MIFF Day 4
Red Riding: 1974
Originally made for television, it plays well on the big screen. The subtitles were a bit odd, the assumption probably that the Yorkshire accents were too difficult to understand. They weren't. As a film, it's a grim piece of story telling. Set against the backdrop of a series of child murders, a young journalist finds himself enmeshed in police and government corruption, violence and a coverup. The paranoia ratchets up, and while the end is strangely satisfying, it raises a great many questions. There are two more films in the series, so hopefully the next two days will see some answers. As it stands, it's a solid piece of storytelling. Hardly surprising since it's based on a well-regarded novel by the ironically named David Peace, and adapted by the incomparable Tony Grisoni.
Outrage
Here's an ethical conundrum for you. Is it ok to out a gay man who wants to remain closeted? Is it ok to out him if he's a closeted gay politician actively campaigning against gay rights? Director Kirby Dick decided the answer is yes, and this film is a sobering look at the lives of a number of US politicians who marry, have children, present a safe public face and then go and solicit gay men for sex in bars and public toilets. It's a sad film in many ways, a condemnation of society and a disturbing insight into the functioning of politics at its highest level. That gay men are actively using gay issues as a lightning rod to get themselves re-elected is self-hatred of a bitter and nasty kind. But the film itself is still difficult, though it does make a very good point. When politicians are caught having affairs it's news. But when they're caught with other men, suddenly nobody knows quite how to report it, or whether they should just leave them alone. The inequality in treatment is stark, which I guess is why this film cannot really be faulted for it's content. Far less weighty gossip manages to become the subject of national news.
Humpday
First off, I really hate mumblecore cinema. I think it's lazy, poorly shot, filled with improvisational dialogue that is far too in love with itself. I've yet to see an example that could constitute good filmmaking. The garage band aesthetic might work for a band, but cinema with crap visuals might as well just be a radio play. That said, this is about 50/50 crap and funny. The camerawork is poor, the editing fairly random, the story fairly slight and filled with pointless diversions that make a good chunk of the film boring. But the central premise, two guys daring each other to have sex with each other for an "art" porn film (because nobody has ever done a film with two straight guys shagging each other) is a source of much comedy gold. When I wasn't distracted by the crap framing and no-effort DV lighting I was laughing a lot. There's whole sequences of dialogue that are hysterical. The performances from the two leads as each realises the other isn't backing down are priceless. And when they find themselves in their hotel room with their camera, there's a lot of finely observed character work mixed in with a lot of laughs. It starts off awful, climbs it's way up to promise a lot, loses its way, finds it again and finally delivers a bit less than promised. It could have been so much more, but in the end it was okay.
Originally made for television, it plays well on the big screen. The subtitles were a bit odd, the assumption probably that the Yorkshire accents were too difficult to understand. They weren't. As a film, it's a grim piece of story telling. Set against the backdrop of a series of child murders, a young journalist finds himself enmeshed in police and government corruption, violence and a coverup. The paranoia ratchets up, and while the end is strangely satisfying, it raises a great many questions. There are two more films in the series, so hopefully the next two days will see some answers. As it stands, it's a solid piece of storytelling. Hardly surprising since it's based on a well-regarded novel by the ironically named David Peace, and adapted by the incomparable Tony Grisoni.
Outrage
Here's an ethical conundrum for you. Is it ok to out a gay man who wants to remain closeted? Is it ok to out him if he's a closeted gay politician actively campaigning against gay rights? Director Kirby Dick decided the answer is yes, and this film is a sobering look at the lives of a number of US politicians who marry, have children, present a safe public face and then go and solicit gay men for sex in bars and public toilets. It's a sad film in many ways, a condemnation of society and a disturbing insight into the functioning of politics at its highest level. That gay men are actively using gay issues as a lightning rod to get themselves re-elected is self-hatred of a bitter and nasty kind. But the film itself is still difficult, though it does make a very good point. When politicians are caught having affairs it's news. But when they're caught with other men, suddenly nobody knows quite how to report it, or whether they should just leave them alone. The inequality in treatment is stark, which I guess is why this film cannot really be faulted for it's content. Far less weighty gossip manages to become the subject of national news.
Humpday
First off, I really hate mumblecore cinema. I think it's lazy, poorly shot, filled with improvisational dialogue that is far too in love with itself. I've yet to see an example that could constitute good filmmaking. The garage band aesthetic might work for a band, but cinema with crap visuals might as well just be a radio play. That said, this is about 50/50 crap and funny. The camerawork is poor, the editing fairly random, the story fairly slight and filled with pointless diversions that make a good chunk of the film boring. But the central premise, two guys daring each other to have sex with each other for an "art" porn film (because nobody has ever done a film with two straight guys shagging each other) is a source of much comedy gold. When I wasn't distracted by the crap framing and no-effort DV lighting I was laughing a lot. There's whole sequences of dialogue that are hysterical. The performances from the two leads as each realises the other isn't backing down are priceless. And when they find themselves in their hotel room with their camera, there's a lot of finely observed character work mixed in with a lot of laughs. It starts off awful, climbs it's way up to promise a lot, loses its way, finds it again and finally delivers a bit less than promised. It could have been so much more, but in the end it was okay.
posted by Andrew Lee at 11:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home