Thursday, October 3
Yesss, finally, the big film festival experience i'd been craving! Packed theaters, industry guests, red carpets, distribution deals being made right under my nose, events! Movies that will probably see wide release months down the line! I'm on the cutting edge!
Or so i thought.
I already put in the main log some notes about the guests that i expected, and what actually happened. I don't think i need to write much more about the festival experience in here, so i'll get right to the film reviews.
---
PRESENCE
Steven Soderbergh's new film. As with most of the general audiences, my first exposure to Soderbergh was Ocean's 11 in 2001. Well, i guess Erin Brockovich was before that, but i was fifteen, that movie wasn't marketed to me. A few years later, some friends would introduce me to Schizopolis, and i would start appreciating his weirder indie films.
Soderbergh has also made an impact online with some of his interesting film experiments online, like posting Raiders of the Lost Ark with the audio and color removed, to get people to pay close attention to the cinematography and help people learn the visual language of film. Over the last few decades, he's been one of the few directors to split his time successfully between major mainstream movies, like Contagion and Magic Mike, and small indie pictures, where he does whatever weird stuff he wants, like Unsane and The Girlfriend Experience.
So what's Presence's deal?
Well, it's a haunted house movie, which is new ground for Soderbergh. The entire movie takes place within the house, never leaving its walls until the very end. It's also shot entirely in super-wide/fisheye, point of view shots, although whose point of view we're seeing is one of the central mysteries of the film.
There is a bit of a twist to it, we're led to believe one thing through most of the movie, only to have it revealed to be something else at the end. At the midpoint, there's a character who gives a bit of an info dump, which provides all of the tools you need to figure out what's really going on. At that point, i was able to predict the twist, although i wasn't 100% spot on, which is nice.
I don't think the concept of this film is particularly original or unique, but Soderbergh makes some very Soderbergh-y decisions on how to tell the story, which is what makes it worthwhile and interesting. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions left at the end, and parts of it honestly seem unfinished, but i think that's all intentional. It allows us to find our way into the headspace of these characters, without necessarily needing to have everything spelled out. In a way, i think that it tells the story using the fine details, without the broad strokes, which allows you to fill in the emotions with your own experiences where you can.
Overall, i liked it, i thought it was good, but i didn't think it was quite at Soderbergh's level, frankly. When i saw his introduction to the second screening, and he said, "I've never made a film like this before," i realized that this whole thing was very experimental for him. A new experience. So i respect that he did that and took that chance. I do think that Soderbergh, as an experienced director with a nearly 40 year career now, elevates the material quite a bit with his decisions, but i think the backbone of this script is maybe more of the caliber that a first-time director would tackle.
Maybe that's not fair to say. But it is how i felt about it. Others will surely feel differently.
---
THE DAMNED
The director's introduction to this one was kind of weird, and it didn't really give any insight into the film at all.
I'm not sure what i expected from this movie. I don't know why i decided to see it. I guess i was overwhelmed with how many choices there were, and it came to a point where i just had to make some decisions that would fit a cohesive schedule.
I knew from the beginning that this wasn't going to be my kind of movie. That's not a knock against the film; i'm just not the target audience. Outside of this exact context, i likely would not have seen it.
I ended up in row 1, seat 1, at the far right corner of the screen, as close as possible. It wasn't a good seat. The house was full, though, so that's probably why i ended up there.
I couldn't get a handle on exactly when this movie is supposed to take place. There's a scene in a graveyard, where a character who died shortly before the events of the film's headstone is clearly visible, but given the distortion of the screen from my angle, i couldn't make out the dates. I think we're talking 18th or 19th century, though.
The Damned takes place in a remote Icelandic fishing outpost, over the winter, when the roads and waterways are largely impassable. The fishermen all know that they're stuck there for the next three months, isolated, no one coming in, and no way for them to go out. The intent is that they will spend these months catching as many fish as possible, and in the Spring, they will return home to their families with a bountiful harvest, to sell and make their fortunes. The outpost is owned by Eva, a woman whose husband, the previous leader of this group of fishermen, died in rough waters near some jagged rocks across the bay.
One morning, the fishermen witness a large ship come into their bay and get wrecked on those same rocks, and a decision must be made whether they will go help the survivors or not. Eva chooses not to, as it is too great of a risk to her men to send them out into those treacherous waters.
As a result, the village becomes haunted by a vengeful spirit from Icelandic folklore, who beings picking them off, one by one.
I don't know. It was well made, i can see how people would like it, but as i said, it's not for me. I didn't think the ending made sense, i thought it actively undermined everything that came beforehand. Rather than providing an explanation, i think it removes the understanding of events that we already had.
That's just, like, my opinion, though.
Rory McCann, the Hound from Game of Thrones, is in it.
It premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City back in June, and has already been picked up for distribution later this year, so expect to see this one in theaters soon.
---
ESTELA
This...was bad.
Sorry.
I feel bad saying that, especially since the director and the entire main cast showed up for the screening, but, as i said in my main log for the day, the leads have great romantic chemistry and Nana's earrings are on point, but absolutely nothing else works.
There are several scenes early in the film which include a CGI ghost, and i honestly think every one of them would look better if the ghost was removed, and they just showed us the clean plates. Like, the ghost draws a smiley face in some spilled flour on the kitchen counter. We see the impressions of the drawing appearing in the flour as the translucent finger drags across the pile. I really think that if we'd just seen the smiley face appear in the flour, it would've been a much more effective shot. Just as one example.
The production on this also felt largely like a Lifetime movie at best, or a telenovela at worst. I guess that's who i'd recommend this to; if you want a telenovela with a bit of a supernatural flavor to it, then this is for you. But like. It's still the kind of thing you throw on the TV in the background while you do the dishes, or when you're sick and you're not sure you'll stay awake for the whole thing.
And somehow, it has the same twist at the end as The Damned does, and it makes even less sense here.
I saw at least a dozen people cast their votes on how to rate this movie, 1-5, and i didn't see a single person go above a 3. There were several 1s. I went with 2.
---
MALET
I didn't know i was going to be seeing this short. I'm sure there was an introduction, but as the whole opening ceremony was in either Spanish or Catalan, i didn't understand anything that was being said. It was just, suddenly, a film was playing.
I hated this. Absolutely hated it. If it hadn't been a short, i would not have stuck it out until the end.
This is another period piece which takes place in either the 18th or 19th century, i'm not quite sure of the timeline. It's another small cast, in just a couple of locations, largely lit by fire, so they don't have to show you much of the set. Some scenes are told almost entirely in close-ups of a character's face, with the flickering fire lighting them, and a black void behind.
The movie starts in a brothel, with a man who is evidently a traveling healer, coming to "get some relief." This man is the title character, Malet. The prostitute then heals his wounded leg, which he did not ask for, and he demands to get some action. She gets started on him, but then says something about him being cursed, and her not wanting his darkness inside of her.
Cut to the Queen and her sick baby. The healer arrives to help the child, but is too late, it has died.
The prostitute gets blamed for delaying the healer.
At her execution, she shouts about how Malet will have all of the women killed as witches if he's allowed to continue as he is. She is hung, we see her die, and that's the end.
I get that Malet, while he is the main character and the protagonist, is indeed meant to be the villain. At least, i hope the intention was that he is actually the villain. But it doesn't matter to me. The way the material is presented, i think there are enough dipshits who will see this and argue for Malet, that he was wronged by a woman who got what she deserved. People will argue that this is a matter of perspective, which it's not.
This film is clunkily making a point that has been done so much better so, so many times before. In the end, i think it's just torture porn that serves no real purpose.
But what the hell do i know. Obviously the organizers of this festival thought it was impressive enough that they wanted the audience at the opening ceremonies to see it.
---
DESERT ROAD
Oh boy, it's difficult for me to say anything about this movie without spoiling too much of it. From the beginning of the film, i really didn't think i was going to like it. It starts out with Clare, a woman driving solo across the desert. She stops at a gas station, where she takes a photo of a homeless woman, which i thought was a shitty thing to do. Once the reveals start coming together toward the end of the movie, that moment has very different connotations, but she didn't know then what we and she know by the end, so it remains a shitty thing to do, and that did not endear me to the character at the beginning. And this movie really hinges on the audience having sympathy for that character.
She has to go inside the gas station to get her receipt and a couple provisions, and the cashier is kind of a creepy dude. I'm not gonna advocate having sympathy for the clerk at this point, he is a creep for sure, but i also thought that her actions toward him were a little bit shitty at this point. Again, with further context later on, that interaction would play a bit differently, but neither we nor she have it.
I'm not even gonna say she's necessarily wrong for treating him the way she does, i'm just saying, as i am also a socially awkward dude whose actions are not always understood the way i meant them, and i know i sometimes come off as a little creepy to people who don't know me well, i've been trying to fix that my entire life, i'm sorry, i thought that maybe this clerk was some type of neurospicy and didn't necessarily mean any harm. I feel like she could've just told him no, and he should've backed off. Although i also recognize that we live in a world where many men cannot handle being told no, and especially in an isolated environment like that he could've reacted unpredictably, and...
Eh. I'm overthinking this, i'm going in circles. She did fine. Dude just doesn't understand social cues, is all. It's probably no one's fault.
This is all, like, the first five or ten minutes. I'm not going to explain anything further than that. From that setup, i was really worried that it was going to turn into an isolationist horror, with this unnamed clerk chasing Clare across the desert, hunting her, to do her harm. That is a flavor of horror movie that i don't particularly enjoy. I'm not interested in the kinds of movies that reflect that feeling of helplessness, especially with a small woman being violently pursued by one or two larger, more powerful men. Because the clerk does introduce his friend Steve shortly after, and things do not look good for a little bit there.
But that is not what this movie turns into.
I really liked the way this all came together. It does break its own rules, just a tiny bit, at the end, but it kind of has to in order to give us a satisfying ending. I don't mind it. I had a really good time with this one.
It's also interesting to me, though, that different people enjoyed different parts of this movie. I just explained that i was pretty uncomfortable with the setup in the beginning; the French woman that i ended up waiting for the train/bus with later in the night said she really liked the beginning, she thought it set up some interesting concepts for her. But she didn't like the scenes later in the film where Clare is putting the map together. Those were some of my favorite parts! Watching Clare figure out the mystery and put the pieces together was very satisfying to me.
Anyway. I've been pretty clear in the past (not in this journal, i don't think. Maybe? I don't remember, i just mean, like, in general) that my favorite literary device is Chekhov's gun, which is why Die Hard is one of my favorite movies, and i thought this movie was brilliant about planting little tidbits that it pays off in unexpected ways further down the line.
---
So that's my first round of movies for the festival! I have no idea what else i'm going to be seeing!
No comments:
Post a Comment