Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn belgian cinema. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn belgian cinema. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 28 tháng 4, 2015

INTO THE WOODS, AND OUT OF THE WOODS

A review requested by a contributor who wishes to remain anonymous, with thanks for donating to the Second Quinquennial Antagony & Ecstasy ACS Fundraiser.

As I write these words in the spring of 2015, the 2012 French animated feature The Day of the Crows has no distribution plans in North America, nor even an announced distributor (and that despite being a Canadian co-production, and based on an award-winning book by Québécois author Jean-François Beauchemin). This is both weird and infuriating. Weird, because releasing films like this and goosing them into Oscar nominations is, like, the whole thing that GKIDS exists for. Infuriating, because The Day of the Crows presents a strong case for itself as being the best animated feature in any Western aesthetic style in the 2010s so far.

Things start out with a wonderful few minutes of distraction and sleight-of-hand, beginning with a thoroughly uncertain opening that finds a mountain of a man tearing ass through a forest at night, and dropping a baby in his hurry; that baby spends the night being kept safe by a mother animal of some kind (I'm sure they have them all over Europe, but it looks not quite exactly like any of a half-dozen cat-size mammals I can come up with), before his father comes back to retrieve him. That, then, is our first introduction to the less-than-functional relationship of Courge (voiced by Jean Reno), the father, and the boy (Lorànt Deutsch), who never does quite end up with a name. When next we see them, they're living in a hut of sticks and the walls of a shallow cave, eking out a hunter-gatherer existence and wasting no time on niceties like love or familial affection; to Courge, the boy is only an obligation that must be taught how to hunt and survive.

After a few minutes of this, two things happen in very short order that blow away what has already proven to be a visually excellent, appealingly no-frills story of life in a primeval European wood. One is that the boy crosses paths with a human body topped by a ginger cat head, wearing a heavy coat, and communicating with gestures and knowing looks. The other is that the boy, hunting a stork, comes all the way up to the edge of The Outer World, which his father has very angrily forbidden him from ever entering, and the boundary is marked by high-voltage power lines. And just like that, the film announces without even raising its voice that it's going to be much less straightforward and explicit than the opening implied.

As it turns out, Courge and the boy have been living just a few miles from a small town in the French countryside in a period that's never marked, but it's surely well after the end of World War II, to judge from the clothes and general attitudes. The boy learns this quite by accident, when his father is wounded and the silent animal-people inhabiting the wood guide him out of it; in town, he finds a kind doctor (legendary director Claude Chabrol, in the final work of his professional life; he died two years before the film opened), and his daughter Manon (Isabelle Carré), no older than the boy himself, and they take the wildmen in to heal the unconscious Courge and give the boy food and shelter. The townsfolk, meanwhile, remember Courge from the as-yet unspecified history that sent him into the woods a decade ago. and they are not happy to see him back; one old woman, Mme. Ronce (Chantal Neuwirth), is convinced that he kidnapped her niece and murdered her, and she whips up the whole town into a frenzy against the newcomers, in a fashion most reminiscent of that other small-town French drama with a corvid in its name, Henri-George Clouzot's Le corbeau.

The story, adapted by Amandine Taffin, deftly combines that kind of parable of social conflict with the essentialism of a fairy tale, and surprisingly naturalistic psychology, given the other two things. It's unexpectedly eager to plumb some dark, nasty depths of human behavior in the form of Courge, a wicked father straight out of Grimm, who does not have any of the soft edges of most kid-friendly films about poor parenting; even when we start to see the shape of his tragic backstory, it merely makes him an explicable asshole instead of an inexplicable one. The same is true of Ronce, a brittle and brutal woman whose character design makes her look like a gleefully angry skull perched upon a human body - but the character design throughout the film is divine. Let me hold off on that for just a second longer. For I was not done praising The Day of the Crows for being absolutely willing to own up to the fact that there are some bad and nasty things that happen in life, and even when they're survivable, that doesn't make them less horrible. The film gets quite a lot of mileage from something as simple as the repeated way that the boy responds with confusion and some mistrust to any attempt to show him affection or kindness - without having to spell it our or dwell on it, the animation consistently shows how the boy's upbringing has left him entirely ill-equipped for even the slightest human interaction that isn't based in control and desperation.

It is, that's as much to say, a perfect exercise in character animation as performance, despite the visual style containing not a speck of Disney-style realism (it is traditional cel-style animation, of a sort that remains common in Europe - think the beautiful Ernest & Célestine - even as it is largely extinct in North American theatrical animation). Director Jean-Christophe Dessaint - whose most important work till now has been as assistant director on The Rabbi's Cat, though I will remain breathlessly hopeful that he gets to do another feature of his own - and his team of animators and designers have made a film based clearly in the charming grotesque of European cartooning, with the characters all rounded line drawings with few details (ol' Skull-Face Ronce is the primary if not indeed only exception), whose basic "two ovals and a line" faces stuck inside squishy-shaped heads are capable of an enormous range of the subtlest emotions; Manon especially is a masterwork of communicating volumes of unspoken thoughts through the tiniest beats of "acting". Despite looking broadly simple and comic, these characters are run through an enormous range of serious emotions, and the fact that such complex loss and need play out in the caricatured cartoon shapes we see onscreen gives those feelings more impact simply as a function of how unexpected they are.

These characters are set loose in one of the most beautiful worlds in animation in a generation. To begin with, the film establishes a division between the woods and the town that serves it well: namely, the town is largely realistic, fully detailed backrounds, while the forest is laid out as a series of Impressionistic paintings. There is, for the most part, the insinuation of trees and earth rather than the clear depiction of them in crisp, steady lines; it is more a spectrum of colors melded together and treated to terrific lighting design and effects animation; the film boasts the best animated rainstorm in an age, and the whole thing is lousy with dappled lighting rolling over arms and faces.


It's as gorgeous and insinuating as animation gets, the kind of film where the raw beauty of the artwork would be worthy of acclaim even if it didn't add the layers of meaning it does to an already complex, smart story about family and social dynamics. It is, admittedly, easy for me to go nuts in extolling the merits of a film that most of my readership will probably never be able to see, but The Day of the Crows is exactly the kind of movie that drive a love of animation: the hope that one will get to see a film where everything comes together so perfectly justifies wading through a lot of halfway-decent trivialities. Not particularly insisting on a family audience nor deliberately rejecting one, and exploring a range of themes that would be impressive in any live-action film, The Day of the Crows is great moviemaking and storytelling of a sort that plainly demonstrates why the medium of animation is as artistically significant as anything else in modern cinema.

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 12, 2014

ON THE JOB

It's solely a reflection of the kind of films that Belgian brothers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne usually make that the obvious first response to Two Days, One Night, their newest film of suffocating poverty and human disconnection, made in a viscerally anti-beautiful style with a cast made up almost entirely of shabby-looking unknowns, is that it's their sell-out, mainstream, "Hollyood" film. Which means, in this case, almost nothing beyond "it has a clear plot, and that plot is frequently exciting", and "one of the people in the cast is famous and pretty". Namely, Marion Cotillard, I believe only the second full-on movie star the Dardennes have ever worked with (Cecile de France co-starred in The Kid with a Bike, their last project, from 2011), and the first around whom they've built an entire film.

I should undoubtedly feel bad about this, but I think as a direct function of its relatively movie-like qualities, Two Days, One Night has instantly become my favorite of their films. Admitting that makes one feel a bit unpleasantly bourgeois in one's tastes. But the po-faced realism of all their most important mid-career work has paid, I've found, awfully few dividends, owing not least to how uninteresting the films are to look at, or in the case of Le fils and L'enfant, how actively unpleasant. Two Days is still shot in the harshly-lit, mostly handheld style of their earlier work, though the simple fact of putting someone as movie-star beautiful as Cotillard in that setting already changes the nature of how the film's visuals can function quite a bit; it has a kind of sustained, narrative-driven shape to its images that I haven't clearly seen in any of the Dardennes' films since Rosetta.

The big shift, though, comes from structuring the story not as a closely-observed slice of life with only a bit of dramatic spine, but as a full-on thriller, something that requires a complete overhaul of how the film is made and how the characteristic acting style in the film works. And this shift, I think, enormously benefits the movie, which still boasts the brothers' signature skills at finding the links between economics and personal psychology, and depicting with non-judgmental clarity the worn-down places where normal people live their lives in the everyday world, but now expresses those things in a framework that's not nearly so medicinal. It is probably not their "best" film, which I imagine still has to be Rosetta if only for the game-changing impact that film made in 1999. On the other hand, Two Days is very much their most watchable film, and it gets there without having to sacrifice much or any of the severe truthfulness that has always been the brothers' primary motivation as filmmakers.

Cotillard plays Sandra, who finds herself in the midst of a situation that is, to be fair, just a little bit movie-contrived. The company at which she has till lately worked, a manufacturer of solar panels, has been feeling a financial pinch lately, and during Sandra's leave of absence to deal with an acute depressive episode, the managers determined that it would be possible to restructure the workloads so that it would be possible to lay her off. In a sneaky bid for democracy, they couched this in the form of a vote: Sandra's position could be kept, but it means no year-end bonuses. Her 16 co-workers naturally voted to take the €1,000 bonus, leaving her and her family (she is - was, that is to say - the primary breadwinner - in a terrible position, but the managers made one mistake: they let the rumor slip that they'd influenced the vote. To avoid the appearance of chicanery, the boss man has agreed to hold a new vote on Monday morning, giving Sandra just Saturday and Sunday (or, if you will, two days and one night) to visit each of her former colleagues to convince them to vote in favor of the greater good and not having a bit of extra money, though for most of them, that extra money is itself the difference between barely scraping by and having a precious bit of financial breathing room.

There's no missing the symbolism at the film's heart: the bosses make the workers fight each other instead of unifying over shared suffering and need. There's no room for villains in the Dardennes' worldview; the workers Sandra needs to negotiate with and beg all have their own reasons for fucking her over, and none of them (except kind of one guy) are doing it for the sheer joy of being a petty dick. It's because they are all desperate, just as much as she is; the film's panoramic view of how every sort of person is thrown into the same wastebasket by the crushing tide of economic suffering makes it one of the great documents of the modern international recession, both because of its generosity towards all of its working class characters, the ones who sympathise with Sandra and those who are chilly towards her alike. The terrific ensemble cast, mostly made out of the amateurs and semi-amateurs favored by the Dardennes in all their work, brings this cavalcade of human experiences to life with a richness and depth that allows even the characters with the smallest time onscreen (and that's a lot of people to get to in not much running time) to make a fully realised impression.

For all its excellence as a fable of working class life in the 2010s - and this is the film's primary focus and its best strength - Two Days, One Night doubles as an excellent study of depression. The open secret hiding right underneath the plot is that, from their perspective, the managers are making the right decision: Sandra has revealed herself to be unsteady and unreliable, and throughout her weekend ordeal, her depression flares up multiple times, including a thwarted suicide attempt. This adds a sharp edge to the film's economic theme, since it makes the personal stakes more intense even then "how will we eat?": it's clear enough without anybody saying it that Sandra doesn't just need the money, she needs the structure and sense of personal value imparted by having a job, and being deprived that will make it harder for her to continue functioning emotionally. It also gives Cotillard a great deal more to play than simply the noble-spirited, indefatigable working class hero of social realism. Sandra is hella fatigable, in fact. And the steady march from adrenaline-driven passion towards burned-out desperation that the character goes through over the weekend gives the actor room to build a character of excellent complexity and emotional range, leaving in her wake the best performance of her career.

Alongside its character study and economic analysis, the film is surprisingly enjoyable to watch: the ticking clock scenario gives it an urgency unknown in the Dardennes' deliberately anti-sensational filmography, and the depth that the writing and acting bring to Sandra gives the film a chance to play around with emotional registers that aren't just "everything is sad and suffering". As Sandra experiences highs and lows, so does the movie; we have here, among other surprises, a Dardenne film with a musical interlude set to the 1964 rock anthem "Gloria" by Them, with Sandra singing along in a car in a rare moment of enthusiasm and freedom.

Two Days, One Night isn't "fun" - let's not be daft - but it is unexpectedly exciting to go along with how enraging and how moving it is. If it's the most mainstream film its directors have made, so be it: there's nothing wrong with being mainstream when one can be this intellectually and thematically dense in doing so. This is, readily, one of the year's best films, and a career high for everybody involved in its creation.

9/10 (increased from 8/10 in October)

Thứ Ba, 17 tháng 12, 2013

BY AND BY, LORD

There almost certainly hasn't been a more savagely dark feel-bad drama than The Broken Circle Breakdown all year, for most films in most years do not pivot on the death by cancer of a five-year-old girl. This isn't merely a thing that happens in the film; it is the thing that happens, the ominous point foreshadowed in every scene of the first half of the film and driving the drama in every scene of the second half. It is, to a profound degree, a Film About Childhood Cancer. At any rate, childhood cancer and bluegrass music.

Taking place in Belgium, predominately in 1999 and 2006, The Broken Circle Breakdown introduces us first to the older, more weary incarnations of Didier (Johan Heldenberg) and Elise (Veerle Baetans), a married pair of musicians headlining a group that plays American bluegrass for appreciative Belgian hipsters. It then skips backwards to show us their first sexual encounter, seven years prior, and from this point onward, the film's relationship to chronology is more about connecting emotional beats than providing a lucid narrative that we can easily follow from start to finish. This ends up being absolutely no problem whatsoever: the film is really quite easy to follow, partially because the actual meat of the story isn't really that complex to begin with, and partially because this more impressionistic way of ordering scenes makes sense in an intuitive way that makes the characters' emotions seem clear enough even if the specific order of scenes is a bit foggy in the first hour. This being a film about the way that people handle emotions, this approach works beautifully.

Also more intuitive than clearly laid-out and rational: the film's use of bluegrass. Which, to be honest, sets it apart from the pack a lot more than anything else does, for there have been no shortage of naturalistic and/or realist European films about people dealing with horrid tragedies in more or less destructive ways. But European films about how music can be a means of either exploring feelings or covering them up through performance? That's original on quite a different level than anything else going on in the movie. It's easily the most rewarding part of the film, for that same reason, and because of the insight into the subject littered through the script by Carl Joos, Felix Van Groeningen (who also directs), and Charlotte Vandermeersch, adapted from a play. Perhaps to counterbalance how much of it is a miserable wallow in the most painful, self-negating feelings a human can suffer through, much of the film is suffused with the exuberance and joy that comes from being a well-educated enthusiast in a niche subject: Didier's rapturous discussions of the history and meaning of bluegrass are as great an argument for how art can be an important, transformative element of human life as one can hope to encounter.

Rich stuff, vividly expressed through two sharply-drawn characters, but after a while, one begins to suspect that The Broken Circle Breakdown doesn't quite know where to stop. At 111 minutes, it's impossible to say that it isn't redundant after a while, if not indeed schematic in how it combines moments of the parents worrying and fretting over their gaunt little Maybelle (Nell Cattrysse) in the present with scenes of them performing songs in the past which reflect or contrast their emotional state seven years later. It takes much less time for the film to make its point about what performing music does for the performer than the film takes in making it, and that problem only intensifies in the back half, when the conflict is squarely concerned with how marriages are effected by the death of a child, and entire five-minute scenes play out with a single emotional observation being made, like acting exercises in which each of the principals has a single goal which never changes.

Perhaps most distractingly, there's a whole thematic thread in which Didier (an atheist) and Elise (a non-specific Christian) clash in small ways over how to raise their daughter, and then in large ways over how to react to her death. That's some hefty, complicated stuff to raise in what amounts to a film's B-plot, and it tends to feel, throughout, like the part of the movie grafted in afterwards: the conversations are probing and intense, but inorganic and writerly, and this latter flaw is more pronounced than its strength, to my mind.

The only thing which tends to redeem this are the characters themselves, for though the visuals provided by Van Groeningen and cinematographer Ruben Impens are crisp and intentional, they are also largely unremarkable, and there's more of dramatic than aesthetic interest to the movie. Lucky, then, that Didier and Elise are such complex, involving people and that Heldenbergh and especially Baetans give such commanding, nuanced performances. The film covers a whole lot of ground, from shy flirtation, to giddy erotic acrobatics, to the friendly boredom of a longstanding relationship, to recrimination and anger, and every single one of these registers is expressed beautifully and simply, giving us an exceptionally well-rounded impression of who these people are in many different stages of their lives. It's built along such a massively tragic arc that it can't be said to be as universally truthful a depiction of the Life of a Relationship as something like Blue Is the Warmest Color, but at the same time, the details are so specific that it's still ends up a pretty solid work of human observation.

And that, more than the ways that the film gets bogged down by its content and arch seriousness, is what stands out to me as the lingering part of the film. The Broken Circle Breakdown is imperfect cinema, but it is a truly great depiction of people going about the business of being people in thorny, conflicting ways, and studying how much love is or isn't enough to combat tragedies and loss. It is a movie driven by ideas, and those ideas are wonderfully deep, meaningful, and unresolvable in ways the let the film stick in the mind far longer than it seems likely to in the moment of watching it.

8/10

Thứ Tư, 23 tháng 10, 2013

CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL '13: BORGMAN (ALEX VAN WARMERDAM, NETHERLANDS-BELGIUM-DENMARK)

Screens at CIFF: 10/12 & 10/21 & 10/23
World premiere: 19 May, 2013, Cannes International Film Festival

Writer-director Alex van Warmerdam's Borgman is, to start with, an irresistibly weird movie. It's also, I believe, an intensely angry movie, though the anger is a little bit hard to suss out underneath all the weirdness. It is about- and well, that's sort of already tricky. "About", in this case, is a very subjective matter, not in a thematic sense but at the very level of plot.

Still, we can at least tell what actually, physically happens, and maybe that's a place to start. After finishing his sermon, a priest (Pierre Bokma) heads out into the woods with a posse and an assault rifle, hunting for someone. This someone is a filthy, bearded man living in a small cavern - he'll adopt a couple of names but the one that seems likeliest to be correct is Camiel Borgman (Jan Bijvoet) - who manages to escape with just enough time to let two other men living in holes that the time has come to run.

Having thus eluded his pursuers, who will never show up again, Borgman starts to look for a place to clean up, and after a few false tries, he finds the home of Richard (Jeroen Perceval) and Marina (Hadewych Minis) and their three children; his attempts to con his way in earn him only a beating from Richard, but as he skulks around in the woods outside, Marina takes pity on him, and lets him take a bath and sleep in a shed on the property. It's unclear if she acts out of guilt for the way her husband treated the beggar, or because she's disgusted by her husband's brutal actions, and wants to do something she knows would make him upset; either way, he's in now, and the family will just have to deal with the fallout.

The fallout is wide-ranging and intense, and I would feel simply awful about giving away any of the turns made in a film that the vast majority of people reading this will have only a small chance of ever seeing. Let us say merely that Borgman, hiding for a time under the name Anton, is one of five beings who are probably not humans in the strict sense, and whose behavior over the several days following that bath is fixed on turning the cloistered, upper-class family into a shambling wreck. They represent evil, that much is clear, and depending on how seriously we take the film's opening title card, perhaps even a cosmic, specifically Christian notion of Evil, though that's not at all to say that Borgman turns into a home invasion thriller about warding off strange, Lynchian demons (comparing the film to Lynch is lazy as fuck, but the thing is so hellbent on deliberately leaving things unexplained, I'm not quite sure what else to do). It's rather more mystic in its lessons, I think: a parable about inviting evil in and making it comfortable, and what effect that has one your life thereafter.

And this is the point where we firmly enter the realm of supposition and theory, though I think that this much, at least, is unmistakably true: Borgman is a film that finds possibly literal demons to be weird charismatic and funny - the static, ironic acting by the four other individuals (Tom Dewispelaere, Eva van de Wijdeven, Annet Malherbe, and van Warmerdam himself) is curtly funny in a very dry way, and the film wrings surprisingly huge laughs from the repeated image of the invaders' underwater garden of dead bodies held in place by buckets of cement around the head - while saving all of its rage for the very human, everyday people like Richard who use wealth and privilege as a way to divide themselves from the rest of the world. The film hates Richard. He's framed to look puffy and hyper all the time, and he's given absurdly venal things to say almost constantly, shown using expensive presents to buy his way out of consequences, and generally being a snarling ass until he gets his way. The events that transpire throughout, whether we allow that Borgman and his cronies are demons or just very cunning everyday psychos, play rather overtly as "you reap what you sow" - put evil into the world, evil is given back.

It's not a subtle allegory, in other words. And not a hugely fresh one (there's a lot of Teorema here). But despite all the words I just spent on it, Borgman isn't at all a message film, however clearly it relishes depicting an attack on the rich and untouchable. No, this is almost entirely a movie about weird, unpredictable events being flung at the audience for almost two hours without pause, and keeping the viewer totally disoriented almost until the ending (which a lot of people have criticised as losing steam; personally, I have a hell of a time imagining anything better, and it certainly never loses its freakish edge of fresh confusion and horror around every corner). Characters appear just to be summarily offed, the plot jets off on lengthy tangents, and the only thing unifying the movie is the overarching sense that in the world, terrible things happen for reasons you can't understand, and without warning. A dour message, but one presented with enough warped humor that it's never bitter, and while this film is unabashedly limited in its appeal (and hard to predict, in any case, who'd find it appealing), the freewheeling sense of rule-breaking that governs every frame of it makes it one of the most thoroughly magnetic things I've seen in 2013.

9/10