Hey folks, Harry here in Halifax, Nova Scotia bringing you this final update from Young Frankenstein from Toronto (Hey! I was there earlier today!!!!) Once again it looks like he did pretty good at the festival this year, though this IN AMERICA does seem like turpentine in the eyes... Well, I've got to get some rest, I have to act smart in the morning!
PART 2 Toronto International Film Festival:
IN AMERICA
In America (working title) was a film at this year’s festival that was so beloved by audiences it truly made me sick. Like last year’s Life As a House, Jim Sheridan’s In America relies on disingenuous and cheesy drama to engage vulnerable audience members. Rather than investigating characters with some notable depth, the film simply recounts the story of a struggling family of caricatures who admirably conquer all of their familial and emotional issues.
According to Mr. Sheridan, the script was originally written seven years ago and for years was unsuccessful in garnering any kind of interest in the project. In an attempt to get the film made, the script was subjected to countless redrafts, ultimately culminating with the present story and characters. Mr. Sheridan informed the Toronto audience that the film is somewhat autobiographical, particularly the children in the film, who he maintains "are so much like my own when we came to America." From very early on in the film I became aware of its intention to setup the audience and convince them to like and feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for these characters. By establishing this pathos, via insincere formulaic melodrama, the film is essentially ensuring the end response of complete sadness. As I sat in the theatre I could hear my fellow filmgoers sobbing uncontrollably demanding tissues from their respective comrades. Their sadness however was a reaction to a carefully plotted story that relies on its situations to evoke the desired emotional response. The story is sad regardless of how you tell it. These kinds of stories are indeed highly effective in obtaining this response but its impact is skin deep and is, for the most part, forgotten by the next afternoon. I do however feel obligated to mention the performances of Sarah and Emma Bodger who appeared at the film’s screening and gave outstanding performances in the film. (**)
IRREVERSIBLE
Without a doubt the most shocking and controversial film at this year’s film festival was Gasper Noe’s Irreversible. In this tension filled revenge thriller, Mr. Noe, in reverse chronological order, takes his audience on a ferocious roller coaster ride that is perhaps unsuitable for those with sensitive stomachs.
Shot on Super 16mm by the director himself, the film showcases some of the best and innovative photography I have seen in recent years. The dizzy and shifty photography is brutally effective in heightening the tension, leaving the audience in the dark about the forthcoming action. One sequence, which is particularly noteworthy, is the one featuring Pierre and Marcus as they wonder through the "Rectum," the aptly named gay fantasy club. With the aid of this bizarre techno music, the camera intentionally fails to reveal more than a few glimpses of the pair’s shocking surroundings, forcing the audience to fill in the blanks of this hugely freaky setting. Sequences such as this strain the audience, stripping them bare of the comfortable parameters that are generally explored and accepted in main stream cinema. In complete agony, you sweat out your fear and shock as you wait for this unbelievable story to unfold itself.
The film possesses a clear strength that is virtually undetectable in most other films, the most obvious exception being the films of Stanley Kubrick. As a result, it comfortably extends the boundaries of what is expectable in cinema. The two highly controversial, violent scenes involving a rape and a murder would surely seem gratuitous in any other film but since this picture establishes itself as unique and powerful, those scenes seem consistent and almost appropriate in the film’s context. (****1/2)
DIRTY PRETTY THINGS
Stephen Frears, the man responsible for The Grifters, My Beautiful Laundrette, and High Fidelity came to the festival this year with a clever and revealing exploration of the miserable underground of English immigration. Dirty Pretty Things offers a vivid and candid portrayal of this system, which, in recent years, had attracted a tremendous amount of attention. The film possesses a solid balance between humor and drama, making the serious moments profound and ultimately poignant.
Frear’s characters are honest and do not possess the kind of unthinkable strength of many disingenuous cinematic characters. They have fears and doubts and face their problematic situations with humanistic imperfections. Throughout the film the story remains focused and does not succumb to deviation and senseless exhibition. The film contains many clever scenes in which important information is revealed in a comedic and engaging fashion. For example, we learn very early on that our main character is a formerly trained doctor through a hilarious exchange with his boss, who is seeking aid for his syphilis problem. The film moreover offers peripheral characters that are imaginatively colored and sufficiently developed. They are not generic caricatures that we see in countless other films but rather they are three dimensional people with interesting stories and situations.
ASSASSINATION TANGO
Assassination Tango represents Robert Duvall’s forth directorial effort, his previous one being The Apostle. The film consists of, with the exception of small few, a collection of aimless and pointless scenes, chronicling Mr. Duvall’s character’s uninteresting coming of age. Unfortunately, Mr. Duvall has not yet discovered an identifying cinematic sense of humor and consequently on many occasions where a laugh was clearly sought out the audience did not respond.
The Genesis of Assassination Tango began many years ago when a hit man was pointed out to Mr. Duvall one day in New York. According to Mr. Duvall "the man looked like a hair dresser," which really fascinated him. The idea that these cold blooded killers had regular lives and looked like regular people before and after their work bewildered him. Being a huge advocate of improvisation, according to Mr. Duvall, this film was almost entirely improvised. Put simply, "I would throw out situations and the actors would respond and we would cut the scene." Despite his assurance that the improvisation was "not the wondering kind but the kind with form," the film nevertheless had that wondering aimless feel. Scene after scene, the film continually follows ideas and situations that are uninteresting and ultimately contribute very little to the film’s rhythm and story. In the end, I found Assassination Tango to be a very frustrating film to watch because the subject matter is intriguing but was never really explored and executed in an a very boring formulaic way.
(**1/2)
THE QUIET AMERICAN
Australian filmmaker Phillip Noyce entered two films into this year’s festival. Unlike his last few films (Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and The Bone Collector), The Quiet American and Rabbit-Proof Fence are much smaller more intimate portrayals of actual historical events. The Quiet American was adapted from a famed book with the same title. Unlike the book however, the film gives its audience a very limited and vague conception of its context, which undeniably inhibits the viewing experience. The film clearly attempts to evaluate and comment on this historical situation but in the end succeeds exclusively in telling the melodramatic story of an ill-fated friendship and love triangle.
There are numerous instances in the film where a failed attempt to be dramatic was made. The most obvious example of this can be detected in the scene in which a local café and street corner is bombed and Pyle (Fraser) and Fowler (Caine) come to aid the wounded. The scene is executed in such mundane, formulaic way that I felt as though I was standing behind the actual camera crew as the stunt was being photographed. What was perhaps most offensive about the film was Brendan Fraser’s laughable portrayal of the title character. His performance is so incredibly weak that he fails to convey basic information about how is character is feeling in any given situation.
Towards the end of the film when Fraser is exposed for being an operative his confession is completely transparent and thus the climax of the film is marred, leaving only Michael Caine’s performance to carry the scene and the entire film.
(***)
RABBIT PROOF FENCE
Rabbit-Proof Fence chronicles the desperate story of three young half-castes girls who are, under Australian Law, taken away from their families and placed into a government operated missionary. After a short stay in this unfamiliar place, the girls embark on a heroic and difficult journey back to their homes along the rabbit-proof fence. The film effectively takes its time to tell the story of this "stolen generation," sufficiently informing the audience and providing necessary context as the situation evolves. In addition to seeing how the girls are being affected by this cruel and unjust law, the film also shows its viewers how the rest of Australian society is reacting to this system. An example of this can be seen in the many scenes involving the head of this program, chief Riggs -played by Kenneth Branagh- trying to convince his people of the legitimacy of this evil scheme. I would have however enjoyed more character development, particularly with the girls who seemed to lack significant coloration.
The film is brilliantly photographed by the master Christopher Doyle who uses geographical space to reveal the misery and isolation of the Aboriginal people. The pacing of the film is exceptional, slowly carrying the viewer along this journey with the girls while concurrently uncovering the greater context of this situation, without having it feel distracting or tangential.
(****)
KEN PARK
Larry Clark and cinematographer turned director Ed Lachman’s latest film entitled, Ken Park, was amongst the most disappointing films I saw at this year’s festival. The film consists of a collection of intimate looks at four teenagers (Shawn, Claude, Peaches, and Tate) attempting to cope with their turbulent existences. With the exception of Claude’s story, the situations in the film are completely devoid of drama. Consequently, for the most part, I was left struggling in my seat as I was forced to watch these humorless stories unfold.
The film is filled with revealing, NC-17 type shots of these kids involved in various sexual relationships. Nothing in the film is left to the imagination, offering graphic and extended shots of several sexual encounters. Because none of these scenes seemed to contribute anything to the film, other than perhaps reveal minor information about these characters, they feel gratuitous and eventually become boring. As a member of the audience I remember thinking maybe this guy just likes to watch teenagers have sex and play with themselves. In addition to the four stories, the film also features the story-if you call it that- of Ken Park who commits suicide in a traffic filled Skateboard Park. The film opens with this scene and closes with Mr. Park sitting with a girl on a bench at that same park. With the exception of these two very brief scenes, the audience is given no other information about the character or any kind of back-story about the situation. The film’s directors conducted a rare Q&A after the film and were asked about the motivation for including the Ken Park story which seemed to have no place in the film. The pairing offered a very half-baked rationalization, arguing that the character is there simply because they wanted to address the issue of suicide. The intention is admirable but unfortunately the issue is never addressed, unless they believe that showing a suicide qualifies as addressing an issue, which is entirely conceivable. The Ken Park character felt pointless and serves to illustrate the carelessness of their story telling style in this particular film.
(**)
