Archive for May, 2009

Harmony Korine – Crutchnap

Friday, May 29th, 2009

Vodka company 42 Below have commissioned forty-two directors to create forty-two dream-like films, each of them running at a duration of forty-two seconds. Some big names attached to the project include David Lynch, Chan Marshall, Asia Argento, Larry Clark, Sean Lennon, Jonas Mekas and, of course, Harmony Korine. Totally by accident today I stumbled upon Korine’s contribution, Crutchnap. Here it is in all its forty-two second, shaky-cam glory. [52mb, .mov]

Personally, I found it to be completely hilarious and at the same time kind of bewildering. But that’s Harmony. You can find out more at www.42×42.com.

It was YOU!

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Cannes Winners

Sunday, May 24th, 2009

Palme d’Or -
Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon)
Grand Prix - Jacques Audiard (Un Prophéte)
Best Director - Brillante Mendoza (Kinatay)
Jury Prize - Andrea Arnold (Fish Tank), Park Chan-Wook (Thirst)
Best Actor - Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Best Actress - Charlotte Gainsbourg (Antichrist)
Best Screenplay - Mei Fang (Spring Fever)
Lifetime Achievement - Alain Resnais
Camera d’Or - Warwick Thornton (Samson and Delilah)
Best Short Film - João Salaviza (Arena)

I’m very pleased with some of the results, particularly Warwick Thornton’s Camera d’Or, Gainsbourg as Best Actress and Haneke’s Palme d’Or win. I’m happy for him. He’s won some prestigious Cannes awards in the past (Hidden – Best Director, The Piano Teacher – Best Actor and Actress) but until now never the top prize.

The Camera d’Or comes as no surprise considering the flood of rave reviews in Australia. I’m really overjoyed at it receiving international recognition, and pre-emptively, I’m saying it deserves it (I think it hits our local cinema some time next month). It will hopefully do wonders for our industry.

I honestly didn’t expect Antichrist to win anything because of the huge divide of opinions. I’m not saying Von Trier’s work hasn’t been dividing in the past, but it seemed that some critics were revolted beyond reason. Ebert was disturbed for days. And speaking of Ebert, he featured a Projectorheads video on his site the other day which caused me to do a triple-take, or even maybe a quadruple-take:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/a_devils_advocate_for_antichri.html

And just for hit-whoring purposes, I’ll repost the video here:

Across The Universe (Julie Taymor, 2007)

Monday, May 18th, 2009

What originally drew me to Across The Universe is the idea that it is a musical set in the 1960s in which every song used in the film is a Beatles classic. The Beatles being my favourite band of all time, I was extremely keen to see this movie. In theory, it sounded like a film I would thoroughly enjoy, but about 10 minutes in I found myself being generally frustrated by how horribly contrived this awful “film” is.

The reason I make a point about it being so contrived is because this is my biggest problem with the film. Instead of it just making neat little references to The Beatles in the film’s narrative, it oh so blatantly weaves the narrative to fit song lyrics as literally as possible. Clumsily. The main character is called Jude the love interest is Lucy, and their friends include Prudence, Maxwell, Jojo and Sadie who is renowned for her sexiness. I admit, those last few names will only mean something to big Beatles fans, but when you are a big Beatles fan it comes off less as a clever reference and more as “You’ll never guess what song these characters will get involved in later!”

What really pissed me off in this film though is the way the narrative clumsily forces characters to undertake actions or have beliefs that will allow them to sing a certain song and have it make a slight bit of sense. The first real stinker of an example of this is when Prudence is at a cheerleading session in high school and because the film requires her to sing “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” (for whatever reason) the narrative makes her a lesbian so that the line “You’ll let me be your man” is perfectly acceptable. My absolute favourite example though is the literal representation of the song “I Want You/ She’s So Heavy”. In order for the narrative to fit this song as literally as possible, the character of Maxwell is conscripted to join the U.S. Army. However, his complex personality and deep character background make him not want to go to war because dying is a bad thing! It is at this point that a giant Uncle Sam poster comes to life and sings “I Want You” to him. I am not making this up, I swear. As the song goes on, we see him being examined as he is prepared to join the army. As the song reaches the “She’s So Heavy” section, we see all of Max’s platoon singing this as they carry the Statue of Liberty on their backs. Gone are the days when the audience can understand metaphors, double-meanings or analogies because we apparantly can’t cope unless we can visually see a literal representation of what is being sung.
Putting all this aside though, the film would at least be somewhat entertaining if any of the musical numbers were actually enjoyable to listen to. Yes, I forgot to mention earlier that the songs have been further tarnished by being covered by the cast themselves and sadly they are all pretty awful. There are maybe one or two songs in this movie that I would consider as “good” covers, but the rest have been completely ruined. Bono singing “I Am The Walrus” is simply too much. And by far the most abysmal is EDDIE IZZARD’s turdworthy rendition of “Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite”. This isn’t music.
Perhaps if I wasn’t such a massive Beatles fan I would enjoy this film much more but I SINCERELY DOUBT THAT.

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆

Why ‘A Clockwork Orange’ Is Just For The Kids

Friday, May 15th, 2009


‘A Clockwork Orange’, the undeniably and notoriously controversial cautionary tale of a dystopian future in which the British Government has resorted to ‘brainwashing’ criminal offenders with newly-formed ‘Ludovico Treatment’, follows ‘Alex DeLarge’, a particularly sadistic and psychotic 16 year old as he goes through this moral-minefield of a process. The film is rife with uncomfortable moral questions presented but never answered (God bless you and your ambiguity, Stan), blatant anti-authoritarian undertones and a famous rape scene played to classical music and presented therefore almost as a natural, terrible evolution for interpretive dance. As such, it of course caused nothing short of an uproar from Johnny Bland-Conservative and his wife, Elizabeth Boring-Oldfashion. Perhaps our whitebread couple, breath stinking of weak tea and the latest Coronation Street storyline fresh in mind, was most upset by the misleading categorising of this film- though it is most frequently referred to as a ‘sci-fi’, albeit with a disclaimer-like “political message“, heaven forbid we learn something from a film, Kubrick’s masterpiece (well, one of many) frequently detours from it’s political-philosophical focus into moments of extremely dark black comedy. And of course, the cry from the cheap seats was a resounding- “How dare they!?”

By the 1971 release of ‘A Clockwork Orange’, Kubrick was already fairly established as an auteur with a distinct personal style, and a large part of ‘A Clockwork Orange’s intended audience was likely fans or followers of Kubrick’s previous work, art house filmgoers and, for a brief while before it’s withdrawal from cinemas, ticket buyers attracted simply by the controversy, forerunners of the modern media-frenzy-feeder. As is the nature of film though, a few (read: shitloads) of tactless, 10-a-penny seatfillers of course went to see the film, perhaps in misguided searches for a comedy about teen-punks talking funny and giving it rough to their ‘lasses’, and perhaps out of a sheep-like following of the box-office herd. Baaaah. Or maybe the football just wasn’t on. Regardless, Kubrick’s trademark slow, contemplative and meditative direction coupled with a minimalist approach to the narrative designed to guide the viewer along a sequence of what can, at first, seem like a thematically incoherent and pointless series of events gradually presenting the audience with hints to the film’s many philosophical questions, of course inspired contempt and confusion in those too close-minded or dense to comprehend it, too self-righteous and set in their ways to enjoy the film regardless, and too uptight to loosen their puckered arseholes and enjoy the [proverbial] ride. Kubrick, perhaps anticipating this controversy, populated his film with archetypal characters recognisable to even the most common British film goer, allowing the audience to use these characters as ‘canaries in the mine’ to compare themselves to, contrast against their own most likely reactions and generally opinionate themselves on the events unfolding on-screen by means of simple comparison. “Hey, I’m like that guy! I’d just do what he did probably.” Though rarely addressed in retrospectives of this oft-discussed film, perhaps herein the problem lies:

Kubrick presents us with a selection of fantastically prim-and-proper, “British to the bone” recognisables, and as the film progresses you could be forgiven for questioning whether or not Kubrick is consciously attempting to present everyone involved, bar protagonist ‘Alex’ and his similarly-aged accomplices, as old, authoritarian and faintly ridiculous caricatures in a comedic effort to place the audience’s interpretative opinions somewhere within Alex’s own spectrum and outlook on the world, and create empathy for an otherwise generally ‘dislikeable’ character, while still light-heartedly poking fun at the ridiculous right-wing leaning so common of the average public and audience of the time. There are moments in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ where Kubrick almost seems to be knowingly acknowledging (If I may use such a terribly duplicitous term), with a nod and wink to the more learned watcher, the explicitness of the cultural and filmic stereotypes he presents to us, the more attentive, and as a result of such the film, often successfully, plays nearly all of them largely for laughs. An exemplary line that, in my experience, never fails to generate laughter occurs when Alex particularly nonchalantly wishes his intentionally cliché Mother a “nice day at the factory”, taking the identifiable representative last straw many housewives duped into seeing the film were surely clutching to, and grounding her cynically to a brilliantly dull lower-class cardboard cut-out.

The question on the lips of most old, boring and utterly bereft of imagination viewers of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is (quite tiresomely to us, the desensitised MTV generation and beyond, since we‘re just too damn apathetic to care either way) precisely why Alex is driven to commit the terrible acts of violence we see. And when explicitly raised by the newly introduced Mr. Deltoid, the old lady in the audience clutching her handbag in disgust often breathes a sigh of relief at her concerns finally being voiced, however many minutes in. It is a moment short lived, however, when in a stroke of genius Kubrick quickly establishes Deltoid to be not so much a voice of wisdom and guidance appointed by the government, but more a creepy and sexually deprived old queer, interested and perhaps infatuated with Alex. This, directly after witnessing the ineffective parenting of Alex’s “Ma” and “Pa”, is further reaffirmation of the concept that Alex, as a young adult, has no real guardians or superiors to associate with or trust, as every one of his elders is ultimately as equally flawed, just in different ways. It’s a big fantastic middle-finger raised pre-emptively to all those guarantee before it was even released to complain about Kubrick’s film. To the young, dispassionate and riotously amused, Kubrick is giving a nod. To the old and outraged, he blows raspberries.

This is arguably what lead to the film’s removal from cinemas- rather than the high horse of moral outrage popularly jumped on, many of the more conservative non-target audience foolish enough to watch ‘A Clockwork Orange’ were probably dimly aware, in whatever feeble dim flickering light-bulb of realisation their self-righteously right-wing minds could afford, of the undercurrent of ridicule, the man behind the scenes pointing his finger to the lens and laughing directly at them, and the morally transcendent teenagers sat behind them, indirectly joining in on the fun simply by failing to be close-minded and upset.