New Directors/New Films and Film Comment Selects

[Chris Knipp]

You're right, I failed to engage with the film to the degree that you did.

Prudence's failure to feel her grief over her mother's death didn't come through to me as it did to you. How are we supposed to know that she is resisting the grief and just didn't care much about her mother? Her feelings for her mother while her mother was alive are not established. The movie begins with the scene of Prudence being a bad girl. It wasn't completely clear to me what her family situation was. Was she a rich girl who had a whole Paris flat all to herself, or was her dad only away temporarily? It wasn't completely clear. The girl she was searched with in the store for shoplifting: was she a classmate, an outside acquaintance, or somebody she'd never met before? I wasn't quite clear on that either. Her interest in the illegal bike racing and the exciting motorcyclists at Rungis: where did that come from? Anther thing that slipped by me. when she went to the dinner at her relatives, I was not clear at first that they were relatives or that she was Jewish. Why should she have to have the meaning of basic Jewish holidays explained to her if she was Jewish? You see, a lot was not clear to me. Why doesn't she have any more proper bourgeois friends who are contemporaries, instead of inviting the bad boys and their girlfriends to come and semi-trash her apartment? Where are her usual friends and associates and activities?

You say the movie "was a bit non-structured I agree." When I say the biker's death jolts her back to an awareness of her loss, I of course meant that it led her back to her grief. I did not understand what the phantom of her mother meant at first either. Then I realized it meant awareness of her mother's absence was finally coming through to her. At first I thought it might mean she had only been pretending that her mother was dead and that her mother had been away like her father. Yes, you could say that a whole lot of this movie was not clear to me, and the elliptical, jerky presentation augmented that confusion for me. However I liked the dark Pialat-esque mise-en-scene. I was not put off by, rather attracted by, the whole thing. It just didn't wholly work.

Prudence goes to Rungis in the middle of the night. This is meant to be shocking and dark, and the excitement of her adventure comes through nicely. But it's also disorienting. The way the movie goes back and forth from Prudence's home to the edgy locales she seeks out is part of the confusion. In this sense the screenplay is "rambling" and since I did not follow some key points, it is also "lacking in clarity" Actually several things you say about the plot toward the end seem possibly incorrect, so you may not have followed the action as well as you think. I refer to Franck's sex with Prudence and Prudence's encounter with Franck's mother.

Here's an excerpt from Alissa Simon's Variety review:

An uneasy mix of subject matter that avoids introspection, the screenplay by Zlotowski and Gaelle Mace has the prickly feeling of unprocessed material brought out in therapy. This sensation of a past nightmare recalled is furthered by the production design's lack of specific historic or geographic references, as well as pic's many nighttime scenes.

On the plus side, however, Seydoux (appearing in three Cannes official selection titles) shows the goods that make her among France's most sought-after young actresses, and strong craft credits exert an almost hypnotic spell. . .

Of the people I talked to at the screening, one woman who is very perceptive said she understood exactly what Prudence was going through. Several men did not and thought the film unsuccessful. On Allociné the spectator rating is quite a bit lower than the critics' and this fits with what the Variety reviewer said, that the public would not like this movie as well as the reviewers. The critics' rating is 3.5, which is good (4.0 is a top rating) but the viewers' is 2.7. I'll see if I can talk to other people at the screening and see what they thought.

[Howard Schumann]

You're right, I failed to engage with the film to the degree that you did.

Prudence's failure to feel her grief over her mother's death didn't come through to me as it did to you. How are we supposed to know that she is resisting the grief and just didn't care much about her mother? Her feelings for her mother while her mother was alive are not established. The movie begins with the scene of Prudence being a bad girl. It wasn't completely clear to me what her family situation was. Was she a rich girl who had a whole Paris flat all to herself, or was her dad only away temporarily? It wasn't completely clear. The girl she was searched with in the store for shoplifting: was she a classmate, an outside acquaintance, or somebody she'd never met before? I wasn't quite clear on that either.

From my point of view, all of these questions do not really matter in the big scheme of things. Her economic status was not relevant. As for her relationship with her mother, the final scene of the film indicated clearly to me that she had had a good relationship with her mother but had been unable to come to terms with her loss. It doesn’t matter why her father wasn’t around. Presumably he was away on business. The only thing that was germane was that she felt lost and lonely.

Her interest in the illegal bike racing and the exciting motorcyclists at Rungis: where did that come from?

Like many adolescents who are angry, she acted out her rebellion by seeking an escape through the bike racing scene. In this case, it appeared that she was angry at her mother for dying but could not confront that, so she internalized it by turning the anger inward against herself. She apparently did not have any close friends that she could turn to.

Another thing that slipped by me. when she went to the dinner at her relatives, I was not clear at first that they were relatives or that she was Jewish. Why should she have to have the meaning of basic Jewish holidays explained to her if she was Jewish? You see, a lot was not clear to me. Why doesn't she have any more proper bourgeois friends who are contemporaries, instead of inviting the bad boys and their girlfriends to come and semi-trash her apartment? Where are her usual friends and associates and activities?

Not every Jew is familiar with the reasons and purposes of the holidays especially if they do not come from a particularly religious upbringing. In my case, we did celebrate the high holy days by going to temple, but it never had much meaning to me and I never understood the reasons behind the holidays until I was an adult.

You say the movie "was a bit non-structured I agree." When I say the biker's death jolts her back to an awareness of her loss, I of course meant that it led her back to her grief. I did not understand what the phantom of her mother meant at first either. Then I realized it meant awareness of her mother's absence was finally coming through to her. At first I thought it might mean she had only been pretending that her mother was dead and that her mother had been away like her father. Yes, you could say that a whole lot of this movie was not clear to me, and the elliptical, jerky presentation augmented that confusion for me. However I liked the dark Pialat-esque mise-en-scene. I was not put off by, rather attracted by, the whole thing. It just didn't wholly work.

I understand that it didn’t work for you.

Prudence goes to Rungis in the middle of the night. This is meant to be shocking and dark, and the excitement of her adventure comes through nicely. But it's also disorienting. The way the movie goes back and forth from Prudence's home to the edgy locales she seeks out is part of the confusion. In this sense the screenplay is "rambling" and since I did not follow some key points, it is also "lacking in clarity" Actually several things you say about the plot toward the end seem possibly incorrect, so you may not have followed the action as well as you think. I refer to Franck's sex with Prudence and Prudence's encounter with Franck's mother.

I think the confusion and the disoriented nature of the presentation was meant to mirror the state of Prudence’s mind as she goes through a process of rebellion and discovery. What was it that I said about the plot toward the end seemed incorrect?

Of the people I talked to at the screening, one woman who is very perceptive said she understood exactly what Prudence was going through. Several men did not and thought the film unsuccessful. On Allociné the spectator rating is quite a bit lower than the critics' and this fits with what the Variety reviewer said, that the public would not like this movie as well as the reviewers. The critics' rating is 3.5, which is good (4.0 is a top rating) but the viewers' is 2.7. I'll see if I can talk to other people at the screening and see what they thought.

With all due respect, while I am interested in what others say about a film, everyone's in a different space and reacts differently. In the final analysis, like viewing a painting, I always go with my experience and what it means to me on a personal level.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for taking the time to reply in such detail. I was merely explaining why my response was different from yours.

"With all due respect," you comment, "while I am interested in what others say about a film, everyone's in a different space and reacts differently. In the final analysis, like viewing a painting, I always go with my experience and what it means to me on a personal level."

Indeed. But I was consulting with other people on what actually happened in the film. One can get that wrong. Especially in this case. There were a number of places where I was not sure. And I consulted further this morning with people who had seen the film with me last week. As I said, a couple bits in your own summary of the action of BELLE ÉPINE seemed to me to be almost certainly slightly off: "Franck (Johan Libereau), [who] takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure. When she walks out of a movie leaving Franck feeling angry and deserted, she goes to his house to try and talk to his mother."

By my own impression and by consulting with others the other day and today, I found we all felt this was not accurate. Of course I may still be wrong about all this. I may have misunderstood the film, and the lady who loved the film and seemed to have observed and understood it best, and you. That is my point. The film is hard to follow. And so I don't know what it means, and I don't find it ultimately satisfying. I know it is meant to reflect the confusion of feeling of its young protagonist. But there is such a thing as too much of an objective correlative.

Another discerning and very well informed person whom I often talk to waved all these questions aside and said they didn't matter and said, "It's just a little film, but it's promising."

Can we leave it at that?

[Howard Schumann]

A couple bits in your own summary of the action of BELLE ÉPINE seemed to me to be almost certainly slightly off: "Franck (Johan Libereau), [who] takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure. When she walks out of a movie leaving Franck feeling angry and deserted, she goes to his house to try and talk to his mother."

If you think this is certainly slightly off, please explain to me why it is incorrect and what you think actually happened. I'm sorry that you think you still don't understand the film.

[Chris Knipp]

Mainly just this part:

Franck (Johan Libereau), who takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure. When she walks out of a movie leaving Franck feeling angry and deserted, she goes to his house to try and talk to his mother. . .

...that it's misleading to say that about Franck, because she wants it. He may seem aggressive, but that doesn't mean she didn't seek the sex just as much herself. And as I recall she was at the hotel for the sex, and then went downstairs and talked to his mother the next morning. The way you tell it seems a bit off in the nature of the event and the sequence. But I may be wrong. However Marcia L, a lady I have talked to at the screenings who loved this film and obviously "got" it much better than I did, did not think "takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure" gave the correct impression. She said Prudence wanted to go to the hotel to talk to Franck's mother, so the sex may have been partly an excuse, but she didn't feel Prudence was taken advantage of.

She was at the hotel

[Howard Schumann]

Mainly just this part:

Franck (Johan Libereau), who takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure. When she walks out of a movie leaving Franck feeling angry and deserted, she goes to his house to try and talk to his mother. . .

...that it's misleading to say that about Franck, because she wants it. He may seem aggressive, but that doesn't mean she didn't seek the sex just as much herself. And as I recall she was at the hotel for the sex, and then went downstairs and talked to his mother the next morning. The way you tell it seems a bit off in the nature of the event and the sequence. But I may be wrong. However Marcia L, a lady I have talked to at the screenings who loved this film and obviously "got" it much better than I did, did not think "takes advantage of her for his sexual pleasure" gave the correct impression. She said Prudence wanted to go to the hotel to talk to Franck's mother, so the sex may have been partly an excuse, but she didn't feel Prudence was taken advantage of.

She was at the hotel

Yes, I can see the way I put it leads to a misunderstanding. What I meant was that she was seeking a relationship and not just sex but he wasn't interested in a long term relationship, so in that sense, he was using her for his immediate pleasure. I will have to edit my review so it communicates my intent better.

By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this review, but I think it may help to make the issues clearer for you:

http://www.quietearth.us/articles/20...NCE-BELLE-PINE

[Chris Knipp]

Okay, we're straight on that. I read that review, but I think yours is just as good. I would like to see much more detail. I have scanned a number of the French reviews but not taken the trouble to read through all of any of them. I think I've seen enough, but I am certainly willing to see the director's next film.

[Chris Knipp]

Vladimir Kott: Gromozeka (2010)

This Russian film follows three men who were fellow band members thirty years earlier, now facing mid-life crises. Their lives partly coincide.

Shown in competition at the Rotterdam Film Festival. In Russian. 103min. Seen and reviewed as part of New Directions/New Films, presented March 23-April 4, 2011 by MoMA and the Film Society of Lincoln Center, New York.

ND/NF screenings:
2011-04-01 | 6:00 PM | MoMA
2011-04-02 | 3:45 PM | FSLC

[Chris Knipp]

Daniel and Diego Vega: Octubre (2010)

In a dry style consciously indebted to Kaurismäki and Jarmusch the Vega brothers, of Peru, depict the slight thaw of a Lima moneylender's stony heart when he's saddled with a baby that is probably his, and hires a local spinster to care for the child, all of which happens in October, locally celebrated as the month of miracles.

Whether the Vega brothers themselves will emerge as distinctive stylists still remains to be seen, but their work as anointed by Cannes is guaranteed a place on the festival circuit. The film has a limited US theatrical release coming May 6, 2011. Seen and reviewed as part of the New Directors/New Films series, presented by MoMA and Lincoln Center from March 23 through April 4, 2011.

ND/NF screenings:
2011-04-02 | 9:00 PM | FSLC
2011-04-03 | 4:00 PM | MoMA

[Chris Knipp]

Deron Albright: The Destiny of Lesser Animals (2011)

A Ghana policeman gives up his plan to return to America after a futile search for a stolen counterfeit passport. Yao B. Nunoo, who wrote the screenplay also stars. He may have had a little more than he could handle. This film is the fruit of a year that director Albright spent in Ghana recently on a Fulbright research grant. Albright is an associate professor of film/media at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. His 2006 short film, The Legend of Black Tom, has played at festivals and won awards. He has also worked in television.

87 min. In Fante, English, Pidgin, Twi, and Ga with English subtitles. The HDCAM cinematography is serviceable and the film provides views of the Ghanan urban landscape.

ND/NF screenings:
2011-04-01 | 9:00 PM | MoMA
2011-04-02 | 6:30 PM | FSLC

[Chris Knipp]

Athina Rachel Tsangari: Attenberg (2010)

This "certainly works as a wacky, decidedly arthouse coming-of-age narrative," says Variety. It is a study of "Eros" and "Thanatos," being a Nouvelle Vague-influenced study of an adult daughter belatedly discovering sex while attending her dying architect father in a Greek seaside town. It may not work for you so well if you balk at its constant inserts of symmetrical travelling shots of two young women walking arm and arm up and down a crunchy stone pathway kicking their feet in the same direction. The director produced last year's similarly provocative and much praised Dogtooth.

Click on the title above for the Festival Coverage review.

ND/NF screenings:
2011-03-31 | 6:00 PM | MoMA
2011-04-02 | 1:00 PM | FSLC

This was the final press screening of New Directors/New Films 2011.

ND/NF selections I did not see or did not review:
Circumstance (Maryam Keshavarz 2010, Iran)
El Velador (Natalia Almada 2010, USA/Mexico)
Shut Up Little Man! An Audio Misadventure (Matthew Bate 2010, USA)
Some Days Are Better Than Others (Matt McCormick 2010, USA)
Summer of Goliath (Verano de Goliat Nicholás Pereda 2010, Mexico)
For details see the FSLC webpage.

[Chris Knipp]

STILL FROM MARYAM KESHAVARZ'S CIRCUMSTANCE (NOT COVERED IN MY REPORTS)

NEW DIRECTORS/NEW FILMS 2011

There are a few outstanding films this year, and a number of ones that show the directors have talent and should be watched. Then there are some uncertain cases. And some strong differences of opinion at screenings. I also missed some.*

Bogdan George Apetri's OUTBOUND
An intense, non-stop Romanian story about a young woman released from jail for one day. Its powerful ending evokes the great Italian neorealists. This is a pretty nearly flawless film, which follows the current Romanian style of focusing on a minute-to-minute saga.

J.C. Charndar's MARGIN CALL
A fresh, elegant look at the beginning of the Wall Street financial meltdown by a new American director, featuring Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons. It all happens in a dark steel-and-glass box but it's quite cinematic nonetheless.

Denis Villeneuve's INCENDIES
A powerful, visually rich look at a personal family heritage of Middle Eastern confict. The director is a French Canadian, whose films have four times been nominated for the Best Foreign Oscar. From a stage play but the realization is thoroughly cinematic.

Paddy Considine's TYRANOSAUR
A brilliant, harrowing portrait of English violence and alcoholism with all the focus on the superb acting. Peter Mullan is the star, with Olivia Colman. You may want to look away but you cannot.

These are the standouts. They have some flaws. Margin Call could be more engaging; it's a little too dry at times. Incendies is far-fetched; its mashup of nationalities and history may seem absurd to some from the region and its surprise final revelation strains the credulity of anyone. Tyranosaur's ugliness and violence are over the top and so it can't be recommended to the faint of heart. Outbound seems best overall precisely because it doesn't have any single notable flaw.

Notable or promising
At another level are some movies that showed a high level of competence or promise. Dee Rees' Pariah, a young black lesbian coming-of-age story, has some beginner's flaws but is warm and colorful, one of the most enjoyable of the series. Ahmad Abdalla's Micorphone, the musical mélange about Alexandria, Egypt, is also enjoyable, if rambling. Fukada's Hospitalité is very clever; this Japanese writer-director has it all together, but his film degenerated into silliness; one hopes his brilliant films come to have a bit more warmth and depth. Anne Sewitsky's Happy, Happy is an adultery comedy (from Norway) that's quite funny but a bit too condescending toward its characters. Göran Hugo Olsson's Black Power Mixtape has a wealth of new footage about the Sixties and Seventies. It may add little that's new to our basic fund of knowledge of the period, but it may yet be new for and fresh for a younger audience. The Vega brothers from Peru, whose Octubre was shown, seem already well established on the festival circuit, with a slightly derivative dry stylishness to which they have added a tiny dab of uplift. They have a style; time will tell if it's their own.

I was not enthusiastic about the French films. Copacabana, with Isabelle Huppert and her daughter, which I reviewed last year, seems lackluster, Huppert doing an "eccentric" shtick that ill-suits her. Mikhael Hers's Memory Lane, a generational reunion, is unfocused and slight. People differed on Rebecca Zlotowski's Belle Épine. I can grant that this dark girl's coming-of-ager shows promise and originality, not that the film makes any sense. People also differed on whether the searing Tyrannosaur can be recommended. I'd warn people about its ugliness and violence, but it's far too masterful not to be warmly endorsed.

Arabic language films were well represented, with four if you count Incendies, which has a lot of Arabic dialogue though it's French Canadian. Besides Microphone, there was another engaging Egyptian film, Mohamed Diab's Cairo 678, and Sameh Zoabi's mild-mannered Palestinian entry, Man Without a Cell Phone. Cairo 678 was the best received, but I found Microphone enjoyable and it was a prize-winner in the Arab world.

I will draw a veil over a few entries that were lackluster or seemed mere stylistic exercises. One can still see why they might have been included because they had previous festival champions, not totally deluded, or they fill some niche. Other films in the series didn't quite come together, but the filmmakers are worth watching.

I missed the new Iranian director Maryam Keshavarz's Circumstance, which is highlighted as the closing night film. It depicts two young women going to parties and listening to outlawed music and beginning to "explore their true feelings for each other." Several people told me this was one of the best, so I wish I'd seen it. My world was rocked anyway a couple of times, I enjoyed myself, and I became acquainted with the work of a lot of interesting new directors and several, like Denis Villeneuve, whom I ought to have known about already.

*ND/NF selections I did not see or did not review:
Circumstance (Maryam Keshavarz 2010, Iran)
El Velador (Natalia Almada 2010, USA/Mexico)
Shut Up Little Man! An Audio Misadventure (Matthew Bate 2010, USA)
Some Days Are Better Than Others (Matt McCormick 2010, USA)
Summer of Goliath (Verano de Goliat Nicholás Pereda 2010, Mexico)


.
.
.
[Subway ad for the New Directors/New Films series 2011].

A.O. Scott's introduction to the series, "Modest Methods, Big Ambitions," appeared in the NY Times today (March 23, 2011) as the series begins public screenings at MoMA and the Walter Reade Theater at Lincoln Center.