the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

As you know, I usually prefer not to negatively comment on what a certain critic has said, partly because he or she isn’t here to respond to it, but mainly due to the fact that the conversation then often simply becomes a medley of quotes and interpretations. But in this case, I’ll first add what director Keren Yedaya had to say about Dargis's remarks: "One thing to understand about Dargis is that she is actually coming from this field of study, and she holds an oppositional approach to mine, claiming that prostitution has to do with the freedom to choose. Since she is all for legalizing prostitution, I think she sees me as her enemy. Therefore, I truly believe that the attack on me here was both political and personal. Although I usually don’t have a problem accepting negative criticism about the film, I found the review to be really insulting."

Now that I’ve read Dargis’s review more carefully, I think there’s some truth to what Yedaya had said. Her comment regarding the characters being ideological constructs is actually irritatingly naïve. Are the filmmakers not allowed to mold their characters around their beliefs? But while critics shouldn’t repress their own ideologies while viewing a work, they have certain responsibilities to their readers that they must also attend to. Dargis has a strong personality, and that’s one of the reason why I do like her, but in this case she her allowed her own views to get the better of her. (She also ended up mentioning the word "melodramatic” in her review for a film which adheres to Dardennes’ naturalism.) And while it’s true that a woman’s "desire" is perhaps not explored enough by filmmakers, it might not be one the main reasons why a prostitute’s offspring ends up in the same line of work. The film's approach is anything but didactic; it actually confronts the viewers with a few humanistic questions. As I mentioned earlier, it is now out on DVD and I hope that people get a chance to watch it.

Good answer. Thank you. I can't comment myself since I haven't seen the film.

Goodbye South Goodbye (1996) - Hou Hsiao Hsien

A rapid departure from Hsiao's previous Good Men Good Women, this is more akin to Liang's Rebels of the Neon God than typical Hsiao. The joy is that this director could stretch, and his next film, the masterful Flowers of Shanghai, is nothing like this. Similar things abound such as the long shots, but tone and theme are remarkably different. The camera becomes more subjective here. Sure much of it is still in long shot and observational, but there are many more POV shots than one might suspect, and the camera is much more mobile this time around.

Goodbye is what one may consider Hsiao's gangster film. Sure this deals with part time thugs, but it's not an ultra violent gore fest most commonly associated with Hong Kong action films. Instead it is more of a social critique. As one luckless gangster seems to do just worse and worse all because he was trying to come up in the world. Not quite the rise to power films that are commonly associated with the genre. In fact the film takes on a bit of a black comedy undertone, because Kao and Flathead are just so damn unfortunate.

The film was selected by more than one source as one of the ten best films of the 90s. That praise is exceptionally high, and I much disagree. It is however a welcome departure for Hsiao, and a film that is infinitely masterful. Another viewing would no doubt enable me much further understanding, but on first impression it is quite a remarkable film, but let's not go overboard.

Grade A -

This was my first Hou movie. It seemed rather dissultory and strange to me, but I could see here was a unique style. As I said for Three Times, I don't think Hou always hits it, but when he does, he's amazing. I would probably agree with your evaluation; fine, but not the best. Still you must rate him higher than most to give it an A-.

I thought it was damn good, just not quite perfect, I'm comparing it perhaps unfairly to Flowers of Shanghai which I believe is his masterpiece (of the six films I've seen).

Shine (1996) - Scott Hicks

Well, well I once remarked that I'll see every film nominated for a best picture Oscar, so this film that I should have seen four years ago at least took me awhile. It doubles up for me covering a best actor Oscar winner as well, which means I've seen the last 30 winners of that award, a pointless streak, but we need incriments. This film shouldn't have seemed like a chore though. I found 1996 to be arguably the weakest year in feature films in the last 20+ years. I'm always interested to discover perhaps a hidden gem, something I haven't yet seen, but Shine wasn't that. Instead it was a by the book, predictable, and extremely cliche film made for the sole purpose of winning awards.

How many times have you seen a film around Oscar time about a troubled genius, mental illness, a strict disapproving father, redemption in later life through love, and squandered talent? Well hell look at every year's best picture nominees and it's quite possible there's a film there that fits all the above. Shine just makes up for it because Fargo avoided those cliches I guess. Geoffrey Rush is admirable in his role here, and brings some humor to the troubled part, but I never believe it's anything more than a gimmick role. Acting shouldn't be about developing a speech pattern, pretending to be crazy, but about conveying real emotion, and I don't really think Rush does that here. Noah Taylor, who plays the younger David does that, and his screen time is even greater than Rush's so perhaps the wrong man got the Oscar here. Neither really deserved it, but perhaps in a supporting category they could have been honored.

I can't help but cringe at some of these films. Seeing the stern father storm about in the beginning of the film I knew where this film was heading, I just prayed that this would be different. Something told me to remain optimistic, maybe this filmwouldn't go down the same roads that so many other triumph in the face of adversity pics do. Unfortunately it wasn't different, the same thing, and the tone of the film from the first fifteen minutes prevaded throughout. I do think that Rush's appearance helped make the film a little lighter, and you can't help but laugh at some of the things he does, such as jumping on a trampoline in an open trenchcoat with nothing on underneath, but these few flashes of humor aren't enough to sustain the film.

Grade C -

Absolutely. I found Shine very, very annoying. I ractually made me angry; I was seething for days. It was fake and manipulative. And it has all those clichés you mention. An Oscar trap, like a fly trap.

Agreed The Flowers of Shanghai is way better than the Boys... But I have not seen all Hou's output yet. It's not all available on Netflix.

Distant (2002)

Well my introduction to Turkish film was a good one. It's pace is set up early in extreme long shot. The film has a deliberately slow pace that suits it just fine. It never really ventures into satire, predictability or pathos, so for my money intelligent filmmaking all around.

Grade A -

Don't remember reading about this directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan but www.metacritic.com indicates a 84, and very high praise from Hoberman, Lane, et al.

It came out here about two years ago.

I finally got to watch Gerry (2002), kind of went about Van Sant's Trilogy in mixed order, but well they aren't exactly related plot wise so I think I'm safe. Gerry stands out as the most minimal of the films and the most evocative. There is no plot to speak of, but I felt reminded of the journey in Walkabout. Just a lot of open landscapes and wide wide shots. I'm gonna give the film another day or two to sink in before I go rating it or expanding further, because Elephant and Last Days both required deliberation.

Gerry especially benefits from viewing on a big theatrical screen. But also Last Days. I think Elephant wouldn't need that as much, though I did see it in a theater.

Claude Chabrol 1985: Le Cri du Hibou (The Cry of the Owl). (Back to Netflix dvd's after a hiatus.)

This is pleasant enough to watch but it seems to me to meander and lack momentum -- to be another example of why sometimes I'm not sure if I really like Chabrol or not, though clearly he is fine when he's fine. This is also based upon a Patricia Highsmith story; and being a big Highsmith fan i felt, as often happens, that her sense of menace and compulsive intensity were lost.

I liked Distant but not as much as others did. It seemed slightly derivative of the techniques employed by the likes of Kiarostami, Tsai, etc.

Haven't seen Chabrol's Le Cri du Hibou; didn't know it existed on DVD. Thanks.

Just running through all the French films on Netflix for the past decades.

All or Nothing (2002) - Mike Leigh

For some reason I avoided this film. I missed it when it was out, and never bothered to pick it up on DVD. I can't honestly understand for the life of me why. All or Nothing is the best film I've seen in a long time, and it is leading me to believe that 2002 was one of the most fantastic years in all of film. I'm no expert on Leigh, but I seriously wonder whether or not he has a film better than this.

The whole film is washed in depression. Every character is miserable, and those that aren't obviously depressed are openly angry. The language of the kids in the film is such that I seriously wonder what parent would tolerate it. You see that one is a vacant alcoholic, another is just beaten by the world, and the last is somewhat overjoyed. Maureen seems to be the only character cheerful. I wondered at first if it was just a front. Someone that smiles on the outside, but is as beaten as everyone else on the inside. As the film progressed though, I found her to be the only character that had any sort of base. She was level headed throughout, knew what to do, and never really seemed to be discouraged. She was the one in the apartment complex always willing to help, but no one seemed to want it. We find eventually that her help is needed, first from her reluctant daughter and then from Penny and her son.

As usual the cast is full of hardly recognizable but top notch actors. Timothy Spall is the only recognizable face and if his name isn't familiar he was in the Harry Potter series. He is very far from an attractive man, and isn't someone you'd expect for a lead. In the role he is absolutely astonishing. First as the depressed and silent victim, but when he does get to open up, it is among the most moving scenes in any film.

I really want to expand on this, but alas my time for writing is brief, but damn this was one amazing movie.

Grade A

I agree, excellent film. Why do you think that year was one of the best of all time though?

Well 2002 I found an extremely strong year. Any year where there are more than 10 films I'd rate at 5 stars is one to note. I believe the total is 12 or 13 for 2002, which makes it high, but it is the particular films. I thought the Two Towers was the best of the LOTR series, Talk to Her is my favorite Almodovar film, The Pianist was my film of the year, Spirited Away I thought was the best Miyazaki, Bowling for Columbine I found far better than Fahrenheit or Roger and Me, I enjoyed both of Spielberg's movies that year, thought Adaptaion was one of the most original and intriguing films of the year, and there were just several other damn good movies. Among those I'd recently add to the great list would be Gerry and All or Nothing.

Have you contributed your best lists for 2005 on the Top Ten thread yet?

I agree that 2002 was a great year in film. I haven't actually posted an official list yet for that year, but I know that you're missing Sokurov's Russian Ark, Cantet's Time Out, Oliveira's I'm Going Home, Koshashvili Late Marriage, Tsai's What Time is it There?, among others. A great year, indeed.

Blood Simple. Coen brothers. 1984. rental dvd.

It looks a lot different after these years and all the other Coen movies. I'm afraid I don't like it as much as I did then, when it seemed so cool and fresh. Now I see the condescension toward rustic, rural types and the cold nihilism that you get in some of the later movies, without the depth of character development found in Great Lebowski, Barton Fink, and others. There are edgy, tongue-in-cheek thrills, and I like the Highsmith-esque clumsy burial, but it seems pointless now, though cinematic and obviously full of talent.

Eric Rohmer's Triple Agent (now available on DVD in the U.S.)

Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
The story fizzles away... but it's told with such tact and style that one walks out curiously satisfied.

If the subject matter is a bit thin, the style is such a delight that it doesn't matter, and the themes of loneliness, dress, possession, and money (relevant to our last century and to Japan's postwar history and perhaps to all human experience) are thought-provoking enough to make the minimalist content expand in the mind. A quiet, subtle, delightful film.

---

That's about right, althought I'm not sure what exactly prompted you to use the word "delightful." The film is spare and dreamy, and it is also decidedly mournful, perhaps overly so. You're right about the style -- very elegant, indeed. The story "fizzles away," and after reading Haruki Murakami's short story, I wonder if the film would've been better off as a short (about 30-40 mins. instead of 75).

Well if it's spare and elegant that can be a delight, that's all. But it is slight and I didn't remember it at the end-of-the-year list-making time.

Patrice Chereau's Intimacy (2001)

A lot can be said about this, which must have been shown in San Francisco very briefly so I missed it though I saw a newspaper review that was good and very admiring. It's fun to mull over watching this at home stopping and starting it and doing other things in between. The photography, which evokes Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud at times, is beautiiful, and the loud sound track with sound effects and music is interesting. The blending of French sexual frankness with seemingly improvisatory dialogue and Mike Leigh situations (and Leigh regular, the always strong Timothy Spall, not to mention the Globe theater director Mark Rydell in the main role; imagine the irony of the latter refusing to give an opinon to Spall of his wife's performance in The Glass Menagerie saying, "I don't know; I'm not into the theater at all") -- the mixture does and doesn't work. The film demands to be taken seriously, but doesn't resolve structurally or have anything definite to say about its situations and people, which are based on a couple of Hanif Kuraishi stories. The explicit sex scenes which the disapproving David Walsh of the World Socialist Web Site says are a "third" of the movie (it may have see4med that way to him, but surely it's less than a tenth of actual screen time) made people alternatively think this was terribly serious and profound, or dismiss it as pure crap. I'd say they just add to the rich mix, but a mix so rich that it never quite all comes together. I keep coming back to some of the images though, which as an artist I find deeply satisfying in themselves, and on my good dvd playder (now working again) and sound system the sound track is arresting and fresh. A divorced man in London with a couple small children who once was a musician and now works in a small Soho pub has quick sex one Wednesday at the spare flat where he now lives with a middle aged woman. She keeps coming back on subsequent Wednesdays and eventually he meets her cabbie husband and finds out about her life as a mediocre actress. He follows her and then the anonymous sex relationship begins to unravel, because things get too complicated. Definitely worth watching, and another interesting addition to the complex Patrice Chéreau oeuvre.

Matthieu Kassovitz: Métisse (AKA Cafe au lait), 1993

A Jewish bike messenger (Kassovitz) competes with a rich African diplomat's son (Hubert Koundé) for the affections of a beautiful mulatto girl (Julie Mauduech) who has gotten pregnant -- by one of the two, she won't say which -- while they take care of her and squabble with each other in a menage a trois in which race and other issues are frankly but amusingly dealt with. This light French knockoff of SHe's Gotta Have It is Kassovit's first feature directorial effort and he also co-stars in it as the Spike Lee character. It's full of fun -- no use going into much depth about it. The q uestion is, how did Kassovitz get from this to La Haine/Hate in just a couple of years? And to Les rivieres pourpres five years later, and to Gothika in 11 years, and has he maintained his promise as a director, or just become a serviceable actor, as he is seen to be -- still rellatively the comic lightweight -- as the 'toy maker' in Spielberg's Munich?

The Crook/Le voyou (1970) by Claude Lelouch starring Jean-Louis Tritignant, Danièle Delorme

On the loose again after escaping from prison, Tritignant, known as “the Swiss” for his precision and his habit of working alone (?) is a suave criminal who avoids capture and carries out a successful kidnapping (in which he does not at all work alone but has three or four accomplices). The film has a bright look and a pleasing sense of watching a smooth, gentlemanly crook at work, though there is never any sense of danger, and comparisons with Tarantino seem very wide of the mark. The action has momentum and charm, but things become a bit confusing due to oddly placed flashbacks. There is a focus on the role of publicity and media involvement in kidnappings, which allows the “crook” to successfully blackmail a bank for a million dollars, and features a gullible couple who give up their small boy becuse they think they've won a Simca car. We're suckered by ads, Lelouch is saying, and look what it can come to. Charles Denner of Elevator to the Scaffold and Life Inside Out/La vie à l’envers is effective and strange, if not real, as a minor bank official. A typical Lelouch touch is bookending the film with a musical film-within-the-film called “The Crook”[Le voyou] and it is all very amusing and light, but somehow it leaves you flat, and the main event, the kidnapping, cheats the audience: we aren’t told the setup.

Mother (1952) - Mikio Naruse

Being unable to catch any of the Naruse retrospective at the Gene Siskel Film Center, I was relegated to checking him out on prehistoric VHS. Only three of his films were ever released in the US, and this is the earliest (and only one at the video store). The comparisons to Ozu are completely warranted. The suburban atmosphere is eerily similar. In fact it seems as though this film was shot on the same sets as Ozu films, particularly Ohayu. The film is simple in it's family story, and recalls a little of the American I Remember Mama, although not quite as nostalgic. This film focuses much more strongly on the direct and indirect impact that the war had on the average Japanese citizen. In it's own way commenting on the post war situation as so many more bleak Italian films did.

The Cloud Capped Star (1960) - Ritwik Ghatak

Well my first non-Ray Indian film, this one seems much in the same style. Which is to say it isn't a four hour Bollywood musical. That said it isn't anywhere near as good as a Ray film might have been. Again it's story is about country folk trying to get by, but something about the film seems tired, as if we've already seen it a hundred times, and we have. The style of the film is admirable, lots of great deep focus compositions, but generally speaking it's been done before, and done better. Overly pessimistic and depressing, but not in a compelling way.

Alexandra Leclère: Soeurs fâchées, Les (2004) [DVD bought in Paris.]

Comedy about reunion of "angry sisters" (the title calls them) with a good cast headed by Catherine Frot and Isabelle Huppert as the sisters and François Berléand as Huppert's husband. Another humorous study of French bourgeois spoiledness and grumpiness. Louise ( Frot, who is good at playing sympathetic but ditzy ladies) is the country sister; Marthe (Huppert) is the elegant Parisian one. Louise comes to visit and see a publisher about a novel that's been accepted and her behavior (to Marthe) seens to be nothing but a string of gushy faux pas. But it's Marthe who turns out to be shrill and annoying. Louise is the one who's happy and successful, and the outwardly sophisticated, elegant Marthe is miserable and doesn't like who she is. This homely paradox is saved from seeming corny because of the wry way bourgeois pretensions are observed. In this regard Leclère's film can be compared with Bacri and Jaoui's acerbic comedies, because it deals with some of the same kinds of people amd peels away some of the same façades. Frot (who was in Un air de famille, which Bacri/Jaoui wrote) emerges as a complex character, and the devastating Huppert as usual doesn't mind playing someone you're impressed by, but really can't possibly like. Both of these actresses are in top form here.

There seems no reason why this wouldn't play well in the US but it may be getting late for a US release. Anyway, according to DVD Times (UK), which has an excellent discussion, it is out there (where it was also inexplicably not released) in a Region Two DVD, and in a great looking print (which the French one also is, and it also has both French and English subtitles available on the latter).

The Matador

I'll keep my comments to the thread appropriate.

Manoel de Oliveira, I'm Going Home/Je rentre à la maison (2001). (Netflix) Touching, low keyed study of an aging actor (played by Michel Piccoli) whose life is seen as a series of small humiliations following a major bereavement. Strong elements in the film: Piccoli's measured assurance; a reliance on concrete, real-time incident, including lengthy passages from Ionesco and Shakespeare. A little too dry and detached for my taste, though I'll have to admit the director Oliveira's being 93 adds creditibility to the portrait of a valitudinarian.

Morgan Jon Fox, Blue Citrus Hearts (2003). DVD from Blockbuster store. Small indie gay coming-of-age movie focused on two high schoolers, not a success.

Lucretia Martel, The Holy Girl/La Niña Santa (2005). DVD from Blockbuster. Amazing, subtle and distinctive. I loved the elliptical, crabwise style of both storytelling and camera placement -- and some of the images are very beautiful, and the young girls are so real you can almost smell them. Helena, the mother, is also very attractive. Had I seen seen this in time I might well have put in in my best list. Howard Schumann has a good review of this elsewhere; it may be on this site too but I couldn't find it.

I'm catching up on the ones that got away last year. Next on my 2005 "Wish I'd Seen List" lined up for viewing: Tropical Malady. Coming up soon on my Netflix queue: Cafe Lumière, My Summer of Love, The World. I'll see Jones's Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada when it's on DVD.

Soeurs fâchées, Les: Yes, I liked it too; glad that you picked it up. I also think that it's distributable.

Je rentre à la maison: A graceful effort from an honorable filmmaker. Its final moments are heartbreaking to say the least.

Looking forward to your thoughts on Tropical Malady and the rest.

One could say lots about Tropical Malady but there's not much I can add to the enthusiastic discussions that have taken place elsewhere. It made a good impression, especially the second "spirit" half, but in several days since I watched it it has faded rapidly. I don't think Weerasethakul is going to be one of my personal favorite filmmakers. The relationship between Keng and Tong is sweet and coy--over time it becomes sweet and cloying. I think the Asians who commented custom might make the younger one acquiesce, without really being gay, could be accurate. Especially if he is poor, he might hope to gain some benefit from the older soldier's interrest, and his familiy might approve for that reason. This exists in some societies. Everyone is smiling in this segment. From the commentary, the director has had this approach before. There's something Utopian about it. It's also quite sexless unless you think a guy putting his head in another guy's lap or licking his hand is a form of sex. I was very impressed with the pursuit of the tiger. The acoustical aspect was unusually rich and I thought the editing was excellent in this part. Certainly an original piece of work but except for the second half it doesn't try to do anything difficult. I watched it twice and watched most of the commentary version too. The outtakes were valuable because they showed Weerasetakul isn't seduced by his own cleverness. He cut out some nifty, impressive shots or scenes, because they would probably have said too much or been too obvious, mostly from the second half. Some of the subtitles aren't very easy to read. This would be better to see in a theater on a large screen: its whole value comes through its rich visual and auditory world. Luckiliy I do have a great sound system.

arsaib, Isn't there a Rendezvous with French Cinema this year? If so when is it coming? I only see 35th New Directors/ New Films
March 22 through April 2, 2006 listed on the Lincoln Center Film Society site.

Matthieu Kassovitz: La Haine/Hate (1995) UK DVD ordered from Ireland.

This vérité-style depiction of disaffected youth from the Paris ghetto cités or banlieues, super-relevant after the events of last November, is a classic now, won major prizes at the time, yet isn't available on US DVD. Black and white. With Vincent Cassel, Hubert Koundé and Saïd Taghmaoui. Vinz (Cassel) expresses the cités' anger and explosive energy; Saïd has a con-man charm, and Hubert has the peacemaker impulse. Together they make a vivid little inter-racial band, Jew, Arab, and black. The Hate in the air comes from the general situation, but specifically one of their mates' being in hospital fighting for his life after a police beating. The action has a desultory quality that makes it seem to drag at times and Cassel's one-note macho posturing can become tiresome. This is like a Bicycle Thief with nothing to hunt for. It has also come to seem relatively tame after things like Seule contre tous and Irréversible. Nonetheless La Haine can really soar at times, as in the final sequence where the guys get high on a Paris rooftop, and "turn off" the Eiffel Tower, but don't wait to see. The billboard message they keep passing, LE MONDE EST À VOUS/THE WORLD IS YOURS is too ironic for words. The ending still feels pretty powerful, Gaspar Noë or no. Contrast: Kechiche's Games of Love and Chance/L'Esquive, last year's French best film choice, which enters the banlieue not as source of statistics but for social comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
arsaib, Isn't there a Rendezvous with French Cinema this year? If so when is it coming? I only see 35th New Directors/ New Films March 22 through April 2, 2006 listed on the Lincoln Center Film Society site.

---

Rendezvous usually starts during the second week of March, and it is an annual event. They'll probably release the schedule in a couple of weeks. Right now a Catalan series is going on which will be followed by Film Comment Selects. Any plans?

While discussing his provocative new feature Wild Side, French filmmaker Sébastien Lifshitz (Come Undone [2000]) recently stated that "I’m drawn to impenetrable characters that operate outside the usual norms. I truly love fringe dwellers and people who don’t fit with fiction’s archetypes." The three main characters in his latest -- Stéphanie (Stéphanie Michelini), a transsexual prostitute; Jamel (Yasmine Belmadi), a bisexual Arab hustler; and Mikhail (Edouard Nikitine), Stephanie’s lover who happens to be an illegal Russian immigrant -- certainly do fit the bill. Early on, Stéphanie is seen living the hard life in Paris with her two men. But the situation changes when she is called by her dying mother to come attend to her. As Stéphanie makes her way towards her rural childhood home, old memories involving her deceased father and sister come flooding in. At this point, Lifshitz, working with the great cinematographer Agnès Godard (most famous for her work with Claire Denis), starts to contrast the dingy realism of his early sequences with poetic, picturesque shots of the French countryside featuring a rollicking young Stéphanie (who was once Pierre). While this allows the director’s artistic sensibilities to thrive, the connection between Stéphanie's past and present remains oblique at best. Ultimately, both Jamel and Mikhail, who were practically lost without the woman, make their way to her for support. Those two also remain "impenetrable" for the most part (the way Lifshitz perhaps wanted them to be) -- they are often seen brooding silently to Jocelyn Pook’s evocative score (a whiff of Patrice Chéreau is hard to miss). What Wild Side establishes quite well, however, are the dynamics of the relationship between the trio. It is also a rare film that refuses to make its characters’ sexuality the main focus. That’s not to say that the film shies away from it (a slow pan of Stephanie’s body is bound to make Catherine Breillat envious), but rather the confrontations are presented in a very practical manner. Liftsitz’s characters may not need others but they do need one another, and that’s the only way they will survive. Wild Side is a film made by and for adults.

Grade: B
______________________

*The film premiered at the Berlin film festival in 2004 (it won a couple of awards there). It was released in the U.S. in June last year by Wellspring, who've now put it out on DVD.

Quote:

---

Rendezvous usually starts during the second week of March, and it is an annual event. They'll probably release the schedule in a couple of weeks. Right now a Catalan series is going on which will be followed by Film Comment Selects. Any plans?

---

I hope to be there, but can't make plans till I know the dates. I don't see why on their website they don't even mention it. They don't seem to plan ahead very far.

José Giovanni: Mon père, il m'a sauvé la vie (My father saved my life) (2001) DVD bought in Paris; no subtitles.

This is the true story of writer/director Giovanni, who was condemned to death after a scuffle in which several people died in the Forties. Estranged from his gambler father (Bruno Cremer), the son (Vincent Leœur) does not know for many years that it was the father, known mainly as a card shark, who successfullly strugged to get him a commuted sentence. After release from prison Giovanni begins a long career as a writer and filmmaker with a bestselling book about a prison escape attempt called Le trou/The Hole. Mon père was Giovanni's last film; he died in 2004. The movie, dominated by Cremer, has a cold, monolitihic power and is not without some impressive, touching moments, but it is a deadpan conventional historical drama and critics were unimpressed. I found it slow going. On this DVD there is a testimonial from Bertrand Tavernier, interview with Giovanni, and a commentary.

Quote:

---

What Wild Side establishes quite well, however, are the dynamics of the relationship between the trio. It is also a rare film that refuses to make its characters’ sexuality the main focus.

---

I just read the following: Wild Side (France) 2004

The filmmaker shows a gritty, unpleasant side of life while wanting us to believe underneath it all these seriously damaged people are really quite normal to the extent they have a menage a trois which helps them through life. Quite a fantasy, but unfortunately portrayed here as real look of life on the wild side. In sum, no plot, no truth and no real reason to spend much time here.

That’s a very interesting comment because it portrays the mindset of most viewers while they’re watching a film like Wild Side. I think in most cases when we see trans/homosexual characters, we have a tendency to assume that they must be damaged in some way, which is exactly what this person has done. In fact, Lifshitz (the director) almost teases us with a few backstories, as if he was trying to make a point. Still, though, I would’ve liked a bit more depth.

The individuals portrayed here are quite normal (why wouldn’t they be?), but thankfully this isn’t belabored. They’re simply trying to figure out how and where they fit into society. Yet, at the same time, the film doesn’t present itself as a social critique. While its poetic, elliptical nature might make it seem so, it ain’t no "fantasy." A unique film for sure, one which also doesn’t really have a target audience.

I'd be interested in your comments if you get a chance to watch it.