Enter the Void (2009)

A. Just look at that poster. How could I not write about it?
B. am I still alive?
3. tryingtomakefilms or theoryandcriticism? on the verge of choosing laying in bed for the rest of my life. i really cant figure out if i could be good at this.


Date: 09/17/09
TIFF 09
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1191111/

Enter the Void.

I'm purposefully trying to say as little about this film as I possibly can, I think this film is best seen without knowing much about it, on a gigantic screen, in an empty movie theatre. I also definitely believe that it is quite simply: a masterpiece.

     Enter the Void is admittedly an incredibly difficult film to watch. It’s a film that you have to walk into prepared for. It’s a film that most people will simply not be able to take (example? The guy in the theatre who yelled ‘Finally!’ upon the film ending.) The cinematography echoes the pixie explosion of Speed Racer, however much, much darker and somehow more dizzying. Tokyo is seen in non-stop flashing neon colors. A warning – if you suffer from epilepsy, this film will be the end of you. The first act of the film plays out in first person view, complete with brief black flashes every few seconds to simulate blinking. Despite this blinking, there is literally not a single cut in the entire film (155 minutes long…) that at any point feels like the film ‘cut’ or was edited. The organic (otherworldly) path that the film follows flows viscerally. The transitions between shots are completely seamless - shockingly so. I really have no idea how he achieved this, but it’s quite remarkable. Technically, the film is quite a marvel; Noé’s use of CGI, in particular, is inspired. As programmer Colin Geddes said in the introduction to the film at the screening I was at, “Fuck gigantic robots and talking dogs, this is what CGI was meant for.”
     To call the film a rollercoaster is simply an understatement, as would be calling the journey the film takes you on anything short of ambitious. With these aesthetics, the film feels exactly what I would imagine a rather intensive drug trip to feel like. This is clearly the stated idea and the majority of the film revolves around promiscuous drug use. Enter the Void demands the viewer actively participate by succumbing to its psychedelic nature. What you, an audience member, will pull out of the film can be simply answered by the question – will you drink the kool-aid?
     The nature of the film’s intensive visual and aural experience will simply be more than the average viewer can take. This experience, when combined with the rampant violence, sex, and drugs that film centers around are impacting enough that this is not a film you can blindly recommend. I do, however, believe that the film is strong enough that it warrants discussion, analysis, and appreciation by those willing to take its ride. Simply put: Enter the Void is an ambitious, deeply affecting, stunning work.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Date: 12/21/08
Theatre.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970416/

Warning. Pretty heavy spoilers regarding both versions of the film to follow. I normally try to avoid this, however, it is absolutely necessary in breaking down why this film fails.

The Day the Earth Stood Still.

     Alright. Let's start with the good. The cinematography. A few pretty sweet moments. Notably, when the spaceship (if you can really call it that) is descending and beams of light are are showering cathedrals and buildings in downtown NY. Okay, that's pretty much all I've got for this category.
     This film is quite simply a failure. Why? The message is completely lost. One can but wonder who is to blame for this. Is it the director? He seemed to have good intentions, however under-realized they may be. The studio? That's where my money is. There hasn't been much conceptual science fiction as of late, so I guess it's cool they at least green lighted this. However, they mistakenly decided to try and "upgrade" the quiet, thoughtful film into a summer OMG CGI blockbuster. One only has to watch the seemingly endless action sequences the film degrades is swimming in to realize this. Okay, so the studio is trying to make money by pushing the action sequences non-stop, fair enough. Unforgivable, however, is the studio's constant product placement. A little bit here and there is expected in today's Hollywood, however, this film sets a new low. McDonalds, LG phones, Citizen Watches, Hyundai, Vista, Worlds of Warcraft, you name it. The absolute worst is the McDonalds moment. Groan-inducing, is too nice of a term for this scene. Keanu Reeves literally drives us to a McDonalds, only to proclaim "we're here." right as the big, glowing, golden arches reflect on the car window. This moment is followed by a tracking shot of a cup of coffee. Is this supposed to be a joke? A film (that once had) such a strong message has been degraded to a McDonalds commercial.
     Pretending the film didn't have the aforementioned issues, clearly the film's most major issue is it's plot and message. The original film had a very clear message and a logical ending. For this "re-imagining" only some aspects of the plot are updated while others remained unchanged and the film is worse off because of it. The idea behind the updating is clear enough, and definitely appropriate in today's society. The "alien race" is threatening to eradicate life on Earth, because humans are destroying the planet. Their plan is to remove all of the innocent creatures, wipeout everything the humans once were, and then replace animals who will revive the Earth to it's former state. At the end of the film, Keanu Reeves changes his mind and decides to save the people of the Earth instead of letting them be massacred. The film expects you to ignore the fact that the aliens want to save the planet because it supports intelligent life by wiping out the one species that is arguably intelligent on it. Okay, ignore that. Lets move on to the climax. Keanu is so moved by seeing the love between the mother and her step-son that he decided humans can change and save the planet. Ummm... why, exactly? In the original film, the issue at hand was humans killing each other, so having the Klaatu character moved to save the Earth because of witnessing the true love between people actually makes sense. In this new, updated setting where Keanu Reeves is destroying Humans to prevent humans from destroying the Earth, how does this ending make any sense at all? It doesn't. "Aw, humans can love. They probably won't destroy the Earth, it's cool." is all I can figure went through Keanu's head.
      Thankfully, we'll always have the original Day the Earth Stood Still to remind us of a time when a motion picture could be art with higher ambitions than selling french fries and cell phones. The only thing this update to The Day the Earth Stood Still reminds us of is how important films like The Pleasure of Being Robbed are; without them it would be far too easy to argue that the art of cinema has vanished in favor of fancy commercials.

The Pleasure of Being Robbed (2008)

Date: 12/16/08
screener.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189259/

The Pleasure of Being Robbed.


     America has finally found it's answer to the aspirations of foreign cinema. Moreso than any American film I've seen before it, this film feels like a foreign film. Its very existence signals the dawning of a new age in independent film. This film defies conventional filmmaking in a way few have before; those few clearly being the French New Wave and the work of directors like John Cassavetes in America, among others. I can but dream we have more films of this caliber coming from it's director Josh Safdie and the few this film is sure to inspire.
     Mostly beautiful yet often ugly, much at the same time, the film's camerawork is completely evocative of it's main character; this is most obvious in the film's use of focus. Constantly dropping out of focus, many critics have apparently decided that this is definitive proof of the film being "technically deficient". (Laura Kern) What I'm arguing here is in fact the complete opposite: the film is most decidedly enhanced by this aspect of it's cinematography. Yes, much of the film goes out of focus. But what focus does it's protagonist's (Eléonore) life have? She wanders around stealing, not stealing, looking through purses, and on and on. This is clearly a proficient use of technique, just not a conventional one.

-.

I've decidely lost what little writing proficiency I once had, otherwise, I assure you (me), I would write endless amount of my usual bullshit about this remarkable film.

Noor / Danzak

What an interesting evening.

After watching a handful of thoroughly mediocre shorts, I somehow was lucky enough to stumble on to these two works.

Noor.
In a world without Danzak, Noor would have been the standout of the night. In a world with Danzak, Noor is still a beautiful effort. The relationship defined (and arguably redefined) in the film is held together beautifully. An interesting political message and some beautiful imagery; I also thought the story unfolded very well and stood to represent some of the darker aspects of maturing into an adult and challenging the perceptions of the world around you.


Danzak.
In a world without Noor, Danzak would have kicked my ass significantly harder than it did. In a world with Noor, Danzak still kicked my ass pretty damned hard. I can't believe some of the themes running subtly throughout the course of this film; I see the entire spectrum of humanity in this film. Death, love, birth, the argument between generations, traditions vs a new age, and so on. It seemed awkward at first and I couldn't get the feel for it until about halfway through, but once it clicked it clicked with authority.

Thrashin' (1986)

So inspiring.

Style Wars. (1983)

All You See Is...

Flight of the Red Balloon (2007)

In the middle of the summer, in the heat of the "Incredible" Hulk, in the hustle and bustle of Kung Fu Panda, a beacon of hope floats through...