From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Reinaldo Marcus Green

Reinaldo Marcus Green
Courtesy of Reinaldo Marcus Green

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

REINALDO MARCUS GREEN
By Reinaldo Marcus Green and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Reinaldo Marcus Green, writer/director of "Stone Cars" which is currently showing on HBO.  It also showed at Cinéfondation at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival and the 2014 Los Angeles Film Festival.  

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

It's absolutely necessary to watch films, lots of them, from various genres.  Filmmakers should watch what scares them and what they think they won't like.  Many times, they'd be surprised by what else is out there.  A good film is a good film is a good film, no matter what language, format, or country.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

It's imperative for filmmakers to know their history.  Would you go to war without studying your opponent?

How did viewing indies and films from around the world help you when making "Stone Cars" or any of your other films?

Viewing films from around the world gave me a much larger sense of the world's taste in film, especially related to genres.  I gained appreciation for smaller niche films and everything in between and from great filmmakers, some maybe not well known in America.  I think seeing these films helps filmmakers create their own visual language, like building a vocabulary.  The more words you learn, the more sentences you can make.  The more films you watch, the more options you have in terms of shot selection, where to put the camera, and ways to tell a story.  It's all about language.  I have plenty more watching to do, but hopefully "Stone Cars" is one step in the evolution of my cinema language.

What is one American indie and one non-American film you'd recommend that filmgoers or aspiring filmmakers view? 

Gun Hill Road (2011)The Celebration (1998)

From the Mouths of Filmmakers will continue on Monday.

MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT Review

Left to right: Emma Stone as Sophie and Colin Firth as Stanley

Photo by Jack English © 2014 Gravier Productions, Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics

MAGIC IN THE MOONLIGHT

2014, 97 minutes

Rated PG-13 for a brief suggestive comment, and smoking throughout

Review by Joshua Handler

I will admit, I fully expected Woody Allen's latest, Magic in the Moonlight, to be a disaster.  Despite the phenomenal cast, it looked like it was going to be a turd.  I was wrong.  While not a great film (nowhere near the level of Blue Jasmine or Midnight in Paris), it is entertaining, well-acted, and is deceptively simple.

Magic is primarily set in the south of France in the 1920s.  It tells the story of Stanley (Colin Firth), a professional stage magician who travels to France to prove that a charming young medium, Sophie (Emma Stone), is a fraud after she reportedly performs miracles for rich families.

Colin Firth plays the fatalistic Woody Allen character beautifully while adding a bit of his own charm to the role. Stanley doesn't believe in magic yet would love to if it could be proved to be real because his life is full of doubt and hopelessness.  As Sophie begins to amaze Stanley, his worldview begins to change, essentially turning him into a different person.  Firth portrays this beautifully.  He's very light on his feet, and this is something that he is not usually allowed to be in his films.

Emma Stone is wonderful as Sophie and looks like she's going to be Woody Allen's new muse, as she is already going to star in his next film.  Stone brings an otherworldliness and sophisticated charm to the character that make her immediately lovable.  She and Firth have excellent chemistry as well.

Magic in the Moonlight focuses on the unpredictability and magic of love.  Love is something that just happens whether we want it to or not.  I'm not trying to stir up controversy, but this film seems to be an explanation of why Allen fell for his wife.  According to the film, love is not something one can plan for; when you fall for someone, it's perfectly natural and you should embrace it.  I may be reading too far into this movie, but as I was sitting watching it, that is all I could think about.

Through the character of Stanley, Allen questions whether it's better to live life believing that there's no afterlife or better to believe in something that might not be real and live a happier life. This is a question that Allen has asked and explored in many of his other films, but never has he explored it as fully as he does here.

Allen hired Darius Khondji (Midnight in Paris, Amour, The Immigrant) back as director of photography.  His work on this film is magnificent.  Khondji captures the energy and natural beauty of the sun-drenched French Riviera.  Many shots quite literally glow.  Khondji's style isn't showy or pretentious, which allows us to revel in the beauty of each location.

While I enjoyed Magic in the Moonlight, it is not the best that Allen has made.  It isn't even close.  While it certainly has quite a bit on its mind and is entertaining enough, it simply doesn't do enough new or have enough energy to make it stand out in Allen's impressive filmography.  While the story certainly takes a few very interesting turns and the themes are intriguing, the movie just doesn't have the passion that his best late-period work has.  Blue Jasmine was lean, mean, and uncompromising.  It was Allen's darkest film in years and was one of his sharpest character studies.  Midnight in Paris is, in my estimation, one of his best works.  While not on the Hannah and Her Sisters/Annie Hall level, it is up there because there's a sense of joy, love, and inventiveness in Midnight that isn't found in most of his other late-period work.  Again, Magic in the Moonlight is good, but it isn't inventive and follows a similar trajectory to many of his other films.

Overall, Magic in the Moonlight will please Woody Allen fans and others who like the actors in the ensemble.  The cast is rounded out with supporting turns from Jacki Weaver, Eileen Atkins (she's especially great), Marcia Gay Harden, and Hamish Linklater.  I enjoyed this film, but wouldn't rush to see it again.  It was far better than I expected, but will disappoint those looking for another Blue Jasmine.

3/4

BREAKING: GONE GIRL to be NYFF Opening Night Film

The following is a press release from the Film Society of Lincoln Center:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

THE FILM SOCIETY OF LINCOLN CENTER ANNOUNCED TODAY
THE WORLD PREMIERE OF DAVID FINCHER’S GONE GIRL
AS THE OPENING NIGHT SELECTION FOR THE 
52^ND NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL

New York, NY (July 17, 2014) – The Film Society of Lincoln Center announced today that David Fincher’s Gone Girl will make its World Premiere as the Opening Night selection for the upcoming 52nd New York Film Festival (September 26 –October 12), which will kick off at Alice Tully Hall and return to Tavern on the Green for the after party. Based upon the global best seller by Gillian Flynn, and starring Academy Award® winner Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, and Tyler Perry, Gone Girl marks Fincher’s return to the festival since The Social Network, the 2010 Opening Night Gala selection. The 20th Century Fox and New Regency release is due in theaters on October 3, 2014.

New York Film Festival Director and Selection Committee Chair, Kent Jones said: “Gone Girl is so many things at once: sharp as a razor about many aspects of American life that have been untouched by movies, very tough and just as funny, brilliantly acted, and 100% entertaining—a wild ride from start to finish. In short, a great American movie based on a literary phenomenon, directed by one of the best filmmakers alive. I’m so proud to have the world premiere of this film as our opening night.”

David Fincher’s film version of Gillian Flynn’s phenomenally successful best seller (adapted by the author) is one wild cinematic ride, a perfectly cast and intensely compressed portrait of a recession-era marriage contained within a devastating depiction of celebrity/media culture, shifting gears as smoothly as a Maserati 250F. Ben Affleck is Nick Dunne, whose wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) goes missing on the day of their fifth anniversary. Neil Patrick Harris is Amy’s old boyfriend Desi, Carrie Coon (who played Honey in Tracy Letts’s acclaimed production of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?) is Nick’s sister Margo, Kim Dickens (Treme, Friday Night Lights) is Detective Rhonda Boney, and Tyler Perry is Nick’s superstar lawyer Tanner Bolt. At once a grand panoramic vision of middle America, a uniquely disturbing exploration of the fault lines in a marriage, and a comedy that starts pitch black and only gets blacker, Gone Girl is a great work of popular art by a great artist.

The 52nd NYFF also marks the return to Tavern on the Green, a longtime destination for the evening’s after party, which came to an end when it closed in 2009. In May, owners Jim Caiola and David Salama reopened this New York landmark, decorated to evoke the original Victorian Gothic structure.

The 17-day New York Film Festival highlights the best in world cinema, featuring top films from celebrated filmmakers as well as fresh new talent. The selection committee, chaired by Jones, also includes Dennis Lim, FSLC Director of Programming; Marian Masone, FSLC Senior Programming Advisor; Gavin Smith, Editor-in-Chief, Film Comment; and Amy Taubin, Contributing Editor, Film Comment and Sight & Sound.

NYFF previously announced the retrospective, Joseph L. Mankiewicz: The Essential Iconoclast, to take place during this year’s festival, as well as initial selections in the Revivals section of the festival to include Burroughs: The Movie, The Color of Pomegranates, Hiroshima Mon Amour, and Once Upon a Time in America. 

Tickets for the 52nd New York Film Festival will go on sale to the general public at noon on Sunday, September 7. Becoming a Film Society member before July 31 provides access to a pre-sale period for single tickets to festival screenings and events ahead of the general public on-sale date.

Subscription Packages and VIP Passes to NYFF52 give the buyer the earliest access to tickets and are on sale through July 31. Depending on the level purchased, packages and passes provide access to Main Slate and Special Event screenings including those on the Opening, Centerpiece and Closing nights of the festival. VIP passes also provide access to many exciting events including the invitation-only Opening Night party, “ An Evening With…” Dinner, Filmmaker Brunch, and VIP Lounge. For information about purchasing Subscription Packages and VIP Passes, go to filmlinc.com/NYFF. To find out how to become a Film Society member, visit filmlinc.com/membership.


New York Film Festival Opening Night Films

1963    The Exterminating Angel (Luis Buñuel, Mexico)
1964    Hamlet (Grigori Kozintsev, USSR)
1965    Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard, France)
1966    Loves of a Blonde (Milos Forman, Czechoslovakia)
1967    The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, Italy/Algeria)
1968    Capricious Summer (Jiri Menzel, Czechoslovakia)
1969    Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (Paul Mazursky, US)
1970    The Wild Child (François Truffaut, France)
1971    The Debut (Gleb Panfilov, Soviet Union)
1972    Chloe in the Afternoon (Eric Rohmer, France)
1973    Day for Night (François Truffaut, France)
1974    Don’t Cry with Your Mouth Full (Pascal Thomas, France)
1975    Conversation Piece (Luchino Visconti, Italy)
1976    Small Change (François Truffaut, France)
1977    One Sings, the Other Doesn’t (Agnès Varda, France)
1978    A Wedding (Robert Altman, US)
1979    Luna (Bernardo Bertolucci, Italy/US)
1980    Melvin and Howard (Jonathan Demme, US)
1981    Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson, UK)
1982    Veronika Voss (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, West Germany)
1983    The Big Chill (Lawrence Kasdan, US)
1984    Country (Richard Pearce, US)
1985    Ran (Akira Kurosawa, Japan)
1986    Down by Law (Jim Jarmusch, US)
1987    Dark Eyes (Nikita Mikhalkov, Soviet Union)
1988    Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (Pedro Almodóvar, Spain)
1989    Too Beautiful for You (Bertrand Blier, France)
1990    Miller's Crossing (Joel Coen, US)
1991    The Double Life of Veronique (Krysztof Kieslowski, Poland/France)
1992    Olivier Olivier (Agnieszka Holland, France)
1993    Short Cuts (Robert Altman, US)
1994    Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, US)
1995    Shanghai Triad (Zhang Yimou, China)
1996    Secrets & Lies (Mike Leigh, UK)
1997    The Ice Storm (Ang Lee, US)
1998    Celebrity (Woody Allen, US)
1999    All About My Mother (Pedro Almodóvar, Spain)
2000    Dancer in the Dark (Lars von Trier, Denmark)
2001    Va Savoir (Jacques Rivette, France)
2002    About Schmidt (Alexander Payne, US)
2003    Mystic River (Clint Eastwood, US)
2004    Look At Me (Agnès Jaoui, France)
2005    Good Night, and Good Luck. (George Clooney, US)
2006    The Queen (Stephen Frears, UK)
2007    The Darjeeling Limited (Wes Anderson, US)
2008    The Class (Laurent Cantet, France)
2009    Wild Grass (Alain Resnais, France)
2010    The Social Network (David Fincher, US)
2011    Carnage (Roman Polanski, France/Poland)
2012    Life of Pi (Ang Lee, US)
2013    Captain Phillips (Paul Greengrass, US)

 

FILM SOCIETY OF LINCOLN CENTER
Founded in 1969 to celebrate American and international cinema, the Film Society of Lincoln Center works to recognize established and emerging filmmakers, support important new work, and to enhance the awareness, accessibility, and understanding of the moving image. The Film Society produces the renowned New York Film Festival, a curated selection of the year’s most significant new film work, and presents or collaborates on other annual New York City festivals including Dance on Camera, Film Comment Selects, Human Rights Watch Film Festival, Latinbeat, New Directors/New Films, NewFest, New York African Film Festival, New York Asian Film Festival, New York Jewish Film Festival, Open Roads: New Italian Cinema and Rendez-Vous with French Cinema. In addition to publishing the award-winning Film Commentmagazine, The Film Society recognizes an artist's unique achievement in film with the prestigious Chaplin Award. The Film Society’s state-of-the-art Walter Reade Theater and the Elinor Bunin Munroe Film Center, located at Lincoln Center, provide a home for year-round programs and the New York City film community.

The Film Society receives generous, year-round support from Royal Bank of Canada, Jaeger-LeCoultre, American Airlines, The New York Times, Stella Artois, HBO®, the Kobal Collection, Trump International Hotel and Tower, Row NYC Hotel, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the New York State Council on the Arts.

Support for the New York Film Festival is also generously provided by KIND Bars, Portage World Wide Inc., WABC-7, and WNET New York Public Media.

For more information, visit www.filmlinc.com and follow @filmlinc on Twitter.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Amat Escalante

Amat Escalante
Photo by Pascal Le Segretain - © 2013 Getty Images - Image courtesy gettyimages.com

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

AMAT ESCALANTE
By Amat Escalante and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Amat Escalante, winner of the 2013 Cannes Film Festival Best Director Prize for HELI. Amat also directed the award-winning films LOS BASTARDOS and SANGRE.

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

I think it is important for aspiring filmmakers to see all kinds of cinema. I feel that being open to new and different experiences in life and in art only make you stronger and more knowledgeable. I myself learned a great deal early on when I was exposed to the movies of Werner Herzog and Luis Buñuel. I can really appreciate how watching those filmmakers' films affected me. As far as filmgoers are concerned, of course the same applies, but I think it is more a question of taste and curiosity, but I can't justify why it would be important for them to see those kinds of movies. One is free to do what one wants.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

Yes I think that it is important for many reasons if you want to dedicate yourself to making movies. I believe that you have to give yourself to films and see as much as possible. Throughout time, very different movies have been made because of very different world situations. So seeing films from all times and from different filmmakers will only make you a stronger, more informed one. 

A still from HELI
Courtesy of Outsider Pictures

How did viewing indies and films from around the world help you when making HELI or any of your other films?

It was my film school. I did not really attend a real film school, so I had to find my teachers and my instructions by watching films. I watched about a movie a day during many years and I read many books about films, filmmakers and film making. I lived two years in Austin, TX and was a regular attendee of the Austin Film Society, a place where I discovered people like W.R. Fassbinder, Tarkovsky, Robert Bresson, Sam Fuller, Chantal Akerman, and James Benning. All in real 35 or 16mm film prints! The period between ages 16 to 18 was a very important time for me.

What is one Mexican film and one non-Mexican film you'd recommend that filmgoers or aspiring filmmakers view? 

Mexican film, you must see JAPÓN by Carlos Reygadas. It is Carlos' first film and for me, it really showed what a filmmaker can do when he believes in what he is doing and has the conviction to do something great and powerful even with very little resources. Non-Mexican I would recommend the German film M by Fritz Lang. It is a great big lesson in how to make a movie and it's the first time the director ever used direct sound.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers will continue on Friday.

WHY DON'T YOU PLAY IN HELL? Review: Japan Cuts Opening Night

Fumi Nakaidô in WHY DON'T YOU PLAY IN HELL?
Photo courtesy of Drafthouse Films

WHY DON'T YOU PLAY IN HELL?

2014, 129 minutes

Not rated

Review by Joshua Handler

Sion Sono's new film, Why Don't You Play in Hell? is insane.  There's no other way to put it.  It is way too long for its own good, but at the point when it felt too long, it got bloodier and crazier.  The film is supposedly Sono's "ode to 35mm film" and tells two stories: one about an amateur film team who wants to make a movie, the other about a Yakuza boss who tries to get his daughter back.

Nothing could ever prepare you for Why Don't You Play in Hell's energy and insanity.  From the opening minutes to the bizarre final moments, this movie keeps its energy level somewhere above The Wolf of Wall Street if it was on crack.  Every single actor is completely game for whatever Sono wants them to do.  Of particular note are the performances of Jun Kunimara (as a crazed yakuza boss) and Fumi Nakaidô as his equally crazed daughter.  Kunimara brings an unpredictability to this role that makes him frightening, but also a light sense of humor that makes him extremely enjoyable.  Nakaidô brings toughness, seductiveness, and faux innocence to her performance.  She's a joy to watch in the action sequences.

While I certainly warmed to Why Don't You Play in Hell?, it took me a while because it and its characters are out in their own world.  The characters annoyed me initially, but over the course of this 2-hour film, I grew to accept them and enjoy watching them.  Additionally, this movie seemed endless.  At 129 minutes, it is way too long.  It's not that Sono adds scenes to waste time, it's simply that he is having so much fun that he doesn't know when to stop.  That being said, the excesses in Why Don't You Play in Hell? are at least outrageously entertaining.

The climax of Why Don't You Play in Hell? is one for the ages.  Nothing could ever prepare you for its brilliance.  I've faulted a number of movies over the past year for not going far enough with their climaxes or concepts.  That is one thing I could never fault this movie for.  Just when you think it's going to end, Sono throws in another scene more outrageous than the one you just saw.

Overall, Why Don't You Play in Hell? is quite the ride.  It certainly will not be for everyone, but for those who live for crazy Japanese cinema, it will be a new masterpiece.  This film served as opening night for Japan Cuts at Japan Society and was shown in conjunction with the New York Asian Film Festival.  Actress Fumi Nakaidô was in attendance for a Q&A.  Japan Cuts runs through July 20.

3/4

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Sebastián Lelio

Sebastián Lelio
Photo by Max Pallocchini

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

SEBASTIÁN LELIO
By Sebastián Lelio and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Sebastián Lelio, best known for his highly acclaimed 2013 film, GLORIA, which I included on my top 10 of 2013.  Sebastián also directed the award-winning films LA SAGRADA FAMILIA and EL AÑO DEL TIGRE.

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

Of course it's important. Cinema exists in the tension between tradition and rupture, so it's always a combination of a constant revision of film history and the desire to conquer new expressive territories. In that sense "Independent" and "World cinema" are essential, the natural space for cinema understood as an art form, for experimentation, for daring films, for projects that are more fragile in terms of business, but a lot of times stronger in terms of quality and relevance. Although it's hard for me to think exclusively in those terms; "Independent", "World cinema", "Studio Films". I rather use the ideas of good or strong cinema, because "independent" is not always equivalent of quality and "Studio films" are not always necessarily uninteresting.

Do you feel that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and filmgoers to view films of the past and why (if you don't feel that it is important, please tell why)? 

It's better to know as soon as possible that you are not inventing the wheel. Cinema is not a format, is a language, so it needs constant investigation of its own history if you really want to master that language. 

Paulina García stars in GLORIA.

Photo credit: Courtesy of Roadside Attractions

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

Coming from Chile, seeing independent films like Cassavetes films made me understand that it was possible to film, that I could make a film with what I had in hand, that there where no excuses not to do it, and that there was a beauty in the urgency to compensate  [for] the lack of material resources by having something to say, or as Hitchcock would say, "Something to show."

What is one Chilean film and one non-Chilean film you'd recommend that filmgoers or aspiring filmmakers view? 

Chilean film: "Tony Manero" by Pablo Larraín.Non-Chilean film: "Festen" by Thomas Vinterberg.

KUMIKO, THE TREASURE HUNTER Review: Rooftop Films Series

Rinko Kikuchi in KUMIKO, THE TREASURE HUNTER

KUMIKO, THE TREASURE HUNTER

2014, 105 minutes

Not Rated

Review by Joshua Handler

The Rooftop Films events are among the best in NYC.  For $13 (occasionally a little more) you can see an advance screening of a film hot off the festival circuit, usually with a Q&A, and with live music and an after party on a rooftop in one of NYC's five boroughs.  No one asked me to write this - I simply think that these events are stellar.  

I'm having trouble with how to start this review because I want to introduce this movie in a proper manner.  Why?  Because I love it more than almost any movie I've seen all year.  The Zellner Bros.' Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter is a miracle.  Widely loved since its Sundance premiere, the film was executive produced by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, written by David and Nathan Zellner, and directed by David Zellner.  It's a completely original work that's unlike anything else I've seen.  There is usually a movie that comes along every once in a while that balance tones and emotions brilliantly - this is one of those movies.

Loosely based on an urban legend (which itself was loosely based on fact) Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter tells the story of Kumiko (Oscar-nominee Rinko Kikuchi), a lonely Japanese woman who is obsessed with finding the money hidden in the Coen Brothers' film, Fargo.  She doesn't realize that Fargo, despite what the opening says, is not a true story, so she goes to Minnesota to find the "treasure".

The two things that make Kumiko the masterful piece of filmmaking that it is are Kikuchi's performance and the screenplay.  Kikuchi gives another empathetic and quiet performance that melted my heart.  Kumiko has very little life and no friends.  She doesn't say much and she eats ramen noodles for dinner (sometimes sharing with Bunzo, her rabbit).  The power of Kikuchi's performance comes all from her face.  She looks down with her sad eyes as she continuously is beaten down by others.  However, when she is given a purpose in life (to find the "treasure"), she still looks sad, but has a twinkle in her eye.  To watch Kikuchi as Kumiko is to watch an actress completely inhabit her character.  David Zellner also gives a heartfelt performance as a cop who helps Kumiko in Minnesota.

David and Nathan Zellner's screenplay could've easily been judgmental, but it isn't and never stoops to that low level.  The Zellners allow us to observe and love Kumiko.  Her quest may be quixotic, but there is something beautiful about watching someone follow their dreams.  When I saw the film for the first time, my friend pointed out that the Zellners make America seem odd and foreign, just as it seems for Kumiko.  This point is very accurate and after viewing Kumiko for a second time, it's more evident than ever.  Because Kumiko doesn't speak any English and is completely unfamiliar with American customs, everything seems very odd, from the tourist information people at the airport to the kindness of the Minnesotans.  America has never felt so foreign.

The Zellner Bros. beautifully capture Midwestern culture and poke fun at Minnesotans without being insulting.  With this film as a whole, they create a world that's familiar, yet not.  They show us everything from Kumiko's perspective, which makes the world seem unfamiliar and strange.  The Octopus Project's mysterious score furthers this feeling and Sean Porter's gorgeous cinematography gives the film some visual elegance.

At the Q&A after the screening, the Zellners discussed making the film and how it took 10 years for it to finally be shot.  They had met Kikuchi back in 2008 and discussed the role with her through a translator.  By the time they started shooting the film, Kikuchi was fluent in English.  During the film, there is a scene in which Kumiko goes into the Japanese subway.  Films are not allowed to shoot in the subway, so that scene had to be shot guerrilla-style.  Right as the scene had finished shooting, the police came in, causing the camera crew to run out.

The Q&A was full of interesting little stories like these.  The weather was perfect and the Industry City Rooftop and Courtyard offered a stunning view of Manhattan.

Overall, Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter is a powerful, funny, sad, yet hopeful film about a woman trying to chase an impossible dream.  Amplify just picked it up for U.S. distribution, so audiences everywhere will be able to take Kumiko's journey.  While viewers don't necessarily need to watch Fargo before viewing, it won't hurt.  I love this movie and would happily see it for a third time.  It simply has everything that I want from a film and then some.  I felt many emotions watching Kumiko, often opposite ones at the same time, and that made me appreciate the movie even more.  Films like Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter are why I go to the movies.

4/4

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 70MM Print Review

Courtesy of Warner Bros.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY IN 70MM 

AT MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE

1968, 159 minutes (including intermission)

Rated G

Review by Joshua Handler

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is, love it or hate it, one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time.  It's influenced more films than almost any other, caused more debate than just about any film, and has more iconic sequences in it's 2.5-hour running time than just nearly every film from the past decade combined.  This article is not as much a review of the film as the experience watching it at the Museum of the Moving Image on 70mm film.  Flaws and all, I love 2001.  Yes, it's overlong, occasionally too odd for its own good (that light show at the end is stunning for a few minutes, but it never seems to end), and occasionally too languidly paced, but whatever its flaws, it's such an outrageously ambitious and thrilling spectacle that there's absolutely no way for me not to love it.

The Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens has been running part two of their "See it Big! Science Fiction" series over the past month or so.  With this series, they show classics of sci-fi cinema on the big screen, many on 35mm prints.  The final film in the series is 2001, which showed yesterday and is showing today on a 70mm print.  70mm film is twice as large as the standard 35mm film that was widely shown at movie theaters, which means the resolution is very good.  Obviously, 2001 is the perfect movie to show on 70mm because of how big it is.

Very few films have been shot on 70mm film, partially because it's incredibly expensive.  The only recent films shot in the format are Ron Fricke's Baraka and Samsara, Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, and Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, and given that most theaters are not equipped to show a film in this format, it is a treat when a theater shows one.

There is something about watching 2001 on actual film that makes it magical.  While the print didn't look perfect and obviously didn't have the resolution of a DCP (digital cinema print), the small imperfections of the film make it special.  For the most part, this 2001 print's colors pop off the screen and the soft quality of the image make it feel "classic".  While it is a wonderful print to see 2001 on, I wish it had been restored because there were a few moments in which the color on the film appeared slightly faded and a few more moments in which there could've been less grain.

The sound is so much of what makes watching 2001 a must-see experience and this print's sound is excellent.  From the booming score to the surreal, otherworldly sound design, there is really no other way to experience this than in the theater.

Something interesting I found while viewing 2001 this time around was that while Kubrick and his team predicted a future of exciting new inventions, they made absolutely no effort to make any of the people of the future look like they were from the future.  They all look like they're from the '60s.  People in sci-fi films now don't dress like they're from the era in which the film was made, but those in 2001 do.  The team went to painstaking lengths to make everything look as futuristic as possible, but they forgot to make the people look that way.

Overall, seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm is worth the ticket price.  It is a film made for the big screen and for those who haven't seen it before, this is the perfect time and place to do so.  While the drama of 2001 is dated, the visual effects haven't aged a day and the experience is just as potent as ever.  Throughout the film, I couldn't stop wondering how they were able to achieve the special effects shots - they still look realistic.  This is a movie for the ages and Museum of the Moving Image's 70mm print is the best way to see it.

From the Mouths of Filmmakers: Aharon Keshales

Aharon Keshales© 2013 - Magnet Releasing

FROM THE MOUTHS OF FILMMAKERS:

AHARON KESHALES
By Aharon Keshales and Joshua Handler 

Recently I've been disturbed by the amount of people who don't seek out independent films, non-English-language films, and classics.  So, I asked some of the most distinctive voices in independent and world cinema to submit responses to a few questions about why/if they think indies/non-English-language films/classics are important to view, and how those films have been influential on their careers.

The response below is from Aharon Keshales, best known as co-writer/co-director of Big Bad Wolves (my review), the twisted, blackly comic Israeli film that Quentin Tarantino named the best film of 2013.

Do you feel that it is important for people to view independent and world cinema and why?

I think that every director should watch aspire to watch as much films as he can. The American cinema is a great source, but if you're an aspiring director your greatest source of inspiration will be indie and foreign cinema. These kind of films will teach you everything you need to know about small scale concepts and manageable budget. There's a strategy to be learned from those movies. But strategy is not the only thing to take from theses films. Because the budget is smaller and these films also have personal and artistic aspirations, you'll have a whole different experience while watching them. These films will always try to catch the human angle in the story. Take the early Coen Brothers films - they'll make a genre film but it's always different than your usual genre film. Try to compare RAISING ARIZONA to another big budget Hollywood film, try to compare Jim Jarmusch's GHOST DOG to any big budget assassin film and you'll see the difference. Those stories have a unique voice and lots of narrative surprises that will make your head spin around.

Do you believe that it is important for aspiring filmmakers and film-goers to view films of the past and why?

We'll be nothing without watching films from the past. Those movies lay the ground rules and without watching them, you can't start appreciating today's cinema. Without RIO BRAVO, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY, and BAND OF OUTSIDERS, we wouldn't have films like RESERVOIR DOGS or PULP FICTION. You can also see that Hollywood had more respect for narrative back in the day. The characters were richer and so was the plot line.  

Those films made me think harder about how to restrain myself and building our stories out of those restrictions. RESERVOIR DOGS is almost a one-location kind of a movie. You don't even get to see the heist. It's all about the dynamics of the characters in one intense situation. We used one location in both our films. In RABIES, the entire film takes place in one forest, and in BIG BAD WOLVES, more than 60% of the film takes place in a basement. Your characters and their emotional shifts become your action sites. Roman Polanski made lots of brilliant films with those restrictions in mind: CUL-DE-SAC and KNIFE IN THE WATER.  Even when he became a big name director he used those technique. Take, for example, his Oscar winning film THE PIANIST. 

How has viewing indies and films from around the world helped you as a filmmaker?

Both BIG BAD WOLVES and RABIES owe a great debt to indie and foreign films. Korean films such as I SAW THE DEVIL and SAVE THE GREEN PLANET, John Huston's THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, Sergio Leone's FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE, The Coen Brothers' FARGO and so many more - all those films have helped us understand our movie better. RABIES owes a lot to Wes Craven's early work and an underrated exploitation film named HITCH HIKE (not THE HITCHHIKER). 

What's one American indie and one film not in English that you would recommend that film-lovers or young/aspiring filmmakers see?

One international film everyone needs to see is HARAKIRI by Masaki Kobayshi, one Israeli film everyone should see is YEAR ZERO by Joseph Pitchadze. 

The next response is yet to be determined.

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Review

Courtesy of 20th Century Fox

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

2014, 130 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and brief strong language

Review by Joshua Handler

Rise of the Planet of the Apes could've gone either way.  I was admittedly very suspicious of it, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was really good.  It was smart and engaging and featured an outstanding performance by Andy Serkis as Caesar, the leader of the apes.  Then it was announced that there was going to be a sequel and that Matt Reeves, director of Cloverfield (a movie that I really like), would be directing.  Now that I have seen Reeves' Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I can say that it's better than its predecessor.

The film picks up ten years after Rise left off.  The Simian Virus has ravaged the Earth and most of humanity has been wiped out.  Now a small colony of people and a growing number of increasingly intelligent apes live in and around a post-apocalyptic San Francisco.  There is peace, but it is only a matter of time before violence erupts.

The highlights of Dawn are the stunning visual effects and Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar.  I don't know what happened between 2011 when Rise was released, and 2014, but the visual effects in this film are infinitely better than those in Rise.  In most shots, it's impossible to discern whether the ape is real or CG.  The level of detail that was put into the CGI is remarkable.  Also, many have complained about the dead-eye look of motion capture.  All complaints will be entirely erased with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.  Caesar and the apes' eyes are full of emotion, making them relatable and sympathetic characters.

As Caesar, Andy Serkis once again amazes.  He brings a humanity and dignity to Caesar that makes Caesar the memorable, even iconic character that he is.  In other Planet of the Apes films, the apes are the "bad guys".  In Dawn, though, the ape leader is the most sympathetic character.  Serkis' human face is never seen, but the emotion that he brings shines through.

Emotion is what drives Dawn.  The story itself isn't ridiculously clever (though it's certainly compelling), but the emotional complexity that Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, and Mark Bomback infuse the narrative with is really admirable.  There are moments in Dawn that gave me chills.

And behind everything is Matt Reeves' passion.  It is obvious that Reeves loves this project and put his all into it.  He doesn't treat Dawn of the Planet of the Apes as a franchise film, but rather a sci-fi action thriller with a pulse.  At face value, the premise of this film is so ridiculous (one scene features apes riding on horses fighting humans with machine guns?!), but Reeves plays it straight and gives it a heart, which makes it engaging.

Overall, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a very good piece of sci-fi cinema.  While not quite on the level of some of this summer's best blockbusters (X-Men: Days of Future Past and Edge of Tomorrow), it is an undeniably thrilling film with stunning VFX and a powerful lead performance.

3.5/4