TIFF 2009 Preview (part II) page 2

TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 2009 PREVIEW: PART II

christopher funderburg & john cribbs

christopher:

Does Southern Comfort not count as a rag-tag squad movie? Because if so, Walter Hill's marines vs. Cajuns masterpiece is obviously the best Fred Ward film of the genre. But, yeah, I'm excited for Wake in Fright as well. It's pointless, but it bothers me that First Blood doesn't get the respect it deserves - it's like the first Rocky or Saturday Night Fever in that it's actually a real movie; one late that bears little resemblance to the pop-cultural punchline that devolved into self-parody of the course of a series (a really goddamn quick course, in the case of Travolta's finest). All three films are over-flowing with authentic, downbeat, moving 70's grittiness and it's a shame that Kotcheff's best film will always be considered somewhat of a joke. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken, Wake in Fright is another one of those Australian b-movies that have been receiving way too much credit and attention since some jackass made up the word "Ozploitation" last year. I saw Not Quite Hollywood at TIFF 2008 and thought, "Wait one goddamned second: I've actually seen The Last Drive-In, The Howling 3, and Long Weekend - those movies suck shit, don't try to pawn them off as undiscovered masterpieces." Not Quite Hollywood got particular demerits for slagging The Road Warrior and Razorback - those are the two legit b-movie masterpieces of the era! That the film wasted time airing sour grapes about them from the director of Alvin Purple and Leprechaun in Space turned me against all the so-called "over-looked" genre films that were being touted by the film. Plus, it uses a clip of The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith and then doesn't even say anything about it - seriously, you can waste ten minutes talking about garbage like Turkey Shoot, but you can't even point out a legitimately interesting, original movie? [hypocrisy alert: what about the stills in this write-up and on the front page from L'Enfer de Herni-Georges Clouzot and then neither of us mention the film! - john] I guess if perpetually misguided, influential film personalities want to spend their time talking about a mildly diverting time-waster like Patrick, then the documentary is helpless to resist. But, whatever, I can't blame Wake in Fright for the fact that its advocates are cretins. And the doc also played up Roadgames, which is a pretty enjoyable one. Hopefully, Kotcheff's will be on that level.

And... "yikes" on my WWII White Ribbon error - it goes to show how little I've read and heard about the film that I don't even know on which freakin' massive international armed conflict it focuses. In all seriousness, though, I prefer films about The Great War to films about numero II if only because they generally tend to have pacifist/war-is-a-senseless-horror slants that are much more in keeping with my own worldview than the morally dubious white-washes that are WWII films in general. I agree with what you said in your 200 Days and 200 Movies (while writing about Flags of Our Fathers) that all of those more or less disregarded b-movies from the 40's and 50's about WWII are feel more vital, intelligent and honest than the excessively sentimental, self-important films about the war that have been produced in the past 15 years. There's an almost impenetrable veneer of dubious nostalgia for the greatest generation that never acknowledges the U.S.'s relationship to the U.S.S.R., the disgusting racist propoganda to fuel the fervor against the Japanese (and our own homegrown concentration camps to hold them therein) and the fact that (as always) a good significant amount of U.S. soldiers used the virtually lawless warzones as an excuse to rape and murder. Obviously, our forces weren't nearly as monstrous as the Nazis (even the Japanese), but the fact remains that WWI films are really the only option a filmmaker has if they want to look at war on a comparable scale and not simply rehash the tired sentiment of "our boys were so brave, they looked true evil in the eye and saved the world."

Just reading your paragraph about discovering films you'd never otherwise give a chance, I immediately thought of A Stray Girlfriend, absolutely the bets experince I've ever had with that sort of thing. I had literally zero knowledge of it before we went in and even lower expectations, the fact that it turned out to be charming, funny and intelligent felt like winning the lottery. That's the under-rated aspect of our Toronto experience: the previews of big, important films are nice, but seeing all of those films I wouldn't have necessarily checked out stuff (like Dear Wendy, Still Walking, A Stray Girlfriend - hell, even the Muay-Thai Chocolate) is really what makes the trip worthwhile. It's always a bit of gamble because of just the sheer amount of shit out there, but the unlikely successes are inredibly invigorating. The factor that A Stray Girlfriend seems like it will never secure U.S. distribution makes taking risks more important than catching A Serious Man before it hits multiplex screens 3 weeks later.

As a correlation, catching more than a few stinkers is inevitable. That's particularly a problem for me since I'm so morally, philosophicaly and sexually opposed to walking out of a movie before it's over. I feel like I owe to a filmmaker to sit through the movie from stop to start - it's such a collosal effort to make a movie that any film at least deserves the respect of being heard out. And who knows what a film has up its sleeve? If I hadn't stayed all the way through the end of Dear Wendy, it's subtle critique and devasting sense of parody almost certainly would've been lost on me. Sure, I probably don't need to stay all the way through the end of say, Goodbye Dragon Inn, but I shouln't even go into a movie if I'm willing to walk out after only twenty-five. Of course, every year I walk out of a film or two, but I always feel intensely guilty. It should be noted in my defense, however, that my walkouts are almost always motivated by hunger (actually, last year I walked out of Hunger. And that was a rare case of me hating a movie so intensely that, honestly: fuck gestures of respect).

Your thoughts on The Time that Remains are interesting, but I have a hard time imagining anyone will have their hopes up too high for that one. After Divine Intervention, it seems really easy to peg him as a shaky filmmaker - the level of quality and cinematic skill on display in that film varies from "world class" to "woeful." I mean, how can anyone not be wary of Sulieman: do they not remember the late-film appearance of Islamic Matrix lady? Sulieman is undoubtedly a talented and original filmmaker, but Divine Intervention is full of cringe-inducing missteps. I suspect that The Time that Remains is similar - or, at least, who would be surprised if it is? Same goes for Ming-Tsai Ling and Joe Weerasethakul, whose weaknesses seems as clear as day at this point. That's the problem with being a unique filmmaker and having an easily identifiable (and rigid) style: there's no reason to suspect that your new film will be any different than the last one. Like you, I more or less enjoy all three of filmmakers (and Ming-Tsai Ling's Face has a phenomenal cast: Jean-Pierre Leaud, Mathieu Amalric, Jeanne Moreau, the pulchritudinous Laetitia Casta), but with me, I need to be in the right frame of mind or mood to sit through their work. And, oh say, in the midst of six-film marathon on day three of a seven day festival trip, the chance of being in the right mood is highly unlikely.

I also disagree with you on A Prophet disappointing people. Much like Audiard's The Beat My Heart Skipped, it feels like one of those movies that people will keep on insisting is good, even though it's plainly not. Beat is funny in that it really is in no way of interest, but it still comes up in conversations about the best films of the decade (and as the decade draws to a close, those conversations are only becoming more common). A Prophet seems to hit on the same kind of interesting-on-the-surface subjects like race and religion and prison that make for Importance Fodder even when the accompanying film doesn't have anything intelligent or notable to say about them. Iñárritu has made a career out of making those sort of films, but Audiard doesn't even have the visual/cinematic talent to reach that level of style-over-substance. I guess that would be "style on the same level of substance, which is at a low level overall." Can we call these guys "low tide" filmmakers? Although, I'm definitely going to check out A Prophet and hopefully it will be awesome. As I said, it looks interesting on the surface of things and violent prison dramas are a hugely underrated genre. Remember Riot in Cell Block 11? Man, that movie was awesome. Hopefully in A Prophet, there's an escape plan that involves dynamite. Wait, a second - scratch all that, Hunger was a super-hyped art-y prison drama, so that genre is probably rated just about right. "Lonng, treacherous haul of delicate cargo"* movies and "hero ingests poison and has a limited amount of time to find his killer" thrillers remain my favorite underrated genres. "Famous artists biopic" and "Holocaust drama" remain, of course, the two most over-rated. Those movies are almost never good.

Anyhoo, back to TIFF. As I look over the schedule more and start to find out about the films I haven't heard of, I think it will be a good year. At very least, I'll have ample opportunity to see all of the high profile films - although, it looks like Vincere's only screening will be in conflict with our anti-festival break to watch the rag-tag Eagles take on Cajun sniper Jake Delhomme. I believe Mike Patterson is Fred Ward in that scenario. Vincere aside, we'll be able to catch all of the big ones if we do so desire or slag off The Road in favor of I am Not Your Friend. Friend is by the dude who made Hukkle and the other one where the guy eats a candle and ejaculates fire, so is that better or worse than watching someone eat a baby? A cursory glance doesn't reveal any tight spots where we might be forced into Jennifer's Body or Up in the Air - seriously, those two films being there makes it feel like the Juno tumor has metastasized. We can take a chance on Roaul Peck's first notable film since Lumumba or spend some time with the newest lovable weirdo turned up by American Movie's Chris Smith. And just to give you another head's up, there is a movie from a filmmaker named Neil Diamond, but it is not the famous one. Which caused the quickest excitement, confusion, shame cycle of my life. The Chris Rock documentary about black people's hair looks like it will win out in a dire slot. The toughest choice of the week seems to be between To's Vengeance and Egoyan's Chloe - tough if only because I have more interest in Chloe while Vengeance is clearly the better movie. But as I was saying earlier, you'll never get a big payout without doing some real gambling - let's hope this year, we have half as much luck as we did in 2008. If I'm putting money on Chloe, we'll need it...

Can we both agree that neither of us will ever see Sapphire: Adapted from a Novel by Precious, so long as we live? I'm willing to take a blood oath on this.

* "Watch out for the nitro!" flicks being the most common and enjoyable variation of this plot.

john:

Closing thoughts:

Southern Comfort is most definitely not a rag-tag squad movie. For one thing, those guys aren't actual soldiers: they're under-trained, over-excitable National Guardsmen who don't know what the fuck they're doing. Although they fit the description of a rag-tag bunch - the Franco-like hothead (Fred Ward), the valiant silent Bronson type (Powers Boothe), the Maggot-esque redneck who goes crazy (that guy who also happens to look exactly like Clint Walker's Posey) - and I'd love for there to be an actual rag-tag squad movie with a guy on point named "Cribbs," Comfort is more of a straight-up horror movie. Like a "what if the Dirty Dozen all survived then got picked off one by one by a bunch of feral, Jake Delhomme-ish Cajun trappers in the swamps of New Orleans?" kind of thing.

But moving on...having reviewed the schedule, I think the main question isn't "Is a Fatih Akin No Reservations-style coming going to be a disaster?" or even "Will everyone see through the hollow aesthetic of low tiders like Jacques Audiard?" Clearly, it is now "Enter the Void, Wild Grass or White Ribbon?" They're all occupying the same time slot (which luckily isn't Sunday the 13th at 1pm) and are only screening once, unlike the White Stripes documentary which I think screens three or four days of the festival. Another notable albeit less difficult quandary is the joint-screening of Dogtooth, Bright Star and Fish Tank. Besides those two the decisions aren't too bad. Ozon or Solondz? The Informant! or a movie not being released in the States one week later? And I will be chucking The Road in favor of Air Doll, which also means I'll have to miss the Bornedal movie. Funnily enough, the only movie that consistently pops up free of anything near its worth is White Material, which we are already lined up to see at the New York Film Festival...

Football also keeps us from the Romero movie, so I guess we'll have to wait and see whether it is a surprise pleaser or, more likely, another blood bath for the old boy.

Final prediction: I expect no 2008, but can't wait to catch the movies from Day One and, who knows?, maybe find another Stray Girlfriend in the process.

christopher:

That's all for now, folks. We'll have a review of the festival at the end of next week and, if all goes according to plan, we'll put up some daily updates while we're actually in Toronto. Very. Thrilling. I'll be sure to let everyone know how Jennifer's Body is as soon as I see it.

<<Previous Page 1 2 Next Page>>

home about contact us featured writings years in review film productions