Film Notes
Spring Fever (Lou Ye) - three gays, one wife, one girlfriend. Everyone wants to sleep with each other, and if they can't at least they can spy on each other. Well, what else is there to do in Nanjing anyway? It's an exercise in narcissism especially since they all look the same. Directed with the fervour of Just Jaekin and the fantasy lust of Bernardo Bertolucci, this is a film again inflected by Hitchcock - especially his speculation on the exchangeability of women. In Hitchcock, the girls would look the same but one would be blonde, the other brunette. For Lou Ye, the difference is made by long hair and short hair. Semiotics was never so simple.
Air Doll (Kore-eda) - one geek, one inflatable sex doll, and some thoughts about disposability in contempo Japanese society. What makes it all watchable for more than 10 minutes is the fabulous Bae Doo Na (BDN) who becomes the fleshy realization of the inflatable sex doll (we are waiting for BDN inflatables to hit the market now). When owner's away (waiting tables in some low end fast food chain where he is regularly insulted) BDN becomes a hot cosplay girl in maid's outfit who goes and works in a video store where - yes! - she attempts to learn about cinema. But as an inflatable, she's full of air so learning for her is something of a zen experience. Mainly the film is a riposte to Spielberg's AI, another movie about an imitation human who develops emotions. Although they travel different paths, the two fantasists reach the same destination - human society doesn't want machines that talk back. The main differences? Kore-eda can do it cheaper, and Hayley Joel Osment has absolutely nothing on BDN.
Yuki & Nina (Nobuhiro Suwa & Hippolyte Girardot) - one hip Japanese filmmaker who has yet to score in Japan, and a French actor turning director make charming tale of two young girls. Yuki is half-Japanese/half-French (her French father is played by Girardot) while Nina is her French neighbor. Everyone's family is disintegrating and Yuki's mother decides to return to Japan to live. Yuki wants to stay but reject's Nina's crazy plan to bring that about. The tussle between the two is perhaps a reflection of and a reflection on the problems of making cross-cultural relationships.
Ne Change Rien (Pedro Costa) - Art house darling films diva Jeanne Balibar (JB) and music group rehearsing, recording, and performing (in Tokyo, we know this because of one arty insert shot of two aging Japanese waitresses taking a cigarette break). In between we see backstage of some Offenbach musical opera in which JB is performing. Music is pleasant enough but the filmmaker's focus seems intent on form (black and white, long static shots). Forget it, the movie is like an MTV shot by the Straubs. The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Balibar - coming soon to your TV set.
Like You Know It All (Hong Sang Soo) - First Half: Woody Allen-ish filmmaker with no hits serves (or snores) on jury at Jecheon Film and Music Festival and gets into trouble with both the festival director (a woman who has no problem voicing her problems) and his ex-business partner's New Age wife. Second Half: 12 days later, our filmmaker is giving a talk at a film college in Jeju Island. Once again he gets into trouble with his ex-teacher's young wife, and a girl student. Hong's world is plagued by strong women towards whom he means no harm but inadvertently provokes into sometimes violent reaction. It's an apologia for Hong himself, or rather a fantasy version of himself - the modest artist who goes about doing his work quietly but treads on so many emotional landmines that everything blows up around him. Best film in Cannes? Probably.
Thirst (Park Chan Wook) - Song Kang Ho plays a priest who volunteers for a blood infection experiment in Africa (it's always the Dark Continent). He turns into a vampire and fools around with the abused wife of a friend. They have a lot of sex with each other so he turns her into a vampire as well. Big mistake: she wants some kind of independence and loves jumping over buildings and killing innocent guys. It all gets too much so he forces their death by watching the sun rise over the ocean. They turn into variations on Giacometti - something between a spoiled fireplace log and bacon bits. Whatever happened to the good old stake through the heart? (We assume already that garlic doesn't work because they are Korean and eat a lot of kimchee.) This is a movie with a beginning and an end but no middle. And despite all that blood, it's also a movie with no heart.
Kinatay (Brillante Mendoza) - A moral tale. If you're going going to do drugs, make sure you pay your bills otherwise you're going to end up like the poor prostitute in this relentless, gruesome account of kidnap, rape and dismemberment. And if you do buy drugs, it's better not to get them from the type of guys in this movie who are all corrupt cops (is there any other type in the Philippines? Mendoza seems to ask). And don't place any faith in the rookie of the crew to save you out of sheer horror. In this movie the new chop chop recruit is a young police trainee trying to make an extra buck for his young family. Although he tries to change his mind and maybe save the prostitute, he doesn't. He survives the horror of this descent into the heart of darkness but the new day doesn't seem to bring any respite. You know he's going to do it again. For Mendoza the country is enveloped by this dark, seamy side of crime and officialdom. What a downer, and it's all done with no sense of irony at all. Which means that it could be a good REMAKE property for Russia. Vodka with your balut?
May 26, 2009
My Cannes 2009 - I
Does anyone take Cannes seriously anymore? And does anyone actually enjoy it? You wait in line for hours, only to have some obnoxious "cinephile" push in front of you five minutes before the doors open. There is no reward for following the rules.
And definitely rule-breaking is a philosophy that's adopted by successive juries who preside over each festival. When actresses chair such a body of "professionals" - as with Isabelle Huppert this year - they want to make their mark in the same way they want to upstage their co-stars in a movie. Never mind the quality, feel the controversy.
It's all a show anyway, designed basically to buttress up the pre-eminence of cultural France when its influence has gone down the drain all over the world except with tin-pot dictatorships in Africa and arms sales to dubious nations.
The "problem" with Cannes is that it is constructed around the domination of the auteur - this is the much-maligned creature from the time that Cahiers du Cinema promoted him (and it was resolutely him at the time).
"Auteurs" at the time were considered masters of cinema, not imitators of cinema. It's a mark of our era that we have moved from celebrating the former to fawning over the latter. And whether it's one or the other, auteurs have their "on" and their "off" days. The selection in Cannes is not so much based on films as on filmmakers so in any one year, the quality will be inconsistent and almost always an unsatisfying mix of the unfinished, the half-baked, and occasionally the sublime. It doesn't really matter because these hapless artists are being used as fences to protect one festival dictatorship's territory against poaching attacks from another festival. Barbarians at the gate? All the time!
The pomposity of ritual that demonstrates a festival dictatorship's power has an undeniable symbolism that everyone seems to accept. Going to main competition screenings in Cannes is something like going to church or more accurately, going to the Vatican. You need to dress correctly, and your place in the hierarchy of worship is defined by your "professional" (read: "social") status.
The Anointed One (the auteur who feels justified by Cannes more than the box office) proceeds with his/her entourage of stars, producers, distributors, hangers-on along the red carpet in the forecourt of the Grand Palais (the "bunker" but really, the St Peter's of cinema). The Anointed One pauses for iconic photographs that will define him/her forever so it's not only important to look good, but to stand next to good looking people. The Anointed One then leads his procession up the long long flight of red-carpeted stairs towards the Pope (I mean Festival President) and his principal Cardinal (I mean Festival Director) who glow smilingly on the faithful child returning to show Papa his/her latest indulgence.
Whether it's like a prodigal son returning after deserting Papa for enemy territory, or a faithful son who obeys every word of Papa (including snipping the film here and there to make it more acceptable to the festival), or a newly Anointed One, the ritual not only re-affirms the Anointed One's place in the firmament of cinema Heaven, but also re-affirms the Anointed One's legitimacy in Papa's eyes, the only eyes that count.
And definitely rule-breaking is a philosophy that's adopted by successive juries who preside over each festival. When actresses chair such a body of "professionals" - as with Isabelle Huppert this year - they want to make their mark in the same way they want to upstage their co-stars in a movie. Never mind the quality, feel the controversy.
It's all a show anyway, designed basically to buttress up the pre-eminence of cultural France when its influence has gone down the drain all over the world except with tin-pot dictatorships in Africa and arms sales to dubious nations.
The "problem" with Cannes is that it is constructed around the domination of the auteur - this is the much-maligned creature from the time that Cahiers du Cinema promoted him (and it was resolutely him at the time).
"Auteurs" at the time were considered masters of cinema, not imitators of cinema. It's a mark of our era that we have moved from celebrating the former to fawning over the latter. And whether it's one or the other, auteurs have their "on" and their "off" days. The selection in Cannes is not so much based on films as on filmmakers so in any one year, the quality will be inconsistent and almost always an unsatisfying mix of the unfinished, the half-baked, and occasionally the sublime. It doesn't really matter because these hapless artists are being used as fences to protect one festival dictatorship's territory against poaching attacks from another festival. Barbarians at the gate? All the time!
The pomposity of ritual that demonstrates a festival dictatorship's power has an undeniable symbolism that everyone seems to accept. Going to main competition screenings in Cannes is something like going to church or more accurately, going to the Vatican. You need to dress correctly, and your place in the hierarchy of worship is defined by your "professional" (read: "social") status.
The Anointed One (the auteur who feels justified by Cannes more than the box office) proceeds with his/her entourage of stars, producers, distributors, hangers-on along the red carpet in the forecourt of the Grand Palais (the "bunker" but really, the St Peter's of cinema). The Anointed One pauses for iconic photographs that will define him/her forever so it's not only important to look good, but to stand next to good looking people. The Anointed One then leads his procession up the long long flight of red-carpeted stairs towards the Pope (I mean Festival President) and his principal Cardinal (I mean Festival Director) who glow smilingly on the faithful child returning to show Papa his/her latest indulgence.
Whether it's like a prodigal son returning after deserting Papa for enemy territory, or a faithful son who obeys every word of Papa (including snipping the film here and there to make it more acceptable to the festival), or a newly Anointed One, the ritual not only re-affirms the Anointed One's place in the firmament of cinema Heaven, but also re-affirms the Anointed One's legitimacy in Papa's eyes, the only eyes that count.
Feb 9, 2009
The Shock of Conscience
Let me put it this way: during the Bush era, the notion of conscience (and in extenso guilt) was replaced by dogma masquerading as faux-morality. It's a typical strategy adopted by manipulators or should we say, social engineers.
If the cinema is anything to go by, Conscience (yes, with a big C) is making a come-back. How do I know? I've just seen two films at the Berlinale (Berlin International Film Festival) that shine a light on the way ahead. They tell us things that maybe have been lurking at the back of our minds or maybe just absent or worse still, forgotten as we hurtle uncontrolled, deregulated, maxed-out credit-wise, into consumer society.
FOOD INC. by Robert Kenner is making its US debut soon. It is a film that consolidates many of the arguments and exposes we have seen in the press - about lax standards in the Bush FDA (lobbyists for the food industry were appointed as heads of FDA and other standards institutions); about misplaced government policies that have led to the Corn-is-King notion of agriculture (it can do everything from clean your house to feed the cow that provides your hamburger); and the deleterious effects of fast food. Traveling the length and breadth of the country, Kenner - aided by advisers Michael Pollan (a Berkeley based writer) and Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation")- looks into how large conglomerates have applied manufacturing industry practices to the production of food. That is, factories (because that is how our food is now produced, not by farms) employ workers to do just one thing all the time - that worker does not need much training, can be easily replaced and therefore can be paid the lowest of wages. In the course of 50 years or so, the number of slaughterhouses/companies in the US has shrunk from many thousands to just a few thousand. The slaughterhouse has become one of the most dangerous places to work in the US and not only to the workers - as we have seen over the years, outbreaks of sometimes deadly e-coli have come from everyday foods like ground beef and peanut butter. For those of you who may wonder about e=coli, much of it comes from faeces so your burger may not taste like you-know-what but if you have a stomach ache afterwards you have eaten you-know-what (you want fries with that?)
Kenner's film puts all of this in clear and concise terms. It does not set out to demonize conglomerates nor to appoint accusing fingers. Rather it sets out to try and introduce a balance and perspective to a food production and consumption culture that has led to high rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes - we are on track to having an almost one-third child population in the US inflicted with Type 2 diabetes.
There's a story in Kenner's film of a lower-middle class family. The mother explains that they are on the go just trying to make a living from 6 am. to 10 pm. It's cheaper and easier to buy burgers for themselves and their two girls, than cook at home after a hard day's work. The father has diabetes and the parents know that feeding their two girls in this way could bring on the disease, yet they keep doing it. The reason: when they visit a supermarket, a pound of broccoli costs more than burgers.This does not reflect economic reality. It reflects agricultural lobbyists devastating effects on government policy. It costs more of course to produce a pound of ground beef than a pound of broccoli but government agricultural subsidies keep the beef production low while healthier broccoli is left to market survival. This does not take into account of course the ballooning costs of health care as more and more people require treatment for obesity and diabetes.
While Kenner's film is issue-oriented and important as a step in understanding our "intimate relationship" with food (as he puts it), it is by no means a singular work. We've seen in recent years a sub-genre of films dealing in what can only be described as one of the most direct interfaces between audience and film - the dangers of the stomach. Films like SUPERSIZE ME (surely a pioneering film of sorts, in the same league of self-abuse as Werner Herzog eating his shoe as filmed by El Cerrito's most famous filmmaker Les Blank), Richard Linklater's FAST FOOD NATION and Ruth Ozeki's book MY YEAR OF MEATS have brought these issues to the fore.
Kenner's film is a good illustration of de-regulation gone destructive in one important sector of our society. Michael Winterbottom's new film THE SHOCK DOCTRINE takes a broader and just as conscience-stricken approach.
Winterbottom's documentary (or rather, essay-film) is based on Naomi Klein's trenchant and long overdue critique of Milton Friedman's terrifying theories of free markets. Klein, who is one of the foremost anti-globalization writers and activists today traces the doctrine of shock therapy to experiments carried out in Canada in the 1950s that led to the torture techniques that are still used by the CIA and others today. Sleep deprivation, electric shock and isolation are essential ingredients to re-creating the compliant human being. The idea is to wipe clean the memory of the subject and to replace it with messages that the controller wants to instill. In this case it is the instillation of "free market" practices into governments and the population.
Winterbottom goes through the terrorist economics of the Chicago Boys and Friedman's denial of any real complicity in any of its consequences. It's his god-given position you feel, that lies behind his delusion that just about no government is good government, and that prices should be allowed to find their own level. (Winterbottom notes importantly that in the 1950s he and his school were regarded as crackpots.) His dirty little secret of course is that prices never find their own level, they are fixed - by corporations and governments trying to work out their competitive strengths and weaknesses in a world ruled by global politics, good or bad. Indeed the engine that implemented Friedman's concept of free market economics was the war-profiteering machine (as we all know, Eisenhower warned against the rise of the industrial-military complex). You need tanks, bombs and planes to force your population into accepting lower wages, higher costs of essential commodities, and the enrichment of the rich elites at the expense of the poor.
Winterbottom articulates all of this wonderfully well. He reminds us also of a history that many of us who lived through it have never forgotten but only seen fade away like the thousands and thousands who suffered the consequences of the Chicago Boys. And he also reminds us of more recent history that we may have forgotten. To encapsulate it broadly - Chicago Boys economics is the underlying thread of the Pinochet Terror of the 1970s (for that is what it truly was), the Argentinian disappearances of the 1980s, the Thatcher-Milk-Snatcher repression of the unions and creation of the Greed Class, the divisive Reagan Years that replicated the Thatcher loathing of organized labor and an almost religious intensity for free markets, the chaos of the post-Soviet Union Yeltsin years, right up to the Winter Meltdown of capitalism at the end of 2008. From Friedman's meetings with Pinochet right up to his 90th birthday party at the Bush White House attended among others, by Donald Rumsfeld, a Friedman acolyte, it's Friedman's free market economics that paradoxically inspire the most controlling, insidious, paranoid governments. We reflect back now on why Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in the mid-1980s, an act that are a grave insult to the victims of this insidious doctrine (Winterbottom's clip of this in his film speaks volumes).
In an apochryphal story, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE relates that on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld main preoccupation as he announced proudly was a war on the Pentagon bureaucracy. Shouldn't he have been concerned with other, more pressing matters?
Winterbottom's film gives us the throughline of a well-informed historian who can connect the dots of the big picture. Its one weakness - in terms of really anchoring the film in a memorable reality - is a lack of depth about Friedman's motivation. We come away from the film knowing what he thought, how his thoughts were implemented at great cost to all of us, and who did this. But we don't really know why or how he arrived at this complete embrace of de-regulation. He was not deluded but he was the ultimate ivory tower academic, a man so out of touch with reality that his economics became a fantasy (or rather fatal nightmares to countless thouands and untold misery on millions). A man of power without responsibility - the most dangerous animal in a democracy. It was as if his thoughts were given flesh by Thatcher and Reagan. It is a strange phenomenon that we still do not quite understand.
Nevertheless, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE remains a powerful film and one that should be shown in as many venues as possible - from high schools to the White House screening room. It is a film that demonstrates why economics is not taught from the earliest years of high school. If it were, the current reality would be too scary to contemplate and the next generation would actually improve the system. If only that were possible.
Let's end by saying: Michael Winterbottom is not only the ablest chronicler and cinematic thinker of his generation but also remains the best filmmaker in Britain today. He has inherited the noble mantle of Ken Loach. He is the Conscience of his times. It is an honorable tradition and a proud one.
Berlin, February, 2009
If the cinema is anything to go by, Conscience (yes, with a big C) is making a come-back. How do I know? I've just seen two films at the Berlinale (Berlin International Film Festival) that shine a light on the way ahead. They tell us things that maybe have been lurking at the back of our minds or maybe just absent or worse still, forgotten as we hurtle uncontrolled, deregulated, maxed-out credit-wise, into consumer society.
FOOD INC. by Robert Kenner is making its US debut soon. It is a film that consolidates many of the arguments and exposes we have seen in the press - about lax standards in the Bush FDA (lobbyists for the food industry were appointed as heads of FDA and other standards institutions); about misplaced government policies that have led to the Corn-is-King notion of agriculture (it can do everything from clean your house to feed the cow that provides your hamburger); and the deleterious effects of fast food. Traveling the length and breadth of the country, Kenner - aided by advisers Michael Pollan (a Berkeley based writer) and Eric Schlosser (author of "Fast Food Nation")- looks into how large conglomerates have applied manufacturing industry practices to the production of food. That is, factories (because that is how our food is now produced, not by farms) employ workers to do just one thing all the time - that worker does not need much training, can be easily replaced and therefore can be paid the lowest of wages. In the course of 50 years or so, the number of slaughterhouses/companies in the US has shrunk from many thousands to just a few thousand. The slaughterhouse has become one of the most dangerous places to work in the US and not only to the workers - as we have seen over the years, outbreaks of sometimes deadly e-coli have come from everyday foods like ground beef and peanut butter. For those of you who may wonder about e=coli, much of it comes from faeces so your burger may not taste like you-know-what but if you have a stomach ache afterwards you have eaten you-know-what (you want fries with that?)
Kenner's film puts all of this in clear and concise terms. It does not set out to demonize conglomerates nor to appoint accusing fingers. Rather it sets out to try and introduce a balance and perspective to a food production and consumption culture that has led to high rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes - we are on track to having an almost one-third child population in the US inflicted with Type 2 diabetes.
There's a story in Kenner's film of a lower-middle class family. The mother explains that they are on the go just trying to make a living from 6 am. to 10 pm. It's cheaper and easier to buy burgers for themselves and their two girls, than cook at home after a hard day's work. The father has diabetes and the parents know that feeding their two girls in this way could bring on the disease, yet they keep doing it. The reason: when they visit a supermarket, a pound of broccoli costs more than burgers.This does not reflect economic reality. It reflects agricultural lobbyists devastating effects on government policy. It costs more of course to produce a pound of ground beef than a pound of broccoli but government agricultural subsidies keep the beef production low while healthier broccoli is left to market survival. This does not take into account of course the ballooning costs of health care as more and more people require treatment for obesity and diabetes.
While Kenner's film is issue-oriented and important as a step in understanding our "intimate relationship" with food (as he puts it), it is by no means a singular work. We've seen in recent years a sub-genre of films dealing in what can only be described as one of the most direct interfaces between audience and film - the dangers of the stomach. Films like SUPERSIZE ME (surely a pioneering film of sorts, in the same league of self-abuse as Werner Herzog eating his shoe as filmed by El Cerrito's most famous filmmaker Les Blank), Richard Linklater's FAST FOOD NATION and Ruth Ozeki's book MY YEAR OF MEATS have brought these issues to the fore.
Kenner's film is a good illustration of de-regulation gone destructive in one important sector of our society. Michael Winterbottom's new film THE SHOCK DOCTRINE takes a broader and just as conscience-stricken approach.
Winterbottom's documentary (or rather, essay-film) is based on Naomi Klein's trenchant and long overdue critique of Milton Friedman's terrifying theories of free markets. Klein, who is one of the foremost anti-globalization writers and activists today traces the doctrine of shock therapy to experiments carried out in Canada in the 1950s that led to the torture techniques that are still used by the CIA and others today. Sleep deprivation, electric shock and isolation are essential ingredients to re-creating the compliant human being. The idea is to wipe clean the memory of the subject and to replace it with messages that the controller wants to instill. In this case it is the instillation of "free market" practices into governments and the population.
Winterbottom goes through the terrorist economics of the Chicago Boys and Friedman's denial of any real complicity in any of its consequences. It's his god-given position you feel, that lies behind his delusion that just about no government is good government, and that prices should be allowed to find their own level. (Winterbottom notes importantly that in the 1950s he and his school were regarded as crackpots.) His dirty little secret of course is that prices never find their own level, they are fixed - by corporations and governments trying to work out their competitive strengths and weaknesses in a world ruled by global politics, good or bad. Indeed the engine that implemented Friedman's concept of free market economics was the war-profiteering machine (as we all know, Eisenhower warned against the rise of the industrial-military complex). You need tanks, bombs and planes to force your population into accepting lower wages, higher costs of essential commodities, and the enrichment of the rich elites at the expense of the poor.
Winterbottom articulates all of this wonderfully well. He reminds us also of a history that many of us who lived through it have never forgotten but only seen fade away like the thousands and thousands who suffered the consequences of the Chicago Boys. And he also reminds us of more recent history that we may have forgotten. To encapsulate it broadly - Chicago Boys economics is the underlying thread of the Pinochet Terror of the 1970s (for that is what it truly was), the Argentinian disappearances of the 1980s, the Thatcher-Milk-Snatcher repression of the unions and creation of the Greed Class, the divisive Reagan Years that replicated the Thatcher loathing of organized labor and an almost religious intensity for free markets, the chaos of the post-Soviet Union Yeltsin years, right up to the Winter Meltdown of capitalism at the end of 2008. From Friedman's meetings with Pinochet right up to his 90th birthday party at the Bush White House attended among others, by Donald Rumsfeld, a Friedman acolyte, it's Friedman's free market economics that paradoxically inspire the most controlling, insidious, paranoid governments. We reflect back now on why Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in the mid-1980s, an act that are a grave insult to the victims of this insidious doctrine (Winterbottom's clip of this in his film speaks volumes).
In an apochryphal story, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE relates that on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld main preoccupation as he announced proudly was a war on the Pentagon bureaucracy. Shouldn't he have been concerned with other, more pressing matters?
Winterbottom's film gives us the throughline of a well-informed historian who can connect the dots of the big picture. Its one weakness - in terms of really anchoring the film in a memorable reality - is a lack of depth about Friedman's motivation. We come away from the film knowing what he thought, how his thoughts were implemented at great cost to all of us, and who did this. But we don't really know why or how he arrived at this complete embrace of de-regulation. He was not deluded but he was the ultimate ivory tower academic, a man so out of touch with reality that his economics became a fantasy (or rather fatal nightmares to countless thouands and untold misery on millions). A man of power without responsibility - the most dangerous animal in a democracy. It was as if his thoughts were given flesh by Thatcher and Reagan. It is a strange phenomenon that we still do not quite understand.
Nevertheless, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE remains a powerful film and one that should be shown in as many venues as possible - from high schools to the White House screening room. It is a film that demonstrates why economics is not taught from the earliest years of high school. If it were, the current reality would be too scary to contemplate and the next generation would actually improve the system. If only that were possible.
Let's end by saying: Michael Winterbottom is not only the ablest chronicler and cinematic thinker of his generation but also remains the best filmmaker in Britain today. He has inherited the noble mantle of Ken Loach. He is the Conscience of his times. It is an honorable tradition and a proud one.
Berlin, February, 2009
Feb 16, 2008
Berlinale 2008
The Berlinale Competition section was perhaps the most unusual for some years - its wide variations in selected films reinforce the idea of cinema as a truly diverse terrain but also dispelled notions - promoted by most film festivals - as to what is a "competition" film.
Even in the days of the Cold War, Berlin's competition section has always been a mixture of the pragmatic, political and the opportunistic. That may not be too difficult from other festivals but in this sprawling festival - where films are spread across the board like the city itself - the films seem even more varied.
LAKE TAHOE from Mexico is the second feature by Fernando Eimbcke (his first DUCK SEASON showed in Cannes in 2004). Shot in long, langurous takes that capture perfectly the oppressive heat of the small town where the action takes place. The film begins with a teenager crashing his mother's car which leades him on a trek around the town looking for a mechanic and the necessary part. He meets an array of characters including a yhoung mechanic who would rather be practising kung fu and watching Bruce Lee movies than fixing cars.
The film has the wit and charm of early Jim Jarmusch with deadpan humor hiding deeper, darker vicissitudes. In a Jarmuschian spirit, it's one big ironic joke that it takes a car crash to send our protean hero on a voyage, sort of road trip around his home town, a circular, zen-like journey that does not lead to Lake Tahoe, but to a realization of self.
Even in the days of the Cold War, Berlin's competition section has always been a mixture of the pragmatic, political and the opportunistic. That may not be too difficult from other festivals but in this sprawling festival - where films are spread across the board like the city itself - the films seem even more varied.
LAKE TAHOE from Mexico is the second feature by Fernando Eimbcke (his first DUCK SEASON showed in Cannes in 2004). Shot in long, langurous takes that capture perfectly the oppressive heat of the small town where the action takes place. The film begins with a teenager crashing his mother's car which leades him on a trek around the town looking for a mechanic and the necessary part. He meets an array of characters including a yhoung mechanic who would rather be practising kung fu and watching Bruce Lee movies than fixing cars.
The film has the wit and charm of early Jim Jarmusch with deadpan humor hiding deeper, darker vicissitudes. In a Jarmuschian spirit, it's one big ironic joke that it takes a car crash to send our protean hero on a voyage, sort of road trip around his home town, a circular, zen-like journey that does not lead to Lake Tahoe, but to a realization of self.
Nov 27, 2007
Another Brick in the Wall
BRICK LANE (UK, Sarah Gavron)
One of the enduring characteristics and failings of British cinema has been its insistence on the "well made" film. British cinema of the 1940s, manufactured largely by elites, is perhaps as pure an expression of middle class cinema that can be found in the world and distressingly, it still exists today.
The most recent example can be seen in this adaptation of Monica Ali's best selling novel. A young Pakistani village girl's mother drowns herself and the girl is married off to a porcine, educated white collar worker in London. Separated from her beloved younger sister, the girl sustains a regular correspondence which gives us some insight (though surprisingly not much) into her thoughts.
It's 16 years later in a depressing housing estate in London and the girl has two daughters (one rebellious, the other obedient - thus giving us a predictable ying yang of family dynamics that never plays off in the plot) having lost her first child, a son. The husband is hoping for a promotion while the wife wants to take in sewing work to save up for a trip back home and a much longed for reunion with her sister. The husband is passed over and angrily quits his job while the wife buys a second hand sewing machine. This leads to an eventual affair she has with the handsome young guy who delivers jeans and sparkly tops around the housing estate for sewing work. He's also a Muslim militant and ready to fight back at the racists who provoke anti-immigrant sentiments in this part of London (Brick Lane, in the East End of London was the target of many neo fascist National Front and skinhead parades and attacks against the immigrant community). At the end, the wife terminates her affair, reverses her desire to return home and instead stays in London with her two daughters while the husband goes back to Pakistan. Maybe they will reunite - where is uncertain.
The overriding impression you get from watching this film is that it should be interrupted by commercial breaks. It is a souped up TV film with superior cinematography whose pictorially pleasing but bankrupt images try to gloss over a plot with yawning (literally) gaps, completely undeveloped characters whose narrative seems bipolar at times, and set ups which lead to dead ends rather than pay offs. The porcine husband (poor man, his inability to act is strikingly manifest in his first appearance as the hopeful promotee - he seems as enthusiastic as a man about to attend his own funeral) has bursts of rage which seem unresolved in the scene - in one of several examples, he disappears into his own room in deep funk after seeing his wife at her new sewing machine but soon after returns all sweet and light as if nothing happened. More important, the wife's reversal of her long held desire to return home is quickly and conveniently shoved in at the end - responding to the pleas of her rebellious daughter to stay in England she feels this is the one way she has of asserting herself.
It is the job of a film director to marshall large amounts of information into a meaningful proposition that makes sense, not to collapse in the face of overload. In the case of adapting novels, we expect the filmmakers to hone and refine and edit the original to capture an essence, the raison d'etre of the narrative.
BRICK LANE fails quite significantly. It does not explain why the story came into being nor does it give existence or even presence, to its characters. Its mise en scene is no different from the popular British soap opera (which displays much more social conscience) EAST ENDERS. Noticeably it fails to define the nature of the racist environment around the family in any personal way (and to add insult to injury we get the obligatory 9/11 shots on TV which they watch and realize that it could affect all Muslims).
But then the aim of the "well made film" tradition has always been to be inoffensive. BRICK LANE is as good an example of inoffensive, ineffectual and inconsequential cinema that you would find today.
One of the enduring characteristics and failings of British cinema has been its insistence on the "well made" film. British cinema of the 1940s, manufactured largely by elites, is perhaps as pure an expression of middle class cinema that can be found in the world and distressingly, it still exists today.
The most recent example can be seen in this adaptation of Monica Ali's best selling novel. A young Pakistani village girl's mother drowns herself and the girl is married off to a porcine, educated white collar worker in London. Separated from her beloved younger sister, the girl sustains a regular correspondence which gives us some insight (though surprisingly not much) into her thoughts.
It's 16 years later in a depressing housing estate in London and the girl has two daughters (one rebellious, the other obedient - thus giving us a predictable ying yang of family dynamics that never plays off in the plot) having lost her first child, a son. The husband is hoping for a promotion while the wife wants to take in sewing work to save up for a trip back home and a much longed for reunion with her sister. The husband is passed over and angrily quits his job while the wife buys a second hand sewing machine. This leads to an eventual affair she has with the handsome young guy who delivers jeans and sparkly tops around the housing estate for sewing work. He's also a Muslim militant and ready to fight back at the racists who provoke anti-immigrant sentiments in this part of London (Brick Lane, in the East End of London was the target of many neo fascist National Front and skinhead parades and attacks against the immigrant community). At the end, the wife terminates her affair, reverses her desire to return home and instead stays in London with her two daughters while the husband goes back to Pakistan. Maybe they will reunite - where is uncertain.
The overriding impression you get from watching this film is that it should be interrupted by commercial breaks. It is a souped up TV film with superior cinematography whose pictorially pleasing but bankrupt images try to gloss over a plot with yawning (literally) gaps, completely undeveloped characters whose narrative seems bipolar at times, and set ups which lead to dead ends rather than pay offs. The porcine husband (poor man, his inability to act is strikingly manifest in his first appearance as the hopeful promotee - he seems as enthusiastic as a man about to attend his own funeral) has bursts of rage which seem unresolved in the scene - in one of several examples, he disappears into his own room in deep funk after seeing his wife at her new sewing machine but soon after returns all sweet and light as if nothing happened. More important, the wife's reversal of her long held desire to return home is quickly and conveniently shoved in at the end - responding to the pleas of her rebellious daughter to stay in England she feels this is the one way she has of asserting herself.
It is the job of a film director to marshall large amounts of information into a meaningful proposition that makes sense, not to collapse in the face of overload. In the case of adapting novels, we expect the filmmakers to hone and refine and edit the original to capture an essence, the raison d'etre of the narrative.
BRICK LANE fails quite significantly. It does not explain why the story came into being nor does it give existence or even presence, to its characters. Its mise en scene is no different from the popular British soap opera (which displays much more social conscience) EAST ENDERS. Noticeably it fails to define the nature of the racist environment around the family in any personal way (and to add insult to injury we get the obligatory 9/11 shots on TV which they watch and realize that it could affect all Muslims).
But then the aim of the "well made film" tradition has always been to be inoffensive. BRICK LANE is as good an example of inoffensive, ineffectual and inconsequential cinema that you would find today.
Jun 19, 2007
Best Film in Cannes 2007
The best film in Cannes this year was DAI NIPPONJIN (Big Japanese Man) by comedian Matsumoto Hitoshi that screened in the Director's Fortnight. Unlike some of the dreary and pretentious films in the main competition (in particular Sukhorov's ALEXANDRA and Kusturica's PROMISE ME THIS which surely represent low points of Eastern Euro art cinema - as if we cared) DAI NIPPONJIN was a crafty, intelligent deconstruction of the Japanese monster movie, and Japanese masculinity.
The movie is shot like a TV documentary (in particular the insistent almost desperate Japanese TV documentary with its inane commentary) but to call this a "mockumentary" is to limit its scope. It centers around a slacker, has-been super hero who lives in a dump of a six tatami mat apartment, and whose TV ratings have been falling. Just what kind of super hero he is is soon revealed when some strange elastic monster attacks Tokyo. Our super hero is connected to the electrical grid which pumps him up to Godzilla-sized proportions. In this configuration he sheds his slacker outfit and appears like a giant sumo wrestler wearing only a pair of purple underpants. His unkempt hair stands up straight on end, like that Kid'n Play guy in HOUSE PARTY. He struggles with the monster, stomping on a few freeways and talk buildings in the process.
But the fact that he is successful is boring for his TV audience. In between bouts with these eccentric and intensely surrealistic monsters, we learn more about our superhero. He has tried to live up to his father and grandfather's standards (both were super heroes as well) but he feels something of a failure. Ironically it is when he is a demonstrable failure - when he is beaten around by another invading monster - that his TV ratings go up and interest in his appearances revives.
The end of the film is stunning - in a sudden switch of gears, the film is propelled into a sardonic and caustic take on Saturday morning TV shows in the genre of MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS as appropriated by Bushite America.
Its depiction of a world created and perceived by TV as a reality show (isn't that our world now?) but inhabited by larger-than-life characters, DAI NIPPONJIN falls into the anarcho-surrealist animus of the society of the spectacle. It captures perfectly our contemporary aesthetic propagated by reality TV - the humiliation of the Other. It's a trait of puritanical societies to humiliate in order to purify - why else did the most successful late 20th century reality TV shows originate from the Endemol production company in the Netherlands, the home of Dutch puritanism which then crossed the Atlantic to the United States? DAI NIPPONJIN understands this from the Japanese perspective with that country's equally puritanical aesthetic.
The most interesting strain of Japanese cinema is thus established - it is a line that runs from singing frogs in the 1960s, to the social struggles of the tournament ring in CALAMARI WRESTLER, finds its purest expression in EXECUTIVE KOALA and is cleverly matched in DAI NIPPONJIN. This aesthetic of anthropomorphism can be traced back to the fox myth in Japanese culture but it is also, in the past few years, a strong riposte to the inanities and mediocrity of 3D animation and those awful Miyazaki cartoons.
In the Hello Kitty society of Japan, films like EXECUTIVE KOALA and DAI NIPPONJIN, are in the forefont of resistance.
The movie is shot like a TV documentary (in particular the insistent almost desperate Japanese TV documentary with its inane commentary) but to call this a "mockumentary" is to limit its scope. It centers around a slacker, has-been super hero who lives in a dump of a six tatami mat apartment, and whose TV ratings have been falling. Just what kind of super hero he is is soon revealed when some strange elastic monster attacks Tokyo. Our super hero is connected to the electrical grid which pumps him up to Godzilla-sized proportions. In this configuration he sheds his slacker outfit and appears like a giant sumo wrestler wearing only a pair of purple underpants. His unkempt hair stands up straight on end, like that Kid'n Play guy in HOUSE PARTY. He struggles with the monster, stomping on a few freeways and talk buildings in the process.
But the fact that he is successful is boring for his TV audience. In between bouts with these eccentric and intensely surrealistic monsters, we learn more about our superhero. He has tried to live up to his father and grandfather's standards (both were super heroes as well) but he feels something of a failure. Ironically it is when he is a demonstrable failure - when he is beaten around by another invading monster - that his TV ratings go up and interest in his appearances revives.
The end of the film is stunning - in a sudden switch of gears, the film is propelled into a sardonic and caustic take on Saturday morning TV shows in the genre of MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS as appropriated by Bushite America.
Its depiction of a world created and perceived by TV as a reality show (isn't that our world now?) but inhabited by larger-than-life characters, DAI NIPPONJIN falls into the anarcho-surrealist animus of the society of the spectacle. It captures perfectly our contemporary aesthetic propagated by reality TV - the humiliation of the Other. It's a trait of puritanical societies to humiliate in order to purify - why else did the most successful late 20th century reality TV shows originate from the Endemol production company in the Netherlands, the home of Dutch puritanism which then crossed the Atlantic to the United States? DAI NIPPONJIN understands this from the Japanese perspective with that country's equally puritanical aesthetic.
The most interesting strain of Japanese cinema is thus established - it is a line that runs from singing frogs in the 1960s, to the social struggles of the tournament ring in CALAMARI WRESTLER, finds its purest expression in EXECUTIVE KOALA and is cleverly matched in DAI NIPPONJIN. This aesthetic of anthropomorphism can be traced back to the fox myth in Japanese culture but it is also, in the past few years, a strong riposte to the inanities and mediocrity of 3D animation and those awful Miyazaki cartoons.
In the Hello Kitty society of Japan, films like EXECUTIVE KOALA and DAI NIPPONJIN, are in the forefont of resistance.
Sep 28, 2006
A Quick Trip to Bangkok
Scenes from a Bangkok premier of METROSEXUAL
I make a quick trip to Bangkok to watch some movies. I don't know Thai cinema. I know some of the early films by Restan Pestonji - one of the greats. And I recently learned of the work of Euthana Mukdasanit - generally unrecognized. He made two musicals in the 1970s, ambitious constructions inspired by a re-reading of Hollywood. Today he is back in theater, running an acting workshop in the tradition of Stella Adler et al. A great force in Thai theater (he staged "Kiss of the Spider Woman" in Thai) and cinema, he is yet to be confirmed as one of the masters of cinema. I go to his theater and interview him for CINEPOD. More on him later.
With filmmaker Jim Shum, I go to the premier of a new film METROSEXUAL, a comedy about a gay guy that is a sharp commentary on contemporary Thai society. The premier takes place in a shopping mall somewhere in Bangkok. Neither Jim nor I speak Thai so we struggle with the taxi driver as we cruise up and down long roads. We make it in time for the opening ceremony and catch director Yongyoot. He's a bouncy filmmaker, probably best known in the US for IRON LADIES, a movie about transvestite ball players. The permier is buzzing and crowded with a mixture of fans, onlookers, shoppers and just plain curious - and Jim and I who wander among the Thai crowd - the only non-Thai media in this completely local event. The film is good, and the experience is unbeatable.
Coming up on CINEPOD
We have been working on the new episodes.
Look out for :
The Blossoming of Filipino Indies
"THE BLOSSOMING OF MAXIMO OLIVEROS" is the most successful Filipino indie film ever made. It has won prizes at international film festivals including Berlin. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and opened in the US on September 22.
Reviews have been glowing.
"The story revolves around a young boy's spiritual -- rather than sexual -- coming-of-age. Eleven-year-old Maximo, who is already out and proud, hustles a living on the street life with his father, a small time gang boss, and his two cheerful brothers. Manila's streets are rife with police corruption, so everyone's taken aback by the arrival of Victor, a clean-cut and principled cop. Maximo immediately develops a crush on Victor, who befriends the boy. But a police crackdown brings Victor into conflict with Maximo's criminal father. "Blossoming" doesn't concern itself with the child's sexuality. It wholeheartedly accepts his sexual orientation from the start, then gets on with the story. As with many Filipino films, it is mainly concerned with family relationships and how these are unexpectedly destabilized by the arrival of an outsider." - Richard James Havis, The Hollywood Reporter
We sat down with Raymond Lee, producer and Auraeus Solito, director of the film. CINEPOD on "The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros" will air on October 14 at 8 p.m., October 15 at 7.30 p.m., and October 18 at 6.30 p.m.
Look out for :
The Blossoming of Filipino Indies
"THE BLOSSOMING OF MAXIMO OLIVEROS" is the most successful Filipino indie film ever made. It has won prizes at international film festivals including Berlin. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and opened in the US on September 22.
Reviews have been glowing.
"The story revolves around a young boy's spiritual -- rather than sexual -- coming-of-age. Eleven-year-old Maximo, who is already out and proud, hustles a living on the street life with his father, a small time gang boss, and his two cheerful brothers. Manila's streets are rife with police corruption, so everyone's taken aback by the arrival of Victor, a clean-cut and principled cop. Maximo immediately develops a crush on Victor, who befriends the boy. But a police crackdown brings Victor into conflict with Maximo's criminal father. "Blossoming" doesn't concern itself with the child's sexuality. It wholeheartedly accepts his sexual orientation from the start, then gets on with the story. As with many Filipino films, it is mainly concerned with family relationships and how these are unexpectedly destabilized by the arrival of an outsider." - Richard James Havis, The Hollywood Reporter
We sat down with Raymond Lee, producer and Auraeus Solito, director of the film. CINEPOD on "The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros" will air on October 14 at 8 p.m., October 15 at 7.30 p.m., and October 18 at 6.30 p.m.
Sep 6, 2006
Cinepod Announcement
PRESS RELEASE
CINEPOD FINDS HOME ON BAY AREA'S PERALTA TV
A new program on movies is included in Peralta TV’s Fall line up of original programming.
CINEPOD a weekly half hour program on the movies will debut on Saturday September 16 at 8 pm on Peralta TV.
CINEPOD is the creation of Executive Producer Roger Garcia. The program is a journey through cinema, following Garcia as he attends film festivals around the world, and also interviews various filmmakers, critics and talents. To round out the series, Garcia will also profile filmmakers and review their works.
The first episodes of CINEPOD are being readied for the mid-September start. The first episode is Garcia’s report on the Berlin International Film Festival which took place earlier this year. Garcia covers Michael Winterbottom’s controversial film THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO, and encounters OLD BOY Korean director Park Chan-wook making a one-person protest at the festival. He also talks to Film Comment magazine’s European editor Olaf Moeller, and upcoming Malaysian filmmaker Woo Ming-Jin. Subsequent episodes feature an interview with Japanese cult director Takashi Miike (ICHII THE KILLER); the soldier-artist turned Oscar nominee from China, Shui Bo-Wang; and one of the founders of modern European film culture Ulrich Gregor.
“Cinepod is an exploration of cinema through the people who make it, think about it, and promote it,” says Garcia, “it is not your usual superficial sound-bite entertainment fetish about Hollywood celebrities. It’s more a dialogue about cinema, and gives voice and focus to what cinema is really about – the human experience. I wanted to create a program about cinema that is different from the way that movies are usually treated on TV – for example, people on TV rarely talk about film criticism, film theories or historical films in a way that is alive and immediate. And yet these are the aspects of movies that have shaped the way we see the world.”
An important aspect of CINEPOD is its breadth, from commercial films, through exploitation movies, to art films and experimental works. “I think I am a cinephile,” says Garcia. “I am prepared to watch anything – and in general I have watched anything! The cinema is not just a story, explosions, or movie stars making out. A real movie is one that has captured or glimpsed the truth – a movie that bears witness to genuine experience.”
Future episodes promise to be wide ranging – from portraits of classic masters of cinema; through reports on film festivals in India, Korea, and Italy; to conversations with French film critic Max Tessier, Director of the Venice Film Festival Marco Muller, and emerging filmmakers Auraeus Solito and Raya Martin from the Philippines.
Garcia is producing the CINEPOD programs with Associate Producer Chanel Kong, and Los Angeles Correspondent Philip Chung, a screenwriter, columnist and playwright and director of the Lodestone Theater Company.
Roger Garcia was previously director of the Hong Kong International Film Festival. His writings on cinema have been published by Variety, Film Comment, Cahiers du Cinema, and the British Film Institute among many others. As film producer he has made box office hits in Hollywood, and independent films in Asia. He has been involved in many film festivals including Berlin, London, and Locarno. He is currently program consultant for San Francisco International Film Festival, Torino Film Festival and Udine Film Festival in Italy. He recently curated a program and published a book on a retrospective of Asian musicals in Italy.
More about Cinepod on the website:
www.cinepod.net
CINEPOD FINDS HOME ON BAY AREA'S PERALTA TV
A new program on movies is included in Peralta TV’s Fall line up of original programming.
CINEPOD a weekly half hour program on the movies will debut on Saturday September 16 at 8 pm on Peralta TV.
CINEPOD is the creation of Executive Producer Roger Garcia. The program is a journey through cinema, following Garcia as he attends film festivals around the world, and also interviews various filmmakers, critics and talents. To round out the series, Garcia will also profile filmmakers and review their works.
The first episodes of CINEPOD are being readied for the mid-September start. The first episode is Garcia’s report on the Berlin International Film Festival which took place earlier this year. Garcia covers Michael Winterbottom’s controversial film THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO, and encounters OLD BOY Korean director Park Chan-wook making a one-person protest at the festival. He also talks to Film Comment magazine’s European editor Olaf Moeller, and upcoming Malaysian filmmaker Woo Ming-Jin. Subsequent episodes feature an interview with Japanese cult director Takashi Miike (ICHII THE KILLER); the soldier-artist turned Oscar nominee from China, Shui Bo-Wang; and one of the founders of modern European film culture Ulrich Gregor.
“Cinepod is an exploration of cinema through the people who make it, think about it, and promote it,” says Garcia, “it is not your usual superficial sound-bite entertainment fetish about Hollywood celebrities. It’s more a dialogue about cinema, and gives voice and focus to what cinema is really about – the human experience. I wanted to create a program about cinema that is different from the way that movies are usually treated on TV – for example, people on TV rarely talk about film criticism, film theories or historical films in a way that is alive and immediate. And yet these are the aspects of movies that have shaped the way we see the world.”
An important aspect of CINEPOD is its breadth, from commercial films, through exploitation movies, to art films and experimental works. “I think I am a cinephile,” says Garcia. “I am prepared to watch anything – and in general I have watched anything! The cinema is not just a story, explosions, or movie stars making out. A real movie is one that has captured or glimpsed the truth – a movie that bears witness to genuine experience.”
Future episodes promise to be wide ranging – from portraits of classic masters of cinema; through reports on film festivals in India, Korea, and Italy; to conversations with French film critic Max Tessier, Director of the Venice Film Festival Marco Muller, and emerging filmmakers Auraeus Solito and Raya Martin from the Philippines.
Garcia is producing the CINEPOD programs with Associate Producer Chanel Kong, and Los Angeles Correspondent Philip Chung, a screenwriter, columnist and playwright and director of the Lodestone Theater Company.
Roger Garcia was previously director of the Hong Kong International Film Festival. His writings on cinema have been published by Variety, Film Comment, Cahiers du Cinema, and the British Film Institute among many others. As film producer he has made box office hits in Hollywood, and independent films in Asia. He has been involved in many film festivals including Berlin, London, and Locarno. He is currently program consultant for San Francisco International Film Festival, Torino Film Festival and Udine Film Festival in Italy. He recently curated a program and published a book on a retrospective of Asian musicals in Italy.
More about Cinepod on the website:
www.cinepod.net
Aug 28, 2006
From Blog to TV
CINEPOD is now extending from a blog into television and internet broadcasting!
We begin our weekly series on:
Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 8 p.m.
on Peralta TV in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Here's the line up for the first month -
September 16 - "Die Berlinale"
Berlin International Film Festival report - join us at one of the top film festivals in the world. See Michael Winterbottom's discuss his controversial film at the "The Road to Guantanamo" press conference; check out why Park Chan-wook, the Korean director of "Old Boy" is making a one-man protest; and check out why Berlin has always been in love with the movies.
September 23 - "From Mao to Oscar"
Growing up in China, Shui-Bo Wang really wanted to join the Peoples' Liberation Army. He became a soldier-artist but is now an Oscar nominated filmmaker. His latest documentary is "They Chose China" a fascinating story of the American GIs who stayed in China after the Korean War. We talked to him at the San Francisco International Film Festival.
September 30 - "Friend of the German Film Archive"
Ulrich Gregor is one of the important makers of European film culture. Presiding over the Arsenal Cinema in Berlin, and the Forum program section of the Berlin International Film Festival, he has influenced the course of new cinema and helped introduce Asian cinema to Europe. He sat down with CINEPOD in Berlin.
October 7 - "Looking for Miike"
A portrait of Takashi Miike, Japanese cult movie maker - we look for Miike in Tokyo and track him down in Italy where he's showing his controversial English language film "Imprint" from the Masters of Horror series. We sit down for a chat with him.
CINEPOD Webisodes will also start streaming on the internet in October. These will be short reports from festivals, meditations on cinema, and reviews of films and filmmakers that we like (or hate).
Check all of this out at our website www.cinepod.net!
We begin our weekly series on:
Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 8 p.m.
on Peralta TV in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Here's the line up for the first month -
September 16 - "Die Berlinale"
Berlin International Film Festival report - join us at one of the top film festivals in the world. See Michael Winterbottom's discuss his controversial film at the "The Road to Guantanamo" press conference; check out why Park Chan-wook, the Korean director of "Old Boy" is making a one-man protest; and check out why Berlin has always been in love with the movies.
September 23 - "From Mao to Oscar"
Growing up in China, Shui-Bo Wang really wanted to join the Peoples' Liberation Army. He became a soldier-artist but is now an Oscar nominated filmmaker. His latest documentary is "They Chose China" a fascinating story of the American GIs who stayed in China after the Korean War. We talked to him at the San Francisco International Film Festival.
September 30 - "Friend of the German Film Archive"
Ulrich Gregor is one of the important makers of European film culture. Presiding over the Arsenal Cinema in Berlin, and the Forum program section of the Berlin International Film Festival, he has influenced the course of new cinema and helped introduce Asian cinema to Europe. He sat down with CINEPOD in Berlin.
October 7 - "Looking for Miike"
A portrait of Takashi Miike, Japanese cult movie maker - we look for Miike in Tokyo and track him down in Italy where he's showing his controversial English language film "Imprint" from the Masters of Horror series. We sit down for a chat with him.
CINEPOD Webisodes will also start streaming on the internet in October. These will be short reports from festivals, meditations on cinema, and reviews of films and filmmakers that we like (or hate).
Check all of this out at our website www.cinepod.net!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)