, Gans and his team are well on their way to developing an action style distinct from Hollywood and Hong Kong, taking elements from both but following the trends of neither. Gans’ ability to work in quotes from other films (and I’m not being generous here- these are quotes, not pilferings) is both amusing and impressive, ranging far beyond what you’d expect and including films like Jaws and Shawshank Redemption. The film’s not just a series of shots from other films, though- Gans shows a sure hand throughout.
Even the creature effects are good, provided as they are by the Jim Henson Workshop. In fact the only mis-step in the film occurs near the end, when the script loses a bit of focus and momentum. But it recovers nicely and the climax features an awesome final duel, which is all the more impressive considering it’s between two French guys.
In short- just about every good thing you’ve heard about Brotherhood of the Wolf is true.
Waking Life (2001, directed by Richard Linklater)
Any doubts I might have had about whether I would enjoy this trip were put to rest with the Bill Hicks quote.
The second of the two new Linklater films here in Toronto (after Tape), Waking Life is an extended meditation on life, dreams, and the regions between them. If you have a problem with films featuring lots and lots of talking... well, if you have a problem with that you probably don’t like Linklater films in the first place, so I won’t bother. Waking Life features a series of monologues covering a varied range of viewpoints about the meanings of consciousness, experience, existence, and all the other heavy phantoms that clutter up our heads. The film isn’t live action, though, not exactly- the original actors were filmed and then animated over, using what looked to be both rotoscoping (the technique made infamous by Bakshi in his Lord of the Rings) and more traditional cel animation techniques.
Come to think of it, the film isn’t exactly Linklater either- Waking Life has far more in common with the kinds of things Bunuel did after his return from Mexico. The central conceit of the film is that the main character (played by Linklater vet Wiley Wiggins) is in a dream or series of dreams from which he can never wake up, leading to a series of conversations and adventures increasingly episodic and only tenuously related to each other.
Some of the segments are funny, some disquieting, some just downright odd. And you’ll likely emerge from the film squinting at your surroundings, trying desperately to determine if you saw what you just think you saw, or if you fell asleep in your chair and just dreamed what you thought you saw, or if you are dreaming still.
I think I’d call that a success.
L’emploi du temps (2001, directed by Laurent Cantet)
Have you ever gotten to the end of a film, one that up until the end seemed full of power and promise, watched the credits roll and felt this immense sense of betrayal well up inside you?
Well, that’s not L’emploi du temps, since it wasn’t that powerful or full of promise to begin with.
The film tells the story of Vincent (played by Aurelian Recoing, who looks shockingly like a French Larry Miller), a financial consultant in the process of changing jobs. The only problem is, Vincent isn’t really changing jobs- he’s lost his, for seemingly no other reason than he was overwhelmed by existentialist angst. Instead of finding a new one, though, Vincent simply tells people he has. The job he invents is with the UN in Switzerland, thus requiring him to be away from his home and family during the week. Vincent then spends his time going through the motions of writing reports and analyses in hotel bars and out-of-the-way corners of parking lots.
When money starts getting short, he begins compounding the lies- he borrows money from his father for a ‘new apartment’ in Geneva, and starts scamming old school chums with tales of Eastern European investment.
It’s interesting to compare Vincent’s reactions with those of his closest American counterpart, Mr. D-Fens in Schumacher’s Falling Down. Mr. D-Fens loses his job, gets very angry and goes on a shooting spree. Vincent loses his job, gets very cowardly and desperately tries to pretend that nothing is wrong.
Here’s a look at how directors from other countries might handle the theme:
Japan – man loses his job, gets very masochistic and resorts to increasingly painful, fetishistic methods to try and expunge the dishonor
Germany – man loses job, gets very sadistic and begins repressing the one aspect of his life he can still control, his family
Trouble Every Day (2001, directed by Claire Denis)
It’s rare these days that you actually see people fleeing a theater.
Trouble Every Day is a tale about the destructive power of sexual desire and obsession. The only problem is, Denis decides to completely do away with metaphor when telling the story- the two main characters Shane (played with his normal Gallocity by Vincent Gallo) and Mrs. Semeneau literally devour and destroy those they desire.
Let me say that again in case the blinders shot up and you didn’t get it- they devour those they desire. They eat them. On screen. Graphically. And not after the fact, either- this isn’t some black widow tale.
They eat people as they have sex with them.
And for some reason people find that objectionable and run out on the film. Funny old world, ain’t it?
Now, I freely admit my own biases when it comes to Trouble Every Day. I’m sure, had this same idea been used for Shinya Tsukamoto’s latest film, I’d be raving all over it. But that’s the thing- had Tsukamoto or one of his Japanese contemporaries made it the film would have had a little more life to it. Claire Denis, however, is French, and fairly old school French at that. She tells the story- such as it is- slowly, letting the mystery of what is really happening gradually unveil itself. And while it could be argued that the deliberate build-up adds power to the two scenes of utter transgressive abandon, what does it say about Denis’ opinion of her audience that she thinks cannibalistic sex needs some help in making an impact?
Trouble Every Day reminds me of nothing so much as an answer to a dare, and a pretentious one at that
Fidel (2000, directed by Estela Bravo)
If I’d wanted to see Biography I would have stayed home and watched A&E.
Don’t get me wrong- somewhere in this doc is a great film trying to throw off the yoke of oppression and get out. First off, you have as your subject someone who is without question one of the most interesting, influential figures of the 20th century, Fidel Castro. On top of that, you have some amazing footage of Castro, depicting him not just as the living heart of Cuba but as a good friend, a caring human being and a possessor of remarkable insight into humanity.
Now add to that amateurish doc techniques like constantly flashing the name of the person speaking, even if it interferes with the subtitles, even if it’s freakin’ Gabriel Garcia Marquez and you’d think the audience might remember who he is after the sixth or seventh time you show him talking. Then add in a script that doesn’t loop back on itself to try and make a point, but simply repeats itself because it can’t think of anything new to say. Then add to THAT one of those annoying throwback narrators who tells you what you can see with your own eyes as sonorously as possible.
Then remove pretty much anything critical of Castro, or even anything that might lead someone to start along a train of thought that might eventually, someday, lead to a criticism of Castro.
That last part I can understand- I’m sure some trade-off had to be made to get the access they did. But to then get that access and reduce it to this... what a colossal waste.
If you know very little about Castro, if you know little more than the Miami party line about the Ogre in Havana, then maybe this film is worth seeing. Even with such a shoddy framework Castro is dynamic enough in his own right to make some parts of the film fascinating. But when a doc works in spite of its makers, instead of because of them, something is very wrong indeed
Hell House (2001, directed by George Ratliff)
This may have been the toughest film to review that I’ve ever seen.
Hell House takes as its subject an unusual phenomenon- Christian haunted houses. An Assembly of God church in Texas, every year in October, runs what they call ‘Hell House’- an attraction that depicts, not the horrors of the netherworld, but the horrors of this one. Drug abuse, incest, Satanism and many more are all vividly portrayed in short skits featuring homemade props and a non-professional cast. Annual attendance, fueled partly by the controversy over a Columbine skit in 1999, has swelled to 15,000.
The doc goes behind the scenes to show how the congregation put together Hell House X, from the initial brainstorming session/prayer meeting through casting to opening night. It also takes a look at the lives of two of the cast members, John Cassar and his daughter Alex (who lands the plum part of the abortion girl), and how their involvement with Hell House impacts their lives.
What makes Hell House (the doc) so hard for me to review- this is my third stab at it- is my difficulty in removing my judgement on the subjects from my judgement of the film itself. In that sense Hell House is brilliant. Only at the very end does it seem to take any sort of position, and even then that could just be me seeing what I wanted to see. In pretty much every way the film is stunningly even-handed.
But as for those subjects… I can’t help but find it heart-breaking watching otherwise intelligent, well-meaning kids like Alex who have ‘given their life’ to Christ. I realize that God is filling a void in them that maybe nothing else could, but even so it’s a little maddening seeing people who are strong in and of themselves, who shouldn’t need that crutch, and yet don’t let themselves feel that strength.
And let’s not even get into the hypocrisy of a group who purport to have the Truth, but are so insecure about it that they resort to scare tactics against impressionable kids to recruit new converts. Or the ridiculous, naïve arrogance of thinking you can realistically depict something you have no knowledge or experience of. Or even the questionable moral authority of a reverend who takes such obvious pleasure in the power he wields over his flock.
Ahem. Anyway. Who needs objectivity, right?
Hell House is one of those films you should try to see with a large group of friends, just so you can find out how diverse your social circle is. Because what you see on-screen will to a large degree be determined by what you carry with you into the theater.
Anton Sirius
