Nyff 2009

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24435] Everyone Else: I assume you did read it though you don't respond to it, or to the many reviews that have appeared recently since it's been in theatrical release.
Right, I read all your reviews. I do respond to some. Other times it is more appropriate to write a comment that doesn't directly refer to your review. I don't usually deal with reception issues, either public or critical, involving new releases. I definitely cannot respond to "many reviews that have appeared" because I have only read Hoberman's and yours. I am also not inclined to casually write anything disagreeable about a review. In this case I might argue with your opinion that Everyone Else's director "needs to develop more faith in the value of the cutting room". My instinct tells me that something would be lost if anything is cut, perhaps a certain authenticity or quotidian balance of tone, a certain dailiness. But perhaps you are right, perhaps a more concentrated cut would give it vitality and sprightliness. Also, I could question your assertion that men are more likely to find Everyone Else "self indulgent and interminable". But, hey, you may be right. So I don't knock it.

No, you restrict yourself to academic publications now and, it appears, have begun producing them yourself. Good for you.
Thanks Chris. I am very excited about presenting at conferences because of the potential to get immediate response from people from around the country (and the world really). Usually your audiences are people who have special interest and expertise in the topic and the discussions that follow are very constructive. It is exciting and scary to deliver a paper to a room full of Japan scholars and "Mizo" fans, for instance, as I will do in November.

Well there! Now I've gotten a direct reply out of you. And you've brought out the only place where we differ on EVERYONE ELSE. What I said about men being more likely to find it "self indulgent and interminable" is only anecdotal. I didn't do a survey. But I did hear as well as read opinions at the NYFF and afterward. On the other hand, obviously the response has been very favorable. Metacritic rating: 82.

Beware of reading only my reviews and Jim Hoberman's! But I meant not that anybody needs to read every review of a film, just that one needs to be aware of what is going said, which is a different thing. I was perhaps only myself aware of one review when I wrote mine last year, Derek Elley's for Variety ("fuzzy filmmaking of the worst sort. An extraordinary choice for a competition slot at Berlin, pic is headed nowhere"). That, plus some negative men's views I heard at the screening, gave me a skewed picture. I was then somewhat surprised and, I guess, pretty relieved, when the many other quite favorable ones came out following the US theatrical release, with only a tiny minority even mentioning the advisability of editing; most saw the minute detail and rambling structure as necessary virtues. I try to consider faults of even the best movie and vice versa, though sometimes I forget.

Listening to the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews in all their minute, film-by-film detail, I am more and more struck by how often Hitchcock himself -- a man of such firm confidence, forthright speech and decided opinions -- admits to failures and mistakes in his work. (He seems to think far less highly than recent writers of VERTIGO and thinks it had the wrong lead actor, but that's another topic to be discussed elsewhere). When even Homer gladly admits to nodding, I'm the more ready to consider flaws in the work of a young director.

Good luck with the Mizo experts. I hope it's not like a sea full of sharks, that you find some friendly dophins in the waters. And I'm glad you're sticking with this site and hope you can continue to contribute to it.

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24438] I was perhaps only myself aware of one review when I wrote mine last year, Derek Elley's for Variety
I like to watch movies not knowing about critical response. It's easier to do at festivals.

Listening to the Truffaut/Hitchcock interviews in all their minute, film-by-film detail, I am more and more struck by how often Hitchcock himself -- a man of such firm confidence, forthright speech and decided opinions -- admits to failures and mistakes in his work.
Beware of taking Hitch at his word. One central aspect of his personality is the need to theatricalize himself. This is what motivates his famous cameos, his performances introducing episodes of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents", his appearances in commercials and all kinds of promotional events and, most importantly, his use of the camera in a way that calls attention to the sly presence behind it. When Hitch talks he is constantly aware that he is performing and calculating the effect of what he is saying. Hitch was short, pudgy and plain-looking but he made himself a star.

Good luck with the Mizo experts. I hope it's not like a sea full of sharks, that you find some friendly dophins in the waters.
Thanks. A shark might say that Mizoguchi is no feminist; that showing the suffering of women serves the patriarchy because it engenders sadist fantasies in male viewers and masochistic fantasies in female viewers, or something along those lines. It is good to imagine possible counter-arguments ahead of time.

And I'm glad you're sticking with this site and hope you can continue to contribute to it.
I'm a loyal bitch!

I like to watch movies knowing everything it's possible to know about them, including the critical response and, of course, any information reviews may provide about the film and the filmmakers. The notion that one will enjoy something more if one approaches it as a tabula rasa, in ignorance, seems puzzling to me. Very often even at festivals one is able to be informed and of course at press screenings press kits are usually provided and the more diligent of us try to peruse them beforehand.

Yes Hitchcock was certainly a performer but the fact remains that in the interviews he readily admits mistakes and failures and does so quite voluntarily. Have you heard the interview tapes? Or read the famous Truffaut book? I never had. Its effect must be somewhat different.

I would hope that you stick with Filmleaf not because you're a bitch whatever that vulgar term means in this case but because it's worthwhile to you and to us. i realize this is practically my personal website half the time but that's by default and not my desire.

I do research only after the screening and only read a couple of reviews. There are exceptions usually involving the few films I find... exceptional.

Long ago, I read the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitch book and found it interesting but frustrating because Truffaut never challenges Hitch's assertions. He is no Pete Bogdanovich. I am not so keen on Truffaut as a critic either, by the way. And yet, it is interesting and worthwhile reading. To know Hitch one should read William Rothman's "The Murderous Gaze" and Robin Wood's "Hitchcock's Films".

Writing challenge: write a paper meant to be heard rather than read. It is a totally different dynamic. If I use too many foreign words (Japanese first names for instance) I lose the attention of the audience. Sentences must be shorter, right, so people can follow without too much effort. I am going to write as usual and then simplify, abridge, and clarify as much as I can. Have you ever written a speech? I have not.

I intend to keep this thread alive. How about Mother? Obviously we agree this is nothing special. Certainly less involving and moving than Memories of Murder (#25 Foreign, 2005), which was not quite a great movie. In general, the Korean boom evinced a robust industry but no director I consider a major talent or artist. No Hou, "Joe" or Jia among this bunch. Hong Sang-soo, which you mention, is the single Korean director I know who merits consideration among the truly great. I also love the films of Jin-ho Hur.

I understand what you do; so? Repeating that is not an argument. Of course it's more worthwhile researching "exceptional" films but the more you know the more you can appreciate and/or judge, and that could just as well go for GET HIM TO THE GREEK. It helps to brush up on Apatow and on Russell Brand. Ignorance is not an aid to viewing or watching. After you've been an academic for a while, you might reconsider your assumptions on this matter. It is because of my own academic background and coming from an overeducated family that I consider preparation valuable at all times. Probably going to a college where a lot of the students were much smarter than me also helped. Of course approaching with an open mind is also important. If you can't do both, prepare and keep an open mind, you're out of luck.

Well, you were the first one to recommend Korean filmmaking to me. Maybe Hong Sang-soo indeed is the best from a western-oriented point of view but I'm sure there are others. Park Chan-wook's films are mind-boggling. The Koreans know how to create a lot of intensity. Sometimes as with Mother it doesn't go anywhere much. I am not yet in love with "Joe." Jia and Hou are also a mixed bag, though at their best they are magic. Maybe "Joe's" magic will hit me eventually. So far it mostly just seems fey and weird. The one I'd say the Koreans definitely can't yet touch is Wong Kar-wai.

I would not trash the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes on the basis of a criticism of Truffaut as a critic in general or by saying he doesn't challenge Hitchcock. Actually, in the tapes, he is polite, of necessity, but he often challenges him and I'm struck by how frankly he points out certain films were not a success, were a reversion to relatively trivial material, and so forth, and Hitchcock agrees. Truffaut is not Bogdanovitch? Maybe not, but Bogdonovitch didn't do this set of interviews. So what? I am more interested in what the tapes reveal of Hitchcock's approach. There are plenty of directors I find more exciting or intriguing. Hitchcock was more an enthusiasm of my youth. But in terms of basic technique and clarity of form, Hitchcock is hard to beat, and the interviews help us understand why. Needless to say, you cannot critique the tapes on the basis of Truffaut's book, because they are almost certainly different, though I haven't read the book or read a comparison of the two.

I always write to be read aloud. If you haven't been, it's high time you began. If you're talking about Japanese movies you may have to use Japanese names. I'm sure anybody who comes to hear you is ready for that. The very first writing I did that was a success. I read it aloud to the class. Every sentence was a zinger. They were short. They got more and more laughs. It is of course a good idea to go back and cut up your sentences. I have to do that too. I have a friend in England who has pushed me to do that. My academic writing was never written in academic-ese. Maybe that's why I'm not an academic any more and never really was for long. Good writing "to be read silently" or to "be read aloud" ought not be a different "dynamic." Both should be clear and not require the reader or listener to need to go back over earlier sentences to make out what you're saying.

--
www.chrisknipp.com

I understand what you do; so? Repeating that is not an argument.
No argument intended. It's not my aim to convince you that my method is superior. Just to share my thoughts on the matter. Basically, you go into a movie with a set of often-unavoidable expectations based on cast, crew, trailer or movie poster perhaps. More information on top of that might interfere with the basic source of my writing: what tabuno describes as "what you are feeling and thinking during the movie". What is the drawback of waiting until this "feeling and thinking" has happened to do the research? You can always return to the film as needed.

I always write to be read aloud. If you haven't been, it's high time you began.
There are adjustments to be made from text-written-to-be-read to text-written-to-be-heard. I grant you Chris, that your writing would require only minor adjustment compared to other writing styles. But adjustments need to be made. If I may, take for instance the second sentence from your Mother review:
"The starting point of it is Kim Hye-ja, grande dame of Korean acting (around whom the screenplay by Bong and Park Eun-kyo is built), who gets a chance to break away from the long-suffering, boundlessly loving mother image she maintains in the long-running "Rustic Diary" TV series to embrace a juicier, darker, richer role."
The use of parenthetical remarks and ulterior details (the name of the TV series, for example) detracts from the clarity of your central idea when the sentence has to be processed through the ears. You would have to make adjustments if reading this review to people.

I still recommend Korean filmmaking. It's just that I think that it is the lesser of the national cinemas that experienced a resurgence during the past 15 years or so. I know this is a matter of opinion.

As I said earlier, If you can't do both, prepare and keep an open mind, you're out of luck. "When ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." I hope you're not confusing knowledge of a film with preconceptions about its merits.

I could have added before that I'm quite fond of long, intricate sentences. I have a bit of a weakness for writing long, portmanteau-style ones at the beginning of a review to pack in all the basic information. Touché on that one you quote. It would not only need to be rewritten to be read aloud; it needs to be rewritten to make it a better sentence, period.

You may be right on Korean films, but I'm not particularly good at "rating" "national cinemas." Too sweeping for me. Did they have a "resurgence"? I didn't know they were ever great before. Didn't they just have a "surgence", so to speak?

Italian movies -- I can say this -- have long seemed to be in decline. Yesterday, though, I was pleasantly surprised by a new one, Luca Guadagnino's I AM LOVE, with Tilda Swinton. With its Viscontiesque grandeur, it harked back to the good old days, without seeming dated.

I hope somebody if not you will listen to the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes so we can have a discussion. I definitely do not think Truffaut is too wimpy. I wanted to point out to you that Tom Sutpen, whose blog I got the files of the tapes from, mplies in his comments that Truffaut is too bossy and know-it-all and intrusive. Sort of the opposite of what you were saying about Truffaut based on the book, sounds like. I think Truffaut does a darn good job. Maybe I'm wrong. Again, I have yet to read the book Truffaut made out of the interviews. Nor am I any expert on Hitchcock's "oeuvre."

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24445]As I said earlier, If you can't do both, prepare and keep an open mind, you're out of luck. "When ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." I hope you're not confusing knowledge of a film with preconceptions about its merits.
The issue is simply a personal preference over the timing of the research.

You may be right on Korean films, but I'm not particularly good at "rating" "national cinemas." Too sweeping for me. Did they have a "resurgence"? I didn't know they were ever great before. Didn't they just have a "surgence", so to speak?
Yes, not quite a decade, beginning at the same time as the Nouvelle Vague.

Italian movies -- I can say this -- have long seemed to be in decline. Yesterday, though, I was pleasantly surprised by a new one, Luca Guadagnino's I AM LOVE, with Tilda Swinton. With its Viscontiesque grandeur, it harked back to the good old days, without seeming dated.
Read about it as part of a festival review. Sounds great.

I hope somebody if not you will listen to the Truffaut/Hitchcock tapes so we can have a discussion. I definitely do not think Truffaut is too wimpy. I wanted to point out to you that Tom Sutpen, whose bllog I got the files of the tapes from, mplies in his comments that Truffaut is too bossy and know-it-all and intrusive. Sort of the opposite of what you were saying about Truffaut based on the book, sounds like. I think Truffaut does a darn good job. Maybe I'm wrong. Again, I have yet to read the book Truffaut made out of the interviews. Nor am I any expert on Hitchcock's "oeuvre."
And I qualify my impression of the interviews by saying it is based on a reading of the first edition of the book quite a long time ago, perhaps the late 80s, and a 2008 reading of the segment concerning Psycho as research for a paper.

But wait just a minute here: "The timing of the research" could be a crucial issue. You can drop it and move on if you like but it's not as simple a matter as you assert. It concerns nothing more nor less than how you watch a movie.

You confuse me about Korean films. How could their surge be a decade if it began with the Nouvelle Vague, which was in the late Fifties and early Sixties? Or are you just not explaining? What was "not quite a decade"??

I hope I AM LOVE is as good as it seemed to me. I have some reservations about the editing and camerawork, but I was way more impressed than I expected to be.

Do you think there's a big difference between the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitchcock book and later editions? Is that why you keep mentioning that it was the first edition that you read?

I think it's possible to get two opposite impressions of Truffaut from these interviews. At times T. seems very deferential, agreeing to things he says rather enthusiastically. T is always referring to Hitchcock as "Monsieur Hitchcock" while Hitch refers to him as "François" (but they both use the third person because they're talking through Helen Scott, the interpreter).

Hitch agrees readily with things T. suggests too. They're friendly, not combative. At other times young Truffaut holds forth at length, describing a Hitchcock film and giving his opinion about it (which seems to annoy blogger Tom Sutpen no end), or saying a film wasn't a success, or asking if Hitchcock doesn't think it was unsuccessful -- and that hardly sounds meek. Whether you are right that Truffaut "never challenges Hitchcock's assertions" is a slightly different issue and something I'd have to consider but over the course of these many hours I'd be surprised if he doesn't.

But what matters is, does anything of value come out of these interviews, and if so, what? I think they provide valuable insight into how Hitchcock thought about his films. Are you saying as far as you can remember they don't, because Truffaut isn't probing enough?

Let's grant that that may be so. But if he had been more probing, would it have worked? How?

What do you mean when you say "He is no Pete Bogdonovitch." What is Peter Bogdonovitch as a film critic or interviewer of directors that you think Truffaut falls short of rising to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Knipp

"Can the most regressive work yet by an artist known for arrested development also be a sign of his newfound maturity?" "--Dennis Lim, Cinema Scope.

Harmony Korine: Trash Humpers (2009)

---

Chris, you wrote a lot about the film and about how others see it but I'm interested in your opinion. Did you find Trash Humpers to be plotless mess with no value? Or perhaps you saw something new and original outside of this humping nonsense? I attended the screening last night and wrote a short summary of the event here: Ultraculture Cinema #2: Trash Humpers (not really a review) but I'm still pretty confused how to interpret the movie (if it's worth interpreting at all).

I enjoyed the freedom of TRASH HUMPPERS. It's like a sketch, rather than a finished painting. Maybe most films, even like say, Bujalski's BEESWAX (which I just got around to watching), are too polished, and live up too slavishly to what a film's supposed to be and look like. Bujalski has honed his "mumblecore" technique so well that this film looks like a real slice of life. And it's beautifully done, but so what? TRASH HUMPERS is meant to be (as Korine explained in detail; and it's been repeated by others elsewhere) like an old videotape you might find in a dumpster and would be afraid to watch for fear it might turn out to be a snuff film. His wife contributed this idea, as I recall. Korine also said that when he was growing up in this same area, there were some "scary" older people who were like bums wandering around. It's also true that clearly in some places the film refers to the artist personality and there is a speech in a car that highlights this theme.

I wish you'd quoted your Filmaster comment instead of just linking to it. Don't you know some people are too lazy to even click on links any more? You say some things that sound more favorable than your post here on Filmleaf:

Quote:

---

If nothing else, "Trash humpers" is a truly original film and it's extremely hard to find any useful references in the history of cinema to make some meaningful comparison. It somehow reminded me of von Trier's The Idiots. It had a similarly obscure climax and the characters' sexual behaviour was also far from normal. Still Korine's film is much more hardcore and after all it's really mostly a movie about old people humping trash. Not the most pleasant visual experience but seriously original and definitely encouraging discussion.

---

Seriously original and definitely encouraging discussion are positive values in themselves.

Quote:

---

OK and what did I think about the film then? Well... it's a movie about people humping trash cans. Bins. And general rubbish. But... it's also a movie about free individuals, artists that may not even realize they are ones. Or at least that's what I thought and actually Korine seems to be suggesting this as well by saying: "There can be a creative beauty in their mayhem and destruction. You could say these characters are poets or mystics of mayhem… comedic with a vaudevillian horror."

---

You are misleading the non-viewer because humping trash cans is only a fraction of the on screen activity of the characters. The artist aspect is definitely there.

I personally liked TRASH HUMPERS because of the way it combines the comical with the threatening and disturbing, the way it seems like an artifact and a piece of amateurism but could hardly have been done by anybody else. And I just found it very cool that the sedate and highly selective New York Film Festival chose this, to be seen side by side with the immaculate perfection of Haneke's THE WHITE RIBBON or the much more tendentious, self-conscious, and glossily-produced provocation of ANTICHRIST.

Again I'd refer viewers to Dennis Lim's exegisis and defense of TRANS HUMPERS.

J.Hoberman in his Village Voice review has little good to say about the film, yet his concluding paragraph is not so dismissive as some of his remarks along the way:

Quote:

---

The outskirts of Nashville might as well be the ruins of a vast mental hospital, with former inmates wandering through its deserted dumps and dead-end streets. As bucolic as the image of a discarded toilet reposing in a field of weeds, Trash Humpers revels in the melancholy beauty of random photographic reproduction—a pair of pink stretch pants illuminating the debris in an overgrown shed or, lit from within, the blue awning that adorns a featureless concrete slab. It's ultimately less a celebration of impulse behavior than a celebration of the parodic impulse to record.

---

After all, Hobrerman was on the jury that selected the Nyff 2009 roster, including TRASH HUMPERS. When I read this passage, I think of some of the great contemporary art photographers of the American South, such as Clarance John Laughlin, Ralph Eurene Meatyard (who made liberal use of masks), and (the ost highly regarded now) William Eggleston. Or we can go to the Eighties specifically, evoked by TRASH HUMPERS' format, to the surrealism of Joel-Peter Witkin; or bo back further to non-southern photograpic cousins like William Klein or, needless to say, Diane Arbus. It's interesting to consider how much still photography has from its origins dwelt on the insane, and on the derelict. Both seem to lend themselves to the medium, and to go together. It's also true that despite all the awe expressed at modern cinematography's tricks and wonders, it rarely achieves the edge or sophistication or complexity of still art photography. Korine is very much a southern artist, and this may be too little noted. For the "parodic impulse to record," take a look at the revealing Michael Almereyda documentary William Eggleston in the Real World (2005). You can get it from Netflix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Knipp

I wish you'd quoted your Filmaster comment instead of just linking to it. Don't you know some people are too lazy to even click on links any more?

---

Well, bad for them, lazy bastards! :)
The Filmaster non-review was more about the event on which the film was shown than the film itself, so I did not find it useful to copy the whole thing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Knipp

You are misleading the non-viewer because humping trash cans is only a fraction of the on screen activity of the characters. The artist aspect is definitely there.

---

Yes I know that. They also demolish tv sets and play with fireworks. And read some poems. And play trumpet. But the general feel is that they are insane lunatics out of this world who do nasty stuff in bad taste. This is what I meant. And I think it's good to have that warning because not everyone is willing to overcome their first feelings of repulsion to actually start contemplating the picture and trying to find something in it, under the unpleasant masks of those fake old people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Knipp

I personally liked TRASH HUMPERS because of the way it combines the comical with the threatening and disturbing, the way it seems like an artifact and a piece of amateurism but could hardly have been done by anybody else.

---

I liked it as well. And I think it might have been for the same reasons.

Quote:

---

I liked it as well.

---

Will, I wish you'd come right out and said so. You seemed afraid your readers would pounce on you?

Quote:

---

The Filmaster non-review was more about the event on which the film was shown than the film itself, so I did not find it useful to copy the whole thing her

---

Doesn't matter now but I just wanted you to quote the parts that described and interpreted the film itself.

Quote:

---

I think it's good to have that warning because not everyone is willing to overcome their first feelings of repulsion to actually start contemplating the picture and trying to find something in it,

---

If "warnings" really help people to understand films. I didn't know that. I don't really think about it. But Dennis Lim's sort of definitive piece starts out with a warning:

Quote:

---

It is perhaps redundant to call Harmony Korine’s Trash Humpers a provocation. For starters, the title is meant literally.
--Cinema Scope piece by Dennis Lim.

---

I just objected to your saying the movie is "about humping trash cans." It's not "about" that. The title itself is a warning, if the audience pays any attention to titles. Maybe I have been too fussy about what you wrote because you do explain yourself:

Quote:

---

Well... it's a movie about people humping trash cans. Bins. And general rubbish. But... it's also a movie about free individuals, artists that may not even realize they are ones.

---

[QUOTE=Chris Knipp;24448]You confuse me about Korean films. How could their surge be a decade if it began with the Nouvelle Vague, which was in the late Fifties and early Sixties? Or are you just not explaining? What was "not quite a decade"??
You may be right on Korean films, but I'm not particularly good at "rating" "national cinemas." Too sweeping for me. Did they have a "resurgence"? I didn't know they were ever great before. Didn't they just have a "surgence", so to speak?(CK)
Yes, not quite a decade, beginning at the same time as the Nouvelle Vague.(OJ)

Korean cinema had a "surgence" in the late 50s (same time as Nouvelle Vague) and it lasted less than a decade. The "REsurgence" took place in the late 1990s and into the 2000s. My opinion: what they have now is a vibrant industry that is the envy of similar-sized nations. They have extremely skillful crews, actors, and directors. But in my opinion, it's only Hong who can be compared to the great contemporary Asian directors, WKW included, and he comes short.



Do you think there's a big difference between the first edition of the Truffaut/Hitchcock book and later editions? Is that why you keep mentioning that it was the first edition that you read?
Just clarifying that I have not read the segments added for the 2nd edition and that I do not remember the interviews in detail because it has been a long time since I read them (except from excerpts dealing with Psycho)


But what matters is, does anything of value come out of these interviews, and if so, what? I think they provide valuable insight into how Hitchcock thought about his films. Are you saying as far as you can remember they don't, because Truffaut isn't probing enough?
I said it was interesting and worthwhile reading but it could have been more so, particularly given Hitch's personality, if he was more knowledgeable and more probing (perhaps Truffaut's limited English was a hindrance also).



What do you mean when you say "He is no Pete Bogdonovitch." What is Peter Bogdonovitch as a film critic or interviewer of directors that you think Truffaut falls short of rising to?
Of all American directors, Pete BOGDANOVICH id the most knowledgeable about cinema and film history. He is also an excellent interviewer. His interviews with John Ford, Howard Hawks, and other directors are legendary. The book about Ford and one called "Who the Devil made it: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors" are the class of the field.