cine + octo = boo

Back in 2002, director Gaspar Noé unleashed the emotional onslaught Irréversible upon the world. At the Cannes film festival, reports of audiences walking out (and in some cases fainting) during screenings piqued interest in the film. Reactions poured in, and people questioned Noé’s motivation behind using acts of brutality and ultra-violence as centerpieces in the film.

As if by dare, cinephiles around the globe climbed into theaters to answer the question, “Is Irréversible a brilliant rebuttal to the revenge film, or merely an shameful exercise in gimmickry?” Defenders of the former argued that while sensational, the reworked timeline and presentation of the violent acts combined to create a dissertation on the fragility and futility of life. After all, the tagline for the film is, “Time destroys everything.”

Detractors felt Noé was guilty of painting a hateful and homophobic picture of homosexual men — specifically by portraying Le Tenia (Jo Prestia) first as a violent rapist, and later being beaten to death by Marcus (Vincent Cassel) with a fire extinguisher. The feeling at the time was that Le Tenia did not need to be homosexual for the plot to work, and that in doing so Noé created an opportunity to literally and viscerally gay bash.

My take, which is wholly based on multiple viewing of the film, is that Le Tenia’s orientation and backstory is actually used to create added confusion, something that is rarely captured in films dealing with these types of scenarios. Our brains are hardwired to seek out a sense of understanding when confronted with the unexplainable, and our desire to reason through the unreasonable often creates frustration when processing complex crimes such as rape.

Personally, Noé’s decision to reverse chronology trumps the accusation of homophobic revenge tale. We witness the crime resulting from Le Tenia’s actions before we ever see what he is supposedly guilty of. Note the word choice, as Marcus is as guilty (if not moreso) of committing a crime in the end. The ultimate message behind the film resonates more in the “what does revenge solve?” camp, than that of the redemption tale.

Read the rest of this entry »

Chalk it up to personal preference, but modern horror is completely underwhelming. Sure, much of the moralty found in classics of the genre delves into the realm of extreme fundamentalism, but the best films sink into the slow and steady build to a level of chaos that is equal parts sensually visceral and psychologically disturbing. If a film leaves me questioning, “How could this happen?” then it’s typically hit it’s mark.

Modern horror, increasingly referred to as “nu-horror,” rarely touches upon these fundamentals. Instead, they substitute plot, tension, and character-development for senseless gore and violence. True, the house that Saw built harkens back to aspects of older gore-heavy classics like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it sacrifices the macabre, the gothic Americana if you will, that somehow justified the gore. Even the remakes of these classics eschew substance over piles of defiled and carved-up bodies.Which is a long-winded way of getting to director Ti West‘s latest film, The House of the Devil.

A few days ago, a group of friends emailed me about a horror movie night they were planning. They’d compiled a short list of films to consider, and I added to their list. While it ran through the pre-requisite canon of horror, it still lacked anything recent worth watching. In hindsight, I should have included The Strangers, but spaced on it at the time.

Unable to attend, I found myself scrambling to work in some horror film viewing over the Halloween weekend. After re-watching The Gate on cable, I decided to crack open The House of the Devil, which is available in limited release and more interesting Video On Demand (Comcast, U-verse, and more).

West is gaining traction with his retro throwback style and approach, but to his credit the proclivity to homage never crosses into style over substance — think more Death Proof than Planet Terror here. He continues the trend with Devil, and never wavers throughout the film.

Read the rest of this entry »

Where the Wild Things Are teaser poster

The critical response to Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers’ treatment of Where the Wild Things Are, the classic 1963 childrens picture book by Maurice Sendak, has been less universal consensus than expected. Mind you, its still positive overall (upper 60% on Rotten Tomatoes), just not the 95% positive I’d expected.

Why?

So far the criticisms fall into categories best summed up as “overlong,” “meandering,” and “underwhelming.” Alongside those mentioned, I anticipate the following from some colleagues and friends, “More pop psychology B.S. from Jonze,” “Tried to do too much with too little,” and “It just didn’t do anything for me.”

To preface, so many pseudo-critics easily mistake the purpose of reviewing a film. So much of the “likability” factor in film relies on interpretation, opinion, and cinematic knowledge. These three aspects battle about with each screening, and ultimately the resulting review has nothing to do with “right or wrong.” There is no correct answer to a film, yet so many folks get stuck on these aspects. Interpretation and opinion often conspire to trump cinematic knowledge, or vice-versa, but neither camp is entirely “right.”

Read the rest of this entry »

There is more to The Invention of Lying than you’d expect, but not in a sensational way. Confused? Allow me to explain. A cursory viewing of the trailer led me to believe that this film would be yet another misfire — a decent premise wrapped up in a series of trite cliches. Underwhelming at best.

Yet, the vehicle was co-written by Ricky Gervais, so I bit. I’m glad I did.

With Invention…, Gervais is clearly borrowing from some of the territory Woody Allen cut his teeth on. Situational humor, satirical comedy, and the making of the socially aware funny. Sure, he even goes as far as borrowing the trademark Allen font for a very Woody-esque title card heavy opening to the film, but what unfolds is something uniquely Gervais — recklessly critical, yet deftly balanced.

Read the rest of this entry »

oh artistic intent, where would we be without you? we’d certainly have fewer arguments discussions brewed amongst the fanboy cine/audio-phile crowds, that’s for sure. when it comes to long-standing debates in the film and music worlds, non-wages larger than The Beatles catalog in mono vs. stereo, and Kubrick’s final five films in 1.85:1 vs. 1.33:1 aspect ratios.

The Beatles are to Kubrick as sound fidelity is to image composition.

both are tough battles, but i’m here to go on the record about something that is, for once and for all, a clear cut case:

The Beatles in mono is clearly not debate-able in the same way that aspect ratio is in regards to Kubrick’s famous final five.

what the hell am i talking about?

Read the rest of this entry »