Hey folks, Harry here with Young Frankenstein's look at the Toronto International Film Festival this year. Seems like much has been written about this festival and how exceptional the films seemed to be, well here's more for you to ponder. Personally it seems that folks did a good job of finding good movies. There is one thing that seems to be bugging me a bit. Its all this hub bub from critics that got shut out of the highly anticipated film screenings due to overcrowding. Personally, the problem isn't the festivals, it has to do with the herd mentality of the critics themselves. If they ceased going to the films they were expected to go to and became a tad more adventurous and checked out some of those other 300 some odd titles on which there was no buzz, they might not only find some damn good movies, but also they could find themselves discovering some titles. After all... if you are sitting in a screening and you look all around and all you see is a sea of fellow critics with notepads and pens... Even if the film is great... they'll all be filing the same basic report as you... Where's the scoop in that?
Toronto International Film Festival 2002: Part 1:
rating system: *=unforgivably bad **=bearable but not recommendable ***=mild achievement ****=must see *****=cinematic excellence
Here a few films that struck me at this year’s film festival…
GERRY
Gerry is an undeniable example of an ambitious art film that both entertains and woos. Unlike many other films of its kind, Gerry does not present an overly intellectualized notion at the expense of an interesting narrative but rather it recounts an engaging story in a unique and interesting style while concurrently relaying interesting ideas about despair and desolation in our geographical surroundings.
For those completely unaware of this films existence, it chronicles the story of two young men, played by Matt Daman and Casey Affleck, who loose their way while hiking a desert trail somewhere in the Southwest. As described by the film’s director Gus Vant Sant, “the movie has a very expanded pace,” but with the exception of maybe one or two shots, the film handles this elongated pace very effectively. Gerry features two very strong performances from Matt and Casey. Both men displayed a strong sense of comedic timing as well as a there range and ability to subtlety articulate their characters feelings and concerns. What limited dialogue the actors have is filled with humor and showcases the progression of a very poignant exchange between two increasingly desperate individuals. The film is very nicely photographed by Harris Savides, who encapsulates the viewer through his constant manipulation of depth and field of view.
What is perhaps most remarkable about this film is that in spite of its limited dialogue and lengthen shots, it nevertheless manages to remain focused and maintain the audience’s interest and attention from beginning to end. (****)
PERSONAL VELOCITY
Personal Velocity marks Rebecca Miller’s sophomore directorial effort. Unfortunately however the film does not demonstrate any improvements from her first feature Angela but rather it painfully uncovers Mrs. Miller’s lack of cinematic sensibility.
The film, which recounts the stories of three women struggling to cope with themselves and their situations, is based on her novel of the same title. All three stories, which are devoid of any drama, profile conflicted women who, as a result of their miserable situations, or perceived misery, induce a serious change in their lives. Because there is basically no connection between these three short stories other than the aforementioned, the film evolves like a collection of individual shorts. During the Q&A session Mrs. Miller failed to illustrate the existence of any kind of link between the three stories, ultimately conceding to being distressed by the issue during the writing process.
Shot on digital video, the film is riddled with distracting and careless photography that fails to justify its existence and thus plays out with the attachment of an annoying filter, preventing the audience from fully engaging themselves. When asked about it, Mrs. Miller claimed that she was trying to capture the performances rather than worry about the photography. In one instance the film uses a group of stills to show Delia, played by Kyra Sedgwick, leaving her husband. This gimmick was truly ineffective and serves as an example of the distracting photography present in this film. According to the director, her intention was to obtain the high quality of acting that is inherent in Cassavetes and Altman’s films. Unlike the films of these men however, Mrs. Miller’s film fails to seriously explore her characters, relying too often on peripheral people’s reactions to them rather then the characters themselves. (**1/2)
THE GOOD THIEF
Perhaps the most challenging task a filmmaker can undertake is to remake a brilliant and innovative film. The Good Thief, directed by Neil Jordan, the man responsible for among others The Crying Game and most recently The End of the Affaire, signifies this arduous and to a certain extent cursed undertaking. I want to preface this review by stating that I am of the opinion that good remakes are indeed possible. In this particular instance however a good remake was not possible simply because the filmmaker clearly aimed to recreate the kind of mood and style and intense character exploration that masterfully marked Melville’s Bob Le FLambeur.
In The Good Thief Nick Nolte plays the part of Bob, a well known reformed Parisian thief and aging gambler, whom we meet as he is dealing with the notion of becoming a has been. His performance is quite good as he manages to convey that elegance and experience that is innate in Bob. Unlike the original however, the inner conflict of Nolte’s reinvented Bob did not completely resonate, leaving the audience unconvinced of Bob’s central crux. Jordan’s adaptation of Bob is ostensibly more complicated than Melville’s version, presenting our stallion as a drug addict in addition to being a thief and gambler. Unfortunately however with the exception of a few superficial scenes, the premise is basically left unexplored. I was begging for this exploration and consequently left the theatre feeling the film was incomplete. In the end where the original presented a carefully edged character study I found the remake to be perhaps unintentionally much more plot driven and far less tense due to its failure to fully develop Bob’s psychological struggle. (***)
LOST IN LA MANCHA
Every year at a the Toronto International Film Festival one or two films garner the interest of creative film folk (i.e. non executives) and attract a star studded audience. Keith Fulton and Lious Pepe’s Lost in La Mancha, which chronicles the collapse of Mr. Gilliam’s film Don Quixote, is emblematic of such films and wins the award for this year’s most celebrity supported film. Present at the film were the likes of Dustin Hoffman, Sydney Pollock, Greg Kineer, and of course Terry Gilliam. The hype surrounding this film had attracted us and the buzz could clearly be felt in the audience as the lights began to fall. After a truly captivating and compelling first act, the film regresses into a formulaic style present in a typical making of documentary. After the screening, audience members had the pleasure to listen to Terry, who incidentally was received with a standing ovation. As per usual, Mr. Gilliam was animated and enthusiastic and happily dismissed inaccuracies about the film and its notorious failure. He maintains that he is still in negotiations with the insurance company to buy back the stock and vows to continue making this film. In response to the audience’s shock surrounding the unbelievable chain of disastrous events that led to the inhalation of Don Quixote, Gilliam cried out “problems are an inevitable part of the filmmaking process, its just that we had a lot more of them than usual.” (***1/2)
THE SECRETARY
Amongst the better films at this year’s festival was Steven Shainberg’s hilarious film Secretary. Secretary is one of those uncommon films that you can deduce simply from watching it that the director and his collaborators were tremendously meticulous about every detail. Hyperbole aside, the film achieves a great deal and is a refreshing example of good filmmaking.
As the title suggests, the film tells the story of a young girl, played by newcomer Maggie Gyllenhaal, who becomes a secretary to a misogynistic lawyer (James Spader). Mr. Spader quickly wrestlers the unsuspecting virgin into a submissive sexual role. In this very dark comedy the film garners laughs wherever intended and forces a permanent smile on its audience as they watch this amusing fable unfold itself. Through its colorful and thoughtful set and costume design, the film is tremendously effective in obtaining an imaginative fablesque setting and relaying information about the characters and their situations.
With the help of a very well written script, both James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal uncover a great deal about their respective characters, illuminating for the audience many of the complexities of these complicated personalities. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s performance is particularly note worthy and is amongst the best I saw in any film at the festival this year. The only notable reservation I had about the film is its failure to smoothly and appropriately resolve itself. The final act looked, sounded, and felt unlike the previous ninety or so minutes of the film. Mr. Shainberg admitted to being “uneasy about the way the film was resolved,” and stated that “they (himself and the writer Erin Cressida Wilson) conceived of countless scenarios and constantly searched for an appropriate ending.” Despite this flaw, the film was still highly enjoyable and consequently easily recommendable. (****1/2)
LOVE LIZA
Every year the festival seems to have one or two entries that despite their undeniable strength attract very little attention. Two such films are Love Liza and The Man Without a Past. Love Liza recalls the story of a recent widower, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, struggling to regain his footing after the abrupt suicide of his beloved wife.
The film was written by Phil’s brother Gordy and was directed by their friend Todd Liouso, who appeared as an actor in such films as Jerry Maguire and High Fidelity. The film is very much a family affaire in that all three players; the actor, writer, and director seem to have a consistent vision of this highly dramatic and at times hilarious film. In addition to Phil Hoffman’s extraordinary turn as a gas huffing, self destructive wanderer, the film features a scene stealing performance by Jack Kehler, who plays Denny, a middle aged man with a wacky obsession with remote control devices.
Liouso and Hoffman’s treatment of Denny and other peripheral characters is honest and understated. These people are not judged but rather they are explored and allowed to uncover themselves through their actions and decisions in a very admirable and innocent kind of way. It is this approach to the story and characters that ultimately makes the film tremendously moving and very dramatic. (****)
THE MAN WITHOUT A PAST
The Man Without A Past, the Grand Jury prize winner at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, possesses a similar understated kind of brilliance. Of all the films at this year’s festival I found this film, which was directed by Aki Kaurismaki, to be the most effective drama, and perhaps film, of all the submissions. What is so completely refreshing about The Man Without A Past is that it continually uses images to reveal information about plot and character rather than relying on unfocussed dialogue. The film has a great energy that translates quite effectively, causing the audience to really care about these people and their situations.
Unlike so many other films of late, this picture presents an engaging love story that unites two very unique and interesting characters. Their desires are genuine and their evolving love for one and other clearly resonates, an achievement that is unparalleled at this year’s festival. No frame is wasted in the film. Everything seen on screen has a purpose and its motivation can easily be detected. The film is so incredibly subtle that its social message or political statement, which is that communism is indeed a viable and effective alternative to capitalism, is not deduced through extensive intellectualization but rather it is simply imparted without any serious pontifications from the audience. Look for the hilarious Christian rock band when watching the film, they are irresistible and completely original. (*****)
SPIDER
Spider, directed by acclaimed Canadian Filmmaker David Cronenberg, was the most enjoyable and impressive film at this year’s festival. I am still completely perplexed by the decision to have the inferior Ararat open this year’s festival. The film profiles a psychosomatic character, Spider, played by Ralph Fiennes, who, having just recently been released from a mental institution, has returned to his childhood dwellings in an attempt to unravel the experience of his mother’s murder. The film is presented from the main character’s point view, who, like the audience, is attempting to understand the events of this story. This is a brilliant and ultimately effective way to recount the story as we, the audience, are seeing things and relayed information about the situation through the films central characters distorted point of view, which is eventually brought into focus at the end of the film. By presenting the film through Spider’s point of view we are essentially being told very early on that nothing is as it seems, setting up a chilling tension that is ubiquitous throughout the film.
As is tradition in Cronenberg’s films, the photography, handled by long time collaborator Peter Suschitzky, is outstanding and reflects the kind of interesting and engaging filmmaking style prevalent in virtually all of their films. The mood of the film is established by the dominant green and grey colors, which helps create this intriguing and unusual setting. The camera is used very effectively to create a specific brand of eerie dramatic tension. The score of the film is incredibly subtle, allowing the visuals to dominant the audience rather than utilizing music to generate suspense. With the exception of a few essential dialogue driven scenes, the film is virtually silent relying on a strong visual style and powerful performances from the actors to maintain viewer interest. Gabriel Byrne and Miranda Richardson give memorable and haunting portrayals of there evil characters as seen through Spider’s point of view. This film serves as an undeniable example of a very tightly crafted story where not a single moment of careless exhibition can be detected. (*****)
