Hey folks, Harry here with another peek from Rotterdam from Dapascha, whose name in a morphine daze I misspelled last time. Let this be a note to you folks out there that think about updating with the monkey on your back... it can lead to foolish mistakes... that then become international incidents like this one. Heh... Sounds like Dapascha got one terrible and one pretty damn good one. Here ya go...
Hello Sharry, Moshriarty and friends, one more time this
year from the Lowlands…
(Yeah, great, so I make it to aintitcool’s front page, and
they spell my name incorrectly…. Figures. I guess I’ll
blame it on the morphine.)
My last three days on the festival, with a quiet Thursday
to begin with. Decided to skip CLEAN, a
pop-star-using-dope-drama with Maggie Cheung and Nick
Nolte, which hasn’t been doing very well on the review
circuit. So I slept in and made my first appearance at
15:30hrs at a live conversation with minimalist composer
Terry Riley, part the What (is) Cinema? program, which
features discussions on mostly experimental- and art-house
cinema related subjects. This one was attended by about ten
people, an indication of how little respect for and
knowledge about the influences of minimalist music movement
(which Riley pretty much initiated in the 1960s) on modern
styles like dance and ambient, and pretty much every other
musical genre as well, from jazz to classical. It was
pretty interesting nevertheless, and nice to see mr. Riley
talk in person about his relationship with film and
filmmusic. He comes across as a very kind and interesting
person (cue for your meaningless compliments nausea). We
got to see the short and nice film LOOKING FOR MUSHROOMS by
Bruce Conner from 1967, a nice collage of footage shot in
Mexico City, with a trippy fire-works sequence.
L'OEIL DE L'AUTRE
I left the theater slightly dazed and made my way towards
my first genuine stinker of this year: L’OEIL DE L’AUTRE
(lit. “the eye of the other”), a French film by director
John Lvoff, if the spelling in the program is to be
believed. Lvoff?? Silly names aside, the movie is a
pretentious pile-up of overdone art-house clichés.
Main
character of the story is a girl working as a technical
photographer, who is sent out for an interesting but
stupidly executed science project, where once a year the
exact same picture of a landscape is taken to track large
time-scale changes in form. Stupidly executed because half
the pictures are of non-descript ruins, trees and
buildings, and not of the (beautiful) landscapes obscured
by them. Which sort of makes me wanna go there and cut down
that tree.
Anyway… she is replacing a well-known English
photographer who has disappeared mysteriously during his
last time roaming the French Provence taking
cliched-art-photos posing for
stupid-scientific-purpose-pictures.
Her employer and
mother’s ex makes a stilted attempt at making a pass at
her, which she cuts off decidedly. Julie Dépardieu
(daughter of famous actor Gerard D.) plays the girl, whose
character was so annoying I refuse to remember her name.
But I’ve looked it up and it’s Alice. And yes, Lvoff is
really called Lvoff who therefore should get the award for
Name Most Sounding Like Pitoff, whose name is always a bad
sign for the movies it’s even remotely connected with.
Alice is very shy and insecure, and is lost for having a
genuine voice and probably even personality of her own. But
hey! Wait! I get it! There’s a connection with her lack of
having a look (or no, I should say a regard, ofcourse) of
her own and her being a photographer replacing another
photographer! And with her having to take technical exact
replica’s of other pictures! And with her boss making a
pass at her! She also meets Juliet, the photographer´s
mistress in the Provence, who should be noted for her bizar
performance. I seriously believe the director shot her full
of mescaline and told her they were filming some lame
fantasy flick where she stars as The Ominous Oracle.
Luckily it’s not all boring and depressing encouters for
Alice, as she meets a semi-handsome and free-spirited dude
(he paraglides, you see) in the hotel she stays in and has
a little romance. Sadly these scenes still remain boring
and depressing encounters for the audience. Mostly due to
the fact that her new lover and his friends are so free and
open, and joyous, but she’s so insecure and closed, which
results in her acting like a rude, impolite, total jackass
to most people she meets. Jeez man, I’m insecure about many
things as well, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be polite!
But, on the positive side, mademoiselle Dépardieu is nice
to look at, and her bland acting I blame mostly on monsieur
Lvoff, who is apparently a big fan of the mandatory 1,5
second Significant Moment of Silence after each and every
single fucking line of dialogue spoken in the movie. Jezus,
I could have been out of that theater at least twenty
minutes earlier if the editor had done his or her job
properly. But I sat it out, just so that I could have the
justified satisfaction of writing this review and confirm
my fears that there really is no interesting character
development or satisfying thematic conclusion in this film.
I think I selected it from the program based on the short
description, and was hoping for some nice shots of the
French countryside, but alas, there’s maybe three of them
in total out of a hundred-and-something bland ones. I’d
like to conclude my time wasted on this steaming heap de
merde with one last bit of trivia, which might be a saving
grace for a few lucky ones out there: the English
photographer, who we see on pictures several times, is
played by none other than Otar Iosseliani! A name that
means absolutely nothing to me, but according to the
festival-catalogue he’s worth an exclamation mark after his
name, so I thought I’d pass that one on to you guys.
IN MY FATHER'S DEN
A quick cigarette and some more coffee, and then on to IN
MY FATHER’S DEN, part of the un-official Crowd Pleaser
program, always featured heavily in the last three days of
the festival and also starring IZO, UNDERTOW, HOWL’S MOVING
CASTLE and the mysterious surprise film (SUBMISSION?) on
Friday. This year TEAM: AMERICA was also a late surprise
addition. This film from pretty much the exact opposite
side of the earth (from Rotterdam’s point of view, that is)
also fits the crowd-pleaser category, and it quickly erased
my cynical mood-left overs from the previous film and
dragged me into a dark story of guilt and mystery. Directed
by Brad McGann, it tells about buried family secrets in a
small town in New Zealand. War-photographer Paul Prior (a
strong performance by Matthew McFadyen) returns to his
hometown after many years for his father’s cremation and a
strained reunion with his brother and his wife. He
resettles, starts teaching and begins a friendship with
Celia (played by Emily Barclay, who gets to display a whole
wide range of emotions), the young daughter of his
ex-girlfriend who has a teemage crush on him. Things turn
mysterious when she suddenly disappears, and Paul has to
face some skeletons in his family’s closet and tough
questions by both the people of the town and the
authorities. While this all may sound a little predictable
and done-before, which it is, IN MY FATHER’S DEN is
nonetheless a very powerful film, thanks to great acting by
everyone involved (including a small but nice role by
Miranda Otto has Paul’s sister-in-law), a fittingly
dramatic soundtrack by Simon Boswell, beautiful photography
of the New Zealand countryside by Stuart Bryburgh (THE
PIANO, SEX AND THE CITY) (huh?) and a strong directing
effort by Brad McGann. The tension and mystery has a
gradual build-up, and while the suspense grows, the look of
the film becomes increasingly more obscured. The
disappearance of Celia, for instance, starts out casual,
and only slowly does it become clear that darker events may
have taken place than those we have seen so far. There’s a
fair deal of jumping back and forth in the storyline, which
works well to keep the audience intrigued and guessing for
what has really happened to Paul and Celia. Strangely
enough, the title of the film, which was written by McGann
himself and based on the novel by Maurice Gee, pretty much
gives it away (but certainly not entirely… there are a few
twists), and the director doesn’t shy from a few hints here
and there as well. This slight predictability and it’s
done-before feel for me keeps IN MY FATHER’S DEN from being
a great movie to just being really good.
I’ll split this last report in two, and I will be back
tomorrow with reviews for Friday and Saturday. For now,
greetings
dapascha
|