Short of the Day: ‘Superior’ Delves into the Twin Bond with Sinister Results

By H. Perry Horton

A remarkable film about identity and individualism.

Twins – especially identical twins – share a bond that the rest of us can never fully understand. To go through life with a mirror image, an extension of yourself, raises issues of identity and individualism most other folks never have to entertain. Having a sibling isn’t the same as having a twin, in the former you might see parts of yourself, but in the latter you literally see yourself, it’s like having an alternate lifeline right in front of you.

Most twins establish an equality between themselves, while some others define their relationship in conflict, one twin trying to establish themselves as the dominant, or superior self. This is the jumping-off notion for the short film Superior from director Erin Vassilopoulos that stars real-life identical twins Alessandra and Anamari Mesa as a pair of sheltered siblings whose equanimity is threatened by the arrival of a handsome stranger.

Part dark comedy, part intense character study, part exploration of familial dependence, and laced with tinges of horror, Superior is an unnerving delight, an emotional tour-de-force, and a revelation I’d stick on my shelf next to the work of Yorgos Lanthimos and Todd Solondz. The Mesa sisters bring such a stark and intimate verisimilitude to the film, luring you into their shared headspace and a slowly escalating turmoil that softly crescendos with deafening resonance. Vassilopoulos is an intriguing artist, a rare bird indeed, one who seems to understand the intricasies of the human heart as well as she does its absurdities, and I for one am chomping at the bit to see what she does next. Predict in a few minutes you will be too.

Source: Nobudge.com 

The article Short of the Day: ‘Superior’ Delves into the Twin Bond with Sinister Results appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

‘Alien’ as a Metaphor for the Cycle of Trauma

By H. Perry Horton

Trigger warning: this post discusses issues of abuse.

Sexual abuse in our culture is both taboo and terribly common, which leads to a social dilemma: it’s a topic we need to discuss but not one a lot of people want to talk about. To jumpstart the conversation – as we do for many difficult topics – we often turn to media depictions of sexual abuse, they break the ice and help create a safer space in which people feel more comfortable discussing how they relate to the issue.

Films like Barry Levinson’s Sleepers, Deborah Kampmeier’s Hounddog, Anjelica Huston’s Bastard Out of Carolina, and Almodovar’s Bad Education tackle the subject head on, but sometimes the films that make us most at ease in approaching such an ill-at-ease topic are the ones that deal with it metaphorically, films like, believe it or not, Ridley Scott’s Alien.

According to Phoenix Kaspian and his new essay “Exploring the Cycle of Trauma in Alien,” the facehugger attack and subsequent “impregnation” of Kane (John Hurt) can be viewed as a metaphor for sexual assault. Furthermore, the fact that the alien can’t be removed from Kane without killing him is also a metaphor, this one for the family system and how challenging abuse within it can lead to even greater violence and destruction.

I know you typically come her for fun supercuts, wacky mashups, or videos highlighting director trademarks or techniques, but today I’m asking you to spend eight minutes with an insightful, erudite, compassionate essay that takes an unexpected source and turns it into a conversation starter on how we as a society recognize and respond to this most heinous sort of abuse.

 

The article ‘Alien’ as a Metaphor for the Cycle of Trauma appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

'Power to the People' Video Examines the Books in 'Captain Fantastic'

One of my favorite films of 2016 was Matt Ross' Captain Fantastic, starring Viggo Mortensen. It's the kind of film I can put on any day and it makes me happy, I adore it, and I was so happy to see Viggo get an Oscar nomination for his performance. Not only is a great film, but it has so much to teach us about raising kids, keeping an open mind, learning more about the way we interact in this world, and fighting against a capitalistic society. Fellow cinephile H Nelson Tracey, who writes for the site Cinemacy, has created a video essay breaking down and examining all of the books shown and literature referenced in the film. There's quite a few books referenced in this film, and if you're looking for some extra summer reading, this is a very good place to start. As I'm a very big fan of this film, I couldn't help sharing this video. Check it out.

Thanks to Nelson for first telling me about this at Sundance. For more info and a full list of references, visit YouTube and click "Show More". I love the way this video is put together - with the footage side-by-side to the book, even opening to specific chapters referenced. I even want all the t-shirts he points out (like the No Fractura Hidráulica one). My favorite books that are referenced in this film: The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, Who Rules the World by Noam Chomsky, Because We Say So by Noam Chomsky, The Joy of Sex by Alex Comfort, Facism vs. Capitalism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., and Samadhi: Personal Journeys to Spiritual Truth by Derek Biermann. There's so many great references he found in this that I haven't even noticed yet. Can we get one of these video essays for every intelligent film, please?

Read More

The Perfect Shots of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’

By H. Perry Horton

In our minds, we’ve gone to Indiana.

On this week’s episode of Shot by Shot, the official cinematography podcast of One Perfect Shot and Film School Rejects, we’re talking one of the most iconic films of the 1980s and in fact all-time, Steven Spielberg’s intellectual adventure flick Raiders of the Lost Ark, which introduced the world to Indiana Jones.

Shot by Douglas Slocombe, a three-time Oscar-nominee – including for his work here – Raiders combines old-school storytelling with modern-day filmmaking, creating, as a result, a classic and eternal film that continues to delight and inspire each new generation of film fans.

If this is your first listen to our show, the format’s simple: each week Geoff and I each pick a few shots from a certain film and discuss their effect and significance. Check out our previous episodes:

• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• Mad Max: Fury Road
• Silence
• Drive
• Shaun of the Dead
• Vertigo
• Fargo
• The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
• Mulholland Drive 

Next week we’re talking about the final film of legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall, Road to Perdition.

Be sure to give us a follow so you can be kept up to date on new episodes and shows. We’re on Twitter and Facebook, and you can find your two hosts on Twitter as well: @TheGeoffTodd and @HPerryHorton.

And if you like what you hear — spoiler alert: you’re going to — be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Tune In, or wherever you get your podcasts so you don’t miss a single episode of us or any of the other shows.

Dig the ‘cast below:

And a gallery of the images discussed:

The article The Perfect Shots of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

Here’s Why You Should be Excited for Alex Garland’s ‘Annihilation’

By Sinead McCausland

Alex Garland’s follow-up to 2015’s ‘Ex Machina’ sounds amazing.

Alex Garland‘s feature directorial debut, the thoughtful sci-fi thriller Ex Machina, brought stand-out performances from its three co-stars Oscar Isaac, Domnhall Gleeson, and Alicia Vikander. However, the film also set up Garland as one of the most promising and exciting filmmakers.

Whilst the director has had previous work in film — for example as the screenwriter of 2010’s Never Let Me Go and the Danny Boyle-directed The Beach (2000) — Garland’s film writing work remained under the radar, despite his work with Danny Boyle on The Beach and 2002’s 28 Days Later, which remains exciting and refreshing, even over 15 years after each films’ release. Garland’s previous scriptwriting work is enough alone to be excited about his newest film, Annihilation.

An adaptation of  Jeff VanderMeer’s novel of the same name, Annihilation is a sci-fi thriller that follows a biologist on the search for her missing husband, leading her to an environmental disaster zone. With an extremely talented cast that includes Gina Rodriguez (as Anya Thorenson), Natalie Portman as the biologist, and Oscar Isaac returning to Garland’s world with his role as Portman’s husband, the cast alone are reason enough to be excited.

Pair this cast with Garland’s return to a genre he is clearly a master of and it becomes clear the film is set to be another unique experience into the world Garland creates through his enigmatic scripts and observant direction.

With VanderMeer’s recent comments after seeing an early cut of the film, it seems viewers don’t have to worry about expectations being let down.

On The Ringer’s The Watch podcast, VanderMeer described the film’s “surreal” and “mind-blowing” elements. The author described the adaptation process, saying that while he was kept in the “loop,” he ultimately had no say over the film.

Interestingly, VanderMeer also brought up auteurism and Garland’s disbelief in the term. At an NFTS Masterclass Garland fronted, the filmmaker said the “Auteur theory is bullshit,” going on to expand by noting Alfred Hitchcock and Wes Anderson are auteurs in terms of style, but auteur theory suggests it’s the director doing the work whereas, for Garland, film is a collaborative process. VanderMeer, meanwhile, says: “The first thing I realized is that even though Alex Garland says he’s not an auteur, he is an auteur.” With only one previous film, and eight screenplays, to compare Annihilation to, this a bold statement, suggesting Garland’s restrained style and curious tone carries through to his latest film.

Of the film itself, VanderMeer said in a Facebook post: “I’m not really sure what I’m allowed to say about it or not say about it, so I’ll keep it simple…I’m still composing my thoughts and feelings about it. I can tell you it’s mind-blowing, surreal, extremely beautiful, extremely horrific, and it was so tense that our bodies felt sore and beat-up afterwards.” Expanding on this on “The Watch” podcast, VanderMeer compared the film with his original novel, noting that the film is “actually more surreal than the novel. There are a couple places where I was like, ‘I might need an anchor here.’ The ending is so mind-blowing and in some ways different from the book that it seems to be the kind of ending that, like 2001 or something like that, people will be talking about around the watercooler for years.”

With influences ranging from Kubrick’s 2001  to Tarkovsky’s Stalker, you can expect Annihilation to live up to its anticipation. Unfortunately, you will have to be anticipating Garland’s next film for a while, with Paramount Pictures set to release the film in 2018.

The article Here’s Why You Should be Excited for Alex Garland’s ‘Annihilation’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

Wonder Woman as Champion of Empathy

By Brad Gullickson

In an era of hatred, outrage, and contempt, Wonder Woman offers the world a necessary symbol of strength through compassion.

After nearly a lifetime of obsessing over comic books, when the term “Super-Hero” is used in popular culture, my brain immediately summons the DC Universe. In particular, my go-to Super Heroes are the Trinity: Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. They may not have been the first spandex characters to hit the newsstands, but they were the first to strike a chord with the populace beyond the four-color children’s entertainment. More would follow suit, but the Trinity were the first to refuse to be confined to one medium, breaking out into serials, television, novels, and movies. Once out of their box, they refused to climb back inside.

The appeal of Batman is easy to work out on the couch. The Dark Knight was born from tragedy, fashioned his code of justice from a need for revenge, and dedicated his life to preventing the horror that happened to him from happening to others. He’s a truly nightmarish illustration of America’s “No Fair!” sense of underdog entitlement. Superman simply fights the good fight because that’s how apple pie loving middle-American parents raised him. He’s the personification of the golden rule (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), a walking-talking example of how we all should behave, but with the bonus of unstoppable strength. Wonder Woman is a little trickier.

In her forward to the book, “Wonder Woman: The Art and Making of the Film,” director Patty Jenkins writes, “Love. It’s difficult and requires great bravery and acceptance. But to be strong enough to love in the face of darkness is the thing that sets Wonder Woman apart from so many before her.” Created in 1941 by William Moulton Marston, Wonder Woman was this psychologist’s attempt to show children what The Beatles would preach decades later, “All you need is love.” Of course, Marston would make things a little more complicated by sprinkling in his kinks for BDSM; the Amazonian princess would too often find herself wrapped in chains, rope, or her lasso. Still, Wonder Woman’s origin is her own desire to see beyond the shores of Paradise Island, to aid a humanity destined to destroy itself. Wonder Woman’s true super power is her empathy, and that is a hero our current world urgently craves.In 2011, when DC Comics re-launched their line as The New 52, there was a lot of contention from the classic (a.k.a the old) comic’s community about this edgier, continuity-free branding. Some of it was seriously justified (I’m looking at you Catwoman), and some of it was most certainly not. When it came time to revamp Wonder Woman, DC hired writer Brian Azzarello and artist Cliff Chiang to realign the character to her mythological roots. To be fair, the character was always playing on that battlefield of mythology, going toe-to-toe with deities like Ares, Hercules, and Circe on multiple occasions, but this was their attempt to ground her origin for an inevitable contemporary film adaptation. However, somewhere along the line, company and creative team would disengage, and the more traditional Wonder Woman pulp adventurer would return to typical spandex theatrics.

The classic origin of Wonder Woman involved her mother, Hippolyta, fashioning her child from clay, praying to the gods, and being rewarded for her devotion with a miraculous offspring. The first major alteration that Azzarello and Chiang’s run commits are tossing that transformation off as a ridiculous flight of fancy. While Diana was raised under that delusion, it is revealed early on in the series that Zeus appeared on Paradise Island, seduced her mother with one of his many undeniable forms, and is the true father of Wonder Woman. While my initial reaction to this revelation was disappointment (I mean, come on, how wonderfully weird and perfectly mythological is that clay baby story?!), Azzarello and Chiang use this retcon as a means to go full epic poem with The New 52.

Wonder Woman is now a blood about a myriad of Greek Gods, and the family squabble she inherits becomes the driving force of this six-volume series. Zeus no longer sits atop Mount Olympus, he’s vanished from the pantheon, and his throne is begging for a butt to plant. His son Apollo is the god most anxious for the seat, and for the first half of the series appears to be orchestrating all manner of doom to prevent any other sibling from taking the chair. His biggest threat seems to be the last-born child of Zeus who resides inside a Virginia farm girl named Zola, who thought she was just knocked up by some random truck stop beauty. After Hermes prevents a centaur assassination divined by Zeus’ vengeful bride Hera, Zola is dropped into the hotel room of Wonder Woman, and the Amazon is brought into the conflict.

What starts as a minor annoyance relatable to any high school babysitter, the revelation of Diana’s godly origins redefines her role as Zola’s keeper. The fury that wells within Wonder Woman to these gods using humans as pawns on a chessboard pushes her towards compassionate heroism. The Amazon has nothing to fear, but the contempt that these all-powerful, glory-seeking immortals direct towards lesser beings. That’s the injustice that fuels her character.

When Zola is whisked off to the underworld by Zeus’ brother Hades, Wonder Woman and Eros dive right in after her. It’s all a ruse to bind Diana into a marriage contract, one that cannot be signed until she pledges her love for Hades via a hangman’s noose thread from her lasso of truth. It looks like Azzarello found a way to still pay tribute to Wonder Woman’s kinkier origins after all. The BDSM games don’t last long, Wonder Woman and Eros fight against a sea of blood and muscle, and the underworld skirmish sets up a series of further titanic clashes that will ultimately climax in a demi-god battle royale impossible to predict.

The true excitement of The New 52 relaunch is how Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang manage to reconstruct Wonder Woman over the course of one, long story. Stretching over 35 issues, there is not a single one-and-done comic. Even when the company mandate demanded a 0 issue prologue, Azzarello finds a way to incorporate Diana’s first meeting with her stepbrother War into the fabric of this meticulous epic. This saga reveals a character worthy of all those Greek Gods we study in high school. In doing so, Azzarello and Chiang make their case that superhero comics are the true successors to classical mythology.

The creators were not interested in integrating Wonder Woman into the rest of the DC Universe. There are no guest appearances of Batman, no Justice League team-ups, and no mention of the budding romance with Superman, which was lighting sales on fire in other spin-off titles at the time. Azzarello and Chiang committed to the New 52’s no-continuity cage, and while this may have caused some alienation with the rest of the DC readers, it allowed them to craft one of the most successful and singular Wonder Woman runs.

Like Batman, Superman, and the rest of her Justice League bros, Wonder Woman has the strength, the costume, and the sidekicks that link her to the language of the comic book. What sets her apart from the actions of her compatriots, however, is her driving force to fight for others. She makes your war, her war. In discovering a godly origin, Batman would have gone on a hunt for Zeus, Superman would have had yet another parental identity crisis, but Wonder Woman looked to help a half-sibling yet to be born. Azzarello and Chiang provide all the appropriate demands for action, villainy, and heroics, but with their New 52 endeavor, they stick to the definition of Wonder Woman as compassion. Here is a hero that fights for those that cannot, a person that could have lived out the rest of her days on an island of perfection, but instead chose to bring a piece of that perfection to rest of the world.

The article Wonder Woman as Champion of Empathy appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

Taipei Story: Modern Planning

New Taiwan Cinema master Edward Yang’s sophomore feature explores the conflict between tradition and modernity reflected in a relationship on the rocks.

Read More

Read More

‘Paddington 2’ Looks Like Whimsical and Wild Mayhem

By Francesca Fau

Paddington 2’s first trailer is a chaotic delight.

Paddington 2’s first trailer has dropped. If you missed the first Paddington in 2014, I don’t blame you. The trailer for the first film was abysmal. I’m not hyperbolic either; it was a bad trailer. Don’t believe me, here take a look:

Before we continue, I want to emphasize something. As bad as the trailer is this was a great movie. Also, this bathtub gag is solid. The bathtub sequence in the trailer comes off as, excuse my millennial slang, super extra. The editing in the bathtub scene is fantastic too. Director Paul King (The Mighty Boosh) cuts between Paddington making a mess and Hugh Bonneville’s Mr. Brown making a nervous call to his insurance company. Ben Whishaw’s voice works as Paddington, and the Wes Anderson-like whimsy of King’s direction combine to make this gag kitten-in-a-basket adorable in the film.

King’s London in Paddington is much like London in The Mighty Boosh; it’s wild and weird. Paddington‘s London is the type of place that lets a London flat owner get bear insurance. King doesn’t apologize for this and as a result of this total acceptance of the surreal and unusual a viewer just has to “yes and” the film like a real improver. Somehow the spontaneity and the mayhem work and King’s film never dies on stage. Like The Mighty Boosh, Paddington is what it is and if you’re in you damn well better be all in for the film to work. In this way, the film is punchier, smarter, and weirder than the Adam Sandler style trailer would have you think and in this, it succeeds.

The film, like the book series, revolves around a tiny, earnest bear making his way in London after fleeing his destroyed homeland in darkest Peru. King uses Paddington’s experience as an allegory to discuss immigration, and it works. It makes sense given that Paddington the Bear was inspired by child evacuees fleeing Blitz-ravaged London. In fact, one of the most earnest and visually impressive moments of the film is a nod to WWII atrocities via a dreamlike sequence involving a miniature train and a German-accented antique dealer played by Jim Broadbent. 

While I’m sure Broadbent’s German accent leaves a lot to be desired, the scene works despite it. The tenor of his voice and the hint of history in his tale is all it takes to connect the dots. King makes this story about emotional connection and shared experience. The story of Broadbent’s character isn’t about hard and fast history it’s about absence and the unknown. It’s narrative sleight of hand but also transparent. Further, it’s mature. Paddington could become one of those movies that a child watches, remembers fondly as an adult, and in adulthood revisits and rediscovers details they never caught as before. (Think of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, or any Don Bluth film.)

So what about the trailer for Paddington 2?

We don’t know the plot that I will concede. Well, that’s not entirely accurate, according to the Hollywood Reporter:

the beloved bear — now a popular member of his local community at Windsor Gardens — embark on a series of odd jobs to buy a book for Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday. But when the book is stolen, it’s up to Paddington and the Brown family to unmask the thief.

So there’s your plot if you want it so badly. The trailer succeeds where its predecessor failed because of its unapologetic acceptance of King’s London. A London where everything is yellow tinted and fun. The Paddington 2 trailer embraces mayhem it doesn’t force it. Thereby providing a more accurate depiction of what this film will be like: wild. I say Bring. It. On. There are just enough intriguing new characters, cartoonish action, and frenetic cutting to make a viewer entertain the idea of signing up. (Tricks are for kids, King’s Paddington is not as exclusive.) In an age where trailers give away entire films, it’s nice to see a trailer that teases. 

Paddington 2 is set to emerge from darkest Peru by way of Britain to play in U.S. theaters on January 12, 2018. Be there or get a hard stare. If you’re looking to catch up by watching the first film, Paddington is available to stream on Netflix in the U.S. 

The article ‘Paddington 2’ Looks Like Whimsical and Wild Mayhem appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

Cannes 2017. New Portuguese Cinema

The Nothing Factory

Before we wrap our coverage of Cannes, a few words most definitely should be said for two of the strongest films—both Portuguese—at the Directors’ Fortnight and, indeed, at the festival in general. Both premiered towards the end and may have gotten lost in the dwindling energy and subpar premieres common to the exhausted final days' wind-down, but they are absolutely notable.

The Nothing Factory is the film debut of Pedro Pinho, who previously made a short feature and co-directed two documentaries, one of which with Luisa Homem, who edited this new picture, as well as co-wrote it with the production collaborative Terratreme Filmes. Partially based on a Dutch play by Judith Herzberg and inspired by an idea by Jorge Silva Melo (who wrote Manuel Mozo’s unjustly forgotten 1992 masterpiece, Xavier), the film dramatizes the dissolution of an elevator factory in Portugal, an action that sneakily comes at night when the workers discover their machines being secreted away by unknown persons.

By daylight, the company owner glad-hands the group and introduces a new head engineer and, ominously, human resources manager, who pulls employee after employee into private sessions that are revealed to be buyout conversations. The confusion, anger, palpable paranoia and personal fear of the employees inspire the first few to take the money and run, but most stick around, uniting after a few members argue to strike and reclaim the factory. The dozen or so strikers hardly remain a unified front, and arguments and distrust abound, as the cops show up, are repulsed, and the idea of self-management is floated.

Shooting in 16mm with a compositional and editing style that make the film feel like a documentary—or, in the modern parlance, feel like a hybrid film, re-staging fiction based on documentary elements—and with a set of actors who likewise successfully blur the line between reality and drama, The Nothing Factory plunges full hilt into the details and discourse of the particulars of the fading away of a single, lone factory and the congested efforts by its workers to keep their labor going and their livelihood intact. Pinho then cleverly folds in a fourth-wall breaking wild card, including in his film a voiceover and the presence of a scruffy, unnamed man who seems at once an author, a thinker, or perhaps even a director (he is played by a filmmaker, Danièle Incalcaterra) researching the end of capitalism in Europe. He discovers the strike, begins hanging around the workers, and, in a few dizzyingly audacious scenes, even directs them to perform for the very movie we're watching. Thus the inhuman plight of Europe's dying capitalism, detailed and broad, is addressed, and the very way such a plight can be explained or dramatized is questioned.

The film’s three-hour runtime gives The Nothing Factory the breadth to plunge into the nitty-gritty particulars of the workers’ conversations, coalition, fights, and concerns, scripted and shot so that the drama is not classical melodrama but rather comes from the innate emotion and tension of people struggling to figure out how to make a living and, from that, live. A bit less successful is an attempt to integrate the home life (and the past generation) of one of the workers, whose wife is feeling disconnected from her preoccupied husband, into the picture, which ruptures the focus of the canvas on the workers themselves, men and women, as they come together and part around the factory. Yet the scope of the canvas is bold indeed, at once myopic in its resolute attention to these few people in this one particular and small-scale crisis, and expansive in its direct acknowledgement of this story and its participants as a by no means rare example of the pernicious, corrosive effect of capitalism’s endless late stage on individual human beings.

Farpões, baldios

Also concerned with communities and her countrymen and -women’s livelihood, albeit in a rural location and evoked in a more condensed, mythic cinematic language, is the short Farpões, baldios (“Barbs, Wasteland”), the stunning first film of Marta Mateus. Following a lineage begun by America's cine-historiographer John Ford, more directly politicized and de-commercialized by Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, and re-contextualized to Portugal’s social history in revolutionary digital aesthetics by Pedro Costa, Farpões, baldios confronts us with a provincial landscape populated by a people dangerously left adrift in a country that seems on the verge of forgetting its past.

Those who find bountiful reserves of power, expression and outrage in Straub-Huillet and Costa’s works will immediately recognize the striking wide-angle photography, low framing of uncannily forceful architecture and foliage, and bold, presentational posing and declamations of actors in this film. (Costa is, in fact, thanked in the closing credits.) It is a genuine pleasure and provocation to see Costa’s work, which receives much praise but whose influence on the next generation we’re continually looking for, so continued. Thankfully escaping the orbit of masculine auteurship, the torch for a new generation is clearly and vividly lit by Mateus.

In fact, Farpões, baldios, a rural poem of faces and landscapes both fresh and asperous, actively collides two generations. In the Alentejo countryside in southern Portugal the old guard is full of memories personal and political of the struggle across the 20th century to work and live, recounting the past to one another in mournful, poetic passages and proclamations, lamenting lost work, the dead, and time’s unequivocal movement. The new generation can be found around the countryside too, but are freer, more verdurous. While the adults, old and aged, mostly seem attached to the ground they stand on—violently tossing their old farm tools aside in gestures of frustrated capitulation—the children bound across the land, stopping to listen only to move on again. In an indelible image, a young boy walks a country path backwards as a young girl joins arms with him to walk the same way facing forwards. Here is a dialectic of relations between land and people, old and young, history and the present, drawn beautifully and directly on that landscape and from the people who live there. Marta Mateus's film, as attentive to the dried land and abandoned structures of the region as to the wrinkled hands and eyes of the old and the mobile curiosity of the young, is plaintive but also light-doused, its open air images pregnant with elusory riches.

Read More

Godzilla vs. Kong

By Neil Miller

The cinematic universe we really want continues to grow.

Opening Credits is our morning dose of what you need to know about the world of pop culture. If you’d like to receive it in your email, sign up here. 

There will be a lot of talk about cinematic universes, their success, and their necessity this week. Much of that is going to happen between fervent masses whose hearts (and personal pop culture identities) are branded with either a Marvel or DC logo. But let’s take a moment today to talk about the cinematic universe that really matters: the Monsterverse.

Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures have been working on it since Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla dropped in 2014. Last year’s Kong: Skull Island, from Jordan Vogt-Roberts, continued to build out the world a bit with Ape vs. Helicopter vs. Samuel L. Jackson action. For 2019, Trick ‘r Treat director Michael Dougherty is already in production on Godzilla: King of the Monsters, which will further tie things together. Then in 2020, we’ll be offered a respite from the next American presidential election when Godzilla vs. Kong hits theaters in May.

This week, we found out who will be seated in the director’s chair for Godzilla vs. Kong: Adam Wingard, director of highly acclaimed thrillers such as You’re Next, The Guest, and the recent surprise Blair Witch movie. The move continues Legendary’s trend of plucking successful, talented directors from the indie sphere and giving them a shot at directing a giant monster movie. It worked well for Edwards, who went on to make Rogue One. Vogt-Roberts and his magnificent beard have been circling a Metal Gear Solid movie. And Dougherty, well, let’s let him focus on Godzilla 2 for now.

These filmmakers are the reason why this cinematic universe is among my (our) favorites. That, and Legendary’s commitment to casting the hell out of these movies. Skull Island got Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston, Sam Jackson, and John Goodman. Godzilla had Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, David Strathairn, and this goddamn gem of a moment from Ken Watanabe:

Godzilla: King of the Monsters continues this prestige casting trend with Millie Bobbie Brown, Vera Farmiga, Kyle Chandler, Charles Dance, and the return of Mr. “Let Them Fight” himself. Basically, we’re getting several huge monster movies in which the cast has almost as much awards cred as the teams doing the VFX. (Well, that may be stretching it a bit, but you get the idea).

Wingard is a fine choice as a filmmaker who understands how to build, maintain, and manage tension in his films. It will be fascinating (and likely delightful) to see what he does on a much larger scale. Plus, in the end, we’ll at least get to see two of the most brilliantly designed iterations of these monsters duke it out.

My body is ready.

Today in Pop Culture History

Today is Clint Eastwood‘s birthday. Somewhere in America, he’s likely shouting grumpy 87-year-old man things at a TV tuned to Fox News. We choose to remember him more fondly as Dirty Harry.

Colin Farrell also celebrates his birthday today. Have you seen The Lobster? You should see The Lobster. It’s some of his best work.

On this day in 1990, Seinfeld debuted on NBC. It would go on to become the greatest show about nothing of all-time.

What You Need to Know Today

Diablo Cody is writing a Jagged Little Pill musical based on the work of Alanis Morissette. Will it be any good? “Ahhh dunno!” (Enjoy that joke, 90s kids.)

Director Doug Liman has now said that his Edge of Tomorrow sequel, the ludicrously titled Live Die Repeat and Repeat, will pick up moments after the end of the first film. That said, it doesn’t exactly go forward — because, you know, time travel.

It’s been a hot minute since we saw Gabrielle Union on the big screen, despite her success as star and producer of BET’s Being Mary Jane. That said, she’ll join forces next with V for Vendetta director James McTiegue on Breaking In, a home invasion drama. Come to think of it, those are two names I haven’t typed in a while.

ICYMI

Jacob Oller put down some words about Wonder Woman and the cycle of fandom around the DC Cinematic Universe. It’s a potentially controversial article if you don’t take the time to read it.

Also on the Wonder Woman beat, this week’s Filmmaking Tips is all about director Patty Jenkins.

Our coverage of the Cannes Film Festival is wrapping up this week as our troops return home and file their final reviews. Via that link, you’ll find reviews of all the big award winners plus some thoughts on the Cannes Ban.

Shot of the Day

Happy Birthday, Mr. Eastwood.

Perfect shot: DIRTY HARRY (1971) DoP: Bruce Surtees | Dir: Don Siegel http://pic.twitter.com/N8BMdW9ojr

— One Perfect Shot (@OnePerfectShot) May 16, 2014

The article Godzilla vs. Kong appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

Limite: Memory in the Present Tense

Long difficult to see, this transgressive silent masterpiece draws on a wide range of aesthetic influences to push against the boundaries of film form.

Read More

Read More

Strangers in Strange Lands: Comparing and Contrasting ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘Silence’

By H. Perry Horton

Two very different movies with more in common than you might think.

You might not think it upon first consideration, but there are a lot of similarities between Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 Vietnam-War-thriller Apocalypse Now and Martin Scorsese’s 2016 film Silence about Jesuit monks in 17^th century Japan: both deal with young men from the West entering an Eastern country in search of a countryman once held in high esteem now suspected to be a traitor; furthermore, both deal with young men who find ideological conflict in their pursuits, an effect of the social environment in which they find themselves; and both deal with themes of amorality, dehumanization, violence, cultures in opposition, spiritual rebirth, and the annihilation of the soul.

But of course, being that they exist in drastically different contexts, for every similarity these films share there are complementary differences, and the whole lot goes under the microscope in the latest video essay from Jack’s Movie Reviews exploring the thematic links and interpretive contradictions of Apocalypse Now and Silence.

Given that Coppola and Scorsese are not only friends but products of the same filmmaking generation, one that came of age on the back end of the 60s and whose cinema was the first to combine the subversive with the mainstream, it isn’t surprising that the directors would work with the same ideas. What is surprising and furthermore insightful is just how they present said ideas, where they resonate with each other and where they strike distinctive chords. This is another stellar analysis from JMR, and one for which you need to make time.

The article Strangers in Strange Lands: Comparing and Contrasting ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘Silence’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

On the Music of Ghost World

My own likes and dislikes, musically speaking, are so out of touch with the rest of the world’s that it was problematic choosing tunes to use in Ghost World that would connote the same message to the audience as to myself. I suppose that to . . .

Read More

Read More

Interview: Japanese Director Takashi Miike on Filmmaking & Violence

"I don't choose the projects. I think the projects choose me." At the 2017 Cannes Film Festival, legendary Japanese filmmaker Takashi Miike premiered his 100th film. At least, that's what the marketing folks were telling us. When I asked him specifically about this, he gave me a different answer. Nonetheless, Miike is indeed a "legendary" filmmaker. Even at the age of 56, he still keeps making movies non-stop, sometimes two or three in a year. His latest film is titled Blade of the Immortal (or Mugen no jûnin in Japanese), an adaptation of a manga series about a samurai cursed with immortality who takes on a job of protecting a girl. He's known for ultra-violent horror, epic samurai films, and the occasional drama. It was an honor to speak with him for what is the only interview he did with a website from America while at Cannes this year.

Even if you don't know him by name, you definitely know his work. Takashi Miike has directed a number of iconic, controversial, beloved films over the 20+ years he has been working as a filmmaker. His most popular features include Full Metal Yakuza, Ichi the Killer, Audition, Dead or Alive, Visitor Q, One Missed Call, Sukiyaki Western Django, Zatoichi, Detective Story, 13 Assassins, Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai, Ace Attorney, Shield of Straw, Over Your Dead Body, and Yakuza Apocalypse. In all honesty, I was a bit scared to interview him, because I don't feel I'm truly worthy of talking with such a filmmaking legend. I did my best to come up with some interesting questions that were more about his work and all of his films than this one. Blade of the Immortal is a damn fine film (read this review) but I wanted to talk about much more.

Once I met Takashi-san at one of the beach resorts in Cannes, I wasn't as scared as before. He had a camera around his neck, snapping shots here and there like a true cinephile, and seemed to be in good spirits. I've interviewed many filmmakers over the years and most of them are, deep down, genuine film geeks who just love telling stories and making movies. That's definitely the feeling I got while talking with him, and he was even nice enough to snap a selfie with me at the end (he also made me retake the photo with better lighting, like a good director, of course). The interview was conducted with the help a translator, and I've provided the full transcript below. After chatting for 15 minutes, I realized I would need at least an hour or more to really get into his career. As always, there's never enough time. But it was an intriguing discussion anyway.

Welcome back to Cannes. They've been saying that this is your 100th film. How does that feel?

Takashi Miike: Well, in fact I didn't know until somebody related to the film here told us. So it's 100 films as a result [of all my work]. And I'm just amazed that there was so many producers who had asked me to work on so many projects. The fact alone is amazing.

How do you keep yourself this busy? It seems like you're working constantly.

Miike: But it's true, yeah, I am always working on a film. And actually, I'm doing the interviews in the afternoon because I'm working on two [other] films [right now]. I'm doing post on two films and I'm looking at the CGI for one of those in the morning - through Skype and the internet. And I say to them "okay, this glossy bit needs to be darker," things like that. So that's what I have been doing today in the morning. And I'm speaking to you now. But that said, don't grown-ups work like that?

Yes! But my question is: you don't get confused as to what you're working on? Are you only focusing on one film at a time?

Miike: Of course, [Blade of an Immortal is] an adaptation. Obviously the source material from the author is going to be different than if you have an original story. Obviously to shoot a scene with the same actor saying the same line, you will never have that repeated. That's never going to happen again. So every time is very fresh for me. And even if you don't change, the cameras change, the methodologies for editing changes. The environment of filmmaking changes. And even if you get to work with an actor you worked with a year before, it's only been a year, yet there will be actors who have found a new ability. Or a different actor who's kind of deteriorated as a human being. So it really depends. So to answer your question, I never feel fatigued or I never get confused or bored.

What makes you choose the projects you choose, and what is it about Blade of the Immortal that was special?

Miike: Basically whoever comes to me with an idea.

Really?

Miike: Yes. And that's the order I make my films in, whoever came first. First come, first served. Because I don't choose the projects. I think the projects choose me. Or I am lucky enough to be chosen by the films. And for some reason if the film finds itself to me, I think that… there would be, of course, limits as to when we can shoot it or what budget we can have. But, of course, I might not be able to do it for those reasons. And yet I do want to make sure that that first impulse, of how the story first came to me, I don't want that to be tarnished. So I want to turn it into a film. So in Japan, if a project was having issues and when it wasn't doing well, I can maybe step in and help them, help to bring it back.

For this film, too. The protagonist is played by Takuya Kimura, who is a superstar in Japan. And for a Japanese producer when I suggested his name, it was like no way, he's never going to take it. Because he's what we call a "super idol" in Japan. And for them what's important is a great smile, singing, dancing. It's all about giving hope, instilling hope. And suddenly you have [him in] this makeup and basically the character just slashes and slashes people. And he has been at the top of the game for 25 years. And I felt he probably puts a lot of effort into being that way and he's probably very satisfied with what he's achieved. But I was thinking to have to be that for 25 years, he probably is at a stage where he wants to iconoclastically change something. Or break something of his public image. And I think that coincided fatefully with this project.

And you don't wanna be too cerebral, think too much. And I think if a director chooses too much, having thought too much they, you would start to think "okay, this is going to be good for me." And that probably, I think, breeds failure. But interestingly half of the offers I'm getting now are from China.

That seems to be the big change in the industry.

Miike: Yeah, they're working with many international filmmakers as you know. Investing quite a lot. But for me, wherever I can make a film is good. And I've been talking about projects with them. And the budget that they show us, I always go, "I don't think it's going to take that much." [laughs] But China, of course, is economically very strong. And this has happened as part of the life I'm living. It's a chapter that we're experiencing now. So I don't want to deny anything that happens like that. If fate brings us together, I want to make that film. If it's not going to work, it's not going to work. So that's kind of my stance, if you will.

Is there any particular film that you've made that you're the most proud of? And also one that you wish you could go back and work on again?

Miike: Well, all my films I think there are two reactions. In the older days, oh my God, how free were we? We were doing things, you know, with whatever. The other reaction would be, "oh this expression is a little crude. I could do much better." But even if I was still a little awkward and I wasn't able to achieve a certain expression, I think I still feel a possibility in that scene. And I think cinema itself, films tend to be reviewed by their faults. Rather than the opposite. If it's a low budget film… I think people would feel the possibility of – maybe if we had a bigger budget, he or she would make an amazing film. Or if the cinematography isn't good, maybe can think about: okay, let's have him paired up with this DP and that could be interesting. So I think for me, the past films… they're not my children. It's like they're like my parents.

Because a child can't choose their parents, can they? And it's an object to be loved including all their faults and shortcomings. And even if you want to go back and redo something like you mentioned, we're not going to be given that opportunity.

Right.

Miike: So if I do have some time, I do feel like I want to revisit them. You know, just so that I can enjoy my drink, my beer. My pint.

I want to talk a little bit about the violence in many of your films. Specifically that you don't have violence that is glorified, it's a part of it but not there for the sake of violence. I think it's a tool. How important do you think that tool is?

Translator: When I was translating the question, he was going "oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly."

Miike: Like you said, it's because Manji, the main character [played by Takuya Kimura], is there and because of his character that's why we have violence in this film. I think Manji, and myself, we just want to live a peaceful life if we could.

Ah, yes…

Miike: And the violent scenes are actually, they're a handful to shoot. They're really hard. It's much easier to shoot a love scene, a love-making scene between a man and a woman on a bed. [laughs]

Of course.

Miike: And that would be a great life to lead, just shooting those types of stories. But Manji came to me. He's my main character. And we have Shira, the really bad guy [played by Hayato Ichihara]. And so he's the other one, they come into my life of this peaceful filmmaker who just wants to spend very peaceful days. And it disrupts my life. But I think violent films, I think they can only be made if the crew and also the cast are really friendly with each other. And Manji is fighting in very close quarters in this film. But none of the opponents got injured making this film. Of course, Kimura the actor/main character, because he wanted to avoid hurting anybody, he would put a lot of strain on his body and so he did get hurt from that.

But Manji and the other characters going at it, we captured them. If you want to do it with love, we try to show how hard it is or how desperate they are, or the pain. So it all comes from love, you see. It is born of love and it's just that in the end, what it amounts to, it becomes violence.

That's a great answer to end on! A very big thank you to Takashi Miike for his time, and also to Jeff Hill + Film Press Plus for arranging this interview during the Cannes Film Festival.

Takashi Miike's Blade of the Immortal just premiered at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival. You can watch the official trailer here, while waiting for a US release. Stay tuned. Follow Magnet on Twitter @MagnetReleasing for updates on the film leading up to its opening. In the meantime, go watch any of Miike's other 99 films.

Read More

Why Music Matters in ‘Moonlight’

By Fernando Andres

Everything means something in a film this personal.

There’s a lot to love in Moonlight, Barry Jenkins’ modern classic from last year that stormed awards season and stole the hearts of both critics and the public at large. Aside from its excellent screenplay and an array of deeply affecting performances, there was beautiful cinematography and an impressive attention to color to boot. But underlining it all was an impeccable usage of music.

The music of Moonlight ranges from Nicholas Britell’s sensitive, string-heavy original score to songs by Goodie Mob and Barbara Lewis, and yet each of these sonically different tracks blends into each other within the film. This is in part due to Jenkins’ experimentation with the “chopped and screwed” technique, which originated within the hip-hop scene in Houston, to slow down and warp the sound of the film’s music. The same way he uses colors and repeating imagery to paint the development of Chiron, Jenkins’ experimentation with music adds yet another layer to it.

Here to break down these techniques for us is Mr. Nerdista, who has made the following video essay that goes into detail for each track in the film. Much has been said about this film, but as the saying goes, a great film is one you notice something new every time you watch it.

The article Why Music Matters in ‘Moonlight’ appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

‘The Square’ Review: Östlund’s Palme d’Or Winner Disappoints

By Matt Hoffman

Paling in comparison to his previous film, Ruben Östlund’s Palme d’Or winner underwhelms.

There’s a great film somewhere in Ruben Östlund’s The Square. I’d even argue that somewhere, in the film’s two-and-a-half hours, that there are shadows of a masterpiece. The greatest moments within The Square come in the form of a series of vignettes littered throughout. These moments of aching comedy and biting satire are unfortunately slowed down by a longer narrative, which by the film’s conclusion becomes utterly tedious. Three performers – Elisabeth Moss, Dominic West, and Terry Notary – receive top billing during the film’s opening credits. The scenes featuring the respective actors are pretty brilliant, but their culminated screen time clocks in at under thirty minutes. So, what’s going on for other two hours? Billed under these three is Danish actor Claes Bang, who is incredible in carrying much of the film’s dead weight on his shoulders.

Bang stars as Christian, the curator for a well regarded – yet sparsely attended – Swedish museum showcasing modern and contemporary art. Interests in the museum have begun to dwindle. Christian can rely on a few dozen mostly elderly patrons for financial support, yet the museum’s halls are often empty. With the arrival of a new installation entitled, “The Square,” Christian hopes to reinvigorate interest. He has teamed with a new PR firm with unconventional methods to bring excitement for the project. So what exactly is “The Square”? Well, it’s kind of hard to explain. It is indeed a physical space housed outside of the museum, along with an installation within. “The Square” seeks to force participants, and witnesses, to question their moral code, to examine how they consider the strangers who surround them. Does that make sense? Probably not. So you’ll just have to see the film to find out, should you be so curious.

Early in the film, Christian finds himself in an altercation that forces him into similar territories as his upcoming exhibit. On his way to work, Christian’s commute is interrupted by a woman yelling frantically for help. He comes to the woman’s aide, easily fighting off a male aggressor. Moments after high-fiving a fellow pedestrian for a job well done, Christian realizes he has been the victim of a scam; the seemingly desperate woman has made off with his wallet, cellphone, and cufflinks. Along with co-worker Michael (a scene-stealing Christopher Læssø), Christian embarks on a grueling – for both character and audience – journey to retrieve his belongings.

The Square has a lot to say. It’s part social commentary, part black comedy, and entirely bonkers. There is some smart satire at play here, so why is it so testing to endure? Ruben Östlund obviously has quite a lot to say about the limits and designations of art, yet it becomes evident that he does not know exactly how to say it. His last film, Force Majeure, was a pointed takedown of masculinity within the family dynamic. It was darkly hilarious and to the point. There are shades of that brilliance here. One standout moment finds Christian and Elizabeth Moss’ Anne fighting over a used condom. Another features a piece of performance art in which Terry Notary terrorizes a group of donors at a fundraiser. It is after this climactic moment that the film takes a nosedive, grueling on for another thirty minutes after very clearly making its point.

I wanted to adore The Square. There are so many brilliant moments easy to recount when discussing the film with others. But to tie an arch or reason to these moments proves impossible. Ruben Östlund is orchestrating many exciting thoughts throughout, yet they just do not come together to create a cohesive whole. Ultimately, The Square proves to be a frustrating experience, sprinkled with moments of glory.

The article ‘The Square’ Review: Östlund’s Palme d’Or Winner Disappoints appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

A Zambian Fairy Tale: Rungano Nyoni Discusses Her Debut "I Am Not a Witch"

The Directors’ Fortnight in Cannes this year was enlivened by the fortuitous programming of a number of films about children channeling the bounding energy of their young protagonists, whether Sean Baker’s precocious “hidden homeless” scampering around cheap motels in Orlando in The Florida Project, Jonas Carpignano’s bracing faux-adults spitting slang and smoking cigs in a Romani community in Siciliy in A Ciambra, or the young Joan of Arc, singing and dancing in Bruno Dumont’s Jeannette.

More passive than all these kids so willing to act out in difficult circumstances is Shula (Maggie Mulubwa), the young Zambian girl accused of witchcraft in Zambia-born, Wales-based director Rungano Nyoni’s bold debut feature, I Am Not a Witch. In fact, this young girl has no name and is nearly unable to speak up for herself. In the film’s opening scenes, she is accused of being a witch and, failing to deny it, is tied to a long ribbon (to prevent her from flying away, of course) and sent to a witch camp full of aging women isolated, imprisoned, and forced to work in the countryside in a kind of witch chain gang. This forced community of ostracized women are the ones that bless the sad young girl with a name, giving her advice on how to survive while branded as an outcast.

Yet despite what sounds like a grim procession, Nyoni presents this disturbing sequence of events with a wry, unexpected sense of humor, immediately acknowledging the laughable absurdity surrounding such cultural fear of women. Shula is soon skirted away from the witch camp by a local government man, Mr. Banda (Henry B.J. Phiri, absolutely hilarious in his transparent opportunism), to be used as his “own little witch” to solve local disputes, such as being able to determine a guilty man among a dozen suspects (phoning a fellow witch for help, Shula is advised to pick “the dark one”) or bring rain to a parched land. Part folk tale combining different aspects of Zambian beliefs, part fairy tale lent graphic surreal strokes by the iconographic cinematography, and part satire of a society (Mr. Banda takes Shula on a TV talk show to proclaim her powers and serve as a product endorsement, and we learn his wife is an ex-witch kept in check by material luxury), Nyoni has made an all together unique film about the oppression and exploitation of women in her home country that is brazenly fresh, funny, and angry.

---

NOTEBOOK: Based on the great number of co-production company logos before the film—everything from Film 4 to Rotterdam’s Hubert Bals fund, and the Berlin and Locarno festivals—can you tell us a bit about how you got this, your first feature, made? Was it difficult to assemble the financing for such an audacious film?

RUNGANO NYONI: [Laughs] Everyone said to make a film in Britain first and then do a difficult Zambian film someday. But I can’t think of an idea just because I can get financing for it. I thought of the idea first, and then I deliberately wanted to get as much money from different territories as possible so that I could give it every chance to get financed. I got development funding from four difference sources, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Wales. They provided soft development money, soft because I thought that if I don’t get more, I’ll just use it to make the film. Once I got the script ready, it actually was relatively easy. Because I was prepared for the hard slog, I did everything in preparation to avoid it. So I made links to different funding agencies, different festivals, and this made it easier. Maybe to my own detriment, I tried to get as much money from as many people as possible, rather than just from one source. It was a headache for everyone! But I don’t see much money for African films on the international circuit, and I wanted to give it every chance of succeeding. Then the production finance came from the Berlin Film Festival, the World Cinema Fund, also the Hubert Bals fund, and then the BFI, Wales, the CNC—so many that I thought, if it doesn’t succeed it’s just my fault, I have no excuses.

NOTEBOOK: I was struck by the film’s cinematography, stripping the images down to spare but pointed iconography. Can you talk about your conception of the look of the film?

NYONI: Yeah, my cinematographer David Gallego, who did Embrace of the Serpent, we spoke about how I wanted something cinematic. You know, I learned cinema through doing. I never went to film school, I’m self-taught—so all the other films, in my shorts, I was still trying to learn the language of cinema. Here, I wanted to do something cinematic [laughs]. Something that you could take the volume down and watch, like you can do with the Coen brothers. It’s very simple, it’s very clear. That’s what I was going for, simple and clear for this fairy tale thing. This is what I wanted to replicate.

NOTEBOOK: It’s interesting you mention turning the volume off, because the film has several great musical sequences, some using more traditional African music, some using very contemporary pop which immediately tear us away from this sense of a fairy tale.

NYONI: It’s just a feeling—I didn’t have any rules about what songs I wanted to use. Estelle's “American Boy” was one of the few I knew before. I knew at the end it was going to be very dark—without giving too much away—very dark. Some might feel it’s too heavy, that I was trying to manipulate it too much, trying to make people feel something. So I wanted to have something to…not throw them off, but to not let them indulge so much. “American Boy” puts a tune in people’s head so that they forget for a moment that, “oh, this is happening!” That’s why I chose that.

NOTEBOOK: How did you find your non-professional actors?

NYONI: The women were tricky, because I was trying to get a mixture of different tribes rather than just one. We got them from the witch-belief capital of Zambia; I wanted to get people from there and we got about 15 women. We had a big crew looking for women—even my mother, at one point, working with casting relatives. The girl was the most difficult, we saw over 900 little girls before finding Maggie—just through chance of someone taking a photograph of her. It was all higgledy-piggledy. We had tons of people looking, telling them that if they see just anyone interesting, bring them in to audition.

NOTEBOOK: Where does the line between folklore and fantasy lay in your film?

NYONI: Gosh, that’s a killer question! The first thing I was aiming for was doing something that was just a fairy tale, and whatever I did to get there was the idea. I researched a lot of real witch accusations, witch camps, and then I exaggerated what was already there. I took the mythology from all these different sources, everything’s an amalgamation of research I did in different countries and the idea of fairy tales in cinema—it’s a whole bunch of different ideas, using my imagination. It’s a mixture, I don’t know where it begins and ends.

NOTEBOOK: Why approach this story as a fairy tale rather than as a realist depiction of what you researched?

NYONI: I wanted to make it a fairy tale because I found a really good Zambian way of saying the story, without making it about Zambia. I grew up on fairy tales. I’ve always wanted to do this, actually. In a way, I was trying to get away­—perhaps as a first-time filmmaker this is a bit of a cliché—I was trying to get away from “the arc.” It’s always “the arc, arc, arc arc,” and I was trying to do something different.  I was trying to do something that I grew up with, which is that my family used to tell me fairy tales and they were really particular. Fairy tales in general are very strange, but Zambian ones mix genres. They’re for kids, but they’re really violent, and they’re funny, and they mix magic realism.  All of these things I wanted to take for my film. They are really musical. I was trying to do that.

NOTEBOOK: The film is indeed a surprising mixture of genres and tones. The one that jumped out most was the unexpected comedy, considering one of the major subjects of this film is the oppression of women. It’s a grim theme, yet this is a very funny, almost cheeky movie.

NYONI: For me, it was always important it was going to be absurd and funny and satirical. I want to engage people in something. I try to find ways to engage people, right? People don’t know—or know very little, because there’s not a lot of cinema—about African people, and I’m trying to find a way of engaging people without playing a pity card or making African porn, where people want to watch something and then feel guilty and then they go figure out Africa. I want to engage people, what people think, so that they can relate to those people in some way. And I thought humor was the best way for me. I want to get, in the end, to my feeling about the subject, something I want to talk about, something that I’m very angry about—but I want to do it through humor so that we can engage that distance.

NOTEBOOK: Did you have concerns that humor could potentially humanize the villains and the wrongs they perpetrate in a way that undercuts that anger?

NYONI: Yeah, because I want to do more shades than just bad guy, good guy. Even if one could say the subject is misogyny, I also didn’t want it to be men versus women. There’s lots of things here to balance, and sometimes you get them right and sometimes not. When talking about exploitation, humor is a very powerful tool for getting people to listen. It lingers in their minds. I don’t want people to consume something and forget it. I want people to be touched by it, and humor, for me, has a ripple effect.

NOTEBOOK: You mentioned being encouraged to not begin your feature film career with a Zambian film. Now that you’ve made one, would you like to continue shooting more stories in Zambia?

NYONI: Yeah! There really are only a few places I think I could make films, and that’s Wales, Zambia and London. They are the three places I know, they are my three homes for a very long time. I’ll take the ideas as they come. I’m not strategic about what I do, I’m not thinking, “Next I’ll do a horror film, then everyone will discover and love me and I’ll make $100 million.” I think you just have to do whatever’s in your mind.

Read More

Idris Elba & Kate Winslet in First Trailer for 'The Mountain Between Us'

"Look, I don't want to die up here because you're too scared to take a risk." 20th Century Fox has debuted the first official trailer for a dramatic survival thriller titled The Mountain Between Us, starring Kate Winslet and Idris Elba and survivors of a plane crash in the mountains. It's yet another survival story set in desolate snowy mountains, similar to The Grey, but it's also about the relationship between these two people - who were strangers before the crash. This was filmed up in Canada, and it looks beautiful, but also deadly. "I think optimism and hope is crucial to survive," director Hany Abu-Assad tells USA Today. This looks solid, with these two very talented actors leading the way. Where did the dog come from? See below.

Here's the first official trailer for Hany Abu-Assad's The Mountain Between Us, direct from YouTube:

Stranded after a tragic plane crash, two strangers must forge a connection in order to survive the extreme elements of a remote snow covered mountain. When they realise help is not coming, they embark on a terrifying journey across hundreds of miles of wilderness, pushing one another to endure and igniting an unexpected attraction. The Mountain Between Us is directed by Oscar-nominated (for two of his Foreign Language films) Dutch-Israeli filmmaker Hany Abu-Assad, of the films Rana's Wedding, Paradise Now, Do Not Forget Me Istanbul, The Courier, Omar, and The Idol previously. The screenplay is written by Chris Weitz and J. Mills Goodloe; based on the novel by Charles Martin. Fox will release The Mountain Between Us in theaters everywhere in the US starting October 20th later this fall. Who's interested in seeing this?

Read More

A Simple Solution To Not Only The Decline Of Movie Theaters, But Life Itself

By Danny Bowes

Notes on the theatrical experience, psychology, and sexism.

Spending, as I do, entirely too much time on Film Twitter means I’ve been following the saga that ensued over the Alamo Drafthouse deciding to have women-only screenings of Wonder Woman, whereby a bunch of shitheads threw tantrums over this decision for some reason. Shitheads throwing tantrums is practically Twitter’s brand, which is why the only thing that makes this particular incident memorable is that the outcry is even dumber and pettier than the usual standard. Even on a strictly textual basis, a women-only screening of Wonder Woman, a movie whose protagonist comes from a women-only culture, is equivalent on the surface to a Naval veterans-only screening of The Hunt For Red October or Top Gun or something. If your knee-jerk response is that that’s a dumb example and a bit of a reach, you’re absolutely right, because the real reason to have a screening like this is that not having any men around is a simple way to make the theatrical experience a lot more enjoyable for women.

Proving that sexism exists and is bad is unnecessary. It exists. It’s bad. Arguing otherwise is either obtuse or a lie. The angle to this whole story that interests me—in the sense of writing a whole column about it, not in the sense that pervasive sexism is boring—is the curation of the theatrical experience. Because going to movie theaters has lowkey kind of sucked for years now. The increasingly rare theaters that are actually still nice to go to are ones that go to at least minimal lengths to make things pleasant for audiences, whether through making sure the movies are projected properly or even simply by making sure the place is a comfortable temperature and clean. For many years my local movie theater, which was first a short walk and then a slightly longer walk after I moved, was the Pavilion, in Park Slope, Brooklyn. It opened in 1996 with three screens, one enormous auditorium with a balcony for big commercial releases, and two smaller screens for independent and art films. Over time, that business model proved untenable, and management chopped the space up to fit as many screens in as they could, which left the theater as a whole in (what turned out to be) a permanent sense of dishevelment. Things would eventually deteriorate to the state in which film critic and Park Slope resident Matt Singer immortalized the Pavilion as “the worst movie theater in America,” but until they were doing shit like projecting Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in half-pink and half-green for the first twenty minutes and then cutting the projector before the ending (the one and only time I’ve ever asked for a refund) the Pavilion spent a very long time as just an ordinary shitty movie theater. Dim projection, cramped seats, sticky floors, people waving their blinding cell phone screens around for two hours when they’re not taking calls and talking in full voice, and corporate penny-pinching resulting in staff not being paid enough to give a shit (which to drive the point home as unambiguously as possible is the fault of upper management not paying workers enough money, not the fault of the workers who aren’t being paid enough money) are the standard conditions for movie theaters across America now.

The special extra annoyances, like being a woman and having to worry some dude is, at best, going to sneer at you and ask you to name five of Wonder Woman’s albums when all you want to do is watch a fucking movie, compound the already wholly sufficient pile of bullshit inherent to the modern theatrical experience. What few oases there are—the better art houses, rep theaters, private screening rooms if you’re fancy—become ever more enticing with each passing year. I personally have yet to journey to an Alamo Drafthouse, for reasons that don’t have anything to do with this piece, but I applaud their devotion to the experiential aspect of watching movies. Fun movies should be fun. Serious movies should be taken seriously. Great movies should be revered. The environment in which movies are beheld is a significant and essential part of the experience. And, for an example ready at hand, it thus makes not only business sense, but artistic and moral sense as well, to let women watch a movie about a heroic woman without a bunch of dudes around to fuck up the vibe. If they want to. If they want to see it with their dude friends, there’s literally every other screening of the movie at literally every other theater that’s playing the movie.

Both the sexism issue and the deterioration of the movie theater experience derive from the same source: a lot of people are fucking assholes. A lot of people are all right, and fairly decent despite a foible or two here and there, but there are a whole bunch of jerkoffs out there. Since I bring Occam’s Razor to a knife fight, here’s my solution: stop being a jerkoff. If someone’s having fun or planning to have fun, and it affects you in no way, let them have their fun. Do anything else on Earth, with the only caveat being, primum non nocere. Here endeth this week’s sermon. Amen.

The article A Simple Solution To Not Only The Decline Of Movie Theaters, But Life Itself appeared first on Film School Rejects.

Read More

One More Wacky Trailer for Bachelorette Party Comedy 'Rough Night'

"Great friends + terrible choices." Sony Pictures has dropped off one more official trailer for Rough Night, this time a green band trailer after two red band trailers previously. This movie is a wild all-women comedy formerly known as Rock That Body, which is also the feature directorial debut of "Broad City" director Lucia Aniello. The film stars five women who get together for a bachelorette party - Scarlett Johansson (as the bride) along with Zoë Kravitz, Jillian Bell, Ilana Glazer, and Kate McKinnon. After deciding to get a stripper, they accidentally kill him and have to figure out what to do. This looks pretty crazy, and it might actually be worth seeing this summer. I still think it's hilarious they bring the dead guy out with them.

Here's the third official trailer (+ poster) for Lucia Aniello's Rough Night, direct from YouTube:

You can also still watch the first red band trailer for Rough Night here, or the second red band trailer.

Five friends from college, Jess, Pippa, Alice, Frankie and Blair, reunite when they rent a beach house in Miami for a wild bachelorette weekend that goes completely off the rails when a male stripper turns up dead. Rough Night, formerly known as Rock That Body, is directed by American filmmaker Lucia Aniello (an alumna of the Upright Citizens Brigade), making her feature directorial debut after directing for "Broad City" and "Time Traveling Bong". The screenplay is written by Lucia Aniello and Paul W. Downs. Columbia Pictures will release Rough Night in theaters everywhere starting June 16th this summer. Who's into this?

Read More