Things learned during the Melbourne International Film Festival

1. Spending about 1000% more time than usual watching movies really shakes things up, let me tell you. I ran out of food, I grew out my hair, I changed my brand of anti-perspirant. Heck of a fortnight all over.

2. If you see a film which has an awesome twist in it, but the only reason the twist works is because you aren't even slightly expecting it, you're in a pickle: how can you convince people to go see this film without hinting at the twist's existence? If you describe the film's premise and people just say "aw, that doesn't sound that interesting, can you lend me five bucks?" – how do you convince them that the story isn't as dull and obvious as it sounds, without making them think that there might be something unusual and twisty about it? Ah, it's a pickle...

Moral: if I say a film is great but I can't convincingly explain why, you should go see it anyhow.

3. Subtitles (in English) for actors speaking in thick accents (in English): insulting to the (English-speaking) audience, an overreaction, or just incredibly distracting? Okay, okay, in the end I guess it wasn't as distracting as it might have been, and I'm sure those audience members unfamiliar with the Yorkshire patois were appreciative, but holy cats! Subtitles Were Annoying.

Films were pretty fine, though.

4. Australian Horror Films. I've been seeing a lot of them lately, I should really do a whole post on the topic. But instead I'll just shut up and tell you this: you should see Lake Mungo. The only modern Australian horror film that might rival it for quality would be Wolf Creek, but that's a really inappropriate comparison – the two films could hardly be more different. Lake Mungo is a ghost story (which is rare), and it's a horror that goes for deep chills rather than shock-jolt scares (which is even rarer). I saw it in a dead silent, almost-deserted cinema: the perfect viewing environment for non-jokey horror. It's excellent.

Lake Mungo did not play in the 2009 Melbourne International Film Festival. It has had only a limited cinematic release in Australia, and that within this last month or so, but it was picked up for an American remake nine months ago. Somebody needs a bigger marketing budget, okay.

5. Latauro is surprisingly recognisable. The guy is everywhere.

6. Is Korean cinema in some kind of a golden age for creepy, off-kilter films this past decade, or what? Park Chan-Wook has been doing absolutely brilliant stuff for a while, but I was really doubtful that anyone could do anything worthwhile or new with vampires, anymore. I was totally wrong. I also thought that while The Host was a great monster film, it was probably a one-off; I didn't imagine that it had been made by any especially brilliant filmmakers. Again, I was wrong.

Anyhow, the films "Thirst" and "Mother": I recommend them.

7. Nazi Zombies. Exactly what you were expecting, but in a very satisfying way.

That's a lot of points related to horror films, isn't it? I did see a bunch of artsy intellectual movies, too. In other words:

Blue Beard

Oh, Catherine Breillat, you crazy kidder! Good one.

The White Ribbon

So, hey, Michael Haneke, are you extremely clever? In all seriousness, I honestly can't tell. I think so? Probably? I think so. But I'm going to have to think about it some more. And this is not a bad thing. I think.

(I'm not being sarcastic, here, btw...)

And that's not everything I saw, but it's enough to be bothered writing about, I think.

--the Cinematic Thoapsl

Equuququqqq?

Surprisingly busy these past seven days, what with various encomplicatory happenings & eventuations. In the meantime, do you remember this? I recently found another odd Amazonian amusement (it seems I'm a couple of years late to this one, but anyhow):

Titles like this totally attract the best reviews.

Behooves! hahahahaha rofl

Note also:

Hm.

Watch Pun Watch

WATCHMEN

You know what I thought this was like, adaptation-wise? American Psycho. An "unfilmable" text, adapted in a way that amplified the ironic and parodic elements of the original at the expense of its more serious aspects. And an excellent film as a result.

 

Vast numbers of people are already reviewing this movie to death, but I haven't yet seen anyone point out that Watchmen is funny. And that's on purpose: it's supposed to be funny. It's serious too, but there's a thread of irony that's essential to the fabric of the whole. All very dark, very deep, but: by stretching and inverting superhero tropes the way it does, Watchmen (book & film both) is essentially a kind of parody.

(This is even more true for the film than for the original novel. There's a deeper suspension of disbelief when you're reading words and absorbing pictures; the absurdities are suppressed. But when it's live-action, a movie about costumed crimefighters can't help but highlight the strange and the ridiculous. And that's before you even get to the more obvious jokes – moulded nipples on the costume body armour, Rorschach's "Dark Knight" voice...)

Do you believe me? Just because a work explores some deep and serious ideas doesn't mean it isn't funny at the same time. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with acknowledging that, but it's true. When done well, that's part of what makes a good work so great: the humour can lend verisimilitude, and bring entertainment value too.

I love the original graphic novel, but I haven't read it for several years. (That was on purpose: I didn't want the differences between book and film to be too obvious to me, to be too annoying.) I went in with fairly low expectations. Based on the reviews I'd read, I was expecting that the movie wouldn't gel somehow; that it would duplicate the graphic novel's look but not its mood, that it would tell the events but not the story. The characters wouldn't seem right. It would be unsatisfying. That's what I was expecting.

Are you interested in my opinion?

Watchmen entertained the hell out of me. I thought it worked as a dark parody of superheroes (and of superhero movies), it worked as a compelling and unorthodox film narrative, it even worked as an action-romance with philosophical scaffolding. And I thought the fight scenes were awesome – seriously, some of the best movie fight scenes I've seen. (And that's coming from someone who usually hates any use of slow-motion, and who was only half-heartedly a fan of the action sequences in 300.) The music was great, too. (It's the musical choices that go a long way towards establishing a good subtone of parody throughout, too; I'm talking to you, Leonard Cohen's synth-heavy 1980s version of Hallelujah.)

I feel like I really need to talk about Watchmen with someone who watches a lot of movies, but hasn't read the graphic novel. Even better, someone who isn't especially familiar with comicbooks and superheroes generally. What on earth does this film seem like, to someone like that? There's so much bizarre excess in this movie, it's such an unusual brew of wild ideas... how does that play, to someone who has never read a superhero comic?

One thing in particular I thought interesting: by adapting the original text so faithfully, the first third (or so) of the film ends up with a narrative structure that's extremely unusual for a blockbuster. The way the story shifts from character to character and back and forth in time, exploring backstory and shifting perspectives (and all the while advancing the plot) – it's done in a way that's quite unusual, I think. There have been a lot of "ensemble"-type movies in the recent past, so many now that it's almost a subgenre of its own – I'm thinking about films like Magnolia, maybe I Heart Huckabees or Syriana or Crash, maybe even Pulp Fiction. All very different in tone, but I hope you know what I mean when I say they're similar in structure: multiple characters, interweaving storylines that build to a connected climax. You know what I mean. Watchmen has multiple characters and interweaving storylines that build to a connected climax, too.

But Watchmen is different to those films. It explores the characters' backstory and "origins" in ways that other ensemble films don't, I think. Following the pattern of the original text, the stories of the different characters are actually told differently, using narrative forms that reflect who they are. The segments with Dreiberg and Jupiter have a different feel to Rorschach's origin-told-via-psych-evaluation, which is different again to Manhattan's origin-told-via-simultaneous-time. Ensemble films often have different characters and different stories, but I think it's unusual to see different narrators used in this way. It works really well, too. It's a credit to the creators that it's never distracting, confusing or clunky – Watchmen is always a single film, not several different films cut together. (Or not to me, anyhow; again, I really need to talk to someone who knows the film but not the book! This is what I get for going to see it on opening night, when nobody else has seen it yet...)

There is a lot to this film, substance and style both. From sly easter eggs like "Good luck, Mister Gorsky" and the use of Apple's 1984 ad, to more subtle jokes (like the ironic/obvious musical selections), this is a film absolutely crammed with interesting details. The cast are great; in a couple of cases, they're excellent. If I wanted to nitpick, I'd say the very final scene was just slightly off – something about the pacing, maybe? – but even in the original book, that was a scene that never quite worked for me. Some people have said that the film doesn't evoke the Cold War feeling of imminent nuclear holocaust clearly enough; for myself, I thought that it was evoked well enough. But I might be more familiar with that sort of Cold War mindset than some people, I've been thinking about it a bit lately..?

I want to see it again. It's a great story, well told and thoroughly entertaining. It's funny!

In summary: see this film. If only so that I can talk to you about it.

--the Cinematic Thoapsl

Friday Is Out Of Context

The context is: this review is not actually out of context at its original home, which is the page of Amazon customer reviews for the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable. For some reason, this product has been singled out for ridicule: practically all the customer reviews (and there are more than 200 of them) are completely absurd. Some are weak, but some are totally hilarious. Here's another one I really liked:

(& thanks muchly to here for pointing it out to me.)

How did this happen in the first place? Was it just because the product is absurdly overpriced? I think it's amazing the way internets spontaneously produce stuff like this. There's something deeply fascinating about group behaviour that manifests for no particular reason. Especially when it's genuinely spontaneous, like this, and not just somebody's marketing strategy.

Fantastic.

This Friday Is Out Of Context Thoapsl Says: A revue is not a comment.