 |
|
Sundance Wrap-Up
 From Chicago, this is The Dope Sheet... I'm Adam Kempenaar.
Between our three dispatches (
#1,
#2,
#3)
and
Sunday's Chicago Public Radio show,
Sam and I managed to discuss 17 of the 20 films we saw last week at
the Sundance Film Festival.
Here are some thoughts on the three we didn't get a chance to
mention, all of which we screened on our last day at the Festival.
The Good: "Smiley Face"
YouTube Trailer
Release date: April 20 (limited)
I'd love to be able to rate this Gregg Araki comedy (yes, I said
Gregg Araki comedy) against the great pothead gems that paved the way
for it - "Half Baked", "Friday", "Up In Smoke", "Howard's End" - but
then, stoner movies have never really been my bag of Cheetos. Until
now. Anna Faris stars as a slacker-actress named Jane who wakes up,
gets high, eats some cupcakes she was specifically instructed not to
eat, and then sets out in a marijuana-induced haze across L.A. to buy
more pot and replace the cupcakes before her sinister roommate gets
home. Faris is a certified Filmspotting comedic genius and Sam and I
both giggled throughout as if we had been smoking some of the evil
weed ourselves. John Krasinski from "The Office" is hilarious as a
dork with a crush on Jane. A couple of you who donated last week even
got nicknames inspired by the movie - "President Garfield Loves
Lasagna" and "Speaking In Riddles."
The Bad: "Joshua"
Sundance Channel Profile
Release date: TBA
We ended up feeling dissatisfied with his movie, but you have to
give credit to director and co-screenwriter George Ratliff for
providing the best audience Q&A moment of the week following an
afternoon screening of his "Omen"/"Rosemary's Baby"-inspired thriller
starring Sam Rockwell and Vera Farmiga:
Random dude (I'm paraphrasing): I noticed the movie seemed very
similar in the way it was shot to Dario Argento. Were you inspired by
Italian horror movies?
Ratliff: No.
It was funny, and not just because of Ratliff's glib response;
even I could tell the movie looked nothing at all like an Argento
film - the absence of vibrant colors, all the daylight, the sense of
claustrophobia in the apartment. The title character is a smart,
talented and insanely creepy young boy with a new little sister at
home who inexplicably cries all day and night, just like he did as a
baby. The infant's constant wailing, combined with Joshua's
increasingly disturbing behavior, result in a slow but inevitable
family meltdown. Sam and I were both sucked in by the first 30-45
minutes of this film, but after a while you realize the boy's dark
fascinations don't really add up to anything. The scares don't build
on the previous ones or provide any new perspective on all of the
creepiness, making the whole thing a tedious bit of faux-supernatural
dysfunction. Of course,
there are those who disagree.
Fox Searchlight purchased "Joshua" at Sundance for close to $4
million.
The In-Between: "Fay Grim"
Release date: May (limited)
Hal Hartley's "sequel" to "Henry Fool," "Fay Grim" is too
convoluted to sum up in a few sentences. (Feel free to check out
this plot description)
. But if you've ever wondered what a Hartley directed 'Bourne
Identity' film might look like - and admit it, we all have - now you
can see for yourself. Everything you'd expect from a Hartley movie
is on display - chief among them, the canted camera angles and
deadpan absurdist tone and dialogue. But after several early laughs,
"Fay Grim" is decidedly -- and deliberately, I think -- not funny. In
fact, either I wildly misread the film or Hartley seems genuinely
interested in exploring the world of international espionage and
global politics; in contrast to, say, "Amateur," which uses this
intrigue more as a MacGuffin. The movie left me totally bewildered
about its intent, but Parker Posey is perfect as Fay and Jeff
Goldblum is hilarious as a duplicitous CIA agent. The lines they
manage to pull off with a straight face and sell with conviction are
worth the ticket price alone.
|
|
|
| |
|
Overlooked DVD Pick: "All The Real Girls"
 David Gordon Green's new film
"Snow Angels" made
our list of the top 5 films we saw at Sundance this year, but I think
"All The Real Girls,"
his 2003 sophomore effort, is just as good if not better. Sam and I
had fun imitating the Sundance rep who introduced "Snow Angels" at
our screening by referring to what he calls Gordon Green's "lyrical
naturalism." It just seemed like one of those perfectly pretentious
phrases that ultimately doesn't mean anything. But the thing is, it
really is a perfect summation of his style. Gordon Green makes
small-town, slice-of-life movies often with non-stars, and there is a
precision to the way he captures 'real life' -- or what we imagine
'real life' in these environments to be. Along with this naturalism,
you get a smooth visual style that incorporates montage editing with
fade outs and subtle music that gives everything a distinct, laconic
rhythm.
"All The Real Girls" is about the love affair between a womanizer
named Paul (Paul Schneider) and his best friend's sister, Noel,
played by Zooey Deschanel. Without spoiling anything, let me just say
that there is a betrayal at one point in the story, and when it
occurred I was so wrapped up in the relationship that I was just as
angry as the cuckolded lover. I wasn't angry at Gordon Green; I
understood the betrayal and (I think) the reasons the offender does
it, even though they are never directly stated. "Girls" isn't
perfect, occasionally straining its lyricism with some heavy-handed
dialogue. But I was touched by the earnestness with which one of the
characters wants to change, to be redeemed through this deep
connection to another person.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Links
Oscar Roundtable
Newsweek's annual Oscar Roundtable is always a great read, and
this year's lengthy chat is no different. Conducted just prior to
the announcement of nominations, five of the six actors on the panel
(Cate Blanchett, Forrest Whitaker, Penelope Cruz, Helen Mirren, and
"Growing Pains" alums Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt) went on to be
nominated. Some questions and comments are fairly rote for these
types of discussions, but as is often the case, what these actors
cite as inspirations can be surprising. And Brad Pitt is funny.
When Supporting Becomes A Lead
Sam and Adam have often grumbled about the trend of defining
star-driven supporting performances as leads (or vice versa), or lead
performances by unknown talents as supporting. Here the San Francisco
Chronicle grumbles some more. Writer Michael Ordona's bottom line
thesis as to why this trend exists: follow the money.
How Sundance Sold Its Soul
We're all about dissenting opinions here at The Dope Sheet; it
offers us the chance to condescend right back. Radar Online's John
Cook laments -- nay, bitterly rants -- about the commercialization of
The Biggest Indie Festival There Ever Was. And if you find yourself
fundamentally agreeing with Cook and the apparent stick up his ass,
well, then you need to lighten up. At least a little. (If you want
to actually enjoy the festival, check out
Sundance's podcasts --
ranging from short filmmaker bios to lengthy festival think-tank
panels -- and short films at iTunes.)
--Jeff Huston
|
|
|
| |
|
Filmranting
The rants keep coming. This week's entry takes issue with a
particular beef long-held by The Dope Sheet. So it is with great
pleasure that we hand over the soapbox...
--
From New York, this is Filmranting... I'm David L. Williams.
My complaint is simple: I'm tired of movie reviewers talking
about the movies they hoped to see as opposed to the movies they
actually did see. I know it (unfortunately) smacks of Donald
Rumsfeld, but you need to go to press with the films you have, not
the films you want.
Now, I'm not discounting suggestions to filmmakers (Lord knows
I've bored most of my friends with my diatribe about how every
Spielberg film post-"Schindler's List" could be vastly improved by
cutting the last 20 minutes); what I'm requesting is a moratorium on
reviews that say things like, "I wish [name of protagonist] would
have decided to do 'B' instead of 'A.'" At this point, you're not
reviewing, you're writing. That's not the movie you saw, and if you
hate decision "A," tell me why you hate it, and it better not be
simply because it wasn't "B."
Adam and Sam are, thankfully, rarely guilty of this critical sin,
but I find it becoming a bigger problem among mainstream reviewers.
The worst example was probably this week on "Ebert & Roper" when the
guest critic, during her review of "Alpha Dog," lamented that the
film was even made and instead wanted a story about an Iraqi war
veteran coming home (or something in that vein.) I was stunned.
That's not a review; that's a pitch for a movie.
[Adam's note: I, too, watched this segment in horror. Though just
to clarify, I don't think the reviewer was suggesting that "Alpha
Dog" should have been a movie about an Iraq war hero. She was
suggesting we need more movies about Iraq war heroes and not movies
about teens-gone-wild. Which is, frankly, just as ridiculous. Unless
your name is Michael Medved.]
Like it or not, the true-life story behind "Alpha Dog" was made
into a movie, and I'd like to know about the film that is showing at
a theater near me, not the one which, though I'm sure you think it's
awesome, exists only in your mind.
--
Amen. And whether they are sent with angry derision, joyous
praise or intellectual curiosity, please keep your rants coming:
dopesheet@filmspotting.net
|
|
|
| |
|
Rantback
Our goal with Filmranting wasn't merely to provide a soapbox but to
incite readers as well. Thanks to John Spillane, that second goal
has now been fulfilled for the first time. Taking issue with Mark
Trencher's rant about how critics abuse the term "manipulative" (Dope
Sheet #33), John vents with some sympathy for those critics that
frustrate Mark...
--
AGGRRHH. Mark, what the heck? Ok, maybe the word manipulative
is over-used or technically used incorrectly, but what the person
using it is trying to get across is that the movie is cheaply toying
with the viewer's emotions. If you substitute "cheap" for
"manipulative" I think you could, in many cases, still convey what
the reviewer is trying to say. Why is it cheap? Because as
movie-goers we are opening ourselves up and trying to enjoy the film;
in doing so we are vulnerable to being "manipulated." By being lazy
and looking to solely play on the emotions of the viewer by bypassing
the brain, the director or writer can get the same initial bang --
impact on the audience -- for a fraction of the buck.
As far as I'm concerned, blatantly messing with an individual's
basic emotions (because the creator doesn't have the talent,
patience, or backing to extract a deeper more profound reaction form
the viewer) is right up there with flashing subliminal images of
skulls or pictures of the devil on-screen in order to elicit fear.
We are going to the movies to be manipulated but not in a way that
insults us.
--
So to sum up: Mark's uptight about the simple abuse of the term
"manipulative" while John couldn't care less about the devaluing of
the English language so long as the point is made. (This summation
has been purposefully reductionist-to-the-extreme so as to incite
further Rantbacks -- dopesheet@filmspotting.net)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
