First film of the day (very early - 11am) was the Narrative Competition Winner: Stolen Life. A Chinese film, directed by Li Shaohong, about a girl who tries to escape her unsatisfying family life by going to University, only to fall into a relationship with a young man who, it turns out, is manipulating and using her. After he basically ruins her life, and she figures out what's going on, she realizes that he has done this before is already setting up another young girl to do it again. Not exactly uplifting material, but a very interesting and well done film. A lot of the film took place in an underground urban tunnel setting, with a very gritty documentary feel. But there were scattered scenes that were composed like beautiful, gritty photographs.
Next up was the Made in New York Narrative Competition Winner: Red Doors. A film about a Chinese-American family living in the New York area. The parents and youngest daughter lived in the suburbs, the two older daughters lived in the city. The father of few words repeatedly tries (half-heartedly) to kill himself. The youngest daughter is entangled in an ever-escalating courtship of dangerous pranks with a classmate. The oldest daughter is caught between her (Anglo) fiance's desire for a "fashionable" wedding and her mother's desire to see it infused with some traditional elements. And the middle daughter is a doctor, whose storyline I will leave untold, just to retain a little bit of the mystery and fun.
This movie isn't particularly earth-shattering, but I found it really, really enjoyable. I was just thinking the other day that you see so much in movies or TV that is cliched and unbelievable. I really prefer things to be (at least) either a) original or b) authentic. Preferably both. This film tells a story with a lot of surprising, original elements, and yet it feels very authentic. I hope it gets a distribution deal soon.
As my last screening of the festival, I saw a program of six shorts called Urban Landscapes, all of them about New York. Some were documentaries and some were narrative. I didn't really get to watch all of them, because I was running around a little. One called "The Kings of Christmas" (by David Katz) was really interesting. It was about several people who get very serious about their Christmas decorations. My favorite, though, was one called "Bicycle Gangs of New York," by Cheryl Dunn. The whole opening sequence (which was almost half of the film) had no narration, and very little dialog. It was just a montage of shots of the various bicycle gangs featured in the film, set to music. It was very, very cool. You can see a clip of it on the filmmaker's website.
And that was it, the festival was over. At least, for me. My brain is completely filled with movies now. Time to decompress.
Monday, May 2, 2005
Sunday, May 1, 2005
Tribeca Film Fest 2005 - Day 9
First I saw most of an interesting documentary called Bowery Dish. I actually really wanted to see this one, because it's about the changes going on in my neighborhood. I know that my living here is a product of those changes. And I'm not one of those people who thinks that change is a bad thing. I was just curious about it. I think the film also took a fairly moderate stance. Obviously they don't want the neighborhood to lose its character, and they don't want the rents to become so high that no one who is currently there can afford to stay. But New York never sits still, so you can't expect to stop the evolution. You can just hope that a yuppie bar doesn't take over your favorite little neighborhood spots.
Next up was a collection of shorts in a program called Animation by the Hubleys. These spanned several decades, and were made by various people in the Hubley family, notably John and Faith, and their daughter Emily. Another of their daughters is Georgia Hubley (of Yo La Tengo). As a young child she appears as a voice in at least one of the animations. I particularly liked one called "The Hole" which stars Dizzy Gillespie as one of the voice actors, "Moonbird" which was voiced by two of their sons, and the one in which Emily and Georgia perform a play (I can't remember what it was called).
Lastly I went with my sister and one of her friends to see The Souvenirs of Mr. X. We weren't totally clear, from the description, what this documentary was about. After seeing it, we kind of figured out why that was. Broadly, the movie was about amateur filmmakers (people who make home movies, not independent filmmakers who just aren't getting paid anything). The problem is that, from there, they couldn't seem to figure out where the film was going.
It was sort of about the quest to find out who had created this one film that the director had purchased at a flea market. In the course of his search, he discovered some amateur film clubs, and he would visit them, talk to them about their own views on the hobby, and show them the mystery film to see if they recognized it. Unfortunately, this particular film wasn't a very interesting specimen, and this avenue of inquiry didn't really lead anywhere. I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if he had focused the documentary entirely on the sophisticated hobbyists in the clubs and their films. Instead, it meanders back and forth, interspersed with "clever" little snipets from random home movies that illustrate, in an overly literal way, the things that the interview subjects say. It's a precious technique that becomes pretty annoying, pretty quickly.
Oddly enough, towards the end of the film, they use the narrative device of judges of an amateur film competition to point out these and other valid criticisms of the documentary itself. Which only begs the question, if they were aware of all these flaws in the film, why did they still make it this way?
One more day to go.
Next up was a collection of shorts in a program called Animation by the Hubleys. These spanned several decades, and were made by various people in the Hubley family, notably John and Faith, and their daughter Emily. Another of their daughters is Georgia Hubley (of Yo La Tengo). As a young child she appears as a voice in at least one of the animations. I particularly liked one called "The Hole" which stars Dizzy Gillespie as one of the voice actors, "Moonbird" which was voiced by two of their sons, and the one in which Emily and Georgia perform a play (I can't remember what it was called).
Lastly I went with my sister and one of her friends to see The Souvenirs of Mr. X. We weren't totally clear, from the description, what this documentary was about. After seeing it, we kind of figured out why that was. Broadly, the movie was about amateur filmmakers (people who make home movies, not independent filmmakers who just aren't getting paid anything). The problem is that, from there, they couldn't seem to figure out where the film was going.
It was sort of about the quest to find out who had created this one film that the director had purchased at a flea market. In the course of his search, he discovered some amateur film clubs, and he would visit them, talk to them about their own views on the hobby, and show them the mystery film to see if they recognized it. Unfortunately, this particular film wasn't a very interesting specimen, and this avenue of inquiry didn't really lead anywhere. I think I would have enjoyed it a lot more if he had focused the documentary entirely on the sophisticated hobbyists in the clubs and their films. Instead, it meanders back and forth, interspersed with "clever" little snipets from random home movies that illustrate, in an overly literal way, the things that the interview subjects say. It's a precious technique that becomes pretty annoying, pretty quickly.
Oddly enough, towards the end of the film, they use the narrative device of judges of an amateur film competition to point out these and other valid criticisms of the documentary itself. Which only begs the question, if they were aware of all these flaws in the film, why did they still make it this way?
One more day to go.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Tribeca Film Fest 2005 - Day 8
Here's what I saw today (Friday 4/29):
So, The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 3 was quite interesting. Some parts of it were a little less engaging, but it also tied together elements from the other two parts. I forgot to mention these important aspects of Luper's character - he's a listmaker, a collector, and a "professional prisoner." The listmaking/collecting thing leads to the observation that the categories we use to classify the world affect the way we interact with it. Very cerebral, but I like it.
Next up was a documentary called Excavating Taylor Mead, a totally fascinating New York character. I don't know how to describe him, except that he was one of the earliest indi superstars (even before he fell in with the Andy Warhol crowd). He just has something about him. He showed up at the screening, and he's still a complete ham. One of my favorite quotes from him in the movie: "I depend on the kindness of bartenders." And in the Q&A, a woman asked him, "How did you come to be on a mountain with an arab?" (who subsequently stabbed him) and he answered, "Well, I'm in love with guys in tight pants."
Lastly I saw Reeker a second time. The movie was just as scary the second time. And just as funny. This time I knew when hide my eyes, or look away, so I checked out the audience when I didn't want to see what was on the screen. This was an 11pm screening, so the crowd was more in the right mindset - lot's of laughing and jumping. Also, because I knew what was going on, I was able to pay attention to some things that I didn't notice before. Of course, I can't say what any of them were, because that would ruin the surprise.
So, The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 3 was quite interesting. Some parts of it were a little less engaging, but it also tied together elements from the other two parts. I forgot to mention these important aspects of Luper's character - he's a listmaker, a collector, and a "professional prisoner." The listmaking/collecting thing leads to the observation that the categories we use to classify the world affect the way we interact with it. Very cerebral, but I like it.
Next up was a documentary called Excavating Taylor Mead, a totally fascinating New York character. I don't know how to describe him, except that he was one of the earliest indi superstars (even before he fell in with the Andy Warhol crowd). He just has something about him. He showed up at the screening, and he's still a complete ham. One of my favorite quotes from him in the movie: "I depend on the kindness of bartenders." And in the Q&A, a woman asked him, "How did you come to be on a mountain with an arab?" (who subsequently stabbed him) and he answered, "Well, I'm in love with guys in tight pants."
Lastly I saw Reeker a second time. The movie was just as scary the second time. And just as funny. This time I knew when hide my eyes, or look away, so I checked out the audience when I didn't want to see what was on the screen. This was an 11pm screening, so the crowd was more in the right mindset - lot's of laughing and jumping. Also, because I knew what was going on, I was able to pay attention to some things that I didn't notice before. Of course, I can't say what any of them were, because that would ruin the surprise.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Tribeca Film Fest 2005 - Day 7
Just a patron today. Which is a nice change, actually.
The first film I saw was The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 2. Apparently these three films are actually part of a larger multimedia project that Peter Greenaway is working on. I don't exactly know what it's about, but it involves the number 92 and the history of uranium. Also, there's a lot of things about collecting stuff (particularly in suitcases), sex (of course), and imprisonment. I forgot to mention the way that he has made reference to several of his other films. The narrator has already mentioned "Belly of an Architect," "A Zed & Two Noughts," and "The Draughtman's Contract." There's also a character named Cissie Collpitts (which was the name of three women in "Drowning by Numbers"), and a play whose name was "The Baby of..." something, I can't remember, but apparently this is a reference to his film "The Baby of Macon". Again, probably more evidence that this is a self-indulgent project. But the fact is, if you aren't a Peter Greenaway fan already, you probably aren't going to sit down and watch three 2-hour movies by him. I don't think I liked part 2 quite as much as part 1. I'm hoping it picks up again in part 3 (which I'm seeing tomorrow).
The film was beautiful. A lot to take in, so I definitely want to see it again. It's sort of a sequel to "In the Mood for Love" (one of my favorite films ever) and, to a lesser degree, "Days of Being Wild." Despite what you might think from the name, it takes place in the late 1950s/60s, with the possible exception of some sci-fi scenes which take place in 2046 - which could be a time or could be a place. It's ambiguous.
The film is a little confusing because the story doesn't always unfold in a chronological way - sometimes characters or plot elements are briefly glimpsed, though they aren't really introduced until much later. Also, the characters travel between various places (like Hong Kong and Singapore), but because the story is jumping around in time, it's also a little difficult to figure out where they are at certain points. There's a lot more going on than in "In the Mood for Love", but it still has atmosphere aplenty. The movie was totally engrossing. I mean, I actually forgot where I was for a while. My only complaint is that Ziyi Zhang can't hold a candle to Maggie Cheung, so sometimes her performance seems to be a pathetic attempt to copy the older woman. In retrospect, though, I think that may actually be an intentional part of the character she portrays.
If you like Wong Kar Wai movies, I recommend 2046 very highly!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Tribeca Film Fest 2005 - Day 6
The first thing I saw today was Peter Greenaway's The Tulse Luper Suitcases Part 1. I was a little nervous about it because a woman I know who saw it last night said that she couldn't sit still for it. Plus it's the first part of a trilogy, which seems potentially self-indulgent. Well, I forgot that one of the things I love about Peter Greenaway's films is, in fact, his particular style of self-indulgence! I missed the very beginning, so I don't know the whole deal. I mean, I have no idea how much this story is based on factual events. But, it's definitely a surreal way of telling a story. Scenes of multiple people auditioning for the same part, alternate takes, numbers, drawings, diagrams, etc. all intermingling in a sort of audio-visual collage. You can't hope to watch a Greenaway movie and take it all in, you just have to submit your senses to it and absorb what you can. This guy is not for everyone, to be sure, but I'm happy to say that I loved it and I'm really looking forward to parts 2 and 3.
After that I saw a pair of movies that I really wasn't able to pay attention to, so I don't feel qualified to say much about them.
After that I saw a pair of movies that I really wasn't able to pay attention to, so I don't feel qualified to say much about them.
Tribeca Film Fest 2005 - Day 5
I'm too wiped out to say much in detail about today. I was at the festival from about 1:00 pm to 12:30 am. So in brief:
First I saw Reeker, a very cool horror movie made by Dave Payne. I don't want to give too much away about this film, but I will say: it's funny, it's visceral (there are times when someone is vomiting or some such and you can really almost feel it yourself), it LOOKS AMAZING, and yes, it was pretty freakin' scary. It was just damn cool, too. I'll be seeing the film again on Friday night (which I'm really glad about, because there are some things I feel I need to see again). Plus, I think it will be a totally different experience with a "midnight movie" crowd.
Next up, I saw Runaway. I'm not sure what to say about this one. I mean, it had some interesting ideas, and a lot of great performances. But I'm not sure it really works as a film. I was amused by the part when the guys who work at the theater asked me "Is it true that the girl from X-men is in there?" (Anna Paquin, and yes, it was true).
Then came a documentary called Gay Sex in the '70s. I think there were only 6 women in the audience. Haha! Seriously, this was probably the best documentary I've seen so far. I mean, for one thing it captured a really fascinating moment in history. But also, structurally, it was a very successful film. For one thing, it was only 67 minutes long. No extra padding. The other thing I really liked about it was the way it transitioned from one subject to the next. I believe it was told entirely through interviews (no narrator), and these were edited together in such a way that the focus of what they were discussing shifted subtly - from the piers, to the baths, to Fire Island, etc. It gave the film a very casual, natural flow, and yet there was a meaningful progression of ideas being presented. Plus, there was a lot of gay sex.
Lastly, I saw The American Ruling Class. I don't know how to describe this film. Partly because I was so exhausted by that point that I kind of dosed off for a bit. But also because it's a difficult movie to explain. The filmmakers called it a "Dramatic Documentary Musical". I couldn't tell you if I liked it or not because I know that the film was trying to make a point, I just couldn't tell you exactly what that point was.
First I saw Reeker, a very cool horror movie made by Dave Payne. I don't want to give too much away about this film, but I will say: it's funny, it's visceral (there are times when someone is vomiting or some such and you can really almost feel it yourself), it LOOKS AMAZING, and yes, it was pretty freakin' scary. It was just damn cool, too. I'll be seeing the film again on Friday night (which I'm really glad about, because there are some things I feel I need to see again). Plus, I think it will be a totally different experience with a "midnight movie" crowd.
Next up, I saw Runaway. I'm not sure what to say about this one. I mean, it had some interesting ideas, and a lot of great performances. But I'm not sure it really works as a film. I was amused by the part when the guys who work at the theater asked me "Is it true that the girl from X-men is in there?" (Anna Paquin, and yes, it was true).
Then came a documentary called Gay Sex in the '70s. I think there were only 6 women in the audience. Haha! Seriously, this was probably the best documentary I've seen so far. I mean, for one thing it captured a really fascinating moment in history. But also, structurally, it was a very successful film. For one thing, it was only 67 minutes long. No extra padding. The other thing I really liked about it was the way it transitioned from one subject to the next. I believe it was told entirely through interviews (no narrator), and these were edited together in such a way that the focus of what they were discussing shifted subtly - from the piers, to the baths, to Fire Island, etc. It gave the film a very casual, natural flow, and yet there was a meaningful progression of ideas being presented. Plus, there was a lot of gay sex.
Lastly, I saw The American Ruling Class. I don't know how to describe this film. Partly because I was so exhausted by that point that I kind of dosed off for a bit. But also because it's a difficult movie to explain. The filmmakers called it a "Dramatic Documentary Musical". I couldn't tell you if I liked it or not because I know that the film was trying to make a point, I just couldn't tell you exactly what that point was.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Channel 102
Took a break from TFF tonight, but not from film. Sort of. Instead I went to the Upright Citizen's Brigade Theater to see the latest Channel 102 screening. Um, basically, you see 10 short films (although, officially, they consider them episodes of TV shows), and the audience votes on their five favorites. The five shows with the most votes return the following month for another episode, along with five new pilots.
My favorites were newcomers I love the '30s and Follow Up (which wasn't exactly a newcomer, since it was really about a show which had previously been cancelled, and one which never even made it to the screen). I also liked returning shows Roboto Supremo (even though it was clearly trying to get itself cancelled) and Cat News. To round it off, I voted for Gemberling, even though I previously thought it was really stupid. I guess it's growing on me.
My favorites were newcomers I love the '30s and Follow Up (which wasn't exactly a newcomer, since it was really about a show which had previously been cancelled, and one which never even made it to the screen). I also liked returning shows Roboto Supremo (even though it was clearly trying to get itself cancelled) and Cat News. To round it off, I voted for Gemberling, even though I previously thought it was really stupid. I guess it's growing on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)