Author: BRWC

  • Tarzan Trailer Swings In From Deutschland

    Tarzan Trailer Swings In From Deutschland

    There have been quite a fair few adaptations of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s classic tale of the man raised by apes, and while I must admit never to being much of a fan of the vine swinging pant-less wonder, this teaser trailer of the new adaptation from Germany looks visually sumptuous with no Phil Collins in sight (still can’t forgive him for beating Matt Stone and Trey Parker at the Oscars).

    The Amazon Rainforest looks stunning.

    While not giving much away in terms of story, it is a teaser after all, it remains to be seen whether the advanced mo-cap of Kellan Lutz (The Immortals) will fall too far into uncanny valley or be a visual delight. At the moment, his face looks a bit odd, but his hair looks glorious.

    The trailer can be seen here

    Directed by Reinhard Klooss, Tarzan will be released in 2013. 

     

  • My Love Letter To Mark Potts’ & Cole Selix’s Cinema Six

    My Love Letter To Mark Potts’ & Cole Selix’s Cinema Six

    “Time won’t find the lost

    It’ll sweep up our skeleton bones”

    My Love Letter to Mark Potts’ and Cole Selix’s Cinema Six

    by Pablo D’Stair

    Those who have worked, as I have, the job (or jobs similar) to the one on display in Cinema Six know that there is no way to explain what the air in the back office of a run-of-the-mill, more or less obsolete movie theatre feels like, no way to (with however much poetry) describe the taste that lingers on the slick over ones teeth of popcorn eaten with bored mouth out of a Styrofoam cup, the exact feel under the arm or against lightly shoving palms of cardboard tubes containing cinema posters, the listless scent of a mostly unused parking lot, the weight of button-down shirts washed with sleeves never unrolled and never ironed, neckties done up once and then loosened, tightened (loosened, tightened) anything but unknotted to be redone, the day long sweat of palms on glass candy cases Windex does nothing ever to clear, the feel through barely tied shoes of carpet which remains as dingy whether vacuumed or spot swept or entirely left alone, the way the never swept steps up to the break room feel when sat on to have a grave chat about the details of a film or television show (chats had while avoiding like the plague even the briefest and most mundane encounter with a customer or a trip to restock cups).  These are things that can only be shown, a life that can only be told—someone in the audience either lived it and gets it in their marrow or can just  play tourist, gleaning what they can and trying to make overarching observations of the general human condition, entirely missing the point that the condition of working in such a place, being such a person, is something singular and removed from all other context.

     ***

    Attempting to come at Mark Potts’ and Cole Selix’s Cinema Six, I could discuss it in terms of its place as representation of a current patch of contemporary cinema, look at it as a fresh point in the line of the influence of Wes Anderson, noting its tight control, its almost “moving picture-book” style of scene presentation, its couching complex expression in precise deadpan delivery and hyper-specific progression of character—I could discuss its place in a line of films from Napoleon Dynamite to Charlie Bartlett to Thumbsucker to Submarine to Eagle vs. Shark.

    Or I could distance it back even further, consider it borne of a felt apprenticeship to the films of Jim Jarmusch—particularly noting that (to differentiate from Anderson-esque work) it does not contain intricate camera pacing and breaths, does not drift into a magical perspective “above its content” but instead cavorts in the banality of details that are particularly beautiful for their lack of otherworldly verve, instead utilizes only the most simplistic turns of camera or breaks of perspective, its style of over-lingering on an unchanging image there to specifically note the lack-of-change rather than to let extended regard unearth nuance after nuance suggesting every stitch of clothing has a voice beyond itself.

    More properly, maybe, I suppose I could liken it to the films of Aki Kaurismaki (a natural thing to do if Jarmusch has already been invoked) except for the film seems to have no interest in a sociological unpacking, has no desire to outwardly celebrate a lifestyle, dissect it for an outsider to find significance in and connection todoes not seem to want to make an outsider feel closer to a secondary world, be participant–Cinema Six wants to reinforce its special isolation, its aggressive and hard-fought malaise.

    I could (and do, certainly) praise the particular and confident style of the script, the line deliveries of the performers, could pontificate that this film must, must, must have been based on actual lived experiences by the ones helming the project, could demand my belief that no creative mind would even have means to actually invent the banal truths and rhythms that move this picture from frame-to-frame, scene-to-scene—but this would not (and does not) make anyone understand the beauty of the film.

    I could explain that my belief is that the “storyline” element of the film was there only because…well, the general cinema-goer wants to watch a movie to see what happens to ‘imaginary-others’ or ‘symbolic-selves’, that the writers and directors (as well as all of the performers) deftly use only the bare bones necessary to keep audience from straying away from the screen, use the familiar (almost instinctively understood in this day and age) tropes and progressions of a “movie” to prestidigitate a real state-of-life (knowing full well it is truthfully a cipher to most watching) that they make audience, unbeknownst to themselves, experience something rather than observe—but to say so would do nothing, because the actuality this film expresses is something that can only be Recognized or Not Recognized, cannot be explained or reduced down to a “Yeah, things are more or less like that” from one uninitiated.

    Oh yes, there are moments for everyone—moments comic, moments ennui laden, moments that can be related to or laughed at, sighed over in the abstract. Yes yes, Cinema Six can serve as a light entertainment or a melancholic romp. And sure, the human relationships can (in a lowest common denominator way) be commented on just like those in any film.

    I could just call it “wonderful,” could just call it “an understated delight” or any other blurb-ready doo-dah.

    Or what else?

    I could sing-song that it is a detail-oriented cinema-lovers wet dream, could balladeer about how anyone who likes to peer in to the background of a frame for wry in-jokes, for textures that have a personality all their own (the faux movie posters, the scrawled notes on the break room dry erase board, the signs advertising “special bundles for date night”) will find true love, but even this would be kind of a waste of time. Unless you have stood there, worked such a job, even to mention the filmmakers’ joy in details is not enough—because there is no way to express why the fact that the door to the mop/supply room behind the concession counter always remaining partially opened is not just incidental or a nice nuance but a perfection, a truth, a detail that carries with it an actual euphoric soul.

    ***

    To me, Cinema Six is an utter expression of a particular way of life, one that is often reduced down, looted for particular aspects, or bastardized, one that is made a tool or a set-piece (as in many films from Clerks to (gah) Employee Of The Month or (peh) Waiting) but one that is seldom allowed to own its gorgeousness, expound its non-cynical appropriateness, its oddball seductiveness, its siren song of irreverent frustration that was as indulged in by those who endured it as it was despised.

    The film stirred a private aspect of me. As someone who has departed (even escaped) from what I must in public call a dismal, sodden, even miserable lifestyle, but in private know I will always be irrevocably in love with, the film kindled a secret lust for a hole I may have once been buried in but—God help me—I will have to always admit is as beloved as Home.

    ***

    Pablo D’Stair is a novelist, essayist, and interviewer.  Co-founder of the art house press KUBOA, he is also a regular contributor to the Montage: Cultural Paradigm (Sri Lanka). His book Four Self-Interviews About Cinema: the short films of director Norman Reedus will be re-releasing October, 2012 through Serenity House Publishing, International.

  • Classic Banter: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

    Classic Banter: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

    Old Monty:  What the hell are you doing in my house?
    Andy:  All right, look. We’re just looking for are friend, all right. Then we’ll be out of here.
    Old Monty:  You ain’t running things, boy except your mouth.
    Andy:  This guy’s crazy.
    Old Monty:  You little turd, you’re so dead, you don’t even know it.

  • The Admiral – Review

    The Admiral – Review

    The Admiral, or Isoroku Yamamoto, the Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Fleet to give it it’s full title, tells the story of Japan’s chief naval officer during the second world war. Admiral Yamamoto’s has appeared in several films before – often played by the legendary Toshiro Mifune – but few films have shown the man beyond the uniform and the procedure of going to war. This is the man who gave the orders for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, sent squadrons of kamikaze pilots to their deaths and was a key player in The Battle of Midway. A sprawling two hour plus narrative should have ample time to show these events and the agonising decisions made to send men to their deaths.

    This truly is a film of two halfs. Well a quarter and three quarters. One quarter of the time we are watching aerial dog fights, suicide attacks and bombings. The other three quarters involve people sat around tables discussing things. In one regard this highlights that a large part of the war machine does involved old men deciding the fate of the soldiers and officers in the thick of it. For the first half hour or so these scene remain quite interesting, especially in the build up to Pearl Harbor (personally I didn’t know that the Japanese declaration of war arrived an hour after they had already bombed) but afterwards there seems to be no end to scenes sat around tables with Admiral Yamamoto (a stoic Koji Yakusho) sat patiently listen as over marshals scream frantically. The rest of the time we see a journalist sat around a table writing, or discussing stories with his colleagues. Then there’s the journalists friends who he meets in a bar to discuss the events of the war with who cheer and over act like characters from a Hanna-Barbera cartoon. Yamaguchi Tamon, the journalist (Hiroshi Abe) acts as our opening and closing narrator added some back story and epilogue to the tale but other than that his character seems merely present to pad out the story. His plot thread does show the workings of a Japanese newspaper in war time but it feels like another movie in itself. Here in this story of Yamamoto it comes across as misplaced and frankly dull.

    There also seems to a third movie in the scene involving the kamikaze pilots. In classic Star Wars mode it’s hard to tell the pilots apart and with little to know time to get to know them their deaths do not feel nearly as shocking as they should do. Indeed most of the pilots who plow into battleships and air craft carriers do so with a defiant smile. Perhaps more emotion would have been garnered by showing the torment and anguish some of these young men went through, bing forced into giving their lives. It made me think that I would rather be watching a film about that rather than The Admiral.

    The aerial scenes are certainly beautiful to watch, albeit for slightly ropey CGI at times. Vast shots of aircraft engaged in dogfights are well photographed but fail to engage on a visceral level. Maybe the filmmakers thought an action packed plane battle would be too much of a shock after having sat watching a meeting of admirals for the past twenty minutes. Despite the poster promising action packed aerial gun fights, Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbour does win for the more balls-to-the-wall action approach – depending on your moral stand point this good be good or bad.

    Central to these moments of action, scenes of people talking at tables and people talking for what seems like no reason is Yakusho’s performance as Yamamoto. The Admiral is portrayed as a man of intense honour and fairness. His decision to bomb Pearl Harbor is shown to be gut wrenchingly difficult to decide, almost to the point where it looks like he’s talked into it by his officers. He’s also shown to be a man who feels life is precious but still waves off dozens of pilots to their certain fate. When in uniform the performance is so stiff it is hard to find the humanity or even interest to watch him. The real moments where Yakusho comes alive as performer and Yamamoto as a man is in flash backs showing him interacting with a small girl who is spooked by his missing digits. This scenes are brief which is a shame because it would have made the later years and decisions that more intense to have seen more of his mild mannered side.

    The Admiral is ultimately a disappointment all round. Scenes showing the politics and committees of warfare are tiresome. I mean, there really is a lot of men sat down talking at each other. The aerial scenes are stunning to look at but flat emotionally and it is littered with unnecessary characters. Surely a man as important as Admiral Yamamoto deserves a fuller telling of his story.

    Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go to a boardroom and discuss things with some men for seven hours. Might be a bit more interesting.

  • A Search For Response To Karan Gour’s ‘Kshay’

    A Search For Response To Karan Gour’s ‘Kshay’

    “And Madonna, she still has not showed

    We see this empty cage now corrode”

    A search for response to Karan Gour’s Kshay

    By Pablo D’Stair

    I am honestly at a bit of a loss as to why I cannot get my response to Karan Gour’s Kshay past purely aesthetic considerations, but since watching the film any palpable emotional response has been eluding me. But this I do not say critically, exactly—the film, as a whole, was striking and, to be frank, hit all of the buttons that would usually engage me wholly rather than prompt only an appreciation of component parts.  And since this segmented appreciation, this dismantling of the cinema into portions I find nothing but admiration for yet cannot link to felt response, has been so unnerving to me, I take this time to investigate the question that won’t leave me be: Where is the disconnect for me, humanistically, from this film, a film which is a sensitive—even exquisite—corkscrewing investigation into the psyche and the lost hearts of the characters who people it?

    ***

    To begin, I must say it is not the performances which keep me at arm’s length. To the contrary, every performance in the piece is pitch perfect—performances so naturalistic, complete, and unconscious the word “performance” hardly seems suitable.  The players reach a level of ease with each other and with their claustrophobic surroundings that it is almost unnatural to think of the film as scripted. This verite, it seems to me, is ultimately necessary to a proper, non-melodramatic or ‘dependent-on-some-forced-pathos’ rendering of the events and, taken scene-by-scene, it makes me believe without doubt the gravity of the inner prompts of the characters, their frustrations, their secrets from each other as much as from themselves.

    Chhaya’s (Rasika Dugal) revealed evolution into self-flagellation over the loss of her unborn child, her guilt as well as her tacit (and eventually total, even violent) blame aimed at her lover for leaving her “dead inside,” is presented as consuming and, indeed, consumed me as a viewer a step ahead of the character at each tick, creating a suspense based on a sincere hope she would not be pulled under despite my being aware of the water having covered her over before she realized there was no air left to breathe.

    And her lover, Avrind (Alekh Sangal) so naturally and evidently consumed in the more surface level concerns of his life—not receiving pay for work he has done, losing his job, wanting something for himself (and himself alone) but attempting to keep this tinge of selfishness out of Chhaya’s perception—is absolutely convincing and even somewhat hypnotic. I would watch a film simply about Avrind eating, going to work, riding in taxis, talking to his boss, squirming to find some way out of hopelessness for himself and it would almost seem documentary, un-turn-away-from-able.

    Mix in to this the understated fear on Chhaya’s part that (in addition to having lost her child and being deprived of her hope at having another—by way of Avrind not purchasing her a statue she fixates on and devoutly believes will return her fertility) Avrind is drifting from her, only able to connect physically, and her sense of complete isolation-in-desperation which she increasingly becomes convinced will lead to total abandonment and I, again, question myself: Where is my disconnect, emotionally?

    ***

    When at its most naturalistic, the film succeeds most fully.  But even the “otherworldly” sequences (the dreams, the nightmares, the hallucinatory elements of Chhaya slipping further into an anguish she feels necessarily must be kept hidden) in Kshay are singularly lovely, unique—they genuinely haunt.

    I will say that certain of the surreal aspects are handled within the naturalism of the majority of the film and worked for me more than the ones that were totally set interior to Chhaya—the difference between her fully hallucinated conversation with the face of the goddess she hopes to sate in exchange for a child and the sequence of her laying on the kitchen floor, having two picture postcards conduct a more forceful dialogue on the same subject, is quite notable (and the latter carries far more of a disquieting imperative).

    But none of these “otherworld” moments broke a connection, each captivated. And even a few of the seams showing, so to speak, in the composition of the film is, of course, no overall detriment and, indeed, the breaks (exterior-to-interior, interior-to-exterior) serve well as pace cars.

    ***

    I suppose there was a bit of notable problematic for me with some of the “plottier” elements of the film, but I have to also admit that these slight gripes made me appreciate the more subtextual progress of the majority of the thing, all the more.

    My gripe, as such, is thus:

    As Kshay proceed into its final act, there is a mix of Chhaya’s state-of-mind and motivations in to Avrind’s, this leading directly to his tragic and violent confrontation with his boss. This seemed somewhat out of place or, at least, seemed a hand too forcefully played. I saw no need for a combination of the plotlines and (more than not seeing a need) felt keeping them severed would have brought the film to a truer, more organic impact, one it seemed to be cultivating.

    Avrind being pushed, even partially, by Chhaya and, in fact, succumbing to hallucinatory moments himself seemed rouge, a peculiarity to the characterization, the storytelling-by-skirting-storytelling so masterfully on display throughout the film. And the film suggested that there was a bit of calculation in Avrind’s final choices on the part of Chhaya, that she was more satisfied with (even hoped for) the violent fallout rather than the success of the robbery which leads to Avrind’s death and her ability to finally obtain her statue.

    Elsewhere, I have seen Kshay likened to Roman Polanski’s Repulsion and I felt, for the majority of the film, that this comparison was spot on. But Polanksi was able to track the descent of his central character without allowing an infectiousness to those around her, doubly reinforcing the horrific distance, the ultimate quality of her noia—the secondary characters in Polanski’s film, while time was spent with them outside of the presence of the central woman, never left their own orbits, never connected, consciously or unconsciously, to the private madness of his woman.

    In Kshay, however, the commingling of Chhaya and Avrind—through suggesting she somehow influenced him in his course of action—cross-stitched things in a way somewhat outside of the realm of naturalism (even naturalism mixed with supernaturalism) and added too late in the game a puzzle piece for Avrind, who was already so fully completed. I could see Avrind’s end in his beginnings without the need of it touching Chhaya’s struggle and, perhaps, it would have been all the more powerful had these two tracks run parallel and never touched.

    Either way, it certainly struck me as outside of Avrind to empathize to the point of his own frustrations manifesting in nightmarish visions based around Chhaya and her deterioration—his moment of nightmare comes on him suddenly and incorporates Chhaya, while her drifting out of herself happens bit-by-bit and includes Avrind only in later stages.

    With Avrind, I feel there was an accidental combining of two elements that would have been better served if kept in isolation.

    ***

    Of course (here’s the rub) the result of the tracks colliding allows for the perfection of the final moments of the film. Chhaya obtaining the stature (after stripping her house of belongings, betraying friends, murdering—in effect—the person who it seems could have actually provided her with the child she wanted) drove home with devastating pointedness the dehumanization she achieves (or, it could be slanted, the utter, naked humanness, a state devoid of reason, left to pure emotional impulse). The final moment of Chhaya left standing alone, expressionless, staring at the statue as though it, by utter magic, can provide her, denuded of everything else, the child she so desperately desires is poetic perfection and, on second viewing, reveals the truth that even in the film’s opening moments, this is where Chhaya was, where she is, where she will forever be.

    But still I find it leaves me there, blank faced, starring as well—wondering why the magic of the film did not kick in to me, why the empathy needed to understand Chhaya there, alone (more utterly than she ever feared) is something I cannot find.

    ***

    Pablo D’Stair is a novelist, essayist, and interviewer.  Co-founder of the art house press KUBOA, he is also a regular contributor to the Montage: Cultural Paradigm (Sri Lanka). His book Four Self-Interviews About Cinema: the short films of director Norman Reedus will be re-releasing October, 2012 through Serenity House Publishing, International.