Harry here and I loathe about 90% of the Dogme films... being that most are pretentious unflushable turds... at least with very rare exception.... Is this a rare one? Read and see what the evil bastard thought of it...
Hey, Harry. Capone in Chicago here, just mere days away from Butt-Numb-a-Thon 3: The Third Cheek. I don’t get a ton of e-mail in my “Capone” e-mail account, mainly because I only want to use it for corresponding with Aint-it-Cool readers. Most of the mail I get include comments about specific reviews, and I always try to make time to respond. So imagine my shock when an e-mail showed up in my mailbox about a local screening of the latest Dogme film, CONVERGING WITH ANGELS (DOGME 25) produced right here in the Windy City. I go to a ton of free screenings in a given year, but in most cases I acquire the passes on my own. This e-mail came out of nowhere. I don’t know anyone connected with this movie. Maybe I’m making too big a deal out of this, but it was an exciting first for me. Anyway…
I checked the official registrar of certified Dogme95 films. There are 25 in total, and sure enough Number 25 is CONVERGING WITH ANGELS. I have seen eight Dogme films before this one, and for completely different reason, I’ve enjoyed every one of them. It probably doesn’t have anything to do with the Dogme process itself, I just liked these movies. ANGELS makes number nine for me, and is the third I’ve seen done in English. If fact, the Dogme secretariat in Denmark called ANGELS “the best foreign [meaning non-Danish] Dogme film that has been produced to date,” according to the press notes. And he may be right.
ANGELS is the story of high-priced male prostitute named Dylan Thomas (I never quite got that joke) played by Robert Tobin. He’s on the verge of being totally burnt out with pushy clients (male and female) who repeatedly put pressure on him to have unsafe sex. He’s a bit older than many of the other “boys” in his line of work but he’s good at his job and still generates a lot of business for his boss (Lisa Hunter). One night after returning home from a job, Dylan spots a beautiful woman in an evening dress passed out on the sidewalk in a bad neighborhood. For no reason in particular except maybe to feel better about his life and purpose on earth, Dylan gathers up the distressed woman, Allison (Melissa Muniz) and takes her to his ritzy apartment overlooking the Chicago River. In the first of many scenes that had me holding my breath, Dylan undresses her and puts her to bed.
The next morning, Allison wakes up immediately thinking that Dylan has taken advantage of her state. We learn early on that Allison is the victim of at least one very bad relationship, in which her boyfriend pressured her to engage in couples swapping. Once she realizes Dylan didn’t molest her while she slept, she falls back asleep while he goes to work. Much of ANGELS is spent watched Dylan at work with clients. The sequences are lengthy, graphic, and sometimes shocking, but when all is said and done, we get a much better sense of Dylan’s inability to think of any other line of work. This is what he’s good at, and has been since he was 16, and he lacks the confidence to even consider a better life for himself. In the same way I image many strippers are, Dylan is treated like an object, and he is so damaged by being treated that way for so long, he doesn’t even realize it.
When he returns home, he finds Allison has cleaned his apartment and made him dinner. She’s gotten over her distrust of him and believes she’s finally found a man who will protect her. Although Dylan is the focal point of the film, Muniz’s performance is its heart and soul (if you live in Chicago, give me a holler, baby). She has a smile that can stop you in your tracks, and her totally naturalistic approach to Allison broke my heart. There are two scenes with her at a party near the end of the film that made me squirm. One involves Dylan’s boss sweettalking Allison into becoming a prostitute herself; the other scene follows that one immediately and let’s us know what path she has chosen.
My only problems with CONVERGING WITH ANGELS were that the sound mix is very poor in some places and the voices of the actors are drowned out by background noise. I realize that this is one of the results of the Dogme process, but I’ve never heard it this bad before. The other problem is that the film is about 30 minutes too long. ANGELS runs about 2 hours and 40 minutes, and I’m guessing that if this film is picked up on the festival circuit next year, the distributor will want a tighter version. (As far as I know, this screening was the first to the public.) The emotional climax of the film happens about 30 minutes before the film actually ends; much of what follows felt like filler. Director Michael Sorenson has a lot to be proud of. It’s rare to see a film take on the subject of the confusion between sex and emotion with such a stark and critical eye. In fact, most of the characters end up even more screwy at the end of the film than they started. I’m not sure how much of an audience there will be for such a meaty piece of filmmaking, but every once in a while you’re just thankful that someone out there is willing to find out.
Capone (Click here to email me offers of weeks of carnal pleasure for my BNAT 3 ticket, also send pictures!)
Or see my collected reviews at just click on
Steve@theMovies.
