Low expectations precede every Sunday showing at the festival. Sunday is usually the day reserved for musical/music related films, and often these have been the weakest of the festival.
Not so this year. After a decidedly mixed/mediocre run of films at this 2015 festival, Seymour: An Introduction was a delight. And then having Seymour Bernstein there, and giving a master class on the stage of The Virginia was as good as the movie itself. And that is coming from someone who knows next to nothing about playing music.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 4
Wild Tales was my favorite film of the festival. I just wish it had opened the festival rather than showing on the next to last day, as it would have got the festival off to a rousing start.
There is some merit to Ida in its exploration of an overlooked aspect of The Holocaust. But the rather thin pinnings of the story are dragged out in pretentious fashion, resulting in an occasionally boring, self-important melodrama.
The Motel Life is forgettable, by the numbers indie filmmaking.
99 Homes, set to be released later this year, is heavy handed in its social message. A conventional drama like this is not what I would expect from festival favorite Ramin Bahrani. Still, I found it entertaining based on Michael Shannon's performance, which is very close to being over the top at times. In other words, if you haven't liked Micheal Shannon in the past, this movie is unlikely to change your opinion.
There is some merit to Ida in its exploration of an overlooked aspect of The Holocaust. But the rather thin pinnings of the story are dragged out in pretentious fashion, resulting in an occasionally boring, self-important melodrama.
The Motel Life is forgettable, by the numbers indie filmmaking.
99 Homes, set to be released later this year, is heavy handed in its social message. A conventional drama like this is not what I would expect from festival favorite Ramin Bahrani. Still, I found it entertaining based on Michael Shannon's performance, which is very close to being over the top at times. In other words, if you haven't liked Micheal Shannon in the past, this movie is unlikely to change your opinion.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 3
I am not sure how I missed A Bronx Tale up to now. Maybe because it was not a big studio film, it did not play ad nauseam on the movie channels the way that Goodfellas did. It also has not been represented well on home video. Whatever the reason, over half of the audience at the Virginia had never seen it. I am sure many more people (ok, probably not the older audience at the Virginia) have seen The Simpsons episode "Bart the Murderer," where Bart is employed to make drinks for Fat Tony and his gang. It is remarkably similar to what happens in A Bronx Tale, but apparently Goodfellas was the main influence on the 1991 episode, as A Bronx Tale was not released until 1993. It is also very possible that one of the writers had seen the one-man show, which debuted on stage in 1990, the same year that Goodfellas was released. Whatever the case, A Bronx Tale has been overshadowed by Goodfellas.
The problem with these mob movies is that they have been approached from every angle. A Bronx Tale takes a more moralistic approach with its emphasis on the choice that C had to make between being like his working class father and being the protege of Sonny. While it is still a mob movie due to the amount of time spent focusing on the wiseguys, at its heart the movie is about the relationship between C and his father.
My appreciation for the movie only increased thanks to the lively and informative after-film interviews with Chazz Palminteri and producer Jon Kilik. This terrific discussion also included several questions from Leonard Maltin.
There is quite a striking contrast between A Bronx Tale and Girlhood, the earlier film of the day. Both feature characters who are 16 years old. Both characters have to choose between an easier, and probably more lucrative, life of crime or a blue collar, working stiff lifestyle. But the choices made in Girlhood are really reprehensible. The girl eschews a future involving physical labor like her mother, instead preferring the life of a thief, bully, and drug courier. That is pretty much all this movie is about. The mother is given little screen time, implying that she is not a significant part of Marieme's life, with the brother as a substitute for her father. Still, it is perplexing to represent the mother as being so absent that she is barely involved in her daughter's life, other than trying to help her obtain a job. Stylish camerawork does not make up for a nothing screenplay, with an ambiguous ending that seemed more the result of not knowing how to end the story.
The Son of the Sheik was a big disappointment. I really liked The Eagle, the other Valentino film that was shown at a previous year's festival, so maybe my expectations were too high. But Sheik really dragged during the middle section, so much so that I even noticed a few walkouts. It could easily have been fifteen minutes shorter, eliminating much needless "dialogue" and exposition during that bloated middle.
The problem with these mob movies is that they have been approached from every angle. A Bronx Tale takes a more moralistic approach with its emphasis on the choice that C had to make between being like his working class father and being the protege of Sonny. While it is still a mob movie due to the amount of time spent focusing on the wiseguys, at its heart the movie is about the relationship between C and his father.
My appreciation for the movie only increased thanks to the lively and informative after-film interviews with Chazz Palminteri and producer Jon Kilik. This terrific discussion also included several questions from Leonard Maltin.
There is quite a striking contrast between A Bronx Tale and Girlhood, the earlier film of the day. Both feature characters who are 16 years old. Both characters have to choose between an easier, and probably more lucrative, life of crime or a blue collar, working stiff lifestyle. But the choices made in Girlhood are really reprehensible. The girl eschews a future involving physical labor like her mother, instead preferring the life of a thief, bully, and drug courier. That is pretty much all this movie is about. The mother is given little screen time, implying that she is not a significant part of Marieme's life, with the brother as a substitute for her father. Still, it is perplexing to represent the mother as being so absent that she is barely involved in her daughter's life, other than trying to help her obtain a job. Stylish camerawork does not make up for a nothing screenplay, with an ambiguous ending that seemed more the result of not knowing how to end the story.
The Son of the Sheik was a big disappointment. I really liked The Eagle, the other Valentino film that was shown at a previous year's festival, so maybe my expectations were too high. But Sheik really dragged during the middle section, so much so that I even noticed a few walkouts. It could easily have been fifteen minutes shorter, eliminating much needless "dialogue" and exposition during that bloated middle.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 2
Jason Segal's portrayal of David Foster Wallace in The End of the Tour was key to the success of the film, but he did not pull it off. I watched the movie never having seen or heard the real David Foster Wallace, and only having just started reading Infinite Jest. I could not accept Segal's performance, despite wanting to embrace a movie that put forth thoughts and ideas worthy of consideration. With Jesse Eisenberg in the movie, I was also reminded of The Social Network, which might not have been a perfect impersonation of Mark Zuckerberg, but it did not need to be, because that version of Zuckerberg still came off like a real person.
After the movie I looked at David Foster Wallace's appearance on Charlie Rose. It did not take long to come to the conclusion that here was a complex and very interesting person whose was communicating advanced ideas but in a sometimes inhibited and certainly awkward fashion. I believe that "advanced and inhibited" was what Segal was trying to do. Unfortunately Segal's version of Wallace was a character rather than a person.
The movie took dramatic license with the whole "failed writer" aspect of David Lipsky. This is a guy who received praise from Raymond Carver at an early age, and while his novel The Art Fair, featured prominently in the movie, might not have been a best seller, it did receive an abundance of praise in literary circles. Most writers would kill for a start to a career as good as David Lipsky's.
It is not easy to adapt a story that comprises mostly a lot of talky back and forth between two characters over a five day span. Ponsoldt did a competent job, but the movie still came off as a bit stagey.
Moving Midway was a pleasant diversion, if that description is appropriate for a film that revolves around themes of race. The older people (including the guy who sold the land) were especially a hoot, making me wish more of their footage was included.
The third film of Roy "King of the Long Take" Andersson's trilogy, A Pigeon...--also the third film of the trilogy to play Ebertfest--was more of the same. What that means is I kinda loved it, though the sometimes tedious pacing of the film could induce napping for those prone to that.
After the movie I looked at David Foster Wallace's appearance on Charlie Rose. It did not take long to come to the conclusion that here was a complex and very interesting person whose was communicating advanced ideas but in a sometimes inhibited and certainly awkward fashion. I believe that "advanced and inhibited" was what Segal was trying to do. Unfortunately Segal's version of Wallace was a character rather than a person.
The movie took dramatic license with the whole "failed writer" aspect of David Lipsky. This is a guy who received praise from Raymond Carver at an early age, and while his novel The Art Fair, featured prominently in the movie, might not have been a best seller, it did receive an abundance of praise in literary circles. Most writers would kill for a start to a career as good as David Lipsky's.
It is not easy to adapt a story that comprises mostly a lot of talky back and forth between two characters over a five day span. Ponsoldt did a competent job, but the movie still came off as a bit stagey.
Moving Midway was a pleasant diversion, if that description is appropriate for a film that revolves around themes of race. The older people (including the guy who sold the land) were especially a hoot, making me wish more of their footage was included.
The third film of Roy "King of the Long Take" Andersson's trilogy, A Pigeon...--also the third film of the trilogy to play Ebertfest--was more of the same. What that means is I kinda loved it, though the sometimes tedious pacing of the film could induce napping for those prone to that.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Ebertfest 2015 Day 1
I do not need a story or even a remote semblance of a plot in a movie. But I do need to be entertained in some way. The visceral and auditory elements were not enough to justify the 70 minutes running time of Goodbye to Language. The 3D did not work for me either. Did Godard use the 3D in service of the filmmaking, or was it just a gimmick? I side with the latter, though I was having problems with the 3D, perhaps because I was sitting off to one side (and yes, I did get the left/right trick Godard played a couple times). The worst thing I can say about Goodbye to Language is that I do not want to waste any more time writing about it. When the most compelling character is a dog...
It was nice that they decided to pay tribute to Harold Ramis, but I would have much preferred that they play one of his movies in its entirety rather than a few short clips from his filmography. This festival is primarily about watching movies, is it not? And they still could have had plenty of time to discuss Harold Ramis' career during the after film discussion.
It was nice that they decided to pay tribute to Harold Ramis, but I would have much preferred that they play one of his movies in its entirety rather than a few short clips from his filmography. This festival is primarily about watching movies, is it not? And they still could have had plenty of time to discuss Harold Ramis' career during the after film discussion.
Ebertfest 2015 Day 0
Having attended the last fourteen Ebertfests, I have a pretty good idea of what the festival should be, and what works. That is why I am approaching the 2015 Ebertfest with some trepidation. While "Overlooked" was the overriding theme for many years, the real strength of the festival was the variety in the films. Sure, the festival has hosted many small, independently made character studies, but there was always a nice mix of films. During the early years Ebert would include a 70mm film, a free kids' film, a film containing a lot of music, a silent film, a documentary, and several festivals even had a horror film. Unfortunately the 70mm film and the free kids' film have been left out of the programming for several years now. They did sneak in a "kids" film last year with the delightful Wajdja, which was shown in the traditional Saturday morning slot.
So what does that leave? Well, we still have the silent film. There will always be a documentary film in the lineup. There is also the usual mix of foreign films-usually one or two European films, one or two African/Middle Eastern films, and one East Asian film. Nothing to complain about there, as the festival has exposed me to a lot of good/great foreign films that otherwise would have remained off of my radar. But this year...
Ebert was always good about selecting some "mainstream" films for the festival, the kind of films that provide a break from the usual (sometimes quite depressing) independent and European fare. This year's festival appears to be lacking in that regard, though maybe a couple of the films are "mainstreamish," without being known by me. I have not seen any of the films yet, not even A Bronx Tale, so I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
The most bizarre pick of this festival, and perhaps of all the festivals, is the selection of Jean-Luc Godard's Goodbye to Language. Why? Well, here is where Roger Ebert's stamp of approval is missed. Up until last year's festival, there was a comfort level with each and every film, because they were picked by Roger Ebert, and the vast majority of the time this meant a very good film was in the offing. That does not mean that everyone expected to love every film. I suspect that in a typical year a couple films were not everyone's cup of tea, but that was to be expected from a diverse slate. But in this case, there is very good reason to believe that Roger Ebert would not have liked Goodbye to Language. Here is what I imagine Ebert would write in reviewing this movie-
So what does that leave? Well, we still have the silent film. There will always be a documentary film in the lineup. There is also the usual mix of foreign films-usually one or two European films, one or two African/Middle Eastern films, and one East Asian film. Nothing to complain about there, as the festival has exposed me to a lot of good/great foreign films that otherwise would have remained off of my radar. But this year...
Ebert was always good about selecting some "mainstream" films for the festival, the kind of films that provide a break from the usual (sometimes quite depressing) independent and European fare. This year's festival appears to be lacking in that regard, though maybe a couple of the films are "mainstreamish," without being known by me. I have not seen any of the films yet, not even A Bronx Tale, so I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
The most bizarre pick of this festival, and perhaps of all the festivals, is the selection of Jean-Luc Godard's Goodbye to Language. Why? Well, here is where Roger Ebert's stamp of approval is missed. Up until last year's festival, there was a comfort level with each and every film, because they were picked by Roger Ebert, and the vast majority of the time this meant a very good film was in the offing. That does not mean that everyone expected to love every film. I suspect that in a typical year a couple films were not everyone's cup of tea, but that was to be expected from a diverse slate. But in this case, there is very good reason to believe that Roger Ebert would not have liked Goodbye to Language. Here is what I imagine Ebert would write in reviewing this movie-
This film is an affront. It is incoherent, maddening, deliberately opaque and heedless of the ways in which people watch movies. All of that is part of the Godardian method, I am aware, but I feel a bargain of some sort must be struck. We enter the cinema with open minds and goodwill, expecting Godard to engage us in at least a vaguely penetrable way. But in "Film Socialisme," he expects us to do all the heavy lifting.Actually, Ebert did write the above quote. It is contained in his one star review of a recent Godard film, 2011's Film Socialisme. It is not a stretch to think that the same words apply to Goodbye to Language, missing only the obligatory 3D dis that Ebert was famous for. Another-
What he lacks is a port of entry for the viewer. Defenses of the film are tortured rhetorical exercises in which critics assemble Godard's materials and try to paraphrase them to make sense. Few ordinary audience members, however experienced, can hope to emerge from this film with a coherent view of what Godard was attempting.Again, that would seem to be an apt description of Goodbye to Language, right? Instead it is taken from Ebert's 2002 one star review of In Praise of Love. So, if the inevitable conclusion is that Roger Ebert would not have liked Goodbye to Language, then was there no room for it at the festival? I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the festival programmers should keep this in mind in the overall programming of the festival. Ebert wrote positive, if not glowing, reviews for many, many films. Some of those films should be at this festival. Unfortunately it appears that they only included two films that Ebert actually saw and wrote about. And other than the silent film, only one film in the festival is older than 2008. Shortly after Ebert died, the festival programmers alluded to a list of hundreds of films that Ebert had compiled as possible candidates for the festival. Well, what happened to that list?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)