text:
Posts from the Sexuality Category
The Meta-Film Eats Itself or Thoughts On Joe Swanberg's Full Moon Trilogy
I really do not care for the term "Mumblecore." This term feels like an insult to the films and artists who have emerged within this assigned "genre." Labels are always problematic. But we humans love to categorize and label. Admittedly I am the first to reject a label assigned to me and often the first to assign one. I do like things to be organized. So just in case you are unaware I will provide definitions and examples for two terms.
The heart and soul gets investigated, critiqued and exposed in Joe Swanberg's mumblecore Full Moon Trilogy.
JOE SWANBERG: COLLECTED FILMS 2011
DVD Box Set from
http://www.factorytwentyfive.com/joe-swanberg-collected-films-2/
Mumblecore refers to a subgenre of low-budget independent film in which focus is placed on dialogue over traditional plot. Mumblecore films utilize naturalism which is not only limited to dialogue and performance but usually extends to the manner in which production is executed. The concept of plot takes on a sort of organic or even seemingly accidental and it usually revolves around relationship issues clouded by the characters' inability to articulate individual emotions or the lack of understanding individualistic identities. I have always felt this fairly new subgenre is really an extension of the early La Nouvelle Vague films that come out of France as the 20th Century began to move into the 1960's. The style of the French New Wave was often less about choice as it was about limited budgets. No matter the intention, this wave of film ushered in whole new manners of speech within cinematic language. Mumblecore has also played a huge influence into the mainstream of film and television.
He may have directed it, but Frances Ha ties itself to both Mumblecore and The French New Wave with ease. And it reached a very large audience.
Noah Baumbach, 2012
Cinematography | Sam Levy
As an example of Mumblecore I offer a film made long before the idea of Mumblecore existed: Eric Rohmer's Pauline at the Beach (1983) – A highly acclaimed film running for 90 minutes about little more than three irresponsible adults confused about what love is and how to secure it. In this quietly brilliant film, there is no real plot. The dialogue feels improvised. It is the teenage title character who seems to have even a remote understanding of love and life. The film has no visual style. It is slowly paced. But when Pauline leaves and the credits begin to roll an unexpected punch has been delivered. Kentucker Audley's Team Picture (2007) Andrew Bujalski's Beeswax (2009) Dustin Guy Defa's Bad Fever (2012) and Lynn Shelton's Humpday all lead the audience to similar melancholy conclusions.
Feodor Atkine and Arielle Dombasle have very different ideas related to "love"
Pauline at the Beach
Eric Rohmer, 1983
Cinematography | Nestor Almendros
Meta-Film is also often called Metacinema and it is used to describe films that are either about the filmmaking process, business or movies that dare to break the fourth wall or even present a film within a film. The concept of the Meta-Film is directly related to the literary device of Metafiction. Examples of Meta-Films are Annie Hall, Adaptation, Fight Club, Sunset Blvd, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Synecdoche, New York and Mulholland Drive. As you will note the genre, tone and intention of the Meta-Film unlimited. My personal favorite example of the MetaFilm is Francois Truffaut's acclaimed Day for Night (1973)
"Making a film is like a stagecoach ride in the old west. When you start, you are hoping for a pleasant trip. By the halfway point, you just hope to survive."
Francois Truffaut, 1973
Cinematography | Pierre-William Glenn
While this film is most certainly dated, it is still very much alive. Truffaut is clearly playing a version of himself as he tries to make a movie while dealing with the many little dramas of his actors and crew threaten to throw the whole production down the drain. What I really love about Day for Night is its total lack of cynicism. Despite all of the troubles the director encounters, there is a love not only for each of the actors playing characters — this movie's main intention is to serve as a shout out of love for movies and movie making. Day for Night refuses to commit to realism, surrealism or even satire. This quirky little 1970's movie brims over with the sort of magic that only a film can provide.
FUNNY HA HA, British poster art, Kate Dollenmayer (top left), Myles Paige (top center), William Westfall (hat), Christian Rudder (center), 2002. ©Goodbye Cruel Releasing
I may not like the label / term of Mumblecore, but I have been an advocate of this group of Film Artists from the beginning. There are some very interesting aspects of this subgenre of Independent Film:
A simultaneous blending of cinematic auteur theory and active collaboration
The development of an artistic community and a loosely formed Acting / Filmmaking Troupe
Continuous exploration of identity
A unique shape of narrative structure
A consistent feeling of a unity between projects no matter how different they might be
As with any labeled genre, there are certain artists who interest me more than others. Among them are Kelly Reichardt, The Duplass Brothers, Kentucker Audley, Josephine Decker, Rick Alverson, Lynn Shelton, Todd Rohal, Amy Seimetz and Michael Tully. It is essential to note that the term "Mumblecore" literally fails when held up to much of what these filmmakers do. Then again I've never gotten any sense that these artists worry about coloring outside the lines. Kelly Reichardt's work is transformative. Rick Alverson's films always contain a mix of societal criticism interlacing with absurdist or surrealist humor. His most recent film, Entertainment, is dark surreal vision of an artist pushed to the edge of sanity.
Look it, God will you fuck you up!
The Catechism Cataclysm
Todd Rohal, 2011
Cinematography | Benjamin Kasulke
Michael Tully's films are always surprising. Each of his films takes the audience to very different places. It is almost impossible to even provide a brief synopsis for his strange breath-taker, Septien. Todd Rohal's work is always hinged uncomfortably with the Surreal or Absurdist — yet every film he makes manages to resonate. The Catechism Cataclysm, anyone? Amy Seimetz has actually only made one feature length film. However Sun Don't Shine is so damned brilliant I keep waiting to see when she will make another. Jay and Mark Duplass and Lynn Shelton have already moved the genre into the mainstream without any sense of actually buying into full-on commercialization of what they do. HBO's recent decision to cancel The Duplass' Togetherness left a great many upset. Togetherness was the perfect artistic alternative to Lena Dunham's Girls. The decision to cancel Togetherness will haunt HBO. Girls is a game-changer, but Togetherness was the intelligent result.
Kentucker Audley and Kate Lyn Sheil have good hearts, but they do very bad things.
Sun Don't Shine
Amy Seimetz, 2012
Cinematography | Jay Keitel
Josephine Decker's work is perhaps the most resoundingly unique of the Mumblecore Wave. Both Butter On The Latch and Thou Wast Mild and Lovely lead the audience into worlds that only seem familiar. Decker presents both stories with beauty and devastating horror. Each film is tied closely to the ways in which Ashley Connor finds to lens the director's ideas. Decker's work might have a connection to a Lynchian-like viewpoint, but there is something completely new found in both of these films. Each is blessed with a female voice that refuses to be restricted by societal norms or political correctness. That folk song might sound pretty and that barn may appear lovely, but Decker pushes us to the conclusion that both have been reconstructed to hide something far more sinister. Decker's last two films deviate so far from what is considered Mumblecore that I almost hesitate to list her here. However her work is already deeply entrenched in the Mumblecore artistic troupe I do not see how I can leave her out. In truth, her most recent films seem to align closer to Shane Carruth's work.
Everything learned by tending to the farm. And everything is offering surprises…
Sophie Traub and Robert Longstreet
Thou Wast Mild and Lovely
Josephine Decker, 2014
Cinematography | Ashley Connor
Of these mentioned, Kentucker Audley is the artist who remains triumphantly grounded in a unique vision that so far has remained stridently Mumblecore. Ambitious and determined, Audley always seems to find a way to continue his cinematic explorations. In the process he has established himself as a solid leading man. As an actor, he is really only challenged by Robert Longstreet. As competent in front of the camera as behind it, this is a filmmaker who will continue to thrive.
This makes De Niro's "Rupert Pupkin" look safe and sane…
Kentucker Audley at the mic
Dustin Guy Defa, 2011
Cinematography | Mike Gioulakis
But there is another member of the Mumblecore Wave who is riding it with a conviction and an artistic slant that is ever-growing, expanding and convulsing ideas that seem to evolve with each of his cinematic projects. If we are to buy-into the concept of The Auteur, then we must be able to somehow chart a key thread in the work. Most importantly, the audience should be able to notice a growth from that core thread toward increasing achievement. Art is all too subjective and no artist is ever going to be able to make every step perfect. This is not what I mean when I write "increasing achievement." The auteur filmmaker is by his/her own formation will not allow their work to fall prey to commercial interests or film criticism. The auteur will create the art no matter where it may lead him/her …or his / her audience.
A film can satisfy the mainstream without killing the intent.
Olivia Wilde and Jake Johnson
Drinking Buddies
Joe Swanberg, 2013
Cinematography | Ben Richardson
Joe Swanberg is most definitively an Autuer. And if you doubt a progression in his work you only need check out the films he released in 2011. Joe Swanberg directed 6 films released in 2011. All 6 are of interest and merit, but 3 form a trilogy that I strongly recommend. I've always referred to these 3 films as Swanberg's Full Moon Trilogy. This trilogy not only captures the pursuit of the filmmaker, it shines a fascinating light on the art of filmmaking and psychological puzzle that Meta-Film can create. I am not certain if this is the correct way to refer to them, but for this essay I am going to use the Full Moon label.
Silver Bullets was not the first film Swanberg released in 2011. His first film of that year was Uncle Kent. An established storyboard director / writer for such animated hits as SpongeBob SquarePants as well as a longtime member of the Mumblecore Artistic Troupe, Kent Osborne takes the title role. As "Uncle Kent" he is essentially playing a variation of himself. As is often the case in Swanberg's films, it is almost impossible to know how much of what we see is based on truth or complete fiction. There is an uneasy feeling that Uncle Kent is serving as a sort of fuzzy staged re-enactment from Osborne's private life. The acting is that believable. It may not be the case, but this film gives the impression that we are seeing a slanted manipulation of Osborne's own life.
Reality, identity and situations merge with fiction. Or is it the other way around?
Cinematography | Joe Swanberg
It is an interesting and often voyeuristic proposition. It often feels like we are seeing something that we should not be allowed to see. Kent has a successful and seemingly profitable career as an animator, but he is getting older and is lonely. Part of that loneliness reveals itself to be a product of Kent's inability to fully grasp hold of maturity and the soon to arrive mid-life crisis. He does not seem to relate or even know anyone his own age. His co-worker is a good decade younger and while he has a nice home it is furnished like a college student dwelling. It would appear that Kent spends most of his free time surfing the Internet and playing the hyper-sexualized Chatroulette. Watching these random online interactions is both fascinating and uncomfortable. When he meets Jennifer Prediger's Kate on the site the two make the rather strange choice to not only meet up, but for her to visit and stay with him for a few days while she is in Los Angeles.
This extended adult sleepover sprouts increasingly uncomfortable moments of self-awareness. This is more than a man reluctantly facing the fact that he getting older. Our Uncle Kent is led to the realization that he no longer fits into the world he inhabits. The feeling that he might be missing out on something soon morphs into existential crisis. It is no longer enough to spend his days working on adult-oriented but infantile comedic cartoon, doodling, surfing the Internet, participating in Chatroulette, getting stoned, petting his cat and hoping against hope that a meaningless sexual encounter might lead to something resembling love. There is no resolution for Kent. We leave him stuck in a trap of his own making. There are no signs that he will be able to change the direction of his life, but there are no clear signs that he won't. Uncle Kent is a sweetly sour experimental film of mid-life awareness.
Uncle Kent's idea of sexual freedom and single life is not something to desire. The film is potent and surprisingly entertaining. There are laughs to be found, but there is a dark sea of tears floating just beneath the surface. Most importantly Swanberg creates a film filled with characters that confuse typical cinematic ideas of reality. Where does Uncle Kent's fiction end and truth begin? Or has it all been a fiction?
Artists struggle to keep their private relationships separate from the cinematic work with some dire consequences in the first film of The Full Moon Trilogy…
The first of what I believe is correctly called The Full Moon Trilogy came out not too long after Uncle Kent. Silver Bullets is a slow-burn experience into a meditation on the artist, the artistic process and the attempt to maintain relationships throughout. At first glance Silver Bullets appears to be firmly grounded in realism. While the film presents itself as realism, it really does not try to confuse reality with fiction. Even viewers coming to the film with little to no knowledge of Swanberg or Mumblecore will know they are seeing a narrative fictional film. Swanberg has managed to secure both established actors, Jane Adams and Larry Fessenden in supporting roles. They are clearly not playing versions of themselves beyond the fact that both characters are respected actors facing dwindling options as they grow older in a profession obsessed with youth.
But the idea of naturalism / realism is immediately challenged when we first see Kate Lyn Sheil's Claire. Framed in the left side of the screen she starts to produce animalistic howling and it is here that Swanberg inserts his title card. This is not a horror film, but it is established that is most likely a film is about the making of one. In fact, the horror filmmaker is played by Indie Horror King himself, Ti West. Claire has won the lead role as a female werewolf and West's Ben is her director. Her life partner is a filmmaker played by Joe Swanberg. Swanberg's character is named Ethan. He is also a filmmaker who appears to be very unhappy with a film he and Claire have been making. A film that is either so bad he will never release it or is still in a stage of incompletion. This is the third film that Silver Bullets may or may not be about.
Is the latex mask doing something more than cover the skin of its actor?
Kate Lyn Sheil
When an acting pal of Claire's arrives fairly unfreshly from Los Angeles, she presents her friendship with a bit of poison.
It is essential to note that the acting work in this film is very naturalistic and real. No wit or major drama. Communications are often muted and seem to oppose the actions the characters take. In a key scene, Claire's friend played Amy Seimetz offers a grim bit of advice. In her view, Claire has not yet had enough experience as a film actor. She advises her to go to Los Angeles and work her trade there. As Seimetz's character abruptly walks away to change her top because she "feels fat," she offers the observation that it is clear that Claire has not yet gained the required actor training because she still retains hope.
This advice and observation are delivered with sincerity. There is no intended irony or sarcasm. According to Charlie, the life of a working actor does not offer hope. It offers only disappointment and body issues. Yet there is an undertone to Amy Seimetz's delivery of the lines. (if they are delivered at all — note: it is hard to know if we are seeing something fully scripted or improvised under a rough guideline) It might just be that the friend wants to push Claire away from the business to avoid competition. It is never clear.
Taking aim.
Kate Lyn Sheil and Joe Swanberg
As Claire pursues her staring role in a horror film about a predatory female monster, her relationship with Ethan is placed in jeopardy. Her filmmaker boyfriend views her success with jealousy and his interest in her as his muse/leading lady seems to have vanished. Ethan is interested in pursuing Claire's friend from LA as his new leading lady. Meanwhile back on the horror movie set, it is clear that Claire is becoming dependent upon Ben's attention to help her be successful as his horror film leading lady. There is confusion both on and projecting from the screen about the identities of filmmakers. Is there a difference between serving as a leading lady and being a lover? Does one supersede the other?
Is this a role or a new development in identity and all that relate to it?
This is an experimental film about art and those who create it — and the impact it can have on their lives. It works. As Silver Bullets moves to it's conclusion disorientation creeps over the entire film. Just when we feel fairly positive we are seeing a fictional narrative film rooted in realism and naturalism, Swanberg pulls the rug from beneath our feet. In a disturbing mix of realism, surrealism and possibly footage from another movie — the audience is left with the conundrum of sorting out the film we thought we were watching from the two others films we know the characters are making. But there is an added idea of psychological horror lurking and bubbling over in true horror film style.
Silver Bullets is a Meta-Film that presents a film within a film within a film and it never fully commits on which film(s) the characters are in during which scenes.
Are these the tears of a broken heart or those of an actor ready for her close-up?
It is not a frustrating result. The film satisfies and when a prologue arrives some questions are answered. But before Swanberg fades his screen to black he tosses a new idea out to the audience — Is Ethan a variation of Joe Swanberg?
The second film in The Full Moon Trilogy is Art History. This is about the making of a movie. That movie appears to be about an extended sexual encounter that becomes an intimate interaction beyond the sexual. Swanberg once again casts himself as a filmmaker directing a movie. While he is playing a character with a different name than his own, he plays it exactly like he played Ethan in the previous film. An unsatisfied and uninspired filmmaker who struggles with his private life as much as with his artistic calling. For Art History he has cast both Adam Wingard and his real-life wife and real-life filmmaker, Kris Swanberg. Wingard is clearly playing himself. He is given no name in the movie, but he is not only playing a cinematographer — he is also serving as Art History's co-cinematographer. Kris Swanberg's role in the production is not articulated, though we know she is pregnant and we are given hints that she is involved with the film director. The two actors are played by Kent Osborne (who is given a different character name, but still seems just like Uncle Kent) and Josephine Decker.
What is going on here?!?! The concept of Meta-Film truly becomes impossible.
The puzzle of this Meta-Film begins immediately when the first thing we see is a graphic scene of sexuality. A close-up of Kent Osborne's penis and Josephine Decker attempting to cover it with a condom. The only clue that this may all be fiction is that Osborne's penis is not erect. In addition, as Decker mount and grinds, the positioning and POV seem slightly off for the camera to be filming unstimulated sex. Soon enough Joe Swanberg's character stops the filming for a quick "re-group" on the scene. None of this is presented in an erotic way. This is almost anti-erotic.
Perhaps more than any other Swanberg film, Art History looks truly ugly, unframed and clunky. The acting is first rate and firmly grounded in realism. Both Osborne and Decker seem to be doing their best to become comfortable with each other. But wait, was that re-grouping to help Osborne relax so that he can achieve an erection? Is the sex meant to be unstimulated? The conversing is painfully realistic as are the mutually awkward attempts at touching each other to both stimulate and relax. So, wait. Is this acting? We think it is. Or, hold up. Are these two actors actually involved. Decker seems to be playing the same character who showed up for a three-way with Uncle Kent and Kate in the other movie. Did they develop a relationship during that shoot and this is continuing as an idea for a movie? Where does the film within a film end/begin?
Although working with another actor, director and crew member — Juliette is clearly feeling alone and more than a little lost. What is the point of bothering with the sheet?
Cinematography | Adam Wingard & Joe Swanberg
Swanberg's character may be called Sam, but he sure seems like the Joe Swanberg I've seen chatting in interviews. As Osborne and Deckers' characters seem to be warming to each other, Sam becomes jealous. Later it is clear he is developing sexual feelings for Decker's character. And it looks like Decker is asking Kris Swanberg for relationship advice when it comes down to meeting someone in this sort of circumstance. The video stock looks different. Is this off someone's cellphone? Was that Decker as Juliette asking Kris Swanberg's character a question? Or was that Decker and Swanberg having a private huddle that has been edited into the film?
At what point are we in a movie within a movie or possibly a document of the whole process.
Kent Osborne and Josephine Decker
Cinematography | Adam Wingard and Joe Swanberg
One could almost accuse Swanberg of No Wave style or having absolutely no style to his filmmaking. In Art History, the absence of style actually begins to feel stylized. Interestingly, Art History contains several of the most stunning shots Swanberg has ever captured. A carefully lit in limited POV we see a swimming pool in which the two actors and director swim nude to relax. These shots serve as pause notations for the film itself. And these brief and artistically sensual shots are completely cinematic. The line between reality and fiction is blurred, but there is a lingering feeling that we are just watching a movie within a movie.
Wait a second. Who is actually swimming nude in that pool? Are these the two actors and one director or are they the three characters? Is this a movie within a movie and a documentary of both all edited together? Is there a difference?
A beautifully sensual shot.
The beautiful set-up of the swimming pool serves as the place for the film's final scene. Art History's ending raises a whole new level of psychological game play for the viewer. Were the pool shots artistically set or just the blind luck of light and a perfectly placed surveillance camera? Either way, was the final scene real or scripted rage? Did we just see documented rage? When were Kent Osborne and Josephine Decker acting? Were they ever filmed as themselves? Are they consistently acting throughout? Without knowing the artists involved it is impossible to fully know.
Unable to sleep…
This is the magic of Art History as a Meta-Film. This is also the cinematic moment when no one can deny Joe Swanberg's talent as a filmmaker. The expression of intimacy is a tricky business for any actor, but within Art History, this challenge seems to be creating a view from almost every angle. There again, maybe it doesn't. No matter the answer, Art History fully demonstrates an ever growing thread started in Silver Bullets as well as a growing maturity in filming. However Swanberg's strangest artistic turn is delivered in the final film of The Full Moon Trilogy.
Fictional and Real in their private bedroom, these two actors and fellow filmmakers ponder questions of art, identity and consequence…
Sophia Takal and Lawrence Michael Levine
The Zone is the final third film of the trilogy. The first half of this movie plays like a low-rent take on Pasolini's "Teorema." Kentucker Audley is the mysterious visitor who is initially introduced as Kate Lyn Sheil's moody lover. At first it is not clear he is a mystery guest in the house. This understanding is gained when he seduces a more than willing Sophia Takal. Swanberg films the first sexual encounter in a somewhat non-erotic way. While there are many nude shots of the beautiful Kate Lyn Sheil, they do not seem overtly sensual. She and Audley play a strange game which leads to sex, but the whole exchange lacks lust or desire. Both actors appear to be a little bored.
However when it turns out that Sophia Tikal is more than willing to fool around with Kentucker Audley's character, the tone of their sexual interaction is filmed in a different way. They, too, play a game. The difference is that both characters use the game as a form of flirtation. This sexual intimacy is filmed with a casual sort of lo-fi eroticism. Graphic and interplaying the use of a quilt which highlights gestures of body movements. It is a simple idea, but effective. This sexual encounter is erotic.
When Takal's real life fiancé arrives home from some sort of sporting event, Kentucker Audley's character is seated seductively without a shirt. He sips a beer bottle and follows Lawrence Michael Levine into the bathroom where he films Levine's character taking a shower. Before long it becomes obvious that Audley's character is putting the moves on Sophia's soon-to-be-husband. As both remove their pants and the nude Audley walks toward the nude Levine — their images become digitally "ghosted." We can see through both men. As Audley bends to his knees to pleasure Levine, one can't help but wonder if the previous realistic film is taking a turn for the surreal. Is this a sexual fantasy or daydream? If it is, to whom does it belong?
Lawrence Michael Levine and Kentucker Audley get ghosted…
At this point Swanberg gives the audience a surprising turn. Suddenly this film becomes an unfinished production with Swanberg, Adam Wingard, Dustin Guy Defa, Kate Lyn Sheil, Sophia Tikal and Lawrence Michael Levine all watching the film we've just seen on Swanberg's laptop. It would appear that the actors are no longer acting. The director is no longer directing. And the co-cinematographer is no longer filming. All five artists begin to critique the film, their work and question the validity of moving forward with the production.
We are to understand that Kentucker Audley has already left and not coming back. His part in the film was finished. One of the actors questions Swanberg's choice of filming each seduction. All find it problematic that the Kat Lyn and Sophia sex scenes are filmed for long durations without clothing while Lawrence is barely given any nude or sex time. There are also concerns voiced about Swanberg's choice to not show much of the homosexual encounter and that he has treated it as if it might not have even happened.
Can a happy marriage of two actors handle the sexual confusion of roles?
We come to realize two factors of The Zone that are presented in a rather casual ways: Swanberg is filming in the actual home that Sophia and Lawrence share with Kate Lyn. Thus another layer of fiction has been merged with reality. Acting is difficult, but it is even more challenging when the cameras are right up near the face. These are all very talented actors. Finding ways to make sexual intimacy and simulated sex look and appear real is not at all easy. It takes a large emotional toil and can often be more than a little confusing for the actors — even more so if they rely on Method Acting. To simulate sex in their own private house, bathroom, bedrooms and living room would not be any easy feat. Yet all four actors do it very well.
The second factor is revealed in such a flippant and casual manner that I'm not sure I noticed it when I first saw this movie several years back — All four artists discuss Kentucker Audley's participation in Swanberg's film as if he had been playing himself. They begin to compare and discuss Audley's manner and his way of moving into a love scene. Later Michael Lawrence Levin bravely secures an on-screen erection in an attempt to recreate what Swanberg had failed to film with he and Kentucker. At this point the director and the two soon-to-be-married actors try to think of what Kentucker would have done and/or wanted. It is already been made clear that neither Audley or Levine have any interest in homosexual sex, yet that idea that these actors may not really be acting in any traditional sense.
When the four discuss filming a three-way simulated sex scene, the actors speak as if they are really going to be engaging in three-way sex. They do not appear to be talking about acting. They appear to be talking about sharing the sexual experience. Is this a tease of the of the film or do they plan to have full-on sex? Meanwhile, Swanberg shares his fears and concerns about forcing the actors to film something. They assure him that they are participating of their own free will and want to make the best film possible. Swanberg discusses how "certain past filmed scenes" in other films have caused some major hurt and anger. The mind immediately springs back to the closing moments of Art History. As the film within a film continues to challenge its own concept a surprising thing happens while Swanberg films a new scene. The occurrence is unexpected and looks very real. It sounds very real. The panic, rage, hurt and fear do not seem like acting.
Lawrence Michael Levine and Kentucker Audley
When can know we are seeing these five artists acting and when can we know that what we are seeing is an actual documentation of The Zone's behind the scenes filming?
We can't.
But then, Swanberg does something I've never seen a filmmaker do — Already having totally disoriented the cast as well as the audience in the ability to understand fictional truth vs. reality truth. Already having inverted the idea of identity beyond recognition — and without warning, The Zone totally implodes upon itself.
We find ourselves in Joe and Kris Swanbergs' living room. There they are sitting with their newly born baby. Kris is offering Joe criticism of The Zone. She begins to push him to explain what it is he was after. She comments that she has no idea if what she has seen was real. She questions the unexpected moment within the movie as not being valid. Now his wife is questioning the validity of reality vs. fiction. Neither the filmmaker or his filmmaker wife like the movie he had made.
Is this really a film within the film or has it been planned. Does reality fit into this realism?
Kate Lyn Sheil, Dustin Guy Defa, Adam Wingard, Sophia Takal, Lawrence Michael Levine and Joe Swanberg
We reach a true Meta-Film Trip Out when Kris Swanberg notes that Joe has made movie within a movie in which he is questioning his motivations regarding a film within another film that unfolds to another film in which he is still complaining about all of the films — none of which has been fully produced. This is a psychological trap. It could even be called a mind fuck. Swanberg laments he may have reached a dead-end. It is a profoundly disorienting scene. Especially when you take into account that this final Meta-Film Twist may have been scripted.
While watching the final moments of The Zone I can't help but wonder if we were really seeing the Swanberg living room. Is it a set? What's up with the odd blue light emitting from the gap in the curtains? How is a couple with a baby able to live in such a minimal room?
In the end Joe Swanberg's Full Moon Trilogy is a brilliant success. One does not need to see all three in sequential order. All three films function independent of one another. But when you see Silver Bullets, Art History and The Zone together you not only see the thread and Swanberg's progressing evolvement as an Autuer Filmmaker — the viewer experiences is a rewarding and interesting flow of cinematic ideas. These three films offer a thoroughly unique take on human psychology and the impact of fluidly mixing realism with fiction so deeply leads you into a sort of labyrinth.
Is that a real gun?
Cinematography |
If you've not seen Joe Swanberg's Full Moon Trilogy and would like to check it out:
The DVD Box Set is available from Factory 25
Swanberg Full Moon Trilogy
Or you can rent or purchase all three from Vimeo
Swanberg at Vimeo
If you are a member of Fandor, all three films are currently streaming as of April, 2016
@ Fandor
Matty Stanfield, 4.7.16
Adam Wingard
All The Light In The Sky
Amy Seimetz
Andrew Bujalski
Ashley Connor
Ben Richardson
Cinematic Disorientation
Film Community
Film Style
Funny HaHa
Graphic Sexuality
Identity Confusion
Jane Adams
Jay Duplass
Jay Keitel
Kris Swanberg
Lawrence Michael Levine
Lynn Shelton
Meta Film Eats Itself
Meta-Film Puzzle
Metacinema
Mumblecore Acting Troupe
Mumblecore Wave
No Style
Noah Baumbach
Non-Erotica
Psychological Dynamic
Robert Longstreet
Sam Levy
Sophia Takal
Sophie Traub
Ti West
Todd Rohal
April 8th by Matty Stanfield in	American Film Art History Communication Day for Night Experimental Film Factory 25 Film Film Art Film Artists Film Theory Full Moon Trilogy Human Psychology Identity Independent Film Joe Swanberg Low Budget Film Meta-Film mumblecore Naturalism Sexuality Silver Bullets The Zone
Editing To Mimic The Mind's Eye Vision
At this moment, it was still very much style over substance. But this would soon change.
Donald Cammell / Nicolas Roeg, 1970
Cinematography | Nicolas Roeg
Having the opportunity to interview or chat with a filmmaker is always interesting, but once in a while it can be somewhat magical. From time to time a highly respected and successful film artist manages to escape the limitations of celebrity. Not all celebrated filmmakers live in bubbles.
And while it often feels a thing of the past, there are still filmmakers who are more concerned with filmmaking as an art form than as the opportunity for the wealth of a franchise. No artist desires creating work that fails to connect with an audience, but there are some who are far more concerned with a personal vision than worrying about selling tickets. While this can create limitations for the filmmaker, it also presents a great level of freedom.
BBC Arena Portrait
Photograph | David Thompson, 2015
One such filmmaker is Nicolas Cage. If you've ever watched or read an interview with eccentric auteur you will be aware that his style of conversing is at once intellectual and rather free-form. His style of discussing his work, history and ideas often ramble, but they never miss their mark.
If you've ever had the pleasure of listening to Nicolas Roeg speak, you will note a highly intelligent and genuine man. It is impossible to miss the fact that he is so filled with ideas that he tends talk in meandering and circular logic sentences. Last year, after overcoming more than a few challenges, The Criterion Collection re-mastered and re-issued Don't Look Now. It features a discussion filmed in 2003 at London's Ciné Lumière. It is an entertaining discussion and fully captures the way in which Roeg communicates. More importantly, it lets us see how he thinks and more than a little insight into how he makes films. He has always stretched cinematography and film editing to the limits to mimic the ways the human mind works. It may not always appear logical if we can slow down long enough to notice the jumbled order of our thoughts, but we are able to connect the dots of our odd assortment of ideas to lead us to the ways in which we operate.
If there is one element that shines through when listening to Mr. Roeg is the constant desire to find ways for film to connect with the human brain. When he made his debut as a film director it was a collaboration with writer/director, Donald Cammell.
There is a great deal more going on behind James Fox's "Johnny's" violent actions than simple thuggery.
That debut film was Performance. Essentially a thriller in which a thug makes the mistake of hiding out in the home of rock star and his two groupies. The "thrill" aspect of the film takes a long fall as the film quickly evolves into a surrealistic study of a drug-fueled, hallucinogenic trip into identity. The film remains firmly seated as a dated but groundbreaking film of its time featuring Mick Jagger playing the odd rock star who pulls James Fox into a great deal more than his own isolated world.
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
There only appears to be no rules…
It is an iconic film. It is also offers a key insight into what would soon become Nic Roeg's life long pursuit toward a whole new kind of cinematic language. The idea of filming and editing a film to reflect the inner-workings of the human mind is forming. As Performance was a collaborative effort and firmly rooted in the culture of late 1960's Swinging London world of fashion, rock and drugs — the uses of this idea never fully form. Instead the film often employs stylistic choices of jittery fast cuts and odd perspectives that are as ornamental as they are meaningful. Even still Roeg's approach human thought as a method of plot projection is there.
Even the smallest creatures fight to survive. A picnic in the outback turns into a journey of cruel awakening, self-discovery and survival. A Cinematographer becomes an Auteur.
Nicolas Roeg, 1971
Nicolas Roeg's true directorial debut is filled with ideas and unique perceptions. A brother and sister escape the insanity of their troubled father to find themselves in the wilds of The Australian Outback. The title of the film comes from the Aboriginal concept of a male's journey to adulthood. And with the assistance of a young man in the middle of his tribal ritual "walkabout" — the siblings journey through adversity and mystery toward their own adulthood.
What constantly threatens danger springs forward into a celebration of life's possibilities…
Along the way cultural differences cause confusion and alarm. It is a film about survival thanks to human kindness. But more than anything it is a startling view of how racism and cultural differences are so engrained, no amount of human kindness can make them go away. Roeg's camera captures reality through a sort of surrealistic lens. The careful use of Antony Gibbs and Alan Pattillos' editing allow us to view the realities and revelations from the perspective of two young adults and a child. It is here that we get a glimpse of identity perspective through the way the characters' minds take in and view individual perceptions of experience.
A beautiful and tragic experimental film about both the strengths and flaws of the human condition. Another idea is put forward that hints that as our society applies more and more pressures, the concept of a walkabout could become a new sort of ritual for human beings contained within a society that only appears to offer safety and protection.
A young man takes a look at the land of his future and a shot becomes an iconic image.
When one watches Roeg's 1980's Bad Timing, a story of lust turned to obsession that not only pushes both individuals to the limits — it pulls one of them into the darkest corners of insanity. Bad Timing is graphic in the use of nudity, but the story it tells is not all that unusual. What makes this film standout as a work of cinematic art is the blending and discordant use of plot points into a fluid labyrinthine of perspectives that is often almost impossible to follow. The concept of flashback story-telling takes an almost hysterical detour into uncharted territories.
What often feels like a murder mystery is really far more complex in what it attempts to do. Bad Timing dares to toss a number of film genres our way, but the goal here is not suspense or even mystery. This film charts the deterioration of both the human mind and psyche after the requirements of desire, lust and sexual obsession have overtaken the rational.
"I'll be dead in a minute; just wanted to say good-bye."
Who is in control? Who is being seduced? And in what order are these experiences happening?
Art Garfunkel / Theresa Russell
Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond
Tony Lawson's editing of Anthony B. Richmond's oddly framed cinematography shifts the viewer perspective into a strange flow that is challenging to grasp. The majority of film critics and audiences at the time tended to dismiss the film. Art Garfunkel's low-key performance mixing with Harvey Keitel's intensity and Theresa Russell's unhinged demonstration of carnal obsession often feels like a cinematic experiment with celluloid as rubber band. Bad Timing was so strange at the time it was released that it would take a good decade before it would be reconsidered and re-evaluated for the exceptional film it is. This film remains strange and refuses to give in.
"You tell the truth about a lie so beautifully." Art Garfunkel / Theresa Russell Bad Timing Nicolas Roeg, 1980 Cinematography | Anthony B. Richmond
Don't Look Now takes us to a Venice steeped in decay, sadness and uncertain dangers. We are led through a series of seemingly endless loop of dark tunnels. We pass over aged bridges in a fog of mystery. Hope can become deadly. Grief can become a release. Like life, nothing is at it appears. Constantly shifting back and forth in time which only becomes obvious upon a second screening. Everything is viewed with disconnected logic and paranormal hindsight. There is a constant confusion of "real-time" with conscious and subconscious perceptions. An unrelenting sense of déjà vu that our protagonist refuses to own or fully evaluate.
Nothing is what it appears…
Don't Look Now
A cinematic masterwork that captures a young couple trying to re-connect and support each other in order to survive the worst experience life can offer. It is a truly horrific film that somehow manages to be both beautiful and hauntingly sad. This is a surreal horror film about love, guilt, connections and grief.
"This one who's blind. She's the one that can see."
This controversial 1973 film remains Roeg's most successful film. Don't Look Now is perhaps the best example of how Nicolas Roeg's films work.
These films are about a whole lot more than seeing — these films are about how we think.
Brian Smedley-Aston
Mick Jaggar
February 8th by Matty Stanfield in	Anthony B. Richmond Antony Gibbs Art House Cinema Bad Timing British Film Cinematic Arts Cinematic Imprint Cinematic Intent Cinematic Journey Cinematic Language Cinematic Masterpiece Cinematic Style Cinematography Cinephile Criterion Collection Cult Film Cultural Commentary Cultural Memory Don't Look Now Dream Logic Dreams Eroticism Existentialism Experimental Cinema Experimental Film Film Film Acting Film Actors Film Art Film Artists Film Criticsm Film Directors Film Editing Film Evaluation Film Theory Graeme Clifford Human Psyche Human Thought Identity Independent Film Influential Cinema Intellectualism Matty Stanfield Nicolas Roeg Provocative Film Psychology Psychotronic Sexuality Subliminal Editing Surrealism The Criterion Collection The Man Who Fell To Earth Tony Lawson Truth Walkabout
Male Cinematic Perspective of Female Psychology or What It Feels Like For A Girl
There was once a time when Madonna presented ideas far deeper than that of "Pop Star." While those days seem to have past, many of the ideas she presented and asserted remain.
Lucky for us a female film artist adapted Phoebe Gloeckner's insightful novel for the screen.
Kristen Wiig / Bel Powley / Alexander Skarsgård
The Diary of a Teenage Girl
Marielle Heller, 2015
Photograph | Sam Emerson
One of the last times I recall finding myself thinking about something she co-created was her 2000 single:
"Skin that shows in patches.
Strong inside but you don't know it.
Good little girls they never show it.
When you open up your mouth to speak, could you be a little weak?
Do you know what it feels like for a girl?
Do you know what it feels like in this world…" — Madonna
Aside from being catchy, this pop song did elevate itself more than a little by what it had to say about the ever-mounting challenges and societal/cultural indifference and injustices perpetuated against and projected upon the idea of female identity. Sadly, the iconic superstar chose to have her then filmmaker husband create the song's vid-clip. The video for this song was crass and violent for reasons of shock-value vs. offering any level of content truly relevant toward a song that seemed tied to a young woman attempting to indicate the cruel patriarchal views to a young male. A missed opportunity to say the least.
Marguerite Duras' novel about a young woman's sexual awakening received a very male-eroticized translation from Jean-Jacques Annard.
Jane March / Tony Ka Fai Leung
Jean-Jacques Annard, 1992
Cinematography | Robert Fraisse
It has taken a tragic and centuries long tyranny for women to finally make significant strides in the areas of filmmaking. Such recently formed groups like The Alliance for Women in Media have smartly utilized social media to promote, promote and organize female film artists. While the idea of the female filmmaker is not at all new, the voices of these film artists that have managed to gain attention are painfully few. Those voices that have managed to obtain success have largely been built on celebrity [think Nora Ephron, Julie Delpy, Barbra Streisand, Penny Marshall, Elaine May, Susan Sideman, Anne Fontaine, Diane Keaton or Kathryn Bigelow] or controversial films that were either too scandalous or provocative [think Claire Denis, Lina Wertmüller, Patty Jenkins, Liliana Cavani, Lynne Ramsay, Mary Harron, Mia Hansen-Løve, Doris Dörrie or Catherine Breillat] to be ignored.
Note: this statement and the listed artists is not intended toward the quality of work or respective importance. However significant gains have been made in just the last ten years.
One of the most important historic moments in US history is captured by a female director.
Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King
Ava DuVernay, 2014
Cinematography | Bradford Young
As Film Art moves forward we will be given more opportunities to see female characters written and presented by women. It is interesting to experience the "knee-jerk" reaction of fellow cinephiles when I bring this up. It seems that the majority of people seem to feel it is not all that important or different to have a female vs. male filmmaker. From a technical proficiency standpoint it really does not make a difference. However, good luck at convincing most Big Money producers or film studios that there isn't. The shift in this perspective is resulting from peer and societal pressures. Sexism and Racism still run the show, but this might be changing. What interests me is seeing how a female filmmaker might be able to bring a more balanced depiction of female characters and their situations.
A great deal more than "a sex comedy" that the film's marketing team led us to believe.
Juno Temple & Kathryn Hahn deliver potent performances in a vastly under-rated film.
Jill Soloway, 2013
Cinematography | Jim Frohna
Would Ava DuVernay's Selma have been different if it had been made by a man? A white woman? I suspect so, but Selma was crafted with such a steadfast and sure handed — it is hard to say. Would Jill Soloway's under-appreciated Afternoon Delight have been different if it had been written/directed by a male filmmaker? I'd say most certainly so. Would Diary of a Teenage Girl have presented themes of sexuality and identity have been handled in a different manner by a male? Would Mia's frustrations, anger and sexual awakening been explored differently if a man had directed Andrea Arnold's screenplay for Fish Tank? I'd say most definitely. Or what if we stop and imagine what might have happened if Lynne Ramsay's husband, Rory Stewart Kenner, had directed their screenplay adaptation of Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk About Kevin? Would Michelle Williams' Margot had received a more typical level of exploration had Sarah Polley not written and directed Take This Waltz? Would a male director had handled Father of My Children in the same way that Mia Hansen-Løve so grimly caring as she was able?
Even brightly painted walls are unable to hide the challenges of a young woman coming of age within a council estate.
Katie Jarvis
Andrea Arnold, 2009
Cinematography | Robbie Ryan
If we think back to some of the more controversial European films of the past 50 years it brings up an even stronger concern. Imagine if Pier Paolo Pasolini had directed Liliana Cavani's The Night Porter? …A film that still makes both female and male audiences squirm some 40+ years after it was originally released. Try to imagine if Jacques Audiard had directed Claire Denis' White Material. Actually this might be the true exception to the rule. I do not think there are any filmmakers who think and film anywhere near to the manner in which Denis approaches her distinctive and intimate films.
An odd sort of buddy film morphs into something very different in the hands of this respected female film artist. And guess what? She secured one of the most interesting American cinematographers working — who happens to be a woman.
Joslyn Jensen / Kentucker Audley
FUNNY BUNNY
Alison Bagnall, 2015
Even so, just think what might have happened. A similar exception might rule for both Catherine Breillat and Josephine Decker — both of whom seem to have a very unique and intimate connection to their work. Decker's voice is still taking form and I think we are approaching an era where it will be allowed to do just that. The same did not happen for the likes of Claudia Weill and Elaine May. Two incredibly gifted artists who had the unluck of making a flop each. Male filmmakers can make a flop movie and move on, the same has not been true for women.
Sidney Pollack, Mike Nichols, Woody Allen and Gary Marshall would have simply shrugged and moved on to a new project. However all it took was one box office flop to bring Elaine May's directorial career to an abrupt end.
Dustin Hoffman / Warren Beatty
Elaine May, 1987
Cinematography |Vittorio Storaro
An even more vexing concern for female artists comes up when we do think of all the inaccuracies of treatment for male filmmakers vs. female directors. Men can misbehave. Does anyone out there think that a female artist would have been allowed to put a cast / crew through emotional tantrums thrown by David O. Russell during the making of I Heart Huckabees? You are living in a make believe reality if you do. You would also be in an equally confused reality if you think a male PEO could have gotten away with this behavior on a Hollywood set. Ironically, the artist who paid the price for Mr. Russell's bizarre behavior ended up being an innocent bystander. Unlike her co-stars, Isabelle Huppert and Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin refused to sit quietly while Russell blasted them with unprofessional rage-fueled insults.
I guess she should have known she had no right to defend herself and the crew against and unprofessional male director.
Dustin Hoffman / Lily Tomlin
I Heart Huckabees
David O. Russell, 2004
Cinematography | Peter Deming
It was as if the highly respected and skilled actress had made a grave error against Hollywood's Good 'Ol Boy Club when she dared to respond to her director's cruelty. Ms. Tomlin's film career suffered a great deal due because she was unwilling to sit passively and suffer the indignity of O'Russell's tyranny. This sad result of a YouTube leak has been little discussed. David O. Russell had already come to blows with George Clooney a few years earlier. Clooney seemed to earn "respect points" for standing up to the bullying. Tomlin did not fare as well. She was largely relegated to playing nightclub gigs. It would take more than a couple of years before she found worthy television / film prospects. Yet David O. Russell continued to excel up The Hollywood Food Chain despite not only his behavior but the box office fail of I Heart Huckabees.
An experimental, disturbing and fascinating independent film challenged all the rules of a male-dominated art form.
Robert Longstreet / Sophie Traub
However, I've gone way off point here. There are a slew of amazing films dealing with the psychology of women. Films that are rightly revered and studied. In no way would I want to discount these films, but it is interesting to think about them from the perspective that they were imagined, written and directed by men. Are these depictions any less valid because women were relegated to the role of "actor" vs. creator of these unforgettable cinematic masterpieces? It is an interesting talking point.
A woman plagued by a toxic world or muted oppression? A male director proves he can make films focused on women without error.
Todd Haynes, 1995
Cinematography | Alex Nepomniaschy
I was recently thinking of four films in particular. I don't pretend to know the full answer to this hind-sighted reflection. For starters I am not a filmmaker, but most importantly I am a white male. These films were made by professional filmmakers — all of whom were white men.
Millie aims for perfection within a man's nightmare…
Robert Altman, 1977
Cinematography | Charles Rosher Jr.
The first film that crosses my mind regarding this line of questioning is one of my personal favorite movies: Robert Altman's 3 Women. I'm not sure this is a good film to discuss in this vein as the entire film can be ascribed to dream-logic. Altman never made it a secret that the entire film was born of a personal nightmare. It is also no secret that this incredible examination of identity and surrealism was largely formed by the participation of all three actors in the title roles. This is most particularly true of Shelley Duvall.
The battle for identity…
Sissy Spacek / Shelley Duvall
Almost all of the film's trajectories emanate from Duvall's Millie's actions. Another aspect of this film that more or less eliminates it from this topic is the fact that the entire film does feel like a manifestation of male-based fears about women. This is not to say that 3 Women is not a fully potent vision of identity horror, but it does not actually seem to present itself entirely based female psychology. This wildly experimental dark comedy morphs into one of the more disturbing films you are likely to see. It is full of female energy, but it never feels as if it is trying to make a statement about anything other than these three very specific three female characters.
The second film I think of this respect is a more likely candidate for this type of analysis: John Cassavetes' A Woman Under the Influence. Experiencing a John Cassavetes film often leads the viewer to the mistaken idea that every aspect of what is being seen is an improvised experimental film. This is never the case.
John Cassavetes, 1974
Cassavetes was an articulate film writer as well as director. He had a very specific story to tell and he told it in his unique visionary way. Certainly not one to run from collaboration and open to ideas — he was nearly always set on how and what he wanted his films to say. He was blessed to share his life with one of the most important film actors to ever breathe, Gena Rowlands. However it is a major mistake to think that as Mabel, Rowlands was free-forming her dialog as she went along. It is both to her credit as an actor and her husband's credit as a filmmaker that it feels that way. Even Rowlands's Mabel odd and/or quirky hand gestures and ticks were already thought out in the filmmaker's head. Do a Google and you will find images of Cassavetes acting out the hand movements and gestures for Rowlands to incorporate into her performance. It is also somewhat crucial to remember that Cassavetes main interest in his film storytelling was the pursuit of love. Yet it would seem difficult for even this great filmmaker to not note that there was something removed from that going on here.
Seeking intimacy and human warmth, but only finding guilt and confusion.
A One Night Stand and Gena Rowlands
Cinematography | Al Ruban
A Woman Under the Influence works on all levels and remains a fascinating and deeply disturbing screen capture of a woman in full-tilt emotional breakdown. How or if she is full able to "heal" and return to life is more than a little ambiguous. What is clear in the film is that she is loved and loves, but this might not be enough for her to survive the life in which she has found herself. And this is one of the primary reasons this 1974 film continues to feel alive and real. The hair styles, the decor, the cars and clothing may all be dated — but the situations all feel profoundly current.
Mabel is not well. She is losing her grip on sanity. Something that the film never bluntly states but shows is that she is also deteriorating in imposed isolation, loneliness and suffocating within what begins to feel like a sort of familial pathology. The Longhetti Family is not well. The working-class husband / father is over-worked and seems more than a little under-educated. With the exception of a paycheck, he seems to leave all other responsibilities to his wife, Mabel. She is left alone with three children in a sort of lower-middle class hell.
"All of a sudden, I miss everyone…"
She loves and adores her children, but they are all she has in the way of connection to the world. She may or may not be a bit smarter than her husband, but it does not really matter. We can see that she is overwhelmed. We can also see that her husband hasn't a clue as to why or how to help her. He takes to what can only be described as domestic abuse toward his wife. He ultimately pulls his children into emotionally-damaging situations and allows indulgences into inappropriate behavior as a father. Mabel may not be a reliable parent, but she seems to be trying harder to set a better example than her husband. The 21st Century reaction to Peter Falk's Nick is to take offense and become angry. However his performance and the film itself is so stunningly human, it is almost impossible to dislike Nick. We know he cares and is simply lost. The resulting film is powerful, sad and oddly inspiring in that it offers us a bit of hope for this woman.
When film acting no longer feels like "fiction."
There was and will only ever be one John Cassavetes. A Woman Under the Influence is cinematic masterwork from every angle.
But have you ever wondered what this movie might have been like if a woman had directed it?
Would we be given a bit more information regarding those gestures or movements to understand the pressures of both the inner and outer worlds of Mabel? Would Nick have had more room to understand or even less? Would he have become a savior or more of a victimizer? When it comes to A Woman Under the Influence, one thing that was discussed when it was first released has come much more clearly to the forefront with the passage of time: there is an idea presented which is far less ambiguous today as was back in the 1970s. As viewers we do not really know if it is Mabel who is having the real problem here. Mabel appears to be more a victim of circumstance than one of mental illness. Is The Woman ill or is she simply a experiencing the logical result of a life so severely limited and oppressed? Perhaps it is Nick who really needs help. Mabel just might need to demand more freedom or walk away. Would the entire situation of this family be illuminated in a different way had it been in the hands of female filmmaker? Honestly, I'm not sure I really want to know…
The female psyche deconstructed…
Ingmar Bergman, 1966
The third and final film is also one of the greatest films ever made. Ingmar Bergman's Persona is a milestone work of art for more reasons than I'd be comfortable attempting to articulate. This largely experimental film is less about the core of Human Identity as it is about the twisted manipulation of identity by one of the two female characters. Bibi Andersson plays Alma. A young and inexperienced Psych Nurse assigned the task of caring for a highly respected stage and film actress played with equal mastery by Liv Ullmann. This is a Surrealist take on human cruelty and ideas of identity. It is also female-centric. Yet as much as it is concerned with female psychology, it is equally concerned with experimenting against the normal conventions of cinematic storytelling. Ingmar Bergman and his legendary cinematographer, Sven Nyqvist are both concerned with conveying ideas through image and editing even more than what the two actors present through performance and dialogue.
Too fragile to handle the world, so maybe she wants to try and manipulate it?
Cinematography | Sven Nykvist
We see both women react to their respective worlds and situations. Soon enough we see them react to each other. In uncomfortable silence as her patient has withdrawn from speech and human contact, Alma begins to find herself in the unique position in having a person of note who serves as her private audience. She begins to share her deepest and most intimate secrets to her Elisbet. One doesn't need a degree in psychology to realize that Liv Ullmann's character is somehow using her nurse for her own perverse needs and pleasures. We might think that it is the patient who is falling apart, but viewers quickly realize that the character who truly comes to the end of her mental and emotional rope is the nurse.
Silent prey or captive audience?
Liv Ullmann / Bibi Andersson
One of the splinters the film that makes is truly jolting, but it is never fully clear as to why. Was this always going to happen or has Ullmann's Elisabet pushing buttons and limits for her own sick gain? I suspect most of us would agree that this revolutionary bit of filmmaking is at least a partial off-spring from Freudian thought. In fact, it seems that Bergman was playing off Freud's idea of both primary and normal narcissism. Persona almost seems to be constructing itself off Freud's self-titled definitions of Demential Praecox and Paraphrenics (sp?) — Elisabet appears to an off-shoot example of Schizophrenia who is incapable of love or loving. Alma is the hysterical woman unable to escape the grasp of a sociopathic woman hellbent on ruining her. It would be irresponsible and lazy to dismiss Persona on sexist grounds as it comes from a very specific point in time and achieved a whole new sort of cinematic language. Persona is still a gut punch to the senses. In many ways, Ingmar Bergman's film remains ahead of time. However it is firmly grounded in the world of Art Horror or Psychological Thriller. It is not and can't be weakened by ideas that we now might deem as outmoded.
But it does beg a bit of examination regarding the ways in which Bergman crafted his two female characters? It is possibly unnecessary, but curious to wonder what a female film artist might have done with the ideas of female human beings in this situation. Would a female or a Feminist-perspective have changed this film for the different or better? Would Alma's memory of her sexual exploit be articulated differently? Would Elisabet's reactions and actions have been different? Would a sickly little boy reach out for the female faces or would he be replaced by a little girl? Would a female perspective lead us further than Bergman's conclusion?
Sharing secrets turns into a mentally dangerous act…
Would it all still break the film strip?
Perhaps of all male filmmakers, Ingmar Bergman was the most interested in female-centric movies. He is not alone. Paul Mazursky, Claude Chabrol, Jacques Demy, Woody Allen and David Lynch are just a few of the white male filmmakers who pursue the stories and even the POV of female characters. Much of their work feels right, but how to know? Can a man really ever know what it feels like for a girl?
Or perhaps more on point: can a male film artist really ever know what it is like to be a woman? …much less even partially understand what it is like to be in her head?
Judging by many films, it would seem more than a little possible.
Intent to harm or heal?
Bibi Andersson / Liv Ullmann
We have yet to have an equal opportunity to experience female film art perspective in equal measure. Let's hope that we see and hear more from Female Film Artists and Women In Media as we move forward. It has never been more important to support films made by women and people of color.
Aren't we all pretty much bored with seeing the vast majority of movies limited to the white male perspective?
Matty Stanfiled, 1.19.2016
Alex Nepomniaschy
Alliance for Women In Media
Andrea Arnold
Bibi Andersson
Box Office Flop
Bradford Young
Canadian Film
Charles Rosher Jr.
Cinematic Perspective
Claudia Weill
Demential Praecox
Doris Dörrie
Elaine May
Emotional Breakdown
Father of my Children
Female Cinematic Perspective
Female Identity
Female Masochist
Female Psychology
Freudian
Hollywood Racism
Hollywood Sexism
Human Identity
Jane March
Jim Frohna
Joslyn Jensen
Liliana Cavani
Lina Wertmüller
Major Studio Film
Male Cinematic Perspective
Marielle Heller
Mary Harron
Mia Hansen-Løve
Outmoded
Paraphrenics
Patriarchal Culture
Penny Marshall
Phoebe Gloeckner
primary narcissism
Robert Fraisse
Rory Stewart Kenner
Sam Emerson
Sissy Spacek
Susan Sideman
Sven Nyqvist
Take This Waltz
The Hollywood Food Chain
The Night Porter
Todd Haynes
Tony Ka Fai Leung
WHITE MATERIAL
Women In Media
YouTube Leak
January 19th by Matty Stanfield in	3 Women A Woman Under the Influence Existentialism Experimental Cinema Experimental Film Film Film Acting Film Art Film Artists Film Criticism Film Directors Film Evaluation Film History Film of Note Film Re Evaluation Film Resonation Film Theory Human Psyche Identity Important Film Independent Film Influential Cinema Ingmar Bergman John Cassavetes Matty Stanfield Persona Philosophy Political Activisim Pop Culture Provocative Film Psychological Psychology Realism Robert Altman Self-Awarenes Sexuality What It Feels Like For A Girl
Is That London Burning? Or Exploring The British New Wave from The Other Side of the Underneath…
Uh, oh. Trouble is coming from all sides as Ken Russell takes British Film into the 1970's. Despite on-going demand, Time Warner still refuses to allow us to take a full-on second look back. Britain's most infamous film actually belongs to a United States based corporation. The Devils Ken Russell, 1971 Cinematography | David Watkin
When one thinks of 1960's Film Art, the mind does not immediately jump to thoughts of British cinema. Most of us think of France's La Nouvelle Vague, Germany's Neuer Deutsche Film, Italy's NeoRealism film movement, The Japanese New Wave or The Polish New Wave from which Britain did snatch Roman Polanski. Certainly there were groundbreaking British films that caught the spirit of London's Swinging 60's Era, but many of these films have aged rather poorly. Just think of Petulia, Morgan!, Darling, Billy Liar or Georgy Girl. If honest, what really still works about these films is related to a time capsule interest. Many of these British films are quite valid (think A Taste of Honey, This Sporting Life, Room At The Top, A Hard Day's Night, Seance on a Wet Afternoon, Performance ) but the majority have not held up as well as one might hope.
This is not true across the board. Stanley Kubrick's British work has only gotten better with time and Michelangelo Antonioni's visit into Swinging London culture of the time, Blow Up, remains a vital work. However, are these truly British films? It would seem that both of these filmmakers were in a sort of transitionary position. Antonioni was visiting England. Kubrick was still fairly new to British culture.
The great Julie Christie is The Ideal Woman of 1965's British satire of Swinging London, but the film barely registers beyond nostalgia now. Darling John Schlesinger, 1965 Cinematography | Kenneth Higgins
Most of the iconic British films of the 1960's are simply limited to nostalgia. Guy Hamilton, Andy Milligan, Lindsay Anderson, Karel Reisz and Lindsay Shonteff are exceptions but much of what they were trying to convey would soon better estimated by the likes of Alan Parker and most especially Mike Leigh. Ken Loach would not truly find his voice until he entered his 50's in the 1990's. There was also a good share of attention to The Angry Young Man of the day. Tony Richardson had moments of brilliance but looking back he seemed to have been challenged by what style of film best suited his voice. Richard Lester certainly left a mark, but here again we are slipping into time capsule pop culture moments.
The British New Wave is also largely obscured by the mega-epics of David Lean's heavily praised, Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago are considered to be a cinematic masterpieces. I've never been particularly impressed. To be honest, I've never made it through Lawrence of Arabia without falling asleep. Carol Reed's adaptation of the stage musical, Oliver! was another huge British hit of the 1960's that pushed pass the more reflexive films of the day.
There were two particularly strong and solitary British Film Artists who were finding new methods of cinematic language. Nicolas Roeg would soon move from the cinematographer chair to that of director and change the face of film editing as it was known. Ken Russell's work for the BBC and his adaptation of Larry Kramer's adaptation of DH Lawrence's Women In Love all stand alone and unique in offering new ways of using film to express ideas and to tell stories. And he really stole the anticipated reigns of the film biography when The Music Lovers slammed onto movie screens across the world in 1970.
Ken Russell welcomes us to the 1970's via way of 16h Century France as "the wife" of a Priest makes her way past the destruction of the Roman-Catholic Church… Gemma Jones The Devils Ken Russell, 1971 Cinematography | David Watkin
As British Film headed into the 1970's some firm and potent voices formed. Certainly Stanley Kubrick's A Clock Work Orange is a British Film. All American cultural ideas have fallen off his cinematic map. John Schlesinger pretty much left England for America. Ken Russell defied all expectations with his searing and important 1971 film, The Devils. As it turns out Ken Russell, Nicolas Roeg and Stanley Kubrick were not alone. The thing is some of the new British voices got somehow lost in the mix. Barney Platts-Mills' may have only made one film in the 1960's, but it is a powerful entry into British Film History. Three other filmmakers also created work not only ahead of the cultural curve — they challenged it and ran their work close to the edge of the rails.
As we stumble forward toward the third decade of the 21st Century, The British Film Institute has gone deep within the corners of their storage closets to re-release a couple of seldom seen motion pictures that capture 1960's London in whole new ways. Most of these titles were dusted off, restored, re-released within the UK and issued to DVD/Blu-Ray between 2009 and 2011.
The British Film Festival pulled several legendary but almost forgotten films and re-issued them to DVD/Blu-Ray in 2010 and 2011. These "lost" films of Jack Bond, Jane Arden, Joseph Despins and William Dumaresq teach us that Ken Russell and Stanley Kubrick were not alone in finding new ways to capture stories and ideas for the British Screen.
Two of these four filmmakers were actually Canadian born. Even still, these two ex-pats of Canada artists show no signs of unfamiliarity with the setting of their two crucial films that BFI re-issued several years back for the first time in over 40 years. The other two filmmakers are most certainly British and have cinematic voices which come close to that of Ken Russell and Nicolas Roeg. Like Russell / Roeg, these two British Film Artists were well-versed but often Anti-Intellectual in the way they approached their work. They were far more focused on the visual and the use of film editing. Rebels all, but each were reeling out their rebellion from different core identities. Unlike Ken Russell and Nicolas Roegs' work of the 1960's, all four of the other Film Artists will not appeal to a number of people, but it is hard to imagine anyone disputing their importance.
I'm currently exploring the work of a number of British filmmakers who are new to me. I plan on writing more on the art and collaborations of Jane Arden and Jack Bond. The work these two created almost defies terminology, but I'm going to give it my best shot!
But for this post, I want to touch on two films. The first of these two was born out of the mixed theatre and social service ideals of the great Joan Littlewood. "The Mother of Modern Theatre" devoted the second half of her life working with the young people of East London who were lost, without purpose or supervision. These young people were in constant threat of falling prey to all manner of trouble. Her idea was to create a space where these teenagers could be allowed to hang out and "act" out their issues, challenges and ideas. Firmly grounded in the arts but against what she viewed as Elitism of The National Theatre. Her Theatre Royal Stratford East was free of pretension and open to everyone. It was here that Barney Platts-Mills was inspired to scrap together a bit of money to make an amazing little film called Bronco Bullfrog.
Non-actors, Anne Gooding & Del Walker, "play" fictionalized versions of themselves and contemplate their futures.
Bronco Bullfrog
Barney Platts-Mills, 1969
Cinematography | Adam Barker-Mill
Bronco Bullfrog stars non-actors who had been working with each other under the loose guidance of Joan Littlewood. While the plot is deceptively simple, a great deal of information about the grimness of urban decay, lack of parenting and dystopian boredom come through loud and clear. Glam and style-free, this is a study of teenagers floating along without purpose, direction or hope. Interestingly, it is not all gloom and doom. The characters of Bronco Bullfrog start to find their way as the film heads to conclusion. This is a gem of a film that has never received the praise or attention it deserved. As good as this movie is, it can hardly stand-up when positioned next to Joseph Despins and William Dumaresqs' ultra-strange and unforgettable twisted little movie, Duffer.
A good 6 years before anyone had seen the dark surrealism and humor of David Lynch, this low-budget experimental film serves as welcome warning that the art of filmmaking is about to take an innovative, creative and altogether new turn. Kit Gleave as Duffer Joseph Despins & William Dumaresq, 1971 Cinematography | Jorge Guerra
Joseph Despins and William Dumaresq crafted this weird and entertaining movie on a budget so low it is probably best not to state it. The camera work is surprisingly solid. Actually the cinematography is far more than solid, it is artistically sound. Cinematographer, Jorge Guerra, may not have had the best equipment but he most certainly knew how to use it. The shots are often brilliant.
There is no sound. The narration and voices were recorded by a different cast. It only takes a few minutes before it is clear that the lack of sound was not going to be a deficit. In fact, the creative dubbing actually adds to this film in more ways than one. Comical and often horrifying, the dubbed dialogue serves exceptionally as an aide to the film's surrealism, dark comedy, menace and horror.
"WoManAmal!!!" Duffer's junkie gay keeper heaps on the abuse and chronicles it all for underground porn.
William Dumaresq as "Louis-Jack"
Joseph Despins & William Dumaresq, 1971
Cinematography | Jorge Guerra
The dubbing actually heightens the discomfort as we watch a young man attempt to reconcile the emotional, physical and sexual abuse of his older junkie boyfriend by engaging in an affair with a female prostitute. Enduring the sort of sadistic torment one seldom sees addressed in film, Despins and Dumaresq were extremely clever in presenting it in very dark comical ways that disturb but never so much that one needs to run for cover. The kind but obviously more than a bit twisted herself, prossie called Your Gracie gives the lost teen some solace while fully utilizing him as a tool.
Erna May as "Your Gracie" is using Kit Gleave's "Duffer," but he hopes she is saving his masculinity… Duffer Joseph Despins & William Dumaresq, 1971 Cinematography | Jorge Guerra
As the KINK/BDSM with his male keeper becomes more severe and his trysts with his female lover decrease — Duffer is pulled into his male lover's Horse addiction and begins to suffer one of the most bizarre psychosomatic delusions I've ever seen. The poor kid's delusions continue to morph into what appears to be a psychotic break. This twisted, funny, unsettling and fascinating experimental film deals with almost every aspect of human cruelty and horror imaginable. And just to amp up Duffer's already potent cinematic stew, we gradually begin to suspect that our protagonist may not be the most reliable narrator.
Just a bi-sexual boy walking through 1970 Notting Hill either on his way from or toward abuse at the hands of older suitors.
Kit Gleave in his only film role…
As the film unspools more perversities and jaw-drop moments at break-neck speed, we are constantly given an exceptional examination of 1970's Notting Hill. You may think you've seen urban decay and dystopian-like settings, but Duffer presents an England few of us have seen. Filmed on location and on the very cheap, this is perplexing and truly extraordinary view of the state of things circa 1969-1970. I realize that some of you will be annoyed that I'm grouping this film into the 1960's British New Wave, but Duffer is clearly set in the 1960's. This is not the 1970's.
The film begins with Duffer sitting alone by the water. A pretty young woman pauses as she crosses a bridge far above the handsome boy. As the film whirls to conclusion we find him once again in the same place. It is impossible to not ponder where the film's reality begins or ends. In fact, there is a distinct possibility that none of it is real. However there are just as many clues that all of what see presented has happened in reality. I'm not dropping a spoiler here, the viewer begins to distrust poor Duffer almost immediately. This is a narrator we are unable to trust. But the most jarring aspect of this film is that it presents itself solidly within the Surrealist Context.
All alone in his thoughts…
It is important to note that as much as I praise Duffer, it is not for all tastes. While never truly graphic, it is most definitely profane and very perverse. The humor is so dark that many will feel guilty laughing. This is one demented movie. It also features a deeply strange musical score from the composer who gave the world the 1960's Broadway smash, Hair. Galt McDermot's score plays like something you would hear in an alternate universe Tin Pan Alley. Just when you think you will only be hearing a piano — a quickly use of electronics starts to grind forward.
"Mind how you go…" No where in Notting Hill is safe!
Duffer screams out for repeated viewings to understand, to ensure that what you think you've just seen was actually shown and for the simple fact that this movie is endlessly entertaining. And trust me, this movie gets under your skin. Once it slips under, it stays there. In addition, something about Duffer seems to be signaling the audience to watch out for David Lynch. Were it not so very British, it could easily be mistaken for something a young David Lynch might have created. Unique, innovative, disturbing, haunting, funny and altogether original, Duffer is a must see lost British Cinematic Treasure.
Well there is nothing quite like watching your lover's home movies abusing you…
Kit Gleave watches what we can only guess hurt a great deal.
I honestly found no flaw in Duffer.
Just pulled back into darkness after being "fixed" for activities best kept there…
I loved this film, but the work of both Jane Arden and Jack Bond really blew me away. Blown out the window and lying on the pavement outside our San Francisco home, the collaborations of Arden and Bond require more than a little thought and meditation. I'm still letting their three films digest, but I'll be writing about them soon.
Pushing Feminist Agenda, Drug Experimentation, Examination and Destruction of an identity born of societal and cultural domination, Jane Arden & Jack Bond pull us into the dangerous threat of absolute madness…
Jane Arden, 1972
Cinematography | Jack Bond & Aubrey Dewar
Matty Stanfield, 12.23.2015
1960's London
A Clock Work Orange
Adam Barker-Mill
Ahead of the Cultural Curve
Anal Rape
Andy Milligan
Anne Gooding
Aubrey Dewar
Banned Film
Barney Platts-Mills
Billy Liar
Cinematic Rebellion
Cultural Misogyny
Del Walker
DH Lawrence
Erna May
Film Artist
Georgy Girl
Hetrosexuality
Infantcide
Joan Littlewood
Kenneth Higgins
Larry Kramer
Lindsay Shonteff
Mental Break
Michaelangelo Antonioni
Petulia
Phobic
Psychosexual
Psychosomatic
Self-Loathing
Sexual Confusion
Sexuality in Film
The Angry Young Man
The Moon Over The Alley
The Music Lovers
Tony Richardson
Your Gracie
December 22nd by Matty Stanfield in	Avant-garde Film BFI British Film British Film Institute British New Wave Cinematic History Cinematic Impact Cinematic Imprint Cinematic Intent Cinematic Language Cinematic Masterpiece Cinematic Metaphor Cinematic Motivation Cinematic Provocation Cinematic Resonates Cinematic Revolt Cinematography Cinephile Controversial Film Cult Classic Cult Film Culture Duffer Experimental Film Feminist Film Film Art Film Artists Film Criticism Film Directors Film Evaluation Film History Film of Note Film Preservation Film Re Evaluation Film Re-Distribution Film Resonation Film Restoration Film Theory Film Therapy Filmmakers Iconic Film Identity Important Film Independent Film Influential Cinema Intellectualism International Film Jack Bond Jane Arden Japanese New Wave Jorge Guerra Joseph Despins Ken Russell La Nouvelle Vague Lost Film Art Movies NeoRealism Neuer Deutsche Film Polish New Wave Pop Art Pop Culture Post-Modern Film Provocative Film Separation Sexual Revolution Sexuality Surrealism The Devils Underground Film William Dumaresq
Completely Out of Control! or Eyes of Laura Mars
One can't help but wonder what might have happened if John Carpenter had filmed his own script of Eyes of Laura Mars. It is a rather silly question as he did not film his own script. Instead that duty was assigned to the skilled filmmaker, Irvin Kershner. The only director bold enough to stand his ground against the likes of George Lucas while shooting his film for the Star Wars franchise and the director who was able to assist Barbra Streisand tone it all down to play a very believable housewife in a very surreal experimental film of the early 1970's, Up The Sandbox.
"And your eyes say everything. You wanna keep me here forever
I can't escape. One minute's so sincere.
Then you completely turn against me. And I'm afraid…"
An Iconic Movie Poster
Irvin Kershner, 1978
Up until 1977 he had never directed a horror film. It is clear that the under-appreciated film artist was less interested in the terror aspects of Carpenter's script than in using it to focus on the problematic trend of mixing sex with violence as a form of subversion or perverse eroticism. One merely has to glance at only one of Rebecca Blake's photographs taken for the film to understand that she is carefully constructing slick photographs in the vein of Helmut Newton or Guy Bourdin. Interestingly, these provocative and aggressively misogynistic photographs point toward where Karl Lagerfeld would be headed later on.
Is Laura Mars really only selling shampoo here?
Photograph | Rebecca Blake
John Carpenter's original screenplay is fairly simple: A Post-Feminist (???) fashion photographer takes controversial photographs which capture not only the erotic elements of the female form in stylish clothing, but acts of brutal violence and murder. Violence and murder usually aimed at women. Her work is highly profitable and has made her a bit of a celebrity. As a coffee table book collecting some of her most infamous photographs hits the stores, people close to her begin to be murdered in horrible ways that always culminate with their eyes being gouged out.
Even more disturbing, the photographer begins to lose her own vision only to be replaced with the POV of the killer for the duration of each murder. Amping up the horror is the fact that the pop culture princess of fashion photography discovers that all of her photographs mimic a number of brutal and confidential police shots of actual murders. Hence, it would appear that Ms. Mars is somehow psychically linked to a serial killer. It is the psychotic madness of a killer who has been inspiring her art. Art that many are eager to purchase and admire.
Eventually, the killer sets his sites on Laura Mars herself. As the killer tries to kill her she is put in the chilling position of POV limitation — she can only see herself as the killer goes after her. Essentially blind with only disorienting and panicked visions of her own body as target, she is a prisoner of the killer's eyes ...and her own.
Taking aim…
Cinematography | Victor J. Kemper
John Carpenter deserves a great deal of credit with coming up with an original and scary concept. It is unlikely he viewed as any sort of cultural or pop art commentary, but the circumstance of the imagined situation opens that door. Enter the decision to hire Irvin Kershner as the director. By securing the respected film director, the already infamous producer of the project was able to seal a deal with Faye Dunaway to play the lead character. In 1977, this was a casting coup. Dunaway was at the height of her cinematic power in the mid to late 1970's. A beautiful and respected Academy Award winning actress, Ms. Dunaway was sought after.
Initially Jon Peters was rumored to have wanted to talk his then Life Partner, Barbra Streisand, into taking the role. The script was too violent and dark for Streisand's taste. She did agree to sing a theme song which turned out to be a surprisingly rock-driven song. The esteemed Conrad Hall was rumored to be first choice to serve as the film's cinematographer, but Kershner wanted Victor J. Kemper. He got him.
Several gorgeous models were hired to serve as models and actors. Tommy Lee Jones was secured for the leading male love interest. And thanks to a large paycheck, several respected actors were cast in supporting roles — most notably Brad Dourif and Raul Julia. This was an A List Production out of the gate.
Armed and ready to take aim at herself. So to speak.
When the results of the finished film screened in 1978, viewers were presented with a cinematic cornucopia of ideas and images. Some of these worked. Others failed. Mixed together — Eyes of Laura Mars became a largely mixed experience for film critics and an often vexing one for the audience. The film was a hit. Though filled with tension, the movie failed to actually be scary.
While Laura Mars' photographs are violently and sexually graphic, the film is surprisingly restrained. Most certainly the violence and amount of nudity earned the film an R rating, but there was a loopy sort of immature logic holding the film together.
Some did find the movie disturbing. Some found it to be a fun ride with more than a few unexpected twists. Others were just left a bit confused.
A male's smackdown on a beautiful woman is intended to sell cologne.
Photograph by Rebecca Blake
37 years later Eyes of Laura Mars continues to entertain. Sadly, much of the entertainment grows out of unintentional camp.
This is not to say that this odd bit of big-budget 1970's filmmaking does not hold some merit. But the film's merits are easily over-powered by the strange plot, Dunaways's soap-opera like turn and some deeply campy "stupid model" moments. The movie is a fun, pretty and ungrounded mess. And over the past decade it has developed a sizable cult following.
Most view Eyes one of those "So Bad It's Great" cinematic guilty pleasures. While I can understand ascribing this uncomfortable thriller to that genre, I've never been certain that it should be regarded as a bad film.
A glam but deadly car crash in Columbus Circle, but what is being sold here?
I grew up in a fairly small town in Texas. We were not too far from Houston, but we did not always get movies when they "opened." More often than not, movies arrived to our town several weeks or a month after the movie had already been in circulation. This was the case with Eyes. It opened late into its run at our fairly new mall cineplex.
My father had no understanding of what was or wasn't appropriate for a child. He took me with him to see this movie. The woman who sold us out tickets already knew me as the kid who she would often pull out of a movie to ask where my parents were. I'm not sure if it was before or after the time my father took me to see Eyes of Laura Mars, but this theater manager pitched a fit when my father took me to see Looking for Mr. Goodbar.
Hurry! I Need more film! I'll push my skirt up further while you take care of that!
Her attempts to prevent my father from taking his little boy to see adult movies always failed. Mr. Goodbar was a traumatic experience. But Eyes was not one. In fact nothing I saw made my jaw drop or caused me any real confusion.
The thing I most remember about seeing this movie was that my father was forced to really get his shit together because no one was admitted after the first ten minutes of the movie's start. My father had the annoying habit of arriving at the middle of a movie and then staying to see the first half at the next screening. But he had to arrive on time for Eyes of Laura Mars. I also remember noting that he was truly glued to the screen. It seemed like the casually naked models and the violent photographs interested him.
I was not scared by the movie. While I had not yet become educated in filmmaking, I did know who John Carpenter was — and I was frustrated that the Halloween dude wasn't making a movie he wrote.
"This is Lulu & Michele! We're not home so go to Hell! But if you're not a horny creep, leave a message at the beep!"
Eyes of Laura Mars is not a truly bad movie. It may not be scary, but it has its share of intense moments. It also offers a rather lucid capture of 1970's NYC and its fashion scene.
Sony did issue the film to DVD, but the HD download currently available via iTunes is far superior to the non-remastered print that the ever-cheap Sony put on DVD. One major thing about the Sony DVD is that it features a film-length commentary from the late Irvin Kershner. In that commentary he speaks of not having had much knowledge of the fashion world at that time. He was surprised when he heard female models talking, disrobing, doing drugs and giggling like school girls.
A staunch liberal, Kershner was also more than a little repulsed by discovering that there seemed to be a misogynistic attitude toward women by an industry devoted to women as their focal demographic. This concerning misogyny would change the film's tone. No new comer to the Sexual Revolution, he was very much surprised by the attitude of the female models he encountered as well as what he saw as The Studio 54 Culture. Clearly this is what motivated Kershner.
Oh, the model's life and selling fashion! No prob with nudity or killing or being killed. But they do have problems with the color of the dresses… Sex, violence and Misogyny Sells Clothing!
Photography by Rebecca Blake
At the time of the film's release more than a few critics were annoyed by the ample use of casual nudity and the constant stream of violence against women. Kershner explains that he didn't need to include all the nudity and explicitness of the faked photographs, but these aspects of the plot tied to the world of fashion greatly disturbed and interested him. These aspects seemed to signal that this once simple slasher movie could serve as something a bit deeper in the form of societal and cultural commentary. Or so it seemed.
It wasn't so much the clothes that the photographers were wanting to capture as the sexuality of the models. And the models were more than happy to comply. Sex was their commodity and it was taking on a sinister tone from Kershner's perspective. The non-actor models didn't need to be asked or walked-thru to be nude for the film. They treated their scenes as they would a provocative fashion spread. Off came the clothing and on went the vapid conversing and drug-taking.
Kershner saw and attempted to capture a world in which the female model had no issue with being nude or posing as a victim, but their psyches were challenged when they had to wear "pink" or any color that they didn't like. Carpenter's original screenplay was re-crafted to "realistically" capture this world. A intriguing idea in theory does not always manage to fully morph onto the screen.
A lovely book for the late 1970's coffee table?
Kershner was very careful not to discuss too much about Faye Dunaway. It is no secret that she became frustrated with the making of the film but also the way in which it was promoted. This was really the first film in which Dunaway failed to connect to the production.
A deeply stylized and theatrical actor, Faye Dunaway always had a 1940's sensibility about her — hence her success in films like Bonnie and Clyde, The Thomas Crown Affair, Towering Inferno and Roman Polanski's classic film, Chinatown. She had managed to take her style of acting to a whole new level for Sidney Lumet's brilliant Network and won the Oscar.
As Laura Mars Faye Dunaway appears to be a bit lost. It often feels as if she is fighting against what Kershner wanted. Continually dressed in flowing robes or gowns, Laura Mars seems to edge toward Gothica. She is power-dressed with purpose and that purpose is not to be sexy.
Glam Gothica with a pretty flower hat, how is Laura Mars to compete with her abused models?
Tommy Lee Jones has to decide where to look as Faye Dunaway emotes for her life…
Surrounded by The Beautiful Elite of the modeling world, Dunaway is constantly subverting her assigned wardrobe to a new purposes. It seems almost comical to watch her photographing a fake car crash tragedy with her models either playing dead or cat-fighting in undies and minks. Kershner's commentary avoids much discussion, but it seems an odd choice that Dunaway's Laura Mars opts to hike up her skirt and do a Old-School Hollywood leg reveal as she shoots her pictures.
Decidedly not sexy, it just seems uncomfortable. Dunaway strictly refused any nudity in her love scenes with Tommy Lee Jones. But one suspects she desperately wanted in on some of the semi-nude cat fights she was left to "photograph." The audience is less interested in Dunaway's Laura as they are in the barely clothed fighting beauties amidst the wreckage.
The killer probes the ice pick into Laura's eye on the cover of her slick new book of KINK.
Eyes of Laura Mars gets the late 1970's NYC Fashion World down correctly. The clothes feel and look very much from the 1977 era. The fashions being photographed look legit. And the wealthy photographer may edge toward the dramatic, but her clothing is clearly upscale and in style.
Kershner also captures the feel and look of the true 1977 NYC. Hell's Kitchen, Columbus Circle and the Fashion District look like they are from another reality compared to now. This is most assuredly an on location shoot. The grime and grit plays a key role to the film. And although he did not shoot there, one of the movie's early moments features a PR party given in honor of Laura Mars' work and new book that could easily be mistaken for a Studio 54 event.
At this event, Kershner makes no excuses for the vapidity of models like Lulu and Michelle, but both Darlanne Fluegel and Lisa Taylor are comically believable in their roles. It is in this early scene we are given a glimpse into their characters' personalities.
Disco music blaring, the models pose in preparation for Laura's killing portrait…
The director is also to be credited for showing the importance of gay male culture within the world of Laura Mars without falling into homophobia. Little is actually articulated, but we know these men are gay. Rene Auberjonois delivers a solid performance as Laura's close friend and business manager. We not meant to make fun of him.
And while both Raul Julia and Brad Dourif are wasted, they put forward great work here. Tommy Lee Jones is also strong except when pitted against Dunaway's convulsively confusing turns. Jones is playing the role as realistically as possible, but he often finds himself in bad soap opera territory when kissing or making love to his leading lady. This is not his fault. Dunaway's work here often feels like that of an insecure fading movie star who is afraid of losing her place at the table. Sadly Kershner didn't seem to be strong enough to talk her down. This is of particular surprise given his track record for getting the best out of his actors. It is safe to say that Dunaway's finest work has been given under infamous duress with tempermental directors.
Roman Polanski or Barbet Schroeder anyone?
Art crime?
Faye Dunaway is probably more covered than comfortable amidst all this beautiful flesh. And murder.
While it was most definitely a fail on the part of Kershner to not better execute the horror of a film that was obviously intended to be a slasher flick, I doubt we would really remember this film if it had followed that path.
It should be noted that one of the few genuinely creepy moments in the movie is when we are limited to Laura Mars' POV which is trapped in the POV of the serial killer who is chasing her at full speed with intent to kill. Arte Kane's musical score is manically-pitched and when edited into this threatening but non-violent scene, it does illicit a good deal of tension.
Even still, there is a major bit of let down when acts of actual real-time murders happen. Thanks to the musical score and the trippy use of POV there is some suspense, but the cinematic pay-off in these slasher scenes feel like something you might have seen on Charlie's Angels.
Well, minus the nudity.
Learning how to shoot a handgun and ready for romance!
Faye Dunaway and Tommy Lee Jones
This is very little gore in this film's violence. Of course the film's Big Reveal which Columbia Studios built up by closing ticket sales after the first ten minutes of the movie, has never seemed at all shocking to me. Even as a child I had figured out the identity of the killer before the film decides to reveal it.
Even still, it is a nightmarish situation that is interesting when compared to the "fashion art" our heroine has been crafting with her stylishly perched skinny leg and handy Nikon camera. This is perhaps the film's most winning turn of horror — it is the film's use of murder as fashion and violent death as eroticism that leaves a queasy sort of taste on the cinematic palate.
Killing to sell a car…
Irvin Kershner's take on Carpenter's script may not have gone to the logical horror route of the Slasher Film, but it's twisted turns guide the audience to a surprisingly gruesome walk toward the pop culture of the future.
And Faye Dunaway's odd performance does leave an impression.
It should be noted that this performance does not straddle an artistic line as her work in the ill-advised Mommie Dearest. Instead her work as Laura Mars is consistently up-ending itself. The manic and insecure diva-ish turn has, over the years, added a level of paranoia.
This paranoia plays well into both schisms of the infamous movie: The Uncomfortable and The Cult of Camp.
Putting her best leg and high heeled foot forward. A promo shot of Faye Dunaway which she would later claim she disliked.
Perhaps it is unfair to lay Dunaway's failure all on her. She is given some very strange dialog:
While in a post orgasmic embrace she murmurs:
"I can't understand. [slight pause] how it's possible. [slightly longer pause] to live your whole life. [pause ] without someone. [slight pause] and be doing more or less OK. And then suddenly you find them. You recognize them."
cue lush love theme as Tommy Lee Jones plants a big smooch on her face.
What do those words even mean?
Faye Dunaway gets and gives more than an eyeful
Perhaps Eyes of Laura Mars is a bad movie. Or maybe it is simply flawed. It doesn't matter. Once you see it you will never forget it.
Matty Stanfield, 12.4.15
1970's Fashion Scene
1970's NYC Fashion
Arte Kane
Bonnie & Clyde
Camp Film
Cinematic Intention
Columbia Studios
Cult Following
Dark Eroticism
Darlanne Fluegel
Female Beauty
Helmut Newton
Iconic Movie Poster Art
Inapprorpriate
Jon Peters
Libralism
Looking for Mr. Goodbar
Lulu & Michelle
Post-Feminst
R-Rating
Raul Juilia
Raul Julia
Rene Auberjonis
Sex Objects
Slasher Movie
Societal Misogyny
Star Wars Franchise
The Big Reveal
The Cult of Camp
The Thomas Crown Affair
The Uncomfortable Film
Time Capsule Movie
Unintentional Camp
December 4th by Matty Stanfield in	1970's NYC 1970's Pop Culture American Film Art Horror BDSM Brutality Camp Camp Classic Cinematic Arts Cinematic Eroticism Cinematic Error Cinematic Ethics Cinematic History Cinematic Intent Cinematic Motivation Cinematic Provocation Cinematography Columbia Pictures Controversial Film Cultural Commentary Disco Culture Disturbing Eccentric Cinema Erotica Eroticism Eyes of Laura Mars Faye Dunaway Film Film Acting Film Actors Film Art Film Criticsm Film Directors Film Evaluation Film History Film of Note Film Score Film Theory Horror Film Human Brutality Human Cruelty Human Psyche Iconic Film Irvin Kershner John Carpenter KINK Legendary Actor Lost Film Art Marketing Misogyny Movie Poster Art Movies Musical Score Perception Perspective Perversity Photography Pop Art Pop Culture Problematic Cinema Provacitve Provocative Film Rebecca Blake Serial Killer Sex Sells Sexual Assault Sexual Revolution Sexual Violence Sexuality Slasher Films Societal Commentary Studio Film Subversive Victim Victimizer Victor J. Kemper Violence
Fire in the Hole! Agnes! or Home Invasion Within Roman Polanski's Cul-De-Sac
"Get the hell outta my fortress!"
The crime of home invasion is about to take a twisted turn…
*This post contains spoilers in the event that you have not seen Cu-de-Sac.
The term "Cul-de-sac" is usually defined as a street or passage closed at one end or a route or course leading nowhere. After Roman Polanski had made Repulsion, he turned his attention to very different forms of isolation, paranoia, psychology and identity impacted by both surroundings and circumstances. The title of this strange and vibrant film is particularly appropriate on more than a few layers.
The film begins with two wounded gangsters on the lam from an apparently failed heist. Their tiny stolen car gives out on a lonely stretch of road. Lionel Stander plays "Dickie." His wound is minor, but his partner has been shot in the gut. As Dickie attempts to push the car off the road he slams it into an odd concrete bar. These two men are lost and they are unaware that they have driven down a road that becomes useless when the tide comes in.
The two failed gangsters have attempted to find passage that only leads to water submergence. As Dickie heads off on a walk to find a phone, he promises his pal that he will return as quickly as possible. Little does he know that his walk will only take him to an 11th Century castle on the sea.
Holy Island of Lindisfarne, Northumberland's Lindisfarne Castle is the home of George & Teresa
Cinematography | Gilbert Taylor
The chateau is none other than the famous Lindsfarne Castle on the UK's Holy Island in Northumberland. It overlooks the ocean from one side and the tidelands on the other. This is the home of middle-aged George and his young French wife, Teresa. Played by Donald Pleasance and Françoise Dorléac, these two form a dead end that will present an even greater challenge for the gruff but somehow vaguely innocent gangster. While Lionel Stander's performance is filled with brutality and rage, there is a feeling that this man's "bark" is far worse than his "bite."
When Polanski introduces the audience to Teresa, she is topless and shamelessly rolling about on the sand with a handsome young man. This boy's parents are on the other side of the castle chatting with George. It only takes a minute to realize that these two visitors are more than a little anxious to escape the company of George and his wife. And even though it is obvious that their son has just had sex with Teresa, he doesn't seem to mind skipping out as quickly as possible. All the while chickens appear to run free.
Dickie ignores the pain and spies from inside the decaying chicken coup at his intended victims…
There is a chicken coop, but it is a state of almost ruin. Dickie slips in to have a few eggs and waits for the right moment to step into George and Teresas' domestic world. Suffering further injuries as he attempts to use the coop's ladder, one almost gets the sense that Dickie might be better served to make his way back to his partner in crime for a "re-think."
When Gilbert Taylor's masterful camera allows us inside the castle and bedroom we discover a seemingly bored young wife and a nervous hen sort of a husband. It is amazing how believable and natural Pleasance and Dorleac pull off their first shared scene.
"Put it on!"
It is not a sex scene. It actually leads to nothing remotely sexual, but to an interesting sort of psychological gender game in which Teresa convinces George to wear one of her frilly "nighties" and proceeds to apply make-up to his face. While George does protest, he seems to find as much amusement in the game as his wife. He begins to prance and speak with girlie voice. Teresa immediately moves into the role of the dominant male.
What's so funny?
Françoise Dorléac & Donald Pleasence
As they laugh and play, there is a clear difference in the way each character is going at the game. George is amused and comfortable, but his wife's amusement seems to be tainted with a hint of the cruel. There is a joke going on that George does not "get" and he is the "butt" of it. As Dickie makes his move into the castle, Teresa hears him. She is concerned, but George is frightened. Were it up to George, they would stay up in their bedroom. This is not an option as Teresa basically demands that he check it out. Then, as if not able to trust him, Teresa shadows George as they make their way downstairs where they will meet Dickie.
Finding Dickie in the kitchen…
The castle's interior is shot in a why that feels more than a little claustrophobic. A space that seems to spiral up rather than move out. An oddly paired couple living in eccentrically isolated bohemia. This does not fit our perception of a home. Yet this is the house and Dickie is mastering a home invasion. Roman Polanski is about to pull, twist, strain, tilt sideways and subvert every perceived idea of home invasion crime.
It isn't that George and Teresa are unafraid of Dickie. They are. Most especially is afraid is George. Teresa's fears are quickly overwhelmed by her frustration at her husband's cowardice. In fact, the friction building between husband and wife will begin to challenge the worries of Dickie's gun and invasion of their home. A thin and hopelessly beautiful woman and a shivering short man wearing Cleopatra style make-up and a sheer nightie hardly seem like a pair of hostages posing any level of concern for the gangster. Dickie feels assured in his role as the captor and potentially dangerous criminal. From Dickie's perspective, he's got this under control and both people safely under his thumb. But perception is a tricky thing. What Dickie can see is not what he is about to get.
Threat before them. The criminal stands with menace and the couple appears afraid. Or are they?
Lionel Stander, Donald Pleasance & Françoise Dorléac
Forcing his way through the situation and understanding the daunting challenges of the tides, Dickie takes charge. After making a call to the Crime Lord for whom he and his partner have failed, Dickie is certain that his boss will be coming to pick them up as soon as the tide recedes. Facing more derision from the wife and a confused mix of passive-aggressive fear from the husband, Dickie forges forward with his plan. The phone cord has been severed, his gun at the ready and his intimidation clearly asserted, he forces both George and Teresa to help him bring his partner back to the castle. By the time they reach the stretch of road where Dickie has left his fatally injured partner, the car is nearly lost in the tide.
Fatally injured and waiting to be rescued from the incoming tides.
Forcing George and Teresa to assist him in pushing the car back up to the castle, it almost seems as if none of the three notice that Teresa has taken the most difficult position of pushing the drowned car from the rear.
As this often darkly comical film unspools we see cowardice, fear, threat, menace, flirtation, gender roles, sexism, cruelty, danger, brutality, friendship, love and identity splinter off in unexpected directions. Polanski not only deconstructs the concept of Film Noir to Neo Noir, he seems to be pushing under the concepts of Neo Noir toward domestic horror. While not at all a horror film, the film is filled with suspense. But just as the suspense starts to take hold something comical happens. The audience never obtains solid footing.
Dickie might have the gun, but is he really in control?
Françoise Dorléac, Donald Pleasence & Lionel Stander
In some of the movie's most memorable scenes, George and Teresa receive some unexpected guests. Guests who Dickie thought was his gang. In a bit of brazen assertion of power, Teresa opts to treat Dickie like a servant. This is both comical and more than a little disconcerting. Teresa simply does not care that Dickie's rage might turn on their guests which include a bratty child and a very young Jacqueline Bisset as clueless Swinging London Hipster.
It is a risk she is more than willing to take. It is hard to watch this film in the 21st Century and not be reminded of Lionel Stander's later turn as "Max" on Hart to Hart. As he grumbles and comically falls in line with Teresa's bold play, it is an unintended comical pop culture reference point. Dickie serves the guests. He is annoyed, but oddly concerned with performing the duties as correctly as possible.
Unforgettable in one of her few roles before her tragic death, Catherine Deneuve's big sister Françoise Dorléac as Teresa
It is during these scenes that lack of sleep act as a catalyst for George to start to reach his turning point. His patience with his guest is limited. Before long he is barking at them to "Get the hell outta my fortress!" One can hardly blame him. These "friends/family" are horrible. We have already learned that George has lost every penny to purchase their castle. He is also lonely on the island. When his guest mention a person by the name of "Agnes" it seems to strike George to his core.
Who is Agnes? This is one of those strange strands of plot that is never revealed. She is probably the former wife to George. Most likely he was widowed. It is never clear, but one thing is certain: Teresa is no Agnes. She has captured George's lust, but she is clearly disinterested in him. And it seems that he might be losing interest in her. Before long Dickie begins to fall into line with both of his "victims." He begins to trust them. Dickie opens up to him. Teresa has even offered a bit of support after she and George are forced to assist in burying his dead partner in crime. After the guest are forced to leave, Dickie is comfortable in lying about with the unhappy couple.
The brat damaged the record. Krzysztof Komeda's odd and effective musical score…
While Dickie and George nap in the yard, Teresa attempts to catch up on some magazine reading. Dickie has become a part of this dysfunctional family. Teresa is playing her favorite record album as she reads. Turns out the bratty kid who just visited permanently damaged the record. Frustrated, she matches to her record player and shuts the music off.
This is a good time to mention the film's frantic sort of experimental jazz musical score. Krzysztof Komeda's score is of note. It is at once a toe-tapping bit of jazz, but it features a discordant use of what was most likely a theremin. Credited in the mid-60's simply as Komeda, the music sounds like something you might hear on the radio until it takes a quirky turn with the theremin. This fits the film like a perfectly crafted suit. It is of interest that the musical score almost comes to a complete full-on stop when Teresa stops the record. Poor Dickie doesn't even have any control over that oddly threatening jazz music. It belongs to Teresa and it has been damaged.
Uh, oh. Dickie has just pressed his "luck."
The damaged record album signals the film's final act. Teresa has had it. Yet instead of actually taking a solid course of action, she pranks Dickie. Already a confirmed sexist pig, Dickie immediately responds by giving Teresa a fairly brutal whipping. This act proves to be the final straw for George. Dickie has out stayed his "welcome." And, make no mistake, once the couple takes back the reign of their castle it is fairly clear that he was in a very strange way "welcomed" into their home.
While in some ways Cul-de-Sac seems a bit minor considering the two films he had already made, it has held up incredibly well. It is an interesting cinematic achievement that holds a great deal of respect. As it should.
Who is the victim? Who is the Victimizer?
Françoise Dorléac enjoys a long puff…
Never one to leave the audience comfortable, Polanski brings his brilliant twisted little movie to a close with an up-ended feeling. Just as we think all plot issues and strands have come to some rather shocking conclusions, we are thrown for another trick of identity. Now all alone on the grounds of his fortress, George should be relieved. One might even expect to see him actually achieve a genuine smile. Instead he sits looking out to sea.
The fire in the hole that the film calls the Cul-de-Sac has been distinguished. The battle for the castle has been fought and won. Despite all of the positive signs we've been given for George's fate, he appears to be on the verge of an emotional break. He painfully calls out the final lines of the movie, "Agnes!"
"Agnes!"
Donald Pleasance
Like almost every film Polanski has ever made, Cul-de-Sac merits repeat viewings. It was so masterfully made that it offers a number of divergent points and aspects to riddle the mind.
November 6th by Matty Stanfield in	Adultery Art Horror Beating Bohemians British Film British New Wave Brutality Castle Cinematic Intent Cinematography Coward Criminal Cul de sac Cul-De-Sac Cult Film Dark Comedy Donald Pleasence Film Film Acting Film Art Film Criticism Film of Note Film Theory Françoise Dorléac Gangsters Gender Roles Gilbert Taylor Grief High Tide Holy Island Home Invasion Hostage Human Cruelty Identity Improvisation Independent Film Insanity Isolation Jacqueline Bisset Komeda Krzysztof Komeda Lindisfarne Castle Lionel Stander London Hipster Madness Marriage Matty Stanfield Misogyny Murder Musical Score Neo Noir Northumberland Paranoia Perspective Provocative Psychology Psychotronic Rage Rebellion Roman Polanski Sexuality Stress Subversive The Criterion Collection Tidal Causeway Tide Violence
Subvert Normality or Exploring Dark Corners of the Human Psyche
As Dennis Hopper's gritty and nihilistic film, Out of the Blue, we see and hear two things:
Dennis Hopper, 1980
the first is an 18-wheeler speeding along a stretch of road. In it sit a Halloween-costumed little girl and her beer-drinking dad. The drunk father teases his eleven year old clown of a daughter. She gleefully revels in his attention. Not too far ahead is a school bus full of elementary school age children. These are the trucker's classmates. Their bus has stalled in the middle of an intersection.
A child and her addicted father on a Halloween joy ride to school quickly switches to a tragic crash into a school bus…
Cinematography | Marc Champion
The little clown too lost in the bliss of her father's attention and her father too drunk to allow for appropriate reflexes, the 18 wheeler crashes directly into the school bus. Suddenly this shocking action is ended as that same little girl some four years later bolts up in her bed. She has been dreaming. Linda Manz plays "Cebe" and we at once see the magic that this young actor was able to bring to the screen. She has no dialogue. She doesn't need any. Her face shows it all. Confused, frightened and bemused. Cebe (clearly named after the Trucker mode of communication, the CB radio) appears to be uncertain if she has fully woken from the nightmare. But it only takes a few seconds for the audience to notice two visible scars on her face. This scene and whatever hope that what we have just witnessed by simply be a nightmare is killed with an instant cut to the cab of that 18 wheeler. Sitting in a ramble overgrowth of weeds, the cab is basically demolished. It is the dead of night, Cebe sits in the driver seat wearing her father's Post-Hippie leather cap. She is talking into the CB radio transmitting a rant that we soon will realize fuels her ability to analyze and move forward in her life:
"Subvert normality. Punk is not sexual, it's just aggression. Destroy. Kill All Hippies. I'm not talking at you, I'm talking to you. Anarchy. Disco sucks. I don't wanna hear about you, I wanna hear from you. This is Gorgeous. Does anybody outthere read me? Disco sucks, kill all hippies. Pretty vacant, eh? Subvert normality. Signing off. This is Gorgeous. Signing off."
The listening truck drivers do not understand. Cebe doesn't care. She simply needs to be heard.
Linda Manz as Cebe
Originally intended to be a Canadian film about a child psychologist who saves and offers redemption for a fifteen year old girl who has murdered her own father. If what one is to believe what has been reported, stated and written, this entire film was intended to be a star vehicle for Raymond Burr. The producers had been lucky to cast American actor, Linda Manz, as the teenager in trouble. The film's original director was in over his head and working with a script that seemed more aimed at some sort of "white-wash" of cultural tragedy more appropriate for ABC's After School Special than cinemas. Dennis Hopper had taken the job to play the murdered father. After the original director walked-off, the iconic actor was asked to make his first directorial turn since his infamous The Last Movie failure.
Dennis Hopper immediately set out to re-write the perversely tidy teenage murderer saved script into something attached to humanity and reality. Raymond Burr was a tax credit for the film's producers. Hopper manipulated Burr into thinking that he was still the lead actor. He apparently filmed a great deal more than the two brief scenes in which we see him in Hopper's film. The Child Psychologist is reduced to a half-heartedly sincere bureaucrat. Hopper switched the perspective from a Canadian Social Worker to that of the tormented teenage girl. He also rejected the general premise of "Cebe." She was no longer just a one-dimensional child victim turned murderer. Hopper's Cebe was a damaged teenage girl trying to make sense out of her situation, her life and her own identity. Hopper, a former Hippie and addict, quickly decided to have Cebe obsessed with two cultural touchstones: Elvis and the PUNK Movement.
Only her father's old leather cap and a safety pin for her check remains to complete her warrior armor…
Suddenly, Linda Manz was given more to do than simply supply screen presence and predictable emotions cued by violins. She was given the lead role of an abused child hellbent on rebellion and pushed to the emotional edge of sanity.
Cebe seeks more than to subvert normalcy, she seeks to subvert life itself because it is the only way she can figure a way to motivate through the pain, grief, humiliation and confusion of her life. Born to two rebels, Linda Manz's Cebe is essentially the manifestation of free love, hippie ideology, mind-expanding drug use and confusion. Her mother appears to be a kind, but painfully emotionally-stunted ex-Flower Child. Here, Mom is only physically grown up. She married her true love, a tough Hippie Biker type who quickly grasped onto the life of a heavy hitting trucker.
Despite it all, a child needs to love her parents.
Linda Manz & Dennis Hopper
Cebe's mother has forever give her heart to her husband, but she gladly hands over her body for some stability and a fix. We slowly figure out that Sharon Farrell's Kathy is a closet heroin addict. She loves her daughter the best she knows how. Kathy doesn't view her daughter's rebellious nature as odd or worrying. Within Kathy's limited understanding, Cebe is her father's daughter. A natural born rebel. While Kathy has already hooked up with Dad's best friend and former local nemesis, she is still married to Dad.
Kathy can't wait for Daddy to get out of prison so that they can be a Happy Family again.
Burning what little ideal she covets of her parents, a child on the verge…
This was never a happy family. Cebe seems to be the only one fully aware of this.
She, too, is excited about her father's release from prison and return to home. However, Linda Manz's skill as a naturalistic actor allows her to show us that she is not so certain things will be getting better. She hopes that they will, but Manz's forever perplexing ability to convey mixtures of emotions that often run against the very grain of her character's dialogue and actions, we know she really expects that things for her are about to get a whole lot more difficult.
Her bedroom offers a great deal about the complexity of our lead character. Innocent childhood toys and 1970's era children's art remain in tact, but are almost buried beneath the impact of shrines to Elvis. Cebe has crafted old Elvis album art and magazine photographs into collages better suited to religious iconography. A huge amplifier, drum kit and an electric guitar take the front and center of her room.
While the Elvis art seems old and fading, newer posters, pictures and magazine cut-outs weigh down the walls. These are all related to PUNK rock. The Subhumans, Sex Pistols, Teenage Head & Public Enemy are among the iconic bands name-checked on Cebe's walls. Linda Manz's Cebe was something altogether new to cinema.
OUT OF THE BLUE, Linda Manz, Sharon Farrell, 1980
This is the child of an addicted murderous father and an Up With People hippie gone to seed. Born into a life of instability, threat and fear — Cebe is constantly seeking new totems and sounds to bolster herself. She must reinforce her strength and appearance of knowledge and power to stay ahead of the game.
She clearly does not possess a clear understanding of either Elvis or PUNK rock. But she painfully understands the messages conveyed.
She may not understand the joke that Elvis had become by the time she was old enough to know his music. She also may not understand the corporate ownership of "Johnny Rotten" / "Sid Vicious" or the tragedy of their lives, but she gets the over-all jest of what they and their music stood/stand for.
She can't articulate what "pretty vacant" actually means, but she somehow understands it applies to her life and the lack of hope it provides.
Rebellion is all she has.
A startling glimpse into the psyche of a 15 year old girl born of free love, addiction and rebellion. She hides it, but the numbing reality of her life is constantly revealed by the all-too-realistic nuance of Linda Manz's performance.
Upon her father's return things around Cebe seem to take on darker aspects.
Her mother's drug use is now done in the living room. Even though Dad is home, Mom is all the more open about pursuing her sexual needs.
Dad has taken his drinking to a new level.
Classmates and some parents view her father's return as an injustice to the children who were killed by the drunken crash four years earlier.
Worse yet, mother loses her worries in H while Dad and his pal take matters into their own hands and murder the father of one of the children killed in the tragic accident. The angry father feels the need for vengeance. Even a hint of his anger is enough to stir Dad to go into full attack mode.
Cebe runs away. She sleeps on the streets and ends up in a sexualized world of predators. Smart enough to run from this world, she still returns home.
Sleeping on the streets seems a safer alternative to home. This is no late 70's After School Special. This is dire and real.
When she gets back, she has hardly been missed.
The final straw arrives when a drunken argument between Mom, Dad and dad's best friend, played by Don Gordon, lead to a non-sensical idea that Cebe has become too butch (or "a dyke") to use Mom's words. In drunken/stoned stupor it is decided that Don must have sex with Cebe to set her "straight." Hearing it all from her room, Cebe begins to transform into a sort of asexual PUNK God.
Fighting off her father as if where a lion, her bedroom chair legs aimed at him like spears — the father retreats. After slapping the stoned out mom a bit, mom returns to Cebe's side to help her into her nightgown.
So angry. So alone. So desperate. Cebe's rebellion takes a very dark turn.
She opts to patricide and suicide as her ultimate "PUNK" revenge. Just as you would expect from Dennis Hopper, the nihilistic ending feels almost surreal. But it isn't. This is a reality born of rage. No child psychologist can apply some words and therapy to take away the crime of her murders. If Cebe knows two things it is that she wants to kill her parents. It is hard not to relate to her conclusion. It is her suicide that is the tragedy.
Hopper's film offers a grim view of a societal issue.
Embracing the ideology of PUNK rebellion and the reality of her life, Cebe teases her drunk, brutish and leering father's sexual advances.
Linda Manz and Dennis Hopper
By the time the film was ready for release, several minutes involving the disturbing scene in which the daughter sexually taunts her father prior to brutally killing him had to be edited to secure an "R Rating." Originally conceived as a Canadian film, the Canadian Film Board quickly demanded funds returned and denied Canadian approval. The film was not released to Japan until the 1990's over concerns related to rebellion, patricide and suicide. In the US the film barely managed a limited release. While it was largely supported by film critics — even Jack Nicholson stepped out of the celebrity bubble to promote the film which he felt had something very important to say.
The film quickly became a source of infamy.
Bebe applies her make-up to bolster strength.
Interestingly, it began to develop a misleading reputation as a PUNK Rock Movie. It is not.
Costumed for fun a school bus full of children are trapped
When AnchorBay was able to release the theatrical cut on DVD in 1999, the sales started off high. Driven by the rumors surrounding the film as PUNK Statement. Those sales quickly dwindled. Out of the Blue is not a fun movie. It is grim, gritty, realistic and offers the audience no easy way out. While the film does suffer from budget restraints. The crash into the school bus is not as potent when the film returns to the incident the second time and "goofs" can be seen. But mostly, this angry film remains a valid glimpse into human darkness.
A disturbingly logical but incorrect application of Elvis and PUNK mythology into identity.
Linda Manz transforms…
Although I am unsure if he has ever publicly discussed this film, it clearly had impact on Harmony Korine. Any Knowledgeable film-buff will see this film's influences on Korine's work.
It also captures teenage rebellion with a cause.
Technically, AnchorBay no longer has this film in print, but copies can still be found on Amazon. Sadly, many other versions of this film are out there on DVD. Be warned: most are of very poor quality. Most look as if second-hand dubbed from old VHS tapes. And most of the non-AnchorBay prints are heavily censored. It remains to be seen if this film will ever find it's way to restoration.
1969's Coming Apart offers an equally realistic and dark journey to the heart of human self-destruction, but with a different sort of reason in mind. Milton Moses Ginsberg's much discussed film is one of style, human pain and classic NYC Method Acting. Often compared to Jim McBride's David Holzman's Diary. In truth Ginsberg's film has very little to do with McBride's groundbreaking film beyond the use of "documentary" style and mirror metaphor. The idea of exploring identity and/or sexual identity is not really traceable to one work of art. What makes Ginsberg's experimental 1969 film so important is that it captures more than just a time capsule moment within the 1960's Counterculture Movement as it brings focus to the resulting identity problems that movement helped to acerbate. It also serves as a great example of the power to be found within filmmaking.
Setting up a hidden movie camera in a mirrored box designed to look like an object of art. Welcome to the world of "Joe Glassman"
Milton Moses Ginsberg, 1969
Cinematography | Jack Yager
Having just survived a devastating end to a relationship which led him to securing an apartment in the same building as the woman who had rejected him, Milton Moses Ginsberg essentially found himself in an existential downward spiral. This experience drove him to create the script for Coming Apart. An almost shockingly detailed script, he also sought to utilize some of the most respected young actors trained directly under the mythic teachings of Lee Strasberg. Very few of the actors seen in this film were not members of the original Actor's Studio. It's three leading actors were among Strasberg's most prized pupils. They were also known as his most fearless actors who fully embraced every philosophy of Strasberg's ideology. Rip Torn, Viveca Lindfors and Sally Kirkland may not have been the most famous, but they commanded a great deal of respect within the realm of NYC Actors and Method Acting. The easiest way to sum up Strasberg's Method Acting was to understand and pursue acting as truth. Truth without filter. Truth without censor. Truth pursued at all costs and concentration. Essentially, Method Acting seeks to pursue the truth of the human soul to it's deepest and often darkest depths. This was and remained the essential elements of all three actors.
Checking his hidden camera's perspective…
Milton Moses Ginsberg once stated that the Coming Apart script served as a "vehicle for actors to reach into their souls and I found two actors who could reach deeper and better than any others at that time." He was referring to both Rip Torn and Sally Kirkland. But the entire film is filled with Method Actors. This is particularly interesting to note as most who have seen Coming Apart walk away from the experience thinking that they have seen improvisation and even partial biographical film. This is not at all true. Almost everything in the film is scripted. While Ginsberg was not afraid of improvisation, he expected that each actor honor his script. They did. Each was fully invested in the three week project.
It is interesting to note that every single film snag, break, audio interference, audio loss and distortion is clearly listed and often even drawn into the script. When we are unable to hear or see something it is because Joe can't deal with hearing or seeing it himself. The only post-production decision to deviate from the script was Rip Torn's long rant into the camera. It was originally to be an articulated four minute rant during which Torn's Joe experiences an emotional break. Ginsberg felt at looking at Rip Torn's face was far more insightful than his own words. So he added unplanned chops and drops of sound during this one scene.
The idea of the film stems from the writer/director's own self-destructive act of almost stalking a former lover, the premise is quite simple. A burned-out and emotionally ravaged psychiatrist rents an apartment in the same building as that of a woman with whom he had what he feels was a meaningful affair. However, this does not stop the doctor from pursuing an experiment in which he hides a movie camera within a mirrored box. Intended to look like a piece of modern art, he places this hidden camera so that it captures the goings on in the living room from one perspective. Trained on a sofa, "Joe" has placed the sofa in front of a huge mirror. In this way, the camera picks up all activity from two perspectives.
"Kinetic art object."
"Modern sculptory."
While he has set up the apartment as a sort of trap which will require his former lover to interact with him, he is also intent on filming his interactions with women. What at first seems like an extended and sick "bachelor's weekend" soon devolves into an examination of sexuality and identity at it's core root. Almost immediately the audience is placed in the role of Voyeur. It is an uncomfortable place to be. There is very little erotic about the goings-on, but it is quite sexual. It is also intense, provocative and disturbing.
When Joe's former love confronts him for having crossed a line by moving into her building, Joe's idea backfires. Viveca Lindfors' Monica is not interested in Joe. If anything she pities him. But is Joe even worth pitying?
"Did I do this to you, Joe?"
Viveca Lindfors & Rip Torn
Joe's first visitors are there strictly for sex. The first encounter comes the closest to being erotic. The second encounter with Elaine played by Lois Markle in one of the film's few comical moments, presents Joe with a type of sexuality he has perhaps only studied or discussed with patients. When presented with a true sadist, Joe isn't sure about what he should do. In both comical and realistic ways, Markle's characters tries to turn Joe on by exposing the permanent scars caused by cigarettes. It would seem that Elaine enjoys being a human ashtray.
This does nothing for Joe. She quickly suggests putting on provocative clothing. She even quickly runs back to her home to return in full-on BSDM gear designed to entice. Joe seems more curious than turned on. As she shows off her spike heel shoes, Joe asks her if it is hard to walk in them? She advises that these shoes are not for walking. Just when it seems she is about to give up all hope of getting laid, Joe decides to feign interest. As he pursues her on the floor, we see her legs up in the hair and she returns to her cooing and moaning while yelling, "You're raping me! You're raping me!" We see Joe hesitate and Elaine reach up and pull him back to her. She then returns to pretending that Joe is raping her. This is the only "light" moment to be found in Coming Apart.
Are you sure you don't want to put a cigarette out on me?
Rip Torn & Lois Markle
The entire film runs like a document of what we would now call "found footage." The scenes cut off. The film appears to run out or break. The audio goes off and on. The light has impact on the quality of the film and the way in which we can see. This approach has an interesting sort of effect for the viewer. Even when we don't want to see everything, we often strain to keep up with what is going on in front of us. It is inappropriate. It is far too private. Welcome to being the target of the film. We are somewhat seduced into an act of voyeurism. The problem is that the eroticism of this film is short-lived. The erotic quickly becomes heart breakingly neurotic. Coming Apart is just that. We end up watching two people falling apart — or as their connection is grounded in the sexual, they are both cuming apart.
When we first see Sally Kirkland's Joann, she sits on the sofa slacked and bored. Far too young for Joe and not the sort of woman we have been seeing. She is beautiful, but clearly not sitting there waiting for sex. However, Joann comes to animated life when we see Joe actually take an interest in her. In what is extremely naturalist and real dialogue we discover that Joe and Joann have run into each other just outside the building. She is also a former therapy patient who had quit therapy. She claims to have no interest in therapy, but Joe insists that it would be inappropriate for him to see her. He explains that he has cut back on therapy sessions and has taken this apartment to work on a paper for which he has been given a grant to write.
A drunken/stoned gathering quickly devolves into an uncomfortable challenge of group sex and sexual identity…
Sally Kirkland is disengaged as "Sarabelle" The Clown hits on Joe…
This only seems to serve to excite Joann. Sally Kirkland's character seems to be literally morph into a sexual being. She begins to shamelessly flirt with Joe. She mentions that she is involved with a man who likes to experiment. He likes to watch her get it on with other men. As she is clearly exciting Joe, she begins to tell him about an orgy she recently attended.
When he asks her more about orgies she responds, "It's wilder than you can imagine." And, it is here that we start to understand that Joann is every bit as broken as Joe. As she continues to try and excite him, she stumbles onto her own issues and woes. They slip out more clearly defined than a tale of her orgasm. "Why am I telling you all this for? You're not my doctor!" Yet, she can't help but keep speaking. Her rambling becomes less erotic than tragic and filled with self-loathing. Her energy drained, Sally Kirkland's Joann is heart-broken and filled with a confused anger. Her body has started to fold in on itself but she continues to attempt some idea of body flirtation.
She tells him that her lover likes to call her "Whore." It is apparent that Joann herself is confused why she has shared with Joe. It is a source of pain for her.
An awkward lapse of silence follows. Without any sort of reasoning, Joe offers "I'm lonely, too."
This of course is as if he has given invitation. Joann has now placed herself across the room, hand close to Joe's crotch — soon her head rests there as well. After allowing her to sublimate her entire body poised to give him oral pleasure, Joe cruelly dismisses her, "You've got to go to work and I've got to go home to my wife."
"Let's make the most of a bad thing, shall we?"
Rip Torn & Sally Kirkland
But Joe may have met his match. Joann quickly turns the tables on him by pointing out that she's relieved he has a wife. A slight pause as she glances toward his crotch, "I thought you were a fag." This comment seems to have a far greater impact than we expect. Before long Joann is back an affair begins. Or at least, a sexual relationship begins. We see her consistently working hard to bring him sexual pleasure, but Joe seems to have lost the ability to achieve a hard-on. Drunk and nude, both Joann and Joe seem miserable. The camera unknown to Joann, Joe appear to start mugging at his camera — at us. It quickly becomes clear he is trying not to cry.
Later Joann returns, after a bit of an argument they end up attempting to have sex. She ends up masturbating against Joe's leg. Sexuality between Joann and Joe seems to illicit impotence for Joe and rage for Joann. Just before his camera's film runs out, he commands that Joann face away from him on all floors. The implication being that he can't look at her to fuck her. Yet, Joann agrees. Four on the floor, Joanne waits. As Joe stands and removes his underwear, the film runs out.
A bit further into the film Joann returns with a whole group of people. All of whom seem to be in various degrees of intoxication. Group sex takes place, but it seems to present Joe and Joann with frustration. Joann seems angry. Joe seems afraid. When he mistakes a transgender female for a biological woman — this is 1969, but this person looks far more female than male. Later Joe is presented with a nude gay man who clearly wants to pleasure Joe. This is a returning theme in the film. Joe's heterosexuality is consistently under scrutiny. It is never clear how much Joe's developing sexual issue is related to the fact that perhaps he is sexually conflicted or merely depressed.
Sally Kirkland looks into the abyss…
The downward spiral for Joe and Joann continues. Joe is clearly experiencing a nervous breakdown. Joann has been kicked out of her home — she claims this is because she has become Joe's sex toy. Yet he refuses her a place to sleep. Telling her she stinks. We know that they have just had another unsuccessful attempt at sex. Beyond abusive, we have entered the realm of human cruelty.
At one point, Sally Kirkland's Joann tells Joe: "You're not as strong as I thought. You're frightened. You're weak-willed. There's no mystery about you. None!"
She aims this as a threat, but she doesn't give up. She continues to pursue Joe despite repeated failures, insults and even physical threat. It is illogical, but feels believable real.
It is crucial to note that there is nothing amateur or limited within Coming Apart. Each and every performance is so authentic in emotion, sexual need, desperation and rage that the viewer feels uncomfortable watching the interactions especially given that Ginsberg films it all from a secret camera perspective. Filled with mirror reflections that capture information from all perspectives with limitation of being stuck in the position of a perverse voyeur. A limited budget does not matter. Nothing is boring. The opposite. However, very little if any of it is "enjoyable."
Half nude, loaded gun and on the attack: Sally Kirkland's break results in unhinged destructive blood-lust
Everything we see feels real. In fact, at the time the film was released many labeled it as pornographic. It carried an "X-Rating" and is still rated "NC-17" despite being tame in comparison to many films other than the entire movie just feels so real. And an even larger number of people refused to believe it was fictional. Even some of Rip Torn's friends were convinced he had left his wife, Geraldine Page, for several weeks. Hired Ginsberg to take credit for shooting a film which was simply a drunken Torn having his way with women. This was something that was a source of both comedy and annoyance for both Rip and his wife. As for Sally Kirkland, she soon found herself being questioned about the idea of "Art vs. Pornography."
Raging and murderous, Sally Kirkland tosses a piece of art directly at us, or, uh, Joe's hidden camera…
Perception is attacked…
The film was made at the darkest moment of the counterculture revolution. 1968 was indeed a tipping point for the United States.
"Erotica was very much a part of the Counter-Culture Revolution in the New York City art world!" Kirkland explained during a Q&A of the film in the late 1990's.
Coming Apart for many of the actors was a natural extension of the revolution that they were so deeply vested. The was a revolution against war, oppression, inequality and perhaps most importantly — the Counter Culture was acting out against the regimented cultural and societal perceptions of what normalcy was supposed to be.
Like Dennis Hopper's gritty little strange 1980 movie, 1969's Coming Apart was also a subverting normality. It is of particular interest that this was all captured in what most would consider the final year of the 1960's.
Reality shatters
Despair, contempt, loneliness, heart break and rage destroy realistic perception once and for all…
In the late 1990's Sally Kirkland bluntly asserted to the audience for whom Coming Apart had just been screened, "People are still dealing with this revolution!"
Nothing left to see or say.
While more than a few of her fellow artists would consider Sally Kirkland an eccentric, none would ever argue her intelligence. An esteemed, highly intelligent and articulate individual, Sally Kirkland really hit the nail on the heard. 46 years on and Ginsberg's Coming Apart is still shocking and confusing viewers. In many ways, this film's examination of sexuality, loneliness, desperation and human rage goes beyond authenticity. It pursues and touches the rawest of human nerves. For many, it might be easier to watch the extreme torture porn of Srdjan Spasojevic's A Serbian Film.
The film continues to polarize audiences. However most cinephiles, critics and actors now see this film as a masterpiece.
Kino had issued a great DVD of the film in 2000. I get contradictory reports about whether or not Kino still has the rights to continue to print their DVD of the film. However, while it has sold well a second reprint was never required. Or, it was never done. It can still be found on Amazon. There are no plans in place to give this historic and highly personal film a restoration it deserves. It would be a good time to more forward as all three of the key players for this film are in their 70's and early 80's. One of the challenges seems to be regarding the use of Jefferson Airplane music.
One thing is for sure — neither of this films should be forgotten.
Actually, I don't think either will. Both Out of the Blue and Coming Apart carry a certain cred that is undeniable. They also both retain a level of curiosity. Neither fit into mainstream cinematic ideas. Both push the envelope without sacrificing artistic merit. These two films have respective followings.
Naked despair, rage and sexuality come to limited cinemas in 1969.
Matty Stanfield, 10.4.2015
AnchorBay
Art Vs. Pornography
Base Instincts
Controvery
Don Gordon
Downward Spiral
Emotional Break
Four on the floor
Infamy
Influential Film
Jack Yager
Jim McBride
latent homosexuality
Lee Strasberg
Lost Cinema
Marc Champion
Michael Guillen
Pacific Film Archive'
PUNK God
PUNK Movement
PUNK Movie
Sex Object
Sexual Teasing
Sharon Farrell
Steve Seid
Subvert Normailty
Subvert Normality
Sucide
Truama
October 4th by Matty Stanfield in	American Film Cinematic Provocation Coming Apart Controversial Film Cult Film Dennis Hopper Eccentric Cinema Experimental Film Film Film Art Film Criticism Film Theory Human Psyche Identity Independent Film Linda Manz Method Acting Milton Moses Ginsberg Out of the Blue Provacitve Provocative Provocative Film Psychology Rage Rebellion Rip Torn Sally Kirkland Sexuality The Human Condition
A Dystopian World Without Sound: The Tribe
Like the majority of filmmakers working out of Eastern Europe, Myroslav Slaboshpytskiy's "The Tribe" is about as dark, bleak and grim as cinema can get. It is also something dramatically different than I've ever seen on a movie screen.
Miroslav Slaboshpitsky, 2014
Cinematography | Valentyn Vasyanovych
The plot of the film revolves within and around "life" in a sort of dystopian school, shelter, school, home, trade school or dorm for the deaf. The true purpose of where we find ourselves is suspect.
No auditory speaking, no subtitles — essentially no sound save the breathing and movement of fingers, hands and arms. This is not some cheap marketing stunt. This is the audience pulled into the perspective of the characters who do not have the benefit of sound. We are essentially pulled into a "world" within which we have no way of easily understanding what is being communicated.
Smoking and talking in the Boy's Room…
The impact is almost without measure.
Myroslav Slaboshpytskiy's cast is deaf. They communicate in sign language which very few of us actually know. To the director and the casts' credits, it doesn't take us long to determine what is going on, but it does serve as a sort of portal toward metaphor and allegory that would not exist without this challenging perspective. Welcome to a world when all of our understanding of communication is stolen.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe, A Community of Deaf Youth. Welcome to The Marginalized…
Welcome to the world of "The Tribe."
Cinematographer, Valentyn Vasyanovych, captures everything in an almost formalist and interesting set of long-takes. The art of cinematography is crucial here and extraordinary. Without question, we would be watching closely anyway, but Vasyanovych's work lends itself to pulling us even closer in our almost dazed gaze.
The characters speaking Ukrainian Sign Language, the audience is shut out of this world with only close observation to guide us.
When our main character shows affection toward another, the possibility of being loved seems cruel to the other. Not fully certain what is stated between these two young people, but it certainly feels as if "Anna" feels that there is no room for "love" within the world in which both are trapped.
The scenes between "Anna" and "Sergey" are intense, erotic and frightening. Partly because we are never sure exactly what is being communicated. Their argument seems like an outburst of violent gestures, grunts and thumps. The sexual intimacy is both beautiful and somehow disturbing. Especially given what we learn is going on within this dark and fractured world.
There are a great many disturbing aspects in "The Tribe." In fact, some of this film is more than a bit difficult to watch. The world in which these young people live is cold, cruel and Miroslav Slaboshpitsky's pulls no punches. There may be aspects to this story that are too graphic for some. Be warned because once you start watching this film, you will most likely find it impossible to look away. We have no choice but to watch, to blink or look away is to miss out on vital information about his grim world.
This film is an often traumatic sort of reminder to many of us in the audience who only have limited access to this tribes' world. In more than a few ways we are transported into their world.
Certainly not an easy film. But the vitalness and the cinematic magic is impossible to deny. And in my opinion, it would be tragic to miss this movie. An unforgettable sort of silent movie. …with no title cards to guide you.
Each is required by some enforced duty…
Sadly "The Tribe" is receiving a very limited US release. But it will be coming forward via VOD, DVD and Blu-ray soon and is already available in the UK. If you love the art of film, you will not want to miss this movie. Add this to my list of the best films I've seen in 2015.
Being pulled into a different sort of world…
Don't miss the opportunity to see this film. The San Francisco Roxie Theater only has 2 remaining scheduled screenings starting today. The VOD, DVD and Blu-Ray will be released to the US by http://drafthousefilms.com
Matty Stanfield, 9.13.15
Eroicism
Limited Theatrical Release
School for the Deaf
Ukrainian Sign Language
Universal Sign Language
September 13th by Matty Stanfield in	Brutality Cinematography Deaf Eroticism Experimental Film Film Film Art Film Criticism Film Theory Human Cruelty Independent Film Matty Stanfield Miroslav Slaboshpitsky Sexuality Ukrainian Film Valentyn Vasyanovych Violence
The San Francisco Hiss or The Polarizing Impact of Jason Banker's Felt
Jason Banker, 2015
I was well acquainted with Jason Banker's fist film, Toad Road. I love his first film. If you have not seen it, seek it out. Toad Road is streaming via Netflix and AmazonPrime. So I was excited when I had a rare opportunity to see his second and latest movie, Felt, last year. At that time Felt had only had two official screenings. I had no idea regarding the subject of the film when I first saw it. Felt was so such a jolt of the senses my jaw had fallen leaving my mouth open in a mixed state of awe, confusion and shock. I knew I liked Banker's new film, but it filled my head with so many ideas, challenged my personal ideas of cinematic reality and was deeply unsettled. I was unable to form a clear opinion to write anything that would matter. This didn't thrill the individuals who had asked me to write a summary and review. As promotion for the film began I avoided reading any reviews or much in the way of commentary. Aside from a couple of interviews with Jason Banker, I only watched the two trailers.
It would be June of 2015 before Felt would reach San Francisco's Roxy Cinema. I do not enjoy The Roxy. I'm sorry. I just don't like seeing movies there.
The Roxy Movie Theatre is a historical building. It is actually the second oldest continuously operating movie theater in the country. The Roxy is an odd experience within and of itself. No matter how hard the owners and the city have tried, years of decay have created an odd atmosphere. There are two screens. One of the screens is sort of disconnected from the other. It almost feels like an after thought from the late 1970's or the early 1980's. I've never had an enjoyable viewing experience there. I think this is because of all our cinemas, The Roxy tends to attract all groups of The San Francisco Cinematic Audience under one roof. The San Francisco Cinematic Audience can be a strange mix and one is most likely to encounter it at The Roxy. Situated in the prime real estate of The Mission it is a natural magnet. I break down the SF Cinematic Audience into 3 stereo types: Hardcore Film Art Cinephiles, SF Hipsters and Fringe Art Eccentrics. Reactions and interactions tend to be "extreme" or "muted dissonance" — you never quite know what to expect. The one thing you can expect if you see a intense, controversial or polarizing work of art at The Roxy you can anticipate debates and even arguments as you make your way back to Mission Street.
As an example, I attended a screening of Christophe Honoré controversial 2004 film, Ma Mere, at The Roxy.
Christophe Honoré, 2005
It was not even a new film. I has seen several years earlier at another old cinema which is now long gone and forgotten. Ma Mere is a challenging and polarizing movie on its own without the added projection of our SF Audience baggage. The theatre was not full. The audience seemed to have an equal number of men to women. All of my Roxy stereotypes were present. Cinephiles, Hipsters and Eccentrics were sharing the space. The entire audience sat in silence as the credits rolled. I was ready to leave, but I didn't want to be lectured. So I sat. No one stood up or shuffled in their seats. It was total silence. And then it happened. A long and exaggerated "hiss" was aimed at the screen. Then two more "hissers" joined in.
This is the dreaded San Francisco Hiss. A prime example of our city's strange sense of entitlement that often "requires" the SF individual to feel the need to hiss at movies, performers or artists if their viewpoints do not align with his/her own. It is as annoying as it is funny. But make no mistake, The San Francisco Hiss is quite serious in intend. It carries more impact here than a "Boo" or a tossed cup. The tricky thing about The San Francisco Hiss is that it tends to set off a chain reaction of one sort or another. I often feel like my fellow citizens feel that his/her own individual opinion is far more important than any other. All one needs to do is ride a MUNI bus from the beach to Union Square to see these clashing "entitlements" go to battle. This often evolves into full-on-rage fueled rants. Inevitably someone is asked to exit the bus. The bus driver must firmly stand his/her ground. The bus stops. It will not move until the one or two individuals who have gone too far step out. Traffic jam ensues. Everyone is late.
Welcome to The New French Extreme
Louis Garrel and Isabell Huppert
As one would expect this "hiss" aimed at Ma Mere created anger toward the hissers. By the time the lights came up a highly encaged debate was in full tilt boogie. The hissers were white male hipsters. Of the five annoyed hiss protestors were two females of the Cinephile type, one male of the Team Eccentric and the other was a woman of the Hipster variety. It was the only screening of the day. I sat and listened in. And I took notes.
"You've no right to ruin the experience for the rest of us!'
"Dude! It was the credits!"
"This is an important film! You are both too ignorant to understand it!"
"Oh I think we know pornography when we see it!"
"Fuck you!"
"No Fuck you!"
At this point it was best to quietly walk past them as the poor Manager (of Team Cinephile) was about to attempt to guide the argument out to The Mission. I'm sure everyone made it out fine. It is just the way it tends to be when you go to The Roxy. Especially if it is the last evening screening.
If Ma Mere is polarizing, I'm not sure where this would leave Felt. Jason Banker's film is beyond "polarizing" — it is an intentional and intense provocation. I decided I would never get to see Felt on a big screen.
I made the right decision. A pal emailed me of his experience at The Roxy after watching Felt. The film profoundly disturbed him. The mixture of hissing and shhh'ing made him leave before the credits were done. As he walked back out to the reality of Mission Street, he noticed three women gathered together discussing the movie. I asked him of which "group" they were members. He was not sure, but he guessed they were fellow Art House Cinephiles. Because of the nature of the film he had just seen he was hesitant to approach these three women who were all hugging themselves. He guessed that all three women were probably somewhere between the ages of 24 and 28. He was most definitely sure that all three of these women were intelligent, cool and "casually" beautiful. My friend put his hands deep into his hoodie's pockets and asked, "So, how do you all feel about 'Felt'?"
Luckily none were offended. He told them about a friend of his having already seen Felt (that would be me) and that I had yet to be able to articulate an opinion. All three women agreed. Felt had left them with a great many mixed emotions. As he prepared to walk away one of the women volunteered, "It's so weird I hardly ever allow myself to think about it. But I'm always so uncomfortable when I'm in a room with more than a few men." The other two women nodded in agreement, but none could articulate why. He agreed and mentioned that he got a sense of that feeling in the movie, but he couldn't find the words. No wanting to seem "lame" he said he thought the movie offered a lot of ideas but didn't clearly answer why women feel so threatened by men. Mistake.
He wished them a good evening and started walking away and the more assertive of the women called out to him, "Actually, it was in that movie." The reason is actually very clear in Jason Banker's movie.
Felt became available for purchase as VOD via iTunes this week. I bought a copy and watched it again.
I hit the Internet and read opinion from Film Critics, fellow bloggers, Letterbox and the fun world of IMDB user postings. Film critics are divided when it comes to Felt. What I find interesting about The Film Critic Response is the information one discovers by reading between their lines. The majority of the reviews seem to be afraid to either fully dismiss or fully praise Felt.
Ben Kenigsberg's New York Times review stuck me as being particularly off-mark. Due to The Times recent policy change related to which films are reviewed, it says a lot that they opted to even review Felt. Their current logic in what films they will review and which films they will not review is more than a little confused, but I am impressed that Felt was considered.
Super Hero?
Kenigsberg summed up Felt, "Reading about the filmmakers' intentions is more rewarding than watching the results." Meaning that The New York Times "felt" that Felt's cinematic intention had to be praised, but this critic seemed to need to find something about Jason Banker's movie that would allow him not to praise the over-all result. I write this because Kenigsberg's deconstruction of Felt feels almost painfully weak. He assigns a generally unfavorable review by taking aim at Banker's "ambiguities." Mr. Kenigsberg even goes so far as to challenge the title of the film. He expressed confusion about whether he should view the title as a noun or a verb. The title is no riddle. There is nothing "ambiguous" about it. A sixth grade child would be able to understand that the title of this movie is intentionally both a noun and a verb. Felt is filled with ambiguities. The title is not one of them. Felt's ambiguities are intentional. Even if an individual dislikes the film, he/she will note the the "ambiguities" are a major reason that the film holds interest. The "unstated" within Banker's Felt is what makes it a true cinematic experience.
As I read Ben Kenigsberg's review two points emerged:
1. It is not the ambiguity that bothers him, his real issue is the uncomfortable cultural statement Felt asserts.
2. He doesn't care for Amy Everson's artwork. He actually seems to hate it. It disturbs him.
Everything about Jason Banker's Felt is intended to unsettle, uncomforted, disturb and it requires both women and men to think about the ways in which we play into a system not of our own design. What the film presents is not a new problem. It is both a cultural and societal issue that has become so deeply entrenched that a jolt is needed to wake people up. I'm not trying to state that a movie is going to change anything, but this film just might be a catalyst for many to reconsider how they interact with the opposite sex.
Please note: I've nothing against Ben Kenigssberg. I think he is a sound, educated and professional Film Critic. His intelligence shines, but if he dislikes Felt he has failed to actually defend his position. I wanted to highlight his review because he is a member of a team of film critics who I admire. Unfortunately, he is one of many who have chosen to take the "safest" route to disregard this film. Most of these "safe-routed" dismissals fail to point out any credible reason to dislike the film. In fact the majority of bad reviews are not hinged on any real merit.
Only a handful of the bad reviews took a firm ground.
A Borrowed Gender
Marjorie Baumgarten of The Austin Chronicle is reasonable in her dismissal of Felt. While she has no problem admitting to the film's intended provocation and import of ideas, she found the movie to be stylized in a manner too obvious for her taste. There were also a couple of Film Critics who saw the potential of a great film, but disliked Jason Banker's choice of improvisational dialogue. I don't agree with either viewpoints, but I can understand these opinions. This is logical film criticism. It is also the sort of criticism that often met John Cassavetes. None of his films were actually "improvised" but they all felt like it. And Cassavetes never "rushed" the pace of a movie. Many critics disliked a great deal of his work. But those who were brave enough to embrace it bear out the winners in Film Theory. You would be hard pressed to find a Film Critic who would trash a Cassavetes film now. Robert Altman also received a number of negative reviews in his day for many of the same reasons.
Film Critic, Jenni Miller of A/V Club gave Felt a positive review. Her summation is that Jason Banker's movie might be a little too close to the bone to enjoy, but this is outweighed by the significance of what is being conveyed. Miller doesn't need to "enjoy" a movie to see its value. When she writes that Felt "sneaks up on you and lingers…"
she is able to state the power of the film. In the end she assigns a "B" rating, but it seems given with a firm warning that this was no fun for her — and it may be equally un-fun for you.
Of the few truly positive reviews Felt received, The Village Voice's Diana Clarke actually formulates her words in the way I so wish I could formulate my own.
Her review can be found here: http://www.villagevoice.com/film/in-daring-indie-felt-a-young-woman-seizes-rich-dudes-masculinity-7290019
Andrew O'Hehir of Salan.com is one of the few critics who liked the film. He clearly put some thought into what he wrote. Of course, this is his job. He also makes a potent reference to recent mainstream movies that almost seem to celebrate Rape Culture. Like Ted 2. I was particularly impressed when I saw that Rotten Tomatoes chose this O'Hehir quote: "Some viewers will no doubt find "Felt" maddening because it never answers seemingly crucial plot questions that a normal movie or TV show would feel compelled to clear up. That ambiguity is precisely the source of its power, and its cinematic quality."
Ben Kenigssberg, can you hear Andrew O'Hehir? This is Film Theory 101. Ouch. Maybe I am picking on Ben. I'm sorry.
If any of the Film Critics I know happen to read this, please start assigning a rating to your reviews. It sucks, but this is now a full world of Film by Consensus. Rotten Tomatoes is assigning their own rating to many of your reviews. And they are not accurate most of the time. Take head of The New York Times and A/V Club. Do not let RT decide the rating of your review.
The most disturbing thing I noticed regarding The Public Reaction was the number of women who were angered by not only Banker's film but by the idea of Feminism itself. There are a lot of women out there who view Amy Everson as the enemy. This caught me off guard. It doesn't surprise me that a number of "dudes" out there hate the movie. It would also not surprise me if a good number of women disliked it. Art is subjective. And Film Art this provocative is not always going to win everyone's heart. But I am shocked at the level of female anger toward Feminism. I don't get it. But then, I am puzzled by hate in general. It is so very extreme. The level of hate "out there" is staggering, but the level of misogyny and self-loathing is even more horrifying.
Jason Banker, the filmmaker who made the most out of a tragic and senseless tragedy into a surrealistic experimental horror film we know to be Toad Road, has now matured into a far more self-assured Film Artist. A potent Cinematographer as well, Banker brings a great deal of talent to the table. Felt came about thanks to accidental meeting between Amy Everson and Banker. During a visit to San Francisco, Everson caught Banker's attention because of her playful yet aggressive demeanor — and the fact that she was running around the city in one of her provocative costumes. As I understand it, Everson showed her artwork to Banker. The work he first saw was all contained in her bedroom. A hybrid of "Sesame Street" kitsch intertwined with sex toys, phallic symbols, dildos, vaginas, assholes and soft doll-like re-enactments of menace. All or much of the work utilizing felt as a key media. Amy Everson is brilliantly talented, fearless and a provocateur. Even the seemingly most innocent creation achieves a vaguely erotic danger.
Art by Amy Everson
Her work is often tinged with a twisted sort of humor and some of it is just deeply disturbing.
Although, I share my life with a San Francisco artist and know a good many, I've only heard/read her name a couple of times. There is a whole other aspect to her work which incorporates Performance Art with her costume creations. Jason Banker was equally impressed as he was disturbed. It was from this jumping point that the two artists began to collaborate toward what would become Felt.
If you are interested in Amy Everson's art, a link to her website is below. She is a completely unique and important voice. Check it out, but please don't "flame" her. It takes a whole lot of guts to lay your soul out for all to see. As I look at her work, it seems to me she is sharing some very intensely intimate glimpses into her being. I'm sure the recent release of Felt has been more than a bit challenging. Though, I hope it has been rewarding.
http://www.amyeverson.com
And now, my opinion/review for Felt:
Jason Banker's film begins with a painfully thin young adult woman who appears to have fallen into a deep depression. We first hear her voice in the form of narration. Her voice sounds a bit like "a little girl" yet what her voice delivers is a firm thud of certainty "My life is a fucking nightmare." BAM! It is this line that propels us forward into not only into the film, but her mind.
Amy Everson is more than the film's lead actor. She also shares "co-writing" credit with Jason Banker. And she is doing more than playing a character, the film's core ideas are based not only on her artwork, but certain aspects of her personality. Amy Everson is playing a "fictionalized" version of herself. While it is sometimes clear she is not a trained actor, she carries a great deal of charisma. You want to watch and understand this character. You want to try and like her.
"My life is a fucking nightmare."
Felt's Amy has survived some form of sexual abuse. The actual abuse is never stated or confirmed, but it seems obvious. Her friends want to help her, but are growing weary of her artistic and creative coping skills. Not only have these coping skills become isolating, they seem to have opened some dark portal into which she falling. These pieces of art and the costumes she creates are disturbing, provocative and somehow menacing and they are fusing into her identity. She has become dazed, lonely and nihilistically numb. Amy's costumes allowed her to access inner-strength. Their designed to not only give her a sense of worth and purpose, it feels as if they were initially conceived to act as healing tools with which she might be able to push away her fears of men.
"Amy" has found a way to funnel her anger and fears through her art. But now, these subversively-twisted anatomically-"correct" costumes offer no comfort. By the time we enter her story what were once empowering tools for healing have turned against her as well as against others. She has taken on an inappropriate role of "protector" for her friends from the men in their lives. Her artistic expression of comfort are turning into a weapon. Her isolation within these "armors" made of felt and other materials is starting to fuel a fantastical idea which is taking over her reality. She has taken to wearing her costumes beneath her street clothing. She wanders off into private corners of nature within the Bay Area and Redwood forests where she can strip down and assert her power with a wooden sword. While on a walk with a girlfriend, the friend tries to encage Amy in a conversation about her friends' concerns.
"You have to be very delicate…"
But Amy has already put on her mask and just as quickly has unzipped her pants to brandish her swollen plastic penis. Her friend tries to reason with Amy to no avail. All her friend can do is force her keep her clothes before she can make a break and run away. Before she rushes off Amy shares an alarmingly sincere desire for the two of them to become "Super Heroes" committed on seeking vengeance against all the predators society calls men.
Jason Banker is very careful to limit the information we receive and how we receive it. At times Felt may not be "linear." Other times it could be argued that what we see may only be within the confines of Amy's damaged psyche. This is not a flaw. This is a smart move on Banker's part. It allows the audience to form individual conclusions and to assess the situations as they unfold. We see Amy in several scenes with single men of her own age. In one scene she is alone with an ill-advised OKCupid Match-Up from Hell. Other scenes she shares these experiences with her girlfriends. These scenes of interaction with 'normal' men feel so real it almost hurts to watch. Each interaction reveals aspects of male behavior about, toward and with women that we might not always pick up were it not for Banker's camera. The truth is these scenes feel "real" and it is alarming to note the way the men attempt to manipulate, control and harass the women. What might feel "normal" is now unsettling. The men Amy meets are dismissive, aggressive, inappropriate and passively menacing. If there is even an initial "friendliness," it quickly feels false.
Is this hope?
Amy Everson / Kentucker Audley
In another scene she meets her best friend's new boyfriend. Amy is nervous and is unable to adequately hid her insecurity. Her friend's boyfriend immediately chooses to make fun of her and insinuates that she is nothing more than a spoiled entitled bitch. A few minutes later the boyfriend is pissed as Amy's girlfriend chides him for being mean to her best friend. His response is in the form of humor. He disagrees. He wants to know why his girlfriend is friends with such a "freak" and he teasingly wraps his hand around her neck warning her to not to hang out crazy "bitches." Amy immediately attempts to attack him for threatening her friend. This new boyfriend chooses to meet her aggression with an even stronger level of anger and threat. To him, Amy is a "crazy bitch" and he informs her that just because she is a "girl" will not prevent him from taking her down.
Later, her girlfriends sit down with her. One attempts to "lay hands" on her with a prayer for healing. Once again they try to reason her to understand that these men are "not all that bad" — they just want sex. But the hope is that they might want more down the road. Their intervention backfires on them as Amy stays calm and points out the obvious. Her girlfriends seem to be "aware" of the cruel, debasing and threatening attitude. It appears it is easier to just "accept" this cultural misogyny. Amy's more well-adjusted and functioning friends have and are assimilating into "Rape Culture."
Kentucker Audley plays "Kenny." Kenny's arrival into Amy's life comes with tenderness, understanding and concern. He comforts her. He cares about her. He is able to show that he is impressed with her art while also expressing sadness for whatever pain life has given her. Kenny never does this in a patronizing way. He truly appreciates her artistry and her. When she speaks to him he actually listens. Eventually, Amy is not threatened by Kenny. She seems to be healing as she discovers that she can be herself with him and he offers no judgement. He offers no threat. Kenny seems to offer only love.
Amy Everson and Kentucker Audley
It is never clear if Amy and Kenny have consummated their relationship. Just as it seems we might be given this information regarding their romance, we discover that Kenny is not what he seems. It is unclear, but he has not been deceptive with Amy. When he attempts to open up and discuss this deception, it is too late. Amy's discovery of Kenny's "deception" alters not only her perception of him. It seems to send her off-the-rails of sanity. And everything Amy shifts. Every little gesture seems to convey something different than before. We see everything about her change.
As she leads the audience into an act of horrific violence, it is not a surprise. Everything seems to be pointing to something horrible, but witnessing it is profoundly unsettling.
Playing 'Dress Up'
Jason Banker's film leaves the audience in a state of shock that is not scary. It is far more serious. We are left adrift in Amy's madness. The "victim" has become an even worse "victimizer." It brings us back to a scene in which she explains to Kenny that most forms of rape "are perpetuated by people you know and trust."
There is no way Kenny would have interpreted Amy's comment as a warning. It might not have even been clear to her. Amy's decision is not rational. It is insane.
Provocative, disturbing, challenging, oddly beautiful and repulsively ugly, Felt is one of the clearest articulations of our culture's continuing escalation of violence against women. "Rape Culture" is not some "hip" catch-phrase. It is a sad reality in which many of us play without even realizing. Jason Banker has crafted a firm depiction of cultural misogyny that never seems to wain. He has done so within the framework of Art Horror. The artistic mastery of this film can't be denied.
The implications of Felt's result leave us with one question:
How does a sexual assault victim heal in a world that almost seems to support the assault?
And for those who thought Jason Banker's feature film directorial debut, Toad Road, was an accident or a "one hit" cinematic wonder, Felt blows any doubt of possessing an important cinematic filmmaker out the window. This Film Artist is not limited in his scope of obtaining understanding from more than one perspective. This is a filmmaker to watch.
A/V Club
Ben Kenigsberg
Cultural Assimilation
Diana Clarke
Film Critics Must Assign Rating
Hardcore Film Art Cinephiles
Jenni Miller
Rape Culture
San Francisco Eccentricity
The French Extreme
Toad Road
July 21st by Matty Stanfield in	Amplify Releasing Amy Everson Anchor Bay Blackout Films Cinematic Debate Cinematic Journey Cinematic Resonates Cinematic Style Cinematic Truth Cinematography Cinephile Civil Rights Controversial Film Creative Arts Cult Film Cultural Commentary Deception Depression Distortion Eccentricity Empowerment Experimental Cinema Experimental Film Fear Felt Feminist Film Film Art Film Criticism Film Editing Film Theory Gore Hardcore Art Cinephile Hate Hipster Human Cruelty Identity IMDB Important Film Independent Film Influential Cinema Injustice Isolation iTunes Jason Banker Kentucker Audley Letterbox Loneliness Love Matty Stanfield Mental Illness Monsters MUNI Bus Ride Parnoia Polarizing Art Post-Feminist Psychological PTSD Rage Rape Realism Reality Rotten Tomatoes San Francisco Culture San Francisco Hipster San Francisco Stereotypes Self Defense Self-Awarenes Self-Deception Self-Entitlement Sexuality Societal Commentary Surrealism The San Francisco Hiss Violence Visual Impact VOD