#mwff10

Wenecja (Venice)

by James McNally on September 7, 2010 · 1 comment

in Film Festivals

Wenecja (Venice)

Wenecja (Venice) (Director: Jan Jakub Kolski): Based on either a novel or a series of short stories by Włodzimierz Odojewski (I can’t seem to find out which), Wenecja’s reach exceeds its grasp in the end, but it’s a feast for the senses non­ethe­less. It begins with a tan­tal­izing syn­opsis: 11-year-old Marek is the child of aris­to­cratic par­ents. Although everyone else in his family has seen Venice, he has yet to have the exper­i­ence, and it’s become a bit of an obses­sion for him. Unfortunately, the out­break of war in 1939 dashes his plans, for Venice and a whole lot more. He is sent to stay with his aunt at the family’s old manor house in the country, where a motley col­lec­tion of female cousins and other aunts has assembled, along with his grand­mother. His father and older brother have gone off to fight, while his spoiled mother claims to have been called up by the White Cross, a relief organ­iz­a­tion, but has instead run off with one of her lovers. When the manor house’s base­ment is flooded one night during a storm, Marek and his aunts decide to recreate the canals of Venice. It’s a powerful piece of ima­gin­a­tion and a defence mech­anism against the encroaching viol­ence of the German invasion.

Wenecja (Venice)

But as the film con­tinues to add poten­tially inter­esting char­ac­ters, it becomes evident that it’s not quite the coming-of-age story that we expected. Although there are bits of romance with Marek and his female cousins and the young maid, he brushes them off, retreating instead to the base­ment where he repeats “I don’t want to be here” like an encant­a­tion. The film then fol­lows some of the other char­ac­ters, including Marek’s mother and her sis­ters, each of whom has a poten­tially inter­esting back­story. There is also the local Jewish family, whom the film is at great pains to point out are treated very well by the aris­to­crats. Marek’s brother Victor turns up after a while, but his char­acter isn’t really explored, even when Marek fol­lows him one day on one of his mys­ter­ious excursions.

Wenecja seems to want us to mourn the passing away of the Polish aris­to­cratic class even as their suf­fering seems more like incon­veni­ence. Anyone familiar with European his­tory will know that most Poles were suf­fering far more than this family, and that thought clouds any good­will we may develop toward this group of refined and attractive people. It doesn’t help that the cine­ma­to­graphy is uni­formly gor­geous, making even the one attempt at grit (a German fighter plane strafing a column of Polish troops) an exer­cise in high style instead.

Wenecja (Venice)

When the family’s hideout is finally dis­covered by the Germans, it’s their good for­tune that the sol­diers are part of a pro­pa­ganda unit, who film their mock-Venetian car­nival and then go away. While there’s a sense of fore­boding after­ward, the film ends abruptly by skip­ping ahead to the end of the war, and showing us not Marek but another char­acter. It’s a con­clu­sion that’s both con­fusing and unsatisfying.

I got the sense that Kolski’s film could have gone on in sev­eral dir­ec­tions. There were more than enough inter­esting char­ac­ters and plot­lines intro­duced. Instead, the film leaves us hanging, wishing for more. Though many of the images in Wenecja are unfor­get­table, in the end it is only a beau­tiful fantasy, cov­ering over the ugly reality of what was going on else­where in Poland. Thus it fails to have the sort of emo­tional impact that it should, which is a real pity.

Wenecja (Venice)

Facebook page for the film


[Invalid Link] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuDP9HIviPE

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Montréal World Film Festival 2010

I real­ized that all I’d posted about my trip to Montréal so far was my list of films to see and then a few reviews. I wanted to post a little bit about my trip and about the fest­ival exper­i­ence itself, in case any of you are thinking of making the journey in the future.

I returned this past Wednesday after spending five days at the 34th edi­tion of the Festival des films du monde. Started just one year after Toronto’s Festival of Festivals (now known as TIFF), Montréal’s oldest film fest­ival has remained the per­sonal pro­ject of Serge Losique, who has determ­ined to keep its focus on (mostly) European art cinema. Although it has gradu­ally been dwarfed by Toronto’s jug­ger­naut, it still offers a huge range of pro­gram­ming (430 films from 80 coun­tries!) and it has plenty to offer cinephiles who don’t mind doing their home­work. Not to men­tion that it takes place in a beau­tiful city and that tickets cost a frac­tion of what TIFF is char­ging these days.

One of the things I like about MWFF’s pro­gram­ming is that it fea­tures a pretty wide range of what I’d call more com­mer­cial offer­ings from a few European mar­kets. For instance, Quebécers are big fans of French cinema, so instead of only get­ting a few “important” films like at TIFF, this fest­ival offers everything from com­edies to thrillers, not only from France, but from places like Belgium and Spain as well. I also think that M. Losique and his pro­gram­ming team must be fans of the national cinema of places like Russia and the Balkan coun­tries, for those seem to have healthy rep­res­ent­a­tion in the pro­gramme, at least over the two years that I’ve attended.

I pur­chased the 10-coupon booklet for $65 (all taxes included) this year, and that also gave me a $5 dis­count on the pro­gramme guide, which nor­mally sells for $20. Compare this to TIFF’s prices ($160 plust HST and “fees” for 10 tickets, $32 plus HST and “fees” for the pro­gramme guide) and you’ll see what I mean about MWFF being a bar­gain. Apart from the cost, the fest­ival exper­i­ence is far less stressful as well. Unfortunately, that’s mostly due to the lack of crowds. It would be nice to see a few more sold-out screenings.

There are a few quirks. First of all, and this may be a problem with most fest­ivals, but the web site needs some work. It’s nav­ig­able, but it needs to be updated in a more timely way. Even as a news­letter sub­scriber, I wasn’t noti­fied when the pro­gramme was announced, nor was there a press release posted on the web site. For the record, the fest­ival announced the full lineup on August 10th, but I had to dig around on the site to finally figure out when it had been updated.

Another caveat is that, although most films are shown with English sub­titles, there are a few that are not. Last year, for instance, it was only when I was standing in line to get my ticket that I real­ized that the Spanish film I was anti­cip­ating was screening with French sub­titles only. The key is looking for the let­ters “s.t.a.” (sous-titres anglais) in the printed schedule or on indi­vidual film pages of the web site. It can be deceiving since every film descrip­tion in the pro­gramme guide and on the web site is trans­lated into English, leading one to believe that an English speaker can actu­ally see and under­stand every film in the fest­ival. It doesn’t happen often, but if you want to avoid dis­ap­point­ment, check the schedule carefully.

Normally, each film screens sev­eral times but there some that may only screen once, another reason to check the schedule before­hand when plan­ning your dates. Last year, I attended from Monday through Friday, and I found that many of the films I wanted to see were not pro­grammed on the week­days. Including a weekend this year turned out to be a good idea.

This year, I saw 9 films. I had a ticket for a tenth (The Myth of the American Sleepover, which I sub­sequently heard great things about), but opted for an early night instead. I haven’t written about all of them yet, but hope to get at least one more review posted before the mad­ness of TIFF begins.

I also got to enjoy a little of the city itself. I stayed in an apart­ment in the Mile End neigh­bour­hood owned by the mother of my friend Nicolas Gulino, a doc­u­mentary film­maker. Although I didn’t get to spend as much time with Nicolas as I would have liked, the apart­ment was in a fant­astic loc­a­tion, 5 minutes’ walk from both Fairmount Bagel, Montréal’s oldest bagel bakery, and Dieu du Ciel, home of some of the most sub­lime micro­brews I have ever tasted.

For the past two years, MWFF has proved to be a tasty appet­izer for TIFF. If you have the time, I’d recom­mend checking it out. I took the train, and VIA’s ser­vice is com­fort­able, con­venient to down­town, and rel­at­ively inex­pensive. They even have free wi-fi on the trains.

Here are a couple of photos. They’re not great, since my camera was on full zoom and so they’re a bit blurry. They are, in order, Pete Smalls is Dead (review) dir­ector Alexandre Rockwell, star Seymour Cassel, Limbo (review) dir­ector Maria Sødahl, stars Line Verndal and Bryan Brown.

Alexandre Rockwell at MWFF 2010
Seymour Cassel at MWFF 2010
Maria Sødahl at MWFF 2010
Line Verndal and Bryan Brown at MWFF 2010

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Limbo

by James McNally on September 2, 2010

in Film Festivals

Limbo

Limbo (Director: Maria Sødahl): I was ini­tially attracted to this film because of its set­ting: a com­munity of expat oil engin­eers in 1970s Trinidad. But quite apart from exquisite art dir­ec­tion, Limbo fea­tures one of the strongest per­form­ances I’ve seen in quite a while. Sonia (Line Verndal) has delayed joining her hus­band Jo in Trinidad to care for her mother, who’s just had a stroke. But after six months, she packs up her two young chil­dren and leaves Norway for the Caribbean. Upon her arrival, she exper­i­ences much more than cul­ture shock. She dis­covers that her hus­band has been car­rying on an affair with a local woman in her absence. Despite his declar­a­tion that it was just a “fling” and that it is over, she can’t seem to trust him, or to settle into her new life.

She’s also not accus­tomed to having ser­vants make her meals and clean her house, and she seems unable to slip into the life of leisure that the other expat wives take for granted. Despite the fact that her husband’s friend has a Swedish wife, she seems unenthused by the other woman’s over­tures of friendship.

Jo’s efforts to win her trust back also fail, and when she backs out of a trip to Houston with him, he becomes sus­pi­cious. When the chil­dren con­vince her to accom­pany their gardener on an overnight trip to catch crabs, she goes along and even flirts with the man, but it’s revenge and not lust that drives her.

Before long, her dis­com­fort grows into a full-blown nervous break­down, and she checks her­self into a mon­as­tery to “rest.” With this time to clear her mind, she makes a decision about her future that upsets the equi­lib­rium her hus­band has been so des­perate to establish.

Though it might sound a bit like a soap opera on paper, in reality, the per­form­ances lift this con­sid­er­ably, turning it into a char­acter study of a woman trapped in cir­cum­stances seem­ingly beyond her con­trol. When she finally develops the strength to choose her own future, it coin­cides with a moment of tragedy that gives the film an ambiguous but somehow sat­is­fying conclusion.

Here is the Q&A with dir­ector Maria Sødahl and stars Line Verndal and Bryan Brown from after the screening.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (ver­sion 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest ver­sion here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Duration: 16:33

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Bjarnfreðarson)

Bjarnfreðarson (Director: Ragnar Bragason): Based on a pop­ular Icelandic tele­vi­sion show, Bjarnfreðarson topped the domestic box office for sev­eral weeks last Christmastime, besting even James Cameron’s Avatar. Although I sus­pect that famili­arity with some of the TV show’s plot­lines would enrich the exper­i­ence, the film works quite well as a stan­dalone story, and if any­thing, it’s made me eager to seek out the rest of the series.

We first meet Georg Bjarnfreðarson (Jón Gnarr, who co-wrote the script with Bragason) as he’s being granted parole from prison. Despite his protests that he never applied, he’s forced out and we soon under­stand why. Georg is a tyrant, imposing his own will on everyone and everything around him. Flashbacks show us the reasons. The son of a very unique single mother, Georg was raised as a veget­arian fem­inist com­munist and was expected to be a “great man.” Instead, his mis­ad­ven­tures landed him in the slammer. Upon his release, his mother refuses to see him, so he crashes with Daniel, with whom he spent time in prison.

The nerdy Daniel is not someone you’d expect to have a crim­inal record, but appar­ently he got caught up in one of Georg’s schemes and did some time. Now, he’s about to graduate from med­ical school. At least, that’s what his wife and par­ents think. Secretly, he’s been studying art instead. Also living with them is Olafur, another prison buddy. He’s a 40-year-old who thinks he’s still 20, and when he loses his job as a delivery driver, an amazing piece of luck leads him to his true calling as a radio DJ.

Watching these three char­ac­ters interact, it’s no wonder that they’ve fea­tured in an entire series. What the film does, though, is to probe the oddball Georg’s back­story, and in the pro­cess, make us care about him. As we see him being picked on throughout his child­hood, we realize that he’s never known a normal life or normal rela­tion­ships. His desire to bond with the goofy Oli leads to some hil­arity, but in the end, these mis­fits really do need each other.

Though this reminded me in parts of Canada’s own Trailer Park Boys, there was some­thing deeper at work here. Although guilty of a few instances of poor taste (including giving Daniel a mentally-challenged brother-in-law and a father reduced to mum­bling inco­her­ently after a stroke), the film does convey a real sense of out­siders trying to make a new begin­ning, of trying to escape the per­sonas that have been forced upon them. That the film is able to achieve this while also providing plen­tiful laughs is a credit to the filmmakers.

In any case, it has me pre­pared to spend large sums of money to watch the rest of the story. And ship­ping DVDs from Iceland isn’t cheap, you know.

8/10(8/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Le Sentiment de la Chair (The Sentiment of the Flesh)

Le Sentiment de la Chair (The Sentiment of the Flesh) (Director: Roberto Garzelli): When Helena, a young med­ical illus­trator, begins exper­i­en­cing lower back pain, she goes for x-rays, bringing her into con­tact with Benoit, a radi­olo­gist. A series of cir­cum­stances brings them together again and again and soon they are involved in a pas­sionate love affair. Each of them is drawn to obsess­ively doc­u­ment the human body, both inside and out, and in order to break down all bar­riers to intimacy, they go to extreme lengths to explore each other’s bodies. Robert Garzelli’s fea­ture debut has the germ of a fas­cin­ating idea at its heart, but in the end is as shallow, albeit beau­tiful, as its protagonists.

When Helena tells Benoit that it is a priv­ilege for him to be able to see inside people, she’s right. But in equating that with intimacy, both she and Benoit are ludicrously mis­guided. If the film seemed more aware of that irony, it could have been a fas­cin­ating explor­a­tion of a romantic rela­tion­ship. When she asks Benoit to scan her com­pletely in an MRI machine, saying “I don’t want to have any secrets from you,” I almost laughed out loud, for all that we’ve seen from this extremely attractive couple up to that point has been an intense sexual rela­tion­ship. Neither seems to know or care any­thing about the other’s family, circle of friends, dreams or aspirations.

The fact that Benoit can pos­sess a full set of images of his lover’s body gives him no insight into her char­acter. It’s simply x-ray porn. The lovers’ belief that they can know each other by knowing each other’s bodies is naive, at first charm­ingly, and then dis­turb­ingly so. If it was only that easy to see what was inside the other’s mind, heart, or soul.

In the end, the film goes for the psy­cho­lo­gical angle, and almost becomes a thriller, as we see these two obsess over, and then reject each other as they try to quell the growing intensity of their shared fetish. The final scene is meant to dis­turb, and it does, to a point. It prompted a few walkouts from the audi­ence at my screening, but failed to gen­erate any emo­tional reac­tion from me. The dir­ector seems to keep his dis­tance, giving the film a cold, hard, dare I say clin­ical edge. Unfortunately, if there was any beating heart in this film, the x-rays failed to find it.

7/10(7/10)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }