Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn white people in africa. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn white people in africa. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 29 tháng 6, 2015

THE MAN WITHOUT A PAST

A review requested by Julian D, with thanks for contributing to the Second Quinquennial Antagony & Ecstasy ACS Fundraiser.

The career of director Michelangelo Antonioni is not the kind that can be neatly summed up in blunt descriptions like "culmination", so I can't use that word to describe his 1975 triumph The Passenger. It does, however, clearly punctuate the director's career: the seventh feature in a chain of hyper-modern masterpieces stretching back to 1960, and his last film before an unintended six-year break that left him an old master whose new films we should dutifully consider even though we probably don't like them very much. A far cry from being one of world cinema's handful of true visionaries, using his movies to anatomise the character of modern society in the same breath and in fact by the same means that he pushed the boundaries of representational, narrative cinema.

In fairness, The Passenger doesn't push boundaries as hard as some of the director's other films. But I think it might very well be his best social document: it dissects and lays bare the paranoias and neuroses of the 1970s even more strikingly than Blowup does the same for the 1960s, and without feeling nearly as dated. The subject is Western Europe and the United States in the aftermath of Vietnam and the social revolutions of the 1960s, blindly hunting for a sense of purpose in a world where Western dominance has been dealt its most serious setbacks of the 20th Century. In the screenplay by the director with Mark Peploe and Peter Wollen), the embodiment of this collapse of identity and purpose is David Locke (Jack Nicholson), a presumably American-born BBC journalist making a documentary on the civil war in Chad. After failing to scrounge up any war or warriors, he loses himself in the Sahara Desert, and walks back to his hotel, where he finds that David Robertson (Charles Mulvehill), the only other white person around, whom Locke has befriended in a vague and noncommittal way, has died. On the spot, Lock decides to swap identities with the dead man, following Robertson's date book to complete whatever task the other man was in the middle of. This turns out to be gun-running. In the meantime, Locke's wife Rachel (Jenny Runacre), has asked her husband's colleague Martin Knight (Ian Hendry) to look for "Robertson", to learn what he knows about "Locke's" death, meaning that Locke finds himself dodging his friend in addition to faking his way around a group of impressively dangerous men who think he has a cache of weapons for him, aided only by an architecture student (Maria Schneider) he meets in Barcelona.

Purely at the level of narrative, there's a lot to unpack, from Locke's indeterminate Anglo/American status, to the complexity and slitheriness of gender roles in the movie (Schneider's character is literally only ever identified as "The Girl", but Locke is in some ways "The Not Even a Man"), to the relationship between Europe and its former colonial holdings bubbling in the background. All of that's not even mentioning the film's most prominent characteristic as a story, which is its merciless portrayal of Locke as a hollow thing, worn down by the speed with which the world is changing and by all available evidence for the worse, to the point that he's a human-shaped signifier of an identity without actually possessing a concrete self. The one word that describes Antonioni's filmmaking is "ennui", and The Passenger is his ennui-est movie; L'avventura and La notte might showcase characters with a complete detachment from the shallow culture containing them, but The Passenger goes one step further, taking away the culture itself.

It's not merely psychological and social vagueness that the film depicts; its indefinite sensibility goes clear to the structure. Antonioni's own stated interpretation of the movie is that it took place over the course of one day, and he and cinematographer Luciano Tovoli filmed it to match (the lighting, mostly natural, grows more and more afternoon-like as it goes along, and it's only in the very last shot that dusk arrives), even if at a practical level it's hard to see how a narrative that moves from Africa to Germany to Barcelona to rural Spain can possibly all take place in ten or twelve hours. Literalism or plausibility aren't the point, though: what is clearly the case, both in the writing and in the visuals, is that The Passenger doesn't seem to have chronology: time moves wrong in the film, in those moments that it moves at all. It is immodestly slow-moving, which has been used a criticism as far back as 1975 (Roger Ebert was an earlier detractor, though he later changed his mind), but of course the fact that the movie is stretched out and not apparently going anywhere in a hurry, or at all, is hardly incidental. Life itself, in The Passenger, isn't really going anywhere; anyplace you go is equally likely to be dead zone of anomie.

The visual scheme Antonioni and Tovoli use to explore this sensibility is broadly familiar from the director's earlier movies: there's a great deal of empty space, whether it's the open sky or featureless walls, against which the characters are set from a far enough distance and low enough in the frame to feel crushed by the size of the composition. The film uses a fairly straightforward and simple color scheme, influenced by the natural earthtones of its locations, the lend a feeling of blanched-out energy, with everything stronger tending to feel oppressive, such as the blue skies or, in the film's most visually and narratively aberrant scene, the toxic-looking neon lights in a metal and concrete hell of an airport. What primarily marks the film as its own thing is the magnificent use of location photography: The Passenger is set mostly in corners of the world and Europe that have a heavy sense of history on them, finally ending in a Spanish town that has tacked elements of modern technology onto streets and buildings that look ancient, hewn from the ground itself in some ways. These are locations bigger than human stories, and Locke seems small and forgotten by the end, finally getting his wish to lose his self figuratively.

Also literally, in the film's incredibly famous penultimate shot, one of the two big showy long takes Antonioni uses (the first is a shocking attempt to bring us into a flashback without cutting, and it's beautifully organic, suggesting the displacement of Locke's thoughts even before the plot starts to make the scope of that displacement clear). It's a long slow track past Locke and through the narrow window of his hotel room, focusing our attention on the geography of the town and the architecture of buildings while its characters die and come to other crises points largely offscreen, the perfect summary of the film's exhausted humanity. Ultimately, it's not even worth showing what happens to the character we've spent two hours getting to not know. Stuff just happens. This is all deeply pessimistic and inhumane, but The Passenger so persuasively argues that pessimism and inhumanity are two of the key traits of Western culture in the 1970s that it doesn't even feel depressing: just "yeah, I guess that's about it". Not a film for a happy, transporting mood, then, but as a diagnosis of purposelessness the film is the most intelligent, engaging kind of misery.

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 12, 2014

WHEN IDIOTS WERE IN EGYPT'S LAND

If there's anything that could imaginably help The Pyramid to stand out in the cramped world of low-budget horror (spoiler alert: there is not), it would be the surprising way that the film confounds the expectations of first-person camera filmmaking. The film equips itself with a grand total of three POV machines - one documentary cameraman, one badass archaeology chick with a little head camera, and one Mars rover on loan from NASA - which already sets us up with plenty of reasonably decent excuses to cut around locations like a proper movie, but that's apparently not sufficient for director Grégory Levasseur (Alexandre Aja's longtime screenwriter making his directorial debut; Aja is on-hand to produce). Frequently, the film abandons those perspectives entirely, for a new position not merely where the characters aren't, but where they can't be: on at least two occasions, the camera sets up shop on the inside of a room that the characters are about to enter, a room that is specifically defined as being a place that humans have not set foot in a bajillionty-hundred years.

On the one hand, I admire Levasseur's decision; it allows him access to the one dubious strength of the first-person style (we more closely identify with the characters in the moment of a jump scare) without having to shackle himself to its many, many limitations of cheap-looking footage and tortured justifications for including any kind of camera in every single scene. But then, having given itself room to actually do something with the form, The Pyramid doubles-down, hard, on the found-footage conceit that has increasingly been silently abandoned by first-person movies: the very first thing that we see are title card explaining with documentary crispness that what we're about to watch is the record of what happened outside of Cairo on such and such a date in 2013. Those with a keen sense of recent history will thus be able to guess what the second thing that we see turns out to be: smoke billowing out of Cairo and masses of political protesters, whose actions sit way deep in the background of the movie's plot, crassly setting up a ticking clock that feebly drives the action as the first act shades into the second. Is it the most tasteless insertion of tremendously significant real-life events into a junk drawer horror picture in all of history? No, certainly not. But might very well be the most tasteless of such gestures in 2014, particularly when we take the time to note that of the six primary characters, the two specifically defined as being ethnically Egyptian are also the first two to die.

Anyway, this conceptually unsound depiction of what happened on that fateful day initially takes the form of footage being shot by "Fitzie" (James Buckley), of bold, adventurous Sunni (Christa Nicola), who is by all accounts a documentary filmmaker, though we absolutely never see her perform any action that suggests that she's not a second-string news reporter. They're there to capture the exciting new discovery made by father-daughter archaeologist team Holden (Denis O'Hare) and Nora (Ashley Hinshaw), he a fusty old traditionalist, she a tech-savvy progressive, whose work with satellites (we see one such satellite, from a perspective somewhere in outer space; so much for found footage) has uncovered an unknown pyramid beneath the Egyptian desert. And not just any pyramid; a three-sided pyramid! Or as we call them in the real world, a tetrahedron, but superstar high-tech archeologists don't have time for no ten-cent words.

Just after determining that the pyramid has some kind of horrible toxic dust polluting its air, but before sending their Mars rover "Shorty", operated by hunky engineer Michael (Amir K), into its dark depths, the team is interrupted by word that the government has pulled all archeological permits until the protests have died down. Under the shouty eye of Corporal Shadid (Faycal Attougui), the team packs up, but Nora manages to convince everybody to just send Shorty in for a few minutes. And having done so, it gets attacked by some barely seen rat-cat hybrid hellbeast. That should be that, but Michael starts to panic about the shit that will be rained down upon him if he doesn't retrieve the rover, and so do all five of our heroes end up trucking on into the pyramid, where they discover many spooky engravings, some more of the hellbeast, and an even bigger, nastier hellbeast to boot, all while piecing together enough evidence to prove Egyptian cosmology, a development that doesn't seem to seriously concern anybody, including writers Daniel Meersand & Nick Simon.

The best thing that could have happened to The Pyramid was opening just a handful of months after the largely similar (first person, underground, end up stumbling into the actual physical place where the afterlife is located) As Above, So Below, which remains one of the most infuriatingly shitty horror films I've seen in the 2010s. The Pyramid is merely bad: not doing anything acutely wrong, just sort of lying there limp,clumsily mixing its visual metaphors while relying on some hilariously bad dialogue to keep the movie on its rickety rails. Most of this falls to poor Holden, whose nearly every line functions less as "I'm saying something that I, as a person, think" than, "I'm saying something that I, as a cog in this barely-functioning machine, need to express in order to make things unnecessarily clear to the audience". Not just mythology things. Backstory between him and his daughter things, of a sort that does not matter. Like the bit where he nastily talks down her interest in extra-terrestrial life. Would you suppose that means that aliens will end up having anything to do with the rest of the movie, or at least that Nora's susceptibility to paranormal musings will come into play? You would, in that case, suppose wrong.

The one thing that The Pyramid does manage to do is set up a reliable drip of jump scares, insofar as that makes the world a better place. It also has modestly effective monster design: the more we see of the big bad boss monster, the more it looks like low-budget CGI gone amok, but the catbeasts are effectively creepy, looking just enough like real animals (kind of like if you threw some Sphynx cats into glowing green sludge) that they seem like actual perversions and not the work of an overindulged effects designer. One particular shot, with their little eyes glowing red as they chase the characters, is legitimately atmospheric and spooky in all the best ways.

So that's one 10-second shot out of 89 minutes; not the worst batting average for a horror film of this ilk. There's plenty about The Pyramid that's tedious, from its characters who are far too stupid in far too many ways to remotely convince us that they actually practice their established professions, to its jerry-rigged and clichéd escalation of tension (that is to say, it's "escalation" of "tension"), but... no, actually, it's just tedious.

3/10

Thứ Hai, 14 tháng 7, 2014

BLOCKBUSTER HISTORY: THE APES WANT TO KILL US

Every week this summer, we'll be taking an historical tour of the Hollywood blockbuster by examining an older film that is in some way a spiritual precursor to one of the weekend's wide releases. This week: in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, we find a world in which humans have become the endangered species, and super-intelligent apes threaten to wipe the last of our species out of existence. Wait, "super-intelligent apes"? "You are the endangered species?" Sometimes, you make the choice, and sometimes the choice makes you. Hat tip to Z.V. for making this most excellent suggestion.

In 1993, Steven Spielberg directed a movie about CGI dinosaurs, called Jurassic Park. It was an exceptionally beguiling piece of matinee-movie magic, and the film industry being what it is, absolutely everyone wanted a piece of the same action. And so the rip-offs and copycats started to show up. Among the first and easily the most direct of these was 1995's Congo, which, like Jurassic Park, is based on a novel by Michael Crichton; was produced by Spielberg's reliable collaborator Kathleen Kennedy; was directed by Spielberg's other long-time producer buddy Frank Marshall; boasted creatures designed by the great Stan Winston; and starred an actress named Laura whose later career would prove her to be indescribably overqualified to play the role of a brassy scientist spouting inscrutable babble and reacting to special effects. Heck, Congo and Jurassic Park are basically the same movie! Except for the part where Jurassic Park is a bright, finely-tuned adventure combining the best of the old school and new technology, while Congo is like, the worst fucking thing.

And by "the worst fucking thing", I obviously mean "the best fucking thing". You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a movie that ticks more of the boxes for a perfect storm of So Bad It's Goddamn Perfect filmmaking in the last decade when such movies were still reasonably common: it has a big enough budget and ambition to make the failure of execution that much more impressive; it has a flawless blend of actors ranging from completely inert leads to supporting players who are obviously in on the joke, and it counts a conspicuous skeleton in at least one closet; the dialogue includes some absolute howlers of lines that are down around Ed Wood levels of unreadable weirdness; the effects are outrageously shitty in ways that only very expensive movies with very creative talent can manage to produce. It is a precious and rare jewel: most fun-bad movies are fun if you can get a few friends together to snark and probably drink your way through it, but Congo is absolutely hilarious even if you're watching it alone. Prior to this review, I hadn't watched it since it first came out on video, which isn't a mistake I'll make again, for it is magical. Of the small but personally resonant '90s subgenre "people fighting some kind of horrorbeasts in the jungle, and also a veteran actor is playing the bad guy with an indescribably unhinged accent", I find that I must rate Congo as my second-favorite behind only Anaconda, owing almost entirely to the fact that Jon Voight's performance in the latter film is literally my favorite thing in any bad movie from the entirety of the decade.

Congo, anyway, hinges on two hot new technological developments of the 1980s, when Crichton wrote the novel (which isn't all that great, but its incomparably superior to the film): laser-based communication and computers that translate sign language into speech. The latter of these has been attached to Amy, a gorilla trained by UC Berkeley primatologist Dr. Peter Elliott (Dylan Walsh), who has concluded based on her recent nightmares that Amy just wants to go home to the jungles of the Congo region (the movie came out before the Democratic Republic of the Congo had been so renamed from Zaire, but the film really takes place in Darkest Africa rather than any actual ecosystem or political entity you could identify on a map). This makes him invaluable to Dr. Karen Ross (Laura Linney), a communications scientist at TraviCom with her own need to get to the Congo, where she expects to find her possibly dead ex-fiancé Charles Travis (a cameoing Bruce Cambpell), and Charle's father, TraviCom C.E.O. R.B. Travis (Joe Don Baker), expects to find rare blue diamonds, the key incredient in his new space lasers. Hoping to piggyback on Peter's trip and save herself the hassle, or something - there is in fact no clear reason that the two expeditions need to combine, especially since TraviCom sends another one a few days later - Karen manages to buy her way onto the plane with the promise of paying for the tens of thousands of dollars in gas, once Peter's original backer, eccentric Romanian Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry), turns out to be a broke diamond hunter and not the industrialist he promised.

In Africa, the rag-tag crew meets up with suave mercenary Munro Kelly (Ernie Hudson, sporting a ripe British accent), and they head into the jungle, all H. Rider Haggard like. Civil war, mysterious natives, and cryptic clues to the doomed fate of the original TraviCom expedition all mark the path to the Lost City of Zinj, where the Bibilical King Solomon had all of his diamonds mined (aaallllll H. Rider Haggard like, I said), in the exact part of the jungle that Amy came from, and where Charles was attacked by what is revealed to be a race of stuntmen in the most fucking amazingly stupid White Gorilla costumes that the Stan Winston Studio at the height of its affluence could manage to perpetrate.

The plot is just about the best thing about Congo: it's hokey and stupid and probably racist (though it's amazing how much just the casting of Hudson - the most self-aware member of the cast, having even more obvious fun than Curry - manages to sand the nastiest edges off of the whole "Africa and Africans are weird, creepy, horrible, and exotic" implications of the scenario), but it makes for a giddy enough rip-off of King Solomon's Mines that presses all of the necessary B-movie buttons. Take the exact same script (by the distractingly overqualified John Patrick Shanley, plainly just grinding through as many clichés as he could hit on the way to cashing a paycheck), make it for a tenth of the same budget, and it's a right little classic of junk food cinema. And also, you could spend a tenth of the inconceivable $50 million - in 1995 dollars! - that was wasted on Congo and make something that didn't look appreciably more fake or down-rent. Congo, in addition to its utterly misguided gorillas, boasts some of the rinky-dinkiest jungle sets that you could ever hope to see, cutting together with the Costa Rican locations not at all. It's really just plain impossible to figure out where the money went: not on the cast, surely, which included nobody more prominent than Tim Curry, one of those actors who's kind of defined by how obviously inexpensive he is (the film beat the Dylan Walsh Era in pop culture by... well, let's see, it came out 19 years ago, so it beat that moment by at least 20 years). Hopefully not on the costumes, which are really fussy and really dumb - Amy, of whom we see a great deal, looks like a highly expressive and well-detailed version of an animal that roughly approximates the idea of a gorilla, as heard third- or fourth-hand. (The film was going to be done with CGI, till it was discovered - perhaps after about $20 million? - that hair-rendering programs weren't up to the task of CGI gorillas at that time).

My point, anyway, is that Congo is a junkshop movie in every respect other than the one where it somehow as an A-list, tentpole release in June of '95. I mean, look at that cast list again: Curry, Hudson, Campbell (who originally tried out for the role of Peter, and would have made a genuine B-classic out of it if he'd gotten the part - Walsh is a pathetic wet sock in the part), and Joe Don Baker as the shoutiest billionaire head of a multinational communications technology firm in cinema history. "I'll be human later!" he bellows at Linney in one scene, puffy and rampaging like no Evil Capitalist ever puffed or raged. It's Shakepeare the way it was meant to be played, and bless her, but for all that Linney actually seems to be trying to act in most of the movie (unlike Laura Dern in Jurassic Park, this was her first real showcase, and she was clearly determined to make the most of it), she is visibly confused about how to respond to any of what Baker gives her.

For all that Congo is a festively dim romp through set-bound jungles, with Hudson and Curry both rocking their accents hard, the movie didn't become a punching bag of such longevity because it plays like a moderately enjoyable adventure flick; it's because of the awesomely terrible spectacle of Amy the Talking Gorilla, played by Lorene Noh and Misty Rosas in the suit, both of them indescribably good sports (you can tell in every beat of body language and in the tortured approximation of ape-like movement that mostly resembles a game parent playing horsey for their children), with child actress Shayna Fox providing the gorilla's digital voice. Half-assed but amusing King Solomon's Mines variants are ten for a dollar: in any given 24-hour period, at least a half dozen are probably playing somewhere on cable. But movies of any genre that boast such a remarkably misguided character as Amy are rare and precious as the blue diamonds to power laser guns. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see that thing on set and realise exactly what kind of movie this was going to be: the kind with the most asshole, smug-looking face of any robot ape in the history or robot apes, and the most amazing lines of bad dialogue in a film where amazingly bad dialogue happens about once every thirty seconds. "AMY WANT GREEN DROP DRINK" says the gorilla, in demanding an in-flight martini - this is a movie in which a gorilla drinks a martini, and if you really need anything else to get you excited, I don't understand how you made it this far into the review - which she then drinks with a look of solipsistic contentment. "TICKLE ME TICKLE ME TICKLE ME" she demands of Peter with droning angry intensity, till Peter tickles her. Because this is also a movie in which the relationship between a man and a talking gorilla is pretty much unambiguously presented as a domestic partnership, leaving Laura Linney with nothing but a presumed-dead Bruce Campbell, though I think most of us would still pick that over a living Dylan Walsh.

All this is compounded by Marshall's directing, which is full of of mistakes and deeply unfortunate choices that tend to play up the "scary Africa!" elements of the film; the example that presents itself most obviously comes when Delroy Lindo's brutish Captain Wanda (who angrily makes people eat sesame cakes, and then even more angrily makes them stop) is filmed with just enough of a wide angle lens at just a near enough distance to make him look all terrifying and insane. Or the deeply unfortunate choices that are unfortunate for completely apolitical reasons, like having the white gorillas' attack on the heroes take place amidst blue lasers and purple smoke, as though just for one scene, they had to film Congo in a dance club from 1986. Allen Daviau, a talented cinematographer if ever there was a talented cinematographer in Hollywood in the '80s, rather stubbornly shoots around the terrible camera placement, terrible blocking, and terrible sets as though he was making a real movie, but even talent can only go so far in making things look attractive despite themselves.

It's all so truly special: all the money and resources a film could ever hope to receive somehow going wrong in every possible way, to create the platonic ideal of a glossy but chintzy pile of idiotic nonsense. It has the kind of truly glitzy tackiness that only money, time, and talented could have produced, with a script of the most pure, uncut inanity at every point, so much so that when the heroes escape on a balloon that just happens to be kicking around in the desert on their way to fly, probably, right into a war zone, it hardly even registers as a contrivance. Congo is an outlandish, incompetent disaster, but it seems so conspicuously aware of how terrible it is, and how it just keeps getting worse, that it ends up being a great deal more fun than many far, far better adventure movies with a more discipline but nowhere near as much magnetic derangement.

Thứ Bảy, 4 tháng 1, 2014

MOVIES I MISSED IN 2013: LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED


Some titles are just destined to be used ironically, and Paradise: Love is their king. Particularly being from Austria, a country with a fetish for cinematic misery. And particularly, I understand, from the mind of director Ulrich Seidl, who I gather (I have not previously seen his work) is kind of like a version of Michael Haneke without the formal playfulness to leaven his depictions of awful people suffering.

Sure enough, the film's bitter, travesty of the qualities presented in its title is made clear early on and repeated vigorously throughout. Paradise is here played by a beach resort in sub-Saharan Africa, where middle-aged European women and young African men engage in a corroded kind of pas de deux over sex and money, and love refers to the way that one particular woman, Teresa (Margarete Tiesel), is able to convince herself that the various gigolos she encounters during her vacation care about her on any kind of vaguely emotional level, and that she cares about them in the same way.

That's basically it, as far as narrative content goes: an early scene back in Austria sets up Teresa's vacation while introducing us to her sister (Maria Hofstätter) and teenage daughter (Melanie Lenz) , the subjects of the other other two legs of Seidl's Paradise trilogy, Faith and Hope. Everything else is a series of largely repetitive scenes of Teresa navigating the treacherous emotional terrain of a sex tourism trip that she might very well have misunderstood until she got there - both the screenplay (by Seidl and Veronika Franz) and Tiesel's immaculately subtle performance leave it very much up for debate how much Teresa actually knows about what's going on and when she knows it. The conflict in this largely anecdotal story, barely even plotty enough to call itself "episodic", is not between Teresa and anyone else, but within Teresa: to what degree is she actually looking for love in the strangest of places, and to what degree is this just her elaborate game of self-deception that allows her to continue feeling like a moral person in the midst of this whoredom parade?

This is positively aching to be presented in the bleakest possible way, the sort of film that we endure rather than watch. To its credit, Love is not nearly as punishing as it could be, for it largely stays away from being particularly cruel to Teresa. She suffers no humiliations to speak of, though it could be easily argued that the grossly transfixed detail with which Seidl and cinematographers Ed Lachman and Wolfgang Thaler depict Tiesel's sagging and overweight naked body is in and of itself all the humiliation the film needs (this is not a movie with a particularly forgiving or positive attitude towards the sexual desires of aging women). There's no punishment for her transgression of lying to herself and others about her emotional and sexual needs, except that she ends up unfulfilled in both of them.

It shouldn't be assumed that since Love keeps Tiesel from the abuse that perhaps Haneke or definitely Lars von Trier would have heaped on her, it's somehow a more pleasant movie than the grubbiest of Euro-art "everything sucks and people most of all" pictures. Love presents a singularly black portrait of how people engage with each other, using its blandly documentarylike long-takes and wide shots to watch its characters like zoo animals. The comparison is not flattering to the animals. In Love, human behavior reduces basically and always to one point: tell me what lie I should use to get what I want out of you. It's impossible to reduce it to simple parable of disgusting Europeans literally fucking over poor Africans, because the Africans are just as predatory and merciless as the other side. Nobody seems honorable or worthy in this scenario, because every one is actively and consciously reducing everyone else to cogs in a game of humanity-as-economics, and Teresa is the worst of all since she seems to believe - at the very least, she broadcasts it to everyone else - that by framing her behavior in this system as part of an emotional journey and desire for connection, she excuses herself from the nonstop cycle of mutual exploitation.

"Dear God, then why bother?" is a very legitimate question here. Because the issues are real, and under-explored in the movies, or at least under-explored with such non-sensationalist intellectualism, is one answer. Because Tiesel gives one of the year's great performances in creating a woman of murky inner depths, as murky to her as to anybody watching the film, is another. But in honesty, Paradise: Love is a film that I'm dubious enough on for myself that I can't really claim that it's necessary or rewarding cinema. It's a mean movie in some unfortunate ways: from the very first shot of people with Down syndrome being battered about in bumper cars at the attraction Teresa runs, Seidl shows a disreputable fascination with weird body shapes that only worsens once the panoply of nude scenes focused on Tiesel's conventionally unattractive body starts up. I wouldn't say it's pedantic and moralising in the way that his countryman Haneke can easily become in his worst moments, but the film feels at times like it's standing in judgment, even when it's not really standing in judgment of anything in particular.

At any rate, it's a real sock in the gut, though I think if Seidl's impulse to tell the Paradise films in one two-hour omnibus rather than as three separate features had held steady, it would lose none of its impact and gained some sense of focus. In its current state, it's a bit redundant, and Tiesel's fluid performance and our shifting sense of who her character is only carries it so far. But there are moments in the film, both character-based and not - there are long shots where Siedel seems to grow weary of sufferingy and instead allows himself a chance to simply watch human beings in the act of getting by with life - that linger on in the mind as sharp pieces of observation that rise above any simple moral argument, and give the film more nuance than just another damn story of depravity. At any rate, it's a film that, once watched, is not readily un-watched, in both good and dismaying ways alike.

7/10