A droll French-Canadian comedy connections, inventions, and origins starring Dardennes regular Olivier Gourmet. . .
PHILIPPE FALARDEAU: CONGORAMA (2006)
.
Printable View
A droll French-Canadian comedy connections, inventions, and origins starring Dardennes regular Olivier Gourmet. . .
PHILIPPE FALARDEAU: CONGORAMA (2006)
.
Swimming, life: levels of the game. An elegant new film from Argentina.
VERONICA CHEN: AGUA (2006)
.
A rough manifesto from an unacceptable civil state: Algeria.
TARIQ TEGUIA: ROME RATHER THAN YOU
.
Engaging meta-fiction tale about screenwriting and murder in changing China. . .
HOW IS YOUR FISH TODAY? (XIAOLU GUO, 2006)
.
An Egyptian blockbuster about Cairo society in the 1990's.
THE YACOUBIAN BUILDING (MARWAN HAMED 2005)
.
A misfire from the Brazilian director best known for Madame Satã.
LOVE FOR SALE: SUELY IN THE SKY (KARIM AINOUZ 2006)
.
You must be exhausted with film viewing and reviewing, Chris. Great job though. Festival reviews have a long life because we might have to wait years for some of these films to become available outside the festival circuit. I mean...Los Muertos finally got a theatrical release a month or so ago.
I know from reading your reviews carefully that Rage and The Yacoubian Building are not films I would enjoy. I'd love to watch How is Your Fish today? It has that kind of meta-narrative used by Watkins in Edvard Munch and Hou in The Puppetmaster and others. It has the same distributor as Sweet Land and Old Joy so if it doesn't come to a theater near me I can get it on dvd.
I'd give Karim Ainouz's film a chance, partly because of Sata and the two films he penned which I've reviewed (Lower City and Cinema, Aspirin and Vultures), but most importantly because of DP Walter Carvahlo, who lensed perhaps the most beautiful film I've seen this decade: Lavoura Arcaica (finally available on dvd under the title "To the Left of the Father").
Congorama got called contrived and overplotted in Variety but I'll watch anything with Olivier Gourmet.
Agua sounds delicious. I can probably get the dvd from friends who travel to Buenos Aires regularly.
Thanks for these responses. I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in The Yacoubian Building, but having lived in Cairo, I admittedly have an connection you and others on this site would lack. You don't seem to gravitate to Middle Eastern cinema. I'm interested in what comes out of that area or relates to it. As for Rage (Turkey of course not "the Middle East"), if you're interested in urban social problems it is a must-see, though it's not fun to watch. I think it's extremely interesting to analyze the mind-set of the Turkish-born German resident writer/director. I could only touch on that.
The cinematography in Suely/Love for Sale is beautiful at many points, but it's a bit wasted, partly because the print didn't always look that good. I became aware of its beauty partly through looking at the stills afterwards. There is a huge range of image qualities nowadays, compared to the past when film was the only medium. I have not seen anything but Madam Sata and this new one, both in theaters. Production quality isn't high, but he's got a good cinematographer. You may disagree on everything but the latter point.
I hope you like How Is Your Fish Today? I may add a final note about disappointments on rewatching it on the big screen. They were projecting a dvd. I became aware that the latter part needed cutting, but the writing and editing were good most of the way.
As I said in my review, Congorama seems to me more like a novel than a film. I don't mean it's uncinematic, just that the plotting suggests a book. It's not "overplotted," but its plotting is cerebral. It seems like 90% of the time a film is expected to be on a simpler level than most novels. I can think of lots of overeventful or overplotted films (some deliriously or hilariously--intentionally--so), but this wasn't that. It can be accused of being ingenious.
Agua is nice.
Personally one of the highlights was Daratt. Along the Ridge also grabbed me; Il Caimano to some extent; there have been very few real disappointments, below par items. But nothing as magical as News from Afar, as far out as Brothers of the Head, as nicely done as Play (those from last year), or as unforgettable as Los Muertos (from two years ago). I'm not counting some that I'd already seen that are great: Dans Paris, Flanders, Bamako.
Only a couple more days. I am behind in review-writing but have to try to watch as many as I can before the final day.
I don't think we were invited to the opening gala for which tickets cost $85, but we are invited to the finale, but since I've seen La Vie en Rose I'll skip it. I'm in this for the film-watching, not for the schmoozing or celebrity-watching.
I think we love some films for what they could have been, when it was something we've always wanted. How Is Your Fish Today? is that for me. It doesn't quite come up to the fantasy, but the ideas are there.
I'm not exhausted but I'll be glad when it's over.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in The Yacoubian Building. You don't seem to gravitate to Middle Eastern cinema.
The reasons have to do with "Smashed-together telenovela", "heavy-handed emotional manipulation", prejudiced", "wrong kind of lense used", "some exterior sound is awful"... I have no opinion of the film of course but it sounds like something I can afford to pass on given there are more good films to watch than one has available time.
You know I gravitate to good cinema from everywhere. I have no less or more interest in a movie because it's American or French or Iranian. From Egypt, the best films I've seen are by Youssef Chahine, whom we've discussed before.
The cinematography in Suely/Love for Sale is beautiful at many points, but it's a bit wasted, partly because the print didn't always look that good. I became aware of its beauty partly through looking at the stills afterwards.
This is most likely a projection problem. I had a similar problem at the MIFF with the press screening of Glue: Historia de un Adolescente en Medio de la Nada. I raised the issue with the person in charge of quality control and they were very grateful because they were able to avoid similar problems at the public screening of the film.
I hope you like How Is Your Fish Today? I may add a final note about disappointments on rewatching it on the big screen. They were projecting a dvd.
This happened to me at the Fort Lauderdale Film Festival. It's lamentable and only acceptable when it's made clear beforehand that they'll be projecting a dvd.
Personally one of the highlights was Daratt. Along the Ridge also grabbed me
I've had my eye on Daratt for a while. I guess we should start referring to it as Dry Season since that's the title used for its release in NYC last month. The distributor is tiny but I think there'll be a dvd. Along the Ridge sounds interesting.
Only a couple more days. I am behind in review-writing but have to try to watch as many as I can before the final day.
Sounds very familiar.
I'm in this for the film-watching, not for the schmoozing or celebrity-watching.
That's the spirit!
Portrait of a cantankerous hermit acts as a parable for modern Russia
PAVEL LOUNGUINE: THE ISLAND (2006)
.
Oscar:
Not to belabor the point, but The Yacoubian Building is highly significant as an attempted comprehensive portrait of the country, despite its faults, but you can choose as you like. I notice you mention Iran, but not Morocco, Algeria, Egypt. . .but better things are coming out of Latin America, I'm very ready to grant.
If those two films were shown on projected dvd's, isn't that the fault or shortcoming of the limited budgets of the makers? Had they brought film, it would have been used. This wasn't the only disappointment in re-watching How Is Your Fish Today? I also saw weaknesses in the overall design and the editing that I had overlooked the first time. I'm not sure the jurors here care, because lat year they gave the SKYY Prize to Taking Father Home (Ying Liang), a Chinese movie shown in a crude-looking dvd version.
Had forgotten that Daratt had opened in NYC. I did see that somewhere. But my head is spinning now, and I really am getting tired, and I'm feeling quite frustrated too because I was working on six or seven reviews at the same time, and the Word files of three of them became corrupted and the reviews effectively lost. That was quite a blow when I have so many to do. I don't know if I can face trying to recreate them in toto.
A postscript on The Yacoubian Building:
Today's (final?) publicity release from the festival includes this information in the awards listings. :Quote:
The Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature went to Francisco Vargas Quevedo's The Violin, with Sounds of Sand, Vanaja, The Yacoubian Building and Zolykha’s Secret rounding out the top five audience favorites in the category.
Death in a family, seen from the eyes of a mysterious outsider.
LEE YOON-KI: AD LIB NIGHT (2006)
.
STILL TO COME, REVIEWS OF:
LADY CHATTERLEY
PARTING SHOT (WINNER OF THE FIPRESCI PRIZE)
REPRISE
THE SILLY AGE (WINNER OF THE CHRIS HOLTER HUMOR IN FILM AWARD)
TIMES AND WINDS
THE VIOLIN (WINNER OF THE SKYY PRIZE)
THE WHISTLING BLACKBIRD
PROBABLY WILL SEE ON THE LAST DAY:
THE ORANGE REVOLUTION OR
THE SUGAR CURTAIN
(CAN'T SEE BOTH)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Oscar I notice you mention Iran, but not Morocco, Algeria, Egypt.
You missed my point, which is that I don't care one bit where a film comes from or the predominant language spoken. I don't "gravitate" towards anything but good films. When I write: " I have no less or more interest in a movie because it's American or French or Iranian", the three national origins are random.
two films were shown on projected dvd's, isn't that the fault or shortcoming of the limited budgets of the makers? Had they brought film, it would have been used.
Festivals typically require production companies to provide the best possible presentation for the film in exchange for the privilege of having a certain film selected out of all entries submitted and exhibited.
I'm not sure the jurors here care, because lat year they gave the SKYY Prize to Taking Father Home (Ying Liang), a Chinese movie shown in a crude-looking dvd version.
Unacceptable. It's the festival administrators who don't seem to care.
I really am getting tired, and I'm feeling quite frustrated too because I was working on six or seven reviews at the same time, and the Word files of three of them became corrupted and the reviews effectively lost. That was quite a blow when I have so many to do. I don't know if I can face trying to recreate them in toto.
That sucks man. Sorry.
I reviewed Le Yoon-ki's debut This Charming Girl.
That film kept the focus squarely on the main character but also could use some trimming around the middle. It's great how easy Korean films with Eng. subs on dvd can be bought on the net. If Ad Lib Night is not available on Korean dvd at the moment, it will soon.
Thank you for your comments. I'd probably like to watch This Charming Girl.
I cannot comment knowledgeably on the technicalities of festival film screening and the image quality. I gather that the projection of a video or non-film entity can be quite sophisticated now. I just saw The Sugar Curtain, the documentary by Camila Guzman Urzua, and it looked pretty good, it was projected on a really big screen in a really large auditorious, and the equipment they used was not film projection but it looked quite elaborate, in the back of the auditorium. So I'm not so sure that the use of a projected dvd is now always to be considered "lamentable."In the case of Taking Father Home, then, if you want to put it that way, niether the admistrators nor the jurors "seem to care." They probably do care. But they make allowances for lack of image sharpness that they would not have made probably during the era when there was only film used. And then, there is David Lynch's Inland Empire, used with a "cheap" video camera ($2,000-$3,000) and grainy looking, yet it works. But in the cases of beginners with no budget, like Ying Liang, it just looks like a biginner working with a cheap camera. He's never used film, unlike Lynch.Quote:
It's the festival administrators who don't seem to care.
Some of Camila Guzman Urzua's camerawork didn't appeal to me much, but I'll deal with that later. One usually makes some allowances for low budget documentaries one doesn't make for narrative features, I guess.
The festival is over today, and I'm personally glad that by some luck or dumb luck I happen to have this time seen the winners of the humor award (The Silly Age/La Edad de la Peseta), the Fipresci Prize (Parting Shot/Pas douce), and the SKYY Prize (The Violin, suggested by Oscar), plus the Cesar Best Film winner, Lady Chatterley's Lover. These are definitely of high quality, each in its own very different way. And I'm going to piece together those lost reviews of mine somehow, and move forward to write six or seven more. The festival was more of a hassle this year than last, I said "never again" more than once, but also the results for me were probably better this year overall, despite the lack of the magical experiences I had in earlier SFIFFs with those Latin American movies I keep mentioning, Los Muertos, Play, and Noticias Lejanas.
Also bear in mind that in my view some of the best of this festival were in the NYFF or the Rendez-Vous, also as I've repeated before, Bamako, Flanders, Dans Paris, and I might mention tonight's closing celebration film, the glittering, dazzling, remarkably acted La Vie en Rose/La Mome, with Marie Cotillard.
Links to more SFIFF 50/2007 reviews will follow in the next few days.
Delicate collision: tough turns tender (Fipresci Prize winner, with Isild Le Besco).
JEANNE WALTZ: A PARTING SHOT (2007)
.
Documentary memoir: a childhood of lost hopes and ideals in Cuba
CAMILA GUZMAN URZUA: THE SUGAR CURTAIN
.
*I think it's important to note that Camila Guzman Urzua's father is Patricio Guzman, one of the greatest political documentary filmmakers in the world. I'm curious about the extent of his involvement with El Telon de Azucar (perhaps as a consultant). Here's a review of the last film he has released: Salvador Allende (2004)
*Just to confirm, for anyone interested in Ad Lib Night after reading Chris Knipp's review, that the film is indeed available on NTSC dvd with English subs. As usual, the price is right: $8-$12 shipping included.
I remember the Allende film being shown in New York but I missed it. I did see mention of Urzua's father in the Variety review; however, there is nothing to indicate that he cooperated in or influenced the film. He is not interviewed. She does not mention him in her statements or refer to his work in the film. And he is not otherwise mentioned in the press kit. I think we should note that she is his daughter and leave it at that--unless you find information to the contrary (i.e. that he had some direct involvement in her documentary). Perhaps by the way, should I call her "Guzman Urzua," though, as Deborah Young of Variety does, rather than simply "Urzua"? Someone was chastised for calling Gael Garcia Bernal "Bernal" and not "Garcia Bernal," I remember.
If you know of other SFIFF films I've reviewed that are available so reasonably on DVD's, please tell us.
The authenticity of age: strong politics and a strong aesthetic from Mexico. The SKYY Prize winner at the SFIFF.
FRANCISCO VARGAS: THE VIOLIN (2006)
.
A lovely little package: Turkish village life.
REHA ERDEM: TIMES AND WINDS (2006)
.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Perhaps by the way, should I call her "Guzman Urzua," though, as Deborah Young of Variety does, rather than simply "Urzua"? Someone was chastised for calling Gael Garcia Bernal "Bernal" and not "Garcia Bernal," I remember.
Yes, you should call her "Guzman Urzua" just like one should use "Gonzalez Inarritu". In Latin America, it's traditional to use first the last name of your father followed by tha last name of your mother (I am Oscar Jubis Siman in El Salvador). This practice is probably most common in Mexico and least common in Argentina, by the way. It would be slightly more acceptable to call her "Guzman" than "Urzua", or in the case of G.G.B., "Garcia" rather than "Bernal". But both choose to use the double last name so that would be the right way to refer to either.
If you know of other SFIFF films I've reviewed that are available so reasonably on DVD's, please tell us.
The Old Garden is the other film you've reviewed that's cheaply and easily available on NTSC dvd. If you find one made in Korea is probably somewhat better quality than one made in China.
Thanks. I'll put in Guzman. And all this time I have been saying "Innaritu," and it was wrong. . . But what I can't understand is that this site now doesn't seem to support any kind of coding for accented letters. I thought it did before. This spoils my painstaking efforts to be accurate with names and foreign titles, and this isn't true of my site or IMDB entries.
How do they do names in Argentina--do they just more often use the father's name alone?
I'm glad The Old Garden is available, though more will be lost on a small screen of its complex large-scale images than for the very TV-screen-ready Ad Lib Night.
If that's the only other one currently, I dare say many will be coming on dvd later. Well, some..
Youthful New Wave-ish wit from Norway (this year's Best Foreign Oscar entry): a whole generation headed by two ambitious young writers.
JOACHIM TRIER: REPRISE (2006)
.
Cuba on the brink of the revolution: a droll coming of age tale.
PAUL GIROUD: THE SILLY AGE
.
Regarding El Violin:
*The film's controversial politics resulted in it being ignored by Mexican distributors even after the prize at Cannes and seven Ariel nominations. Guillermo del Toro managed to use his clout to get The Violin distributed in Mexico. It finally opened on 4/27/07.
*The first name of the actor who plays Don Plutarco, the winner of Best Actor of the Un Certain Regard section at Cannes '06, is Angel, not Anjel.
*The first name of the character who is the son of Don Plutarco is Genaro, not Genero.
*The scope is certainly not "epic" but, what do you mean by "footnote" when you write: "the focus on him makes the story a footnote rather than an epic"?
Thanks for the corrections of my misspellings--I've fixed them.
I may be undercutting the heroic aspect of the characters and events in The Violin, in your view. I don't mean to do that. There's just a difference between heroic and epic, and Vargas is deliberately working on a specific, limited scale in his depiction of the campesino rebellion. I might better phrase it "more a footnote than an epic," not to say it's either. (A footnote can be very important.) I would compare The Violin to Pontecorvo's epic (using the word somewhat loosely) The Battle of Algiers, which includes specific heroes of the revolt and covers the whole sequence of events from both sides in great detail. Vargas doesn't do this. Again, that doesn't mean The Violin is nothing but a "footnote." It's just not an epic, even though its main characters are brave and heroic.
A couple of other points about the historical references and your use of the word "propaganda". You said as you recall:As to the period and rebellion Vargas is referencing, in an interview in the press kit Vargas replied as follows:Quote:
Vargas purposefully avoids anything that specifies time and place, both in the dialogue and in the visuals. The tale brings to mind a number of conflicts in Latin America although, if I had to guess, I'd say this is Chiapas,Mexico during the Zapatista "insurrection" of 1994.
Variety's review focuses on the period Vargas points to first, referring to Don Angel Tavira, as fiddling "his way into the front lines of Mexico's peasant revolts during the 1970s." Vargas also says in the press kit interview "Those who have seen the film in Mexico are reminded immediately of recent events like the miners conflict and the military oppression in Atenco." And he refers to the repression of alternatives to President Fox's version of democracy during the presidential compaign, which was still going on at the time of the interview. So all that would help us understand better why the film was regarded as controversial in Mexico. The fight goes on.Quote:
The history which the film sends us back to is still present in the memory of the country: the peasant revolt of Guerrero in the 1970's, this repressed voice which erupted in defense of the rights of the peasant Indian communities, surprising both the reigning power and public opinion. This revolt recalls also that of the Chiapas populations, directed by the deputy commander Marco, leader of the revolutionary group EZLN (Egercito Zapatista de Liberacion National).
As to the film being propaganda, you wrote in your review,Propaganda tries to convince us of a distorted position's validity. I don't see that happening in either film. I'm more inclined to call something propaganda when it promotes assertions that are patently false. Of course indeed Vargas' sympathies are with the campesino rebels. But I don't think that either in The Violin or The Battle of Algiers sympathy for the rebels and the drawing of clearcut lines makes the film propaganda -- though no doubt there are those who would differ -- namely those who would like any campesino rebellions quashed in Mexico or those who wish Algeria were still a French colony. Being political, specific, controversial, and taking sides don't make a film propaganda. At the end of The Battle of Algiers the French won. But in the long run, they lost. So Pontecorvo's stand is with history, and I'd say Vargas' is too, which also helps keep either from being propaganda. It doesn't keep them from being controversial, though.Quote:
The Violin's politics are quite simple: the film is supportive of the rebels to such extent that it could reasonably be called "propaganda". It clearly aims at every stretch to present Plutarco and Genaro as heroic and their adversaries as villanous.
Running from emotion in Patagonia.
PABLO TRAPERO: BORN AND BRED (2006)
.
I wasn't ready to disagree with the line I quoted from your review without further elaboration from you. I find your explanation quite satisfactory.
I find you're discussion of the time and place in which the film is set also good. The Violin is relatively vague about its place and time, perhaps so that the viewer relate the events to a series of clashes between Mexican governments and revolutionaries dating back to the 70s. Like I wrote "the tale brings to mind a number of conflicts..."
My statement that The Violin "could reasonably be called propaganda" is related to the clear assignment of good traits to the peasants and bad traits to the soldiers. It's an extremely one-sided tale of good vs. evil, like a traditional western (I think you made the comparison to films from that genre in your review). I like the film (to a point) and I'm glad it's playing at 20 Mexican theatres right now. But its politics are simplistic and reductive. That's all I'm willing to say as I don't wish to discuss Mexican politics in this forum.
I forgot Cannes' Actor award for Angel Tavira. That's kind of an honorary award. I'm not sure that's fair to all the professional actors who work so hard.
Not propaganda, but biased. Yes, cowboy movies analogy works, with their good-guy/bad-guy lineup. You aren't playing entirely fair when you refuse to discuss "Mexican politics" but say of The Violin" its politics are simplistic and reductive," which is indirectly a statement about Mexican politics--that they are more complex than this film. I take it that not all peasant rebellions are admirable or helpful. and the question is, which one is this, and is it an admirable or helpful one? And the answer is, Vargas doesn't say, so we can't say. That's maybe what you mean by "reductive."
Battle of Algiers shows the French conferring and making up strategies; The Violin doesn't sow the gov't from the inside. What I love about Pontecorvo's film is that it is very specific about events. But I think what leaves me dissatisfied in The Violin isn't that it isn't that way, but that it is pro-campesino rebellion without explaining why they should be having a rebellion, and what their action is aimed at achieving, etc. Which in The Battle of Algiers is quite clear (even though they aren't achieving it).
You don't sound that enthusiastic about The Violin now --"I like The Violin (to a point." I'd consider it one of the standouts of what I saw, though didn't fall in love with it.
Am finding it hard to find ones I loved, but can only eliminate a third of what I saw so far from the running as possible "highlights" because so many of them were worth watching, but not super-exciting. My notepad now lists
Along the Ridge
Daratt
The Violin
Agua
Lady Chatterley
Reprise
Murch
Ad Lib Night
I crossed out Rage, because it's . . .virtually "propaganda." No, don't like that word at all. But it's very exaggerated to offend or galvanize viewers. Agitprop, maybe.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'll only say that Vargas' choice of not being specific does not at all protect him from being taken as making statements about the present; there's no way of avoiding that.
I agree.
When you say "I like the film (to a point)" you don't sound very enthusiastic. I think it's a standout of "my" SFIFF even though I didn't exactly fall in love with it.
It's a good film in my opinion otherwise I wouldn't have had the confidence to recommend it to you. But I didn't fall in love with it either. I think I've expressed why.
In fact it looks like it's going to be hard to pick highlights from what I saw from this festival.
I made a list of favorites from the MIFF and I decided I didn't want to post it. I pondered making a list of "commercially viable" films and "festival films" and decided against it. The reviews say exactly how I feel about each film. Once I post year-end lists for 2007, distributed and undistributed, my preferences will be spelled out more clearly. I certainly reserve the right to change my mind with subsequent viewings of a few of the films from the fest, although I rarely change my opinion.
You can keep yourself pure in this way, and I don't generally like rating movies that much, but I like to be forced to make a decision, and for Cinescene I promised to write a roundup piece as I did of the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema this year. That was easier to do, because there were ones I really liked.Quote:
I made a list of favorites from the MIFF and I decided I didn't want to post it. I pondered making a list of "commercially viable" films and "festival films" and decided against it. The reviews say exactly how I feel about each film. Once I post year-end lists for 2007, distributed and undistributed, my preferences will be spelled out more clearly. I certainly reserve the right to change my mind with subsequent viewings of a few of the films from the fest, although I rarely change my opinion.
I was thinking that I would very much like to be able to watch some of the films again. I can't, not only because they aren't available, but because I just can't go on working on this forever. But they all came too close together, so it's harder to observe them closely. I did revise my opinion about How is Your Fish Today? after the second viewing, but I didn't alter my review to make it more negative or critical, why be mean to a very low budget first film that basically had some nice ideas behind it?
"Commercially viable" vs. "festival films" is a fun game to play I guess.
After seeing Lady Chatterley with an old friend (actually business partner) she said she loved it, and I said, "that is an art film," and she said, "Oh, is it?" I thought it was great, but I also thought it was very long, and a rather strange. She just loved it and for her it went by fast so it wasn't "an art film." For me it was, but it was good.
Commercially viable?
I would say of these, that I listed above:
Along the Ridge
Daratt
The Violin
Agua
Lady Chatterley
Reprise
Murch
Ad Lib Night
Any one of them could be "commercially viable" in the sense of having some art house legs especially if well reviewed, with the reservation that Murch is maybe too short for a theatrical run. And there are others, but they're not on my list because in my evaluation they had flaws. For instance, Il caimano lacked unity. The Road to San Diego--Sorin--surely has an art house run ahead, ansl Vanaja -- 12 Labors?-- and of course some are already having them or about to, La Vie en Rose, Bamako, Coeurs, Dans Paris, Flanders.
Innocent pilgrimage to a soccer god.
CARLOS SORIN: THE ROAD TO SAN DIEGO (2006)
.
Conventional, and yet revolutionary .
PASCALE FERRAN: LADY CHATTERLEY (2006)
.
Island histrionics make for a slow, whimsical ramble
TAKUSHI TSUBOKAWA: ARIA[ (2006)
.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 50 (2007)
Though nothing I saw except maybe Lady Chatterley was really magical this year at the 50th SFIFF, the general quality was high, and I can think of six that are worth singling out, and quite a few more worth mentioning. . .
HIGHLIGHTS OF SFIFF 2007
.
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Though nothing I saw except maybe Lady Chatterley was really magical this year at the 50th SFIFF, the general quality was high
What impressed me most about Lady Chatterley is how cinematic it is. The emphasis is on the characters' actions rather than what they say. Ms. Ferran and her collaborators apparently gave a lot of thought to conveying the narrative, and the development of the central relationship in visual terms. There's a focus on the the interaction between character and environment, both indoor and outdoor spaces. Ferran seems to know exactly when to cut to a nature shot, for instance, and how long to hold it. Every close-up of hands or faces appears to have an implied purpose. The actors merit the close scrutiny. I haven't read any interviews of Ms. Ferran or the actors but the approach seems to be to excise any line of dialogue which can be "covered" by a gesture or a body movement or the placing of the actors within the frame. I love how the progression of the affair between the Lady and her gamekeeper feels so organic and how the film addresses so convincingly the implications of their class differences.
What's puzzling is that Ferran directed two features in the mid 90s which won prestigious awards (including the Camera d'Or at Cannes) then did not direct for 11 years.
Kudos to Kino International for releasing the uncut, 168-minute theatrical version.