STOCKFILM: October 2007

I've been trying to catch up on the few films I missed from the PFA's tribute to the 50th San Francisco International Film Festival earlier this year. This is where I first saw Shirley Clarke's The Cool World, Wexler's Medium Cool, Ning Ying's On the Beat and other great programs. One that I tried so hard to attend but sadly missed was Kazuo Hara's The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On. Unlike many of the films in the program, Hara's film recently became available on DVD and I was able to watch it this week. It is a heart wrenching, touching, and sometimes comedic film, one of the best documentaries I've seen. It is the story of a Japanese World War II veteran trying to piece together conflicting accounts of why two Japanese soldiers were murdered by their own commanding officers 40 years ago. His methods alternate between reasonable discussions to violent demands. It is both a detective story and a revenge story. The accounts he is able to locate are astonishing. These old war veterans reluctantly share stories they thought they had buried, accounts of survival in the most desperate conditions.

Watching the film made me think of other documentary films that really touched me and I decided to record their titles and see if they change over time. Below is a list of those films. Determining what is a documentary film and what isn't would be the subject of an entire thesis, so I devised my own sub categories of non-fiction films that I don't expect anyone to agree with and no one really should. But films like Sans Soliel or Koyaanisqatsi cannot be overlooked. Here are some titles, in no particular order, and I expect to add more when they come to me. I'd like to hear some suggestions as well.

Documentaries
1. Gimme Shelter (dir. Maysles Bros, 1970)
2. Workingman's Death (dir. Michael Glawogger, 2005)
3. Chung Kuo China (dir. Michelangelo Antonioni, 1972)
4. The Emperor's Naked Army Marches On (dir. Kazuo Hara, 1987)
5. Gates of Heaven (dir. Errol Morris, 1980)
6. The Thin Blue Line (dir. Errol Morris, 1988)
7. The Films of Frederick Wiseman
8. Harlan County USA (dir. Barbara Kopple, 1976)
9. The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (dir. Adam Curtis, 2004)
10. Cocksucker Blues (dir. Robert Frank, 1972)
11. Tokyo Olympiad (dir. Kon Ichikawa, 1965)

Profile Films:
1. No Direction Home (dir. Martin Scorcese, 2005)
2. The Devil and Daniel Johnston (dir. Jeff Feuerzeig, 2005)

Performance Films:
1. Jazz on a Summer's Day (dir. Bert Stern, 1960)
2. Monterey Pop Festival (dir. D.A Pennebaker, 1968)
3. Festival! (dir. Murray Lerner, 1967)

Non-Fiction Films
1. Sans Soleil (dir. Chris Marker, 1983)
2. Koyaanisqatsi (dir. Godfrey Reggio, 1982)
3. People on a Sunday (dir. Robert Siodmak, Fred Zinnemann, Edgar G. Ulmer, Billy Wilder, 1930)

Notable Omissions:
Hearts and Minds (dir. Peter Davis, 1974)
The Sorrow and the Pity (dir. Marcel Ophuls, 1969)
Shoah (dir. Claude Lanzmann, 1985)
The Films of Ken Burns
Up Series (dir. Michael Apted)

The above films are not listed for the sole reason that I have not seen them yet. Any of them.

As the full line up for this year's 34th Telluride Film Festival grew closer, I anticipated several films to screen:

Lust, Caution
dir. Ang Lee (no, that went to Venice)

The Red Ballon
dir. Hsiao-hsien Hou (Cannes was the last screening that I know of)

My Blueberry Nights
dir. Kar Wai Wong (same as above)

Control
dir. Anton Corbijin (same as above)

Shine a Light
dir. Martin Scorcese (nope)

Youth Without Youth
dir. Francis Ford Coppola (no, that went to Rome)

The Darjeeling Limited
dir. Wes Anderson (no, that went to Venice also)

Sukiyaki Western Django
dir. Takashi Miike (no, that went to Venice as well)

Eastern Promises
dir. David Cronenberg (nope, that will screen at Toronto)

Peter Bogdonvich’s Documentary on Tom Petty (nope)

Standard Operating Procedures
dir. Errol Morris (nope)

Paranoid Park
dir. Gus Van Sant (nope)

No Country for Old Men
dir. Coen Bros (nope)

Charlie Wilson's War
dir. Mike Nichols (Nope)

Where the Wild Things Are
dir. Spike Jonze (nope)

The War
dir. Ken Burns (and nope)

Acknowledging that these films are a sampling of what I am most anticipating this year, I was slightly disappointed and surprised by the absence of all of them. As I arrived in Colorado, I was certain I’d see Ang Lee’s new film. Youth Without Youth was a bit of a stretch, but even Variety speculated it would screen in Telluride. Once the Film Watch appeared the following afternoon, I discovered Telluride would screen, amongst many others:

I’m Not There
dir. Todd Haynes

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
dir. Cristian Mungiu

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
dir. Julian Schnabel

Later it was announced that there would be a sneak preview of De Palma’s Redacted, which was a pleasant surprise. As more details of this year’s festival trickled in, I couldn’t help but feel a little under whelmed. I’ve known for several weeks that Edith Kramer would be the guest director, which is a spectacular choice, but it’s effect was slightly diminished only because I am so familiar with her programming from the Pacific Film Archive. Other Bay Area connections became prevalent. Kramer brought along her former roommate from the ‘60s, Bay Area underground filmmaker and San Francisco Art Institute instructor George Kuchar, for a retrospective. The Shyam Benegal tribute seemed unique, until I realized he would be visiting the PFA with the same films when I returned to Berkeley. (Kuchar also has a tribute scheduled at the PFA on September 18.) Sean Penn, who is a very visible Bay Area filmmaker, brought his new film Into the Wild. Even the Festival poster (which seems modeled after San Francisco’s Castro Theatre) was done by Bay Area artist Mark Stock. As the full line-up became known, I couldn’t help but feel that the 34th Telluride Film Festival was essentially the Bay Area Film Festival in Colorado. If you were not from the Bay Area, you wouldn’t notice this.

The truth is that Telluride was operating under many restraints this past year. An entire restructuring of staff, originating with the departure of Festival co-founder, the arrival of new co-director and managing director, and not to mention relocating the Festival’s home office and year round staff from New Hampshire to Berkeley; Telluride had its hands full throughout the year while still trying to program one of the world’s top festivals. It makes perfect sense that head programmers would rely on their close set of friends, mainly from the Bay Area, to compose this year’s Festival.

And it was still an amazing Festival. With the spectacular slate films, amazing guests, and the beautiful location; it's hard not to be impressed. I know I’m a little disappointed about the absence of the films listed above, but they will all be theatrically distributed; so all I missed out on was their North American premiere (in some cases), which is not a big deal to me. Also, there is the fact Telluride exhibits new films and archival films that may never be released theatrically in the States, so I would have forgone the opportunity to see Wong Kar Wei’s new work, to instead see People on Sunday and Jar City. Throughout my time in Telluride I wrote about films and events that connected with me on some kind of level. They are collected below:

I’m Not There

Straight up, I didn’t like it. The film is a two and a half hour hallucinatory mix of Pennebaker’s Don’t Look Back, famous archival footage (a majority used in Scorcese’s No Direction Home), with allusions to Bound for Glory and Peckipah’s retelling of Pat Garret and Billy the Kid. There are moments where the film reaches the levels of Jorodowsky in its twisted visuals and images. What I really did not enjoy about the film is it’s non-linear structure (even the beautiful madness of Jorodowsky’s films are bonded together linearly). Overall, I feel that there is nothing that this film provides that is greater than any one of the individual films it is referencing.

The truth is that this I’m Not There is one person’s interpretation of the many dimensions to Dylan’s life, which bears no resemblance to my own. However, the film is very unique and utilizes an approach to representing a real, historical figure in a way that is completely new to me. Haynes uses of a variety of styles, each one completely different from the other in order to portray a stage and facet of Dylan’s life; some fact, some mythical, and some completely fabricated. One sequence uses the black and white cinema verite style of Pennebaker’s film to document his clash with journalists, while another sequence uses bright colors and traditional composition to illustrate his home life as a father struggling with marriage and family. And, of course, there is the variety of actors portraying Dylan-based characters. When I consider all these approaches, I can’t help but admire the film. I’ve seen Persepolis and Wind Man at Telluride and felt completely indifferent to them; and while I did not enjoy I’m Not There, it still provoked and intrigued me. I would definitely recommend it.

Highlights: There is one beautiful shot of Dylan’s wife (portrayed by Chartlotte Gainsbourg) feeding their children. The scene takes place in the kitchen and the image is framed so widely and lit so beautifully that it looks like a Gursky photograph. There is another scene featuring a cameo performance by Jim James that is stunning. The scene swells.

Daniel Day-Lewis Tribute

After the series of clips, Daniel Day-Lewis took the stage. He wore a western flannel shirt with old jeans and work boots, accompanied with a fedora. He had tattoos up the length of his right arm, strange tattoos, stars and silhouettes of hands. He looked just like Jack from The Ballad of Jack and Rose, the one role that is distinctively separate from the extravagant period films he has starred in. He appeared humble and modest, without a trace of William Cutting’s arrogance, Hawkeye’s gallantry, or Tomas’s sex appeal. I shouldn’t overlook that he is fifty.
The questions asked by Annette Insdorf were poor. She spent as much time talking, if not more, than Day-Lewis; which is the first sign of a bad interviewer. All the questions she asked were attempts to cajole Day-Lewis into agreeing on some kind of insignificant (and poorly devised) academic theory she was developing. It is a self-serving method of focusing the interview on herself as opposed to her subject. It wasn’t even a conversation as it was her attempting to give a lecture and promote the book she is writing on Philip Kaufman. It was bad.

In spite of this, Day-Lewis opened up on few topics, most eloquently on one of his inspirations. He also discussed his admiration for Charles Laughton, De Niro and Scorcese’s early films.

Following the interview was a screening of the third reel of There Will Be Blood. It looked beautiful, different from Anderson’s past films. The pace was slower, framing much more traditional; yet there was that undeniable movement. The cinematography is beautiful, wonderful images and colors. It didn’t strike me with the raw energy of Boogie Nights and Magnolia. It felt much more controlled.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

An extraordinary film. The film keeps in line with the themes of Schnabel’s past work (artists struggling with the creative process due to either internal or external obstacles), it is a complete departure for him stylistically. The film is so daring, both in subject and in form; and represents the best in filmmaking. His best work and one of the best films of the Festival and of the year. I’d don’t want to discuss it to much, I think it’s best for audiences to be surprised by it’s technique.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days

Another amazing film. I don’t want to discuss it too much, but this is a great film. Each second I was compelled.

Redacted

This is a hard film to comment on and the difficulty has everything to do with the fact that Brian De Palma directed it. I’m a fan of his work, especially Blow Out. But he’s a certain kind of filmmaker and I think most viewers approach his films knowing that he is going to shock you with gruesome murders and sexual images. He’s a sensationalist. Amongst the many reasons to see a De Palma film, one to see someone get impaled with a giant drill. So when he decides to make a film about a highly publicized U.S. military atrocity in Iraq, it’s hard to approach in light of his other work. Can a filmmaker, who has directed films like Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Body Double and Femme Fatale, turn around and make a film about a serious political situation that is costing lives everyday? De Palma has done it before with Causalities of War, which, unfortunately, I haven’t seen. I’d like to think that a filmmaker can alternate between those two types of material, but it usually doesn’t work. And I am ambivalent if it does in Redacted.

Redacted has all the characteristics of a De Palma film. Voyeurism (a huge reoccurring theme in his work) in the form of a soldier who is documenting his war experience with a camera, graphic murder and assault/brutalization of women, and ends with painful memories that haunt the characters in the film. A majority of De Palma’s films end with a character plagued with memories and he wants these images to haunt the audience as well. This technique is used in Redacted to have the audience haunted by the atrocities in Iraq. I was initially very moved by the film, but it has slowly began to sour on me because, personally, it’s hard for me to accept the use of such gruesome images when it is the same sensationalistic technique De Palma uses in his horror/thriller films. It is very effective, but part of me can't help thinking it is the wrong technique considering the subject matter. I am eager to see the type of reception the film receives. I do feel that this film could end up being what Apocalypse Now was to the Vietnam War. Meaning that when people look back on the war in Iraq, Redacted will have a huge influence upon their perspective. It is impossible to ignore what this films presents. No other filmmaker of De Palma's stature has addressed the war and he has created a very unapologetic, direct film about this never ending conflict. It is an important film to see and also important for you to decide for yourself.

The film as a whole has a very unique structure. Portions are told through the use of websites and online video. It is shot entirely on low budget digital video that lends authenticity to the horrible events depicted on screen. It truly is a new type of war film, and I admire how De Palma utilized the internet, reality television and other characteristics of modern day life to tell this story. I guess I am frustrated that the film is so unique and groundbreaking stylistically/structurally but at the same time De Palma is retreading and recycling motifs he has used throughout his work. It is a strange combination, and then to throw in the timely and painful subject matter, that makes for a very intense, visceral film experience.

I really don’t know how this film is going to be distributed. It was produced by HDnet, who produced Soderbergh’s Bubble and orchestrated it’s simultaneous theatrical, online, and DVD release. So maybe that’s the way it will be exhibited. But I don’t see it going to movie theatres. (I just learned today that it will be released theatrically.)

The screening of the film at Telluride was a great event. De Palma joined the audience for a Q & A via web cam from the Venice Film Festival, where he would later win Best Director for Redacted. His face was projected on the screen and was the first time I experienced a real time Q & A session with a filmmaker who wasn’t physically present. These are the types of things that happen every hour at Telluride.

There were other films that I saw. Jar City was great. Blind Mountain was very effective. I lost energy during Barbet Schroeder’s new film and ended up falling asleep through the whole thing. People on a Sunday was great. Dillinger is Dead seemed really interesting, but I had to leave early.