« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »

Pena envy

So the cinetrix understands there's some sort of film festival? In New York? Starting today? How nice!

It's nearly impossible to troll the cinematically inclined interwebs lately without stumbling over copious coverage of the New York Film Festival. And for those of you who, like the cinetrix, foolishly opted to live somewhere other than the city, it's also hard not to hear a little nyah-nyah undergirding the copy.

Or, in the case of camera-shy Manohla Dargis's audio slideshow, a howling siren [around 1:30]. The NYT critic is clearly filing from her hometown, for a change, and it's fun to hear how quickly the Valley cadences she's picked up in L.A. get shoved aside by her L.E.S.-bred vowels.

In the accompanying article, Dargis looks back and to the future and sounds her own alarm:

The question is how the Film Society will rise to the occasion of these new digs: notably, will it expand beyond its cozy core constituency? For those of us who have despaired at the Walter Reade's inability to fill its seats consistently, and for those of us who have also long thought of the New York Film Festival as an uptown event, these are no small matters. The Film Society does get out of the neighborhood, most recently with outdoor screenings in Stuyvesant Town, but its distance from many of the city's most vibrant communities can make it seem as remote as the far side of the Moon. The Film Society has often seemed as if it expected the city to come to it, never the reverse.

Its willingness to go beyond its comfort and perhaps even its geographic zone feels especially urgent now because it won't be long before the old art-house faithful start slipping away like Antonioni and Bergman. Cinemania is alive and well on the Internet, notably in blogs, where young movie nuts rant and rave and help cultivate one another'€™s cinematic interests. This is heartening, but film -- especially the kind that distinguishes this year's edition of the New York Film Festival --€” needs more than passion. It needs an audience, a paying public. If we don't cultivate a new generation of movie lovers who get excited at the very idea of a Hou Hsiao-hsien film, we may as well hold a memorial service for foreign-language-film theatrical distribution right now.

You bring the flowers; I'll bring the Scotch.

The cutesy kicker points up part of the problem facing festivals and the future of foreign-language-film theatrical distribution. If art house cinema can be no country for old men if it is to survive, ditch the old-man drinks. And the name-checking of Bergman and Antonioni that smacks of laurel-resting and "kids today" muttering may not be the best way to bring "young movie nuts" through the doors. If they can afford to gamble $16 to $40 on a ticket, that is.

It's true that bloggers "rant and rave and help cultivate one another'€™s cinematic interests," but it's not always such a circle jerk. Still, Dargis is right to look beyond them for a "new generation of movie lovers." She might also want to look beyond Manhattan -- and even the outer boroughs. Here's why: The cinetrix would hazard that even the most passionate bloggers, and especially those in New York, don't aspire to be part of the "paying public" at all, if they can help it. They want the access old-media reviewers have -- to press screenings, press passes, screeners, and seen-it-first bragging rights. Meanwhile, the closest the rest of the new generation will get to NYFF-type films is reading about them online [via blogs or the Times] and then adding intriguing titles -- fingers crossed -- to the "Saved" section of their Netflix queue, where they'll languish indefinitely until they land DVD distribution. Maybe.

So, how do we get the young people hooked on art house flicks? Got me. But an article in Variety's NYFF package may shed more light on the problem, if not the solution. In a profile of Richard Pena, the NYFF's 54-year-old director sounds some of the same alarms heard in Dargis's article and indulges in some of the same off-putting lionizing of the past:

Like a true movie junkie, Richard Pena can tick off the great double features he saw as a child as if the movies were still showing downtown. In New York of the 1960s, a time when arthouse and repertory cinemas thrived, Pena's 75¢ bought him afternoons with Renoir and weighty pairings like Bergman's "Smiles of a Summer Night" and "The Seventh Seal."

Pena, now in his 20th year as selection committee chairman of the New York Film Festival, remembers those times fondly. Back then, he says, audiences went to the movies to explore and to be challenged, and Americans' taste for foreign films hit a high-water mark.*

"We like to think that things only change for the better, but ... that openness that existed in the '60s disappeared," says Pena. "We not only lost it, we became hostile to it."

Since coming to Lincoln Center, Pena has made it his job to, if not resist the narrowing of the audience's collective mind, then at least to ignore it.

Oh, sweet Christ: the '60s? Not that hoary locution. And who is this "We"? Is he saying it's the lazy younger g-g-g-generation's failure to explore and be challenged that's to blame for "the narrowing of the audience's collective mind"?

...the 54-year-old Pena says the festival's mission isn't to be the first, but rather to spotlight the highest-caliber films being made. He aims to show how cinema, at its best, is the equal of opera, ballet and the other arts.

You mean because it relies on repertory programming broken up by the occasional cynical blockbuster, and appeals to a dwindling, aging audience? I'd say you're well on your way! But wanting to be more like opera may not be the best business model.

And check out this closing graf:

"I am in the film history business," [Pena] says. "I look at this vast, worldwide gurgling mass of films produced in the past 110 years ... and try to help people find a way into it."

The cinetrix is in the film history business, too, on a much smaller scale. This semester, she's trying to help a hardy band of undergrads find their way into a panoply of world cinema classics, ordained as such by Criterion, Janus Films, and, yes, a festival or two. These students couldn't live further from NYFF's "comfort and perhaps even its geographic zone," as Dargis puts it, if they did live on "the far side of the moon." But some of them have been known to drive hours to see a film. Otherwise, they wait for the DVD.

Thank God for DVDs. The cinetrix can serve up some of those big names -- Bergman, Truffaut, Antonioni, Foreman -- that the NYFF has championed over the decades, in far better condition than the shitty Swank 16mms she watched in school. The kids may never have seen anything like 'em before, but they're down for whatever. They ask good questions that demand more than the "because I said so" cant answers rooted in reputations and history.

However, they also struggle to overcome the anxiety, fostered by the calcified attitudes of taste-makers like Pena, that maybe these films are not for them. That a bland diet of multiplex flicks [dished out by the art-house boomers' evil twins running Hollywood] has left them unprepared for the gourmet films and unsure of their own tastes. But the openness is still there, even if the access to these films in all their projected glory is not.

So, if you're fortunate enough to be going to NYFF this year, enjoy the festival. Do it for the kids.

*Oh, and another reason Americans' taste for foreign films hit the high-water mark in the 1960s was far from highbrow: European films showed a lot more skin.

No love for the Blonde

Lovesofablonde Poor Andula. Left high and dry yet again.

The cinetrix was surprised and a little disappointed to learn during today's discussion that the young people were having none of Milos Foreman's Loves of a Blonde. After weeks of rapes, and murders, and gangsters, and Bad Shit Happening in Forests Generally--not to mention their first experience of the Fellini-esque--I thought they'd really warm to Foreman's sly, episodic look at coming of age in the Eastern Bloc, but no dice.

I just wanted a film with a female protagonist. Is that so wrong?

Sigh. How are you gonna keep 'em down in the socialist shoe factory of Zruc once they've seen the bright lights of Cinecitta?

I enjoy being a girl: The Trouble with Angels

Trouble_with_angels Ida Lupino. Rosalind Russell. Hayley Mills. Gypsy Rose Lee. An ungodly constellation of lady stars lined up in the Hollywood skies only once, and the result was The Trouble with Angels, a convent school comedy that TCM graciously saw fit to air last week when the cinetrix was at low ebb. Prayers answered!

This flick bowed in '66, in a post-Kennedy, post-Vatican 2 world, but you'd never know it. Catholicism here offers merely an opportunity to extend the plucky Haley Mills single-sex brand and make the world safe for the Flying Nun and Sister Acts of the future.

Sidebar: What is it with Hollywood and Catholicism? It's long been the go-to denomination for horror [extra books in the Bible!] and nunsploitation of all stripes. Could it be the iconography? Tough to say.

Anyway, there are hijinks a go-go in this coming-of-age story, as little orphan Mary [Mills] and her pal Rachel, an adenoidal refugee from a progressive school, play "scandalously brilliant" pranks on fellow students and the sisters. And you really haven't lived until you've seen regal Rosalind Russell swanning around in a full habit. Or, for that matter, Haley Mills smoking a cigar.

But that's about as phallic as things get for Miss Mills, the girl Hollywood never really let grow up. By the time graduation rolls around, Mary betrays her partner in crime by opting to stay behind at the school and become a bride of Christ. [And we know He never puts out.] The cinetrix can relate to Rachel's sense of surprise. Lupino shows us only a fleeting glimpse of Mary struggling with her vocation before there she is, gamely trying on a serene smile as the movie ends.

It's a trifle, Angels, and done on the cheap, but, oh, to have been a fly on the wall on that set. Imagine the advice Lupino or Russell could have given the Disney ingenue and the war stories they could have shared! The mind reels.

****
A confession: The only reason the cinetrix stumbled across this little oddity is because she was channel surfing after "Gossip Girl" ended. Am I the only one who thinks the blonde on that show looks like a baby Kim Gordon? 

The raincoats

Singin_in_the_rain So, the cinetrix was screening Singin' in the Rain tonight for her Intro class, and she has a quick question for you smarty-pants cinephile types out there on the Interwebs.

OK, so there's the big titular set piece, with Gene Kelly splashing around, yadda yadda. But immediately before it comes the "Good Morning" sequence, which features Donald O'Connor and Gene Kelly slinging "can't sing, can't act, can dance a little" Debbie Reynolds around Gene's character Don's palatial Hollywood home. [It concludes with their plot to dub Lina Lamont's ear-splitting vocal stylings with Kathy's more tuneful tones.] The cinetrix understands it may be a while since you saw the film, so she'll remind you of a particularly salient feature of the "Morning" number: At one point, the trio engages in a little goofy bricolage involving two hats, a turban, and three yellow raincoats. That's right: raincoats. Debbie does a little hula dance with hers; Gene plays the matador; and Donald cuts the rug, Charleston-stizz, with his raincoat "partner." All of these fucking raincoats are present in Don's well-appointed digs--and it's been established that it's raining outside--yet when we cut to Don bidding a tender farewell to Kathy on her doorstep, only she has donned a raincoat, while Lockwood's opted for his magical umbrella. [And those look-at-me cordovan shoes.]

Why?

Don't cross the streams

Kids: Don't try this at home.

The cinetrix--a trained professional--experienced the pedogogical aftermath of crossing the streams* today. She taught ASCII darling Miranda July's Me and You and Everyone We Know in one class and Fellini's Otto e Mezzo in the other.

That's right: we're talking a ))<>(( / ASA NISI MASA mashup.

She may resort to watching network television [something she never does] just to cleanse the palate.

* Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. OK. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Blues movie

Talk about a one-two punch. The cinetrix has been feeling under the weather the past few days and now she's in a funk as well.

What do you watch when you're at low ebb? It could be something that makes you laugh no matter how glum you feel: cinematic comfort food. Or an opportunity to really wallow. Prescribe away, people. The cinetrix needs some cinematic medicine, stat.

Inter alia

Oyez! Oyez! David Edelstein is back on the Internets. The former Slate film critic had sidled over to glossy New York Magazine a while back [the online interface of which continues to leave a lot to be desired], but apparently he was unable to resist Sir Tim Berner-Lee's siren song any longer* and will be prattling about things cinematic at The Projectionist blog. Because the cinetrix doesn't have enough distractions.

Anyhoo, there's already some content subcontracting a reader contest afoot to nominate one's favorite scene of self-surgery, and a little bit of critic-on-critic trash talking:

I especially want to talk about the movie [Sideways] because a certain powerful critic (I won’t name him, but two of his initials are “A” and “O”) wrote a cheap, sleazy, opportunistic, and altogether scurrilous column to the effect that the film was acclaimed as intensely as it was because critics tend to be, like Sideways’ protagonist, pudgy, elitist, misanthropic alcoholics with no lives and not the faintest hope of snaring a dishy blonde like Virginia Madsen. To which I say, “Yes, but …”

Does this mean Tony won't be saving Dave a seat at the NYFF press screenings? Stay tuned!

*Which is to say old media had another "we must have more online content" freakout and added to the guy's job description. Whatever.

Asa Nisi Masa

Otto_e_mezzo The cinetrix teaches Otto e mezzo this week. She first saw Fellini's self-reflexive flick in an Italian film course when she was a wee undergrad, and she was quite taken with it. Still is.

Have you taught it or been taught it at some point? Any suggestions? Fun facts to know and shout? Please, people: anything to distract me from the sobering realization that the majority of my students were kicking it with Elmo when I made the acquaintance of Guido Anselmi would be greatly appreciated.

Not worthy

Hats off to Dave Kehr, who predicts how academia will react to The Brave One and Mr. Woodcock occupying the No. 1 and 2 box office spots this weekend:

Presumably, emergency seminars are already being scheduled at Brown.

Heh.

The cinetrix has poked fun at U of C alum Kehr in the past, but when it comes to picking on the Montessori of the Ivies, sign her up.

The paper of record

A friend and I were snarking via IM about the Times' movie section, something the cinetrix hasn't done in this space in ages. The crimes, as always, are legion, so I'll highlight only two.

First, Stephen Holden writes nearly 1275 words on Julie Taymor's Across the Universe. Talk about Beatlemania: There are probably fewer unique words in the entire Lennon-McCartney songbook than there are in his helter-skelter review. Was it really necessary to tell us that the flick includes 33 Beatles tracks and then cite 12 of them by name? Love makes you do crazy things, he explains in the second graf:

Somewhere around its midpoint, “Across the Universe” captured my heart, and I realized that falling in love with a movie is like falling in love with another person. Imperfections, however glaring, become endearing quirks once you’ve tumbled.

I guess that makes the sixteen grafs that follow the fishwrap equivalent of the least original mixtape ever, then. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Second, A.O. Scott, quick to join the mumblecore backlash brigade, works a not-so-subtle dig into his critic's choice writeup of Charles Burnett's films:

At a moment when the term independent film is taken to refer either to midbudget studio projects anchored by Oscar-soliciting performances or to the aimless navel-gazing of under-stimulated hipsters (Speak up! Stop mumbling!), Mr. Burnett’s work is an indelible reminder of what real independence looks like. 

His early films in particular also testify to the vitality of a neorealist impulse that has never quite taken root in American cinema. “Killer of Sheep” (1977), which was revived last year, and “My Brother’s Wedding,” which begins a weeklong run at the IFC Center today, have a sense of place and personality that is marvelous and rare. Shot in South Central Los Angeles, they are full of the rough poetry of everyday experience, and their depictions of African-American working-class life are humorous, loving and honest, devoid of either condescension or political posturing.

So, real independence does not look like Scott's twentysomething former self? Charles Burnett is more independent because he is black/shot in South Central/featured the working class? Or Burnett is more real because an elect cadre of critics got to keep him to themselves like some cred-granting grail for thirty years? [The cinetrix doesn't think this is what the Times critic is trying to assert, but his phrasing is pretty infelicitous.]

Also, the parenthetical "(Speak up! Stop mumbling!)" is pretty rich coming from the guy who ganked Andrew Bujalski's Funny Ha Ha out the hands of a NYT stringer so he could get on the Bujalski bandwagon before it totally left the station in 2005. Just sayin'.

[Sidebar: Watching from afar as New York-based critics climbed over one another in their eagerness to pen the definitive mumble thought/trend piece just made the cinetrix nostalgic for the brilliant-to-rubbish boomeranging of Melody Maker and NME's shoe-gazer hype machines in the early 90s. Must be something about insular island cultures that inclines the press there to excess and hyperbole. Or maybe it was a late-August offshoot of everyone's therapist being away for two weeks. Whatever the reason, the cinetrix looked on indulgently, chuckled, and said, "Shit, those flicks? Saw 'em months ago."]

Boilerplate