film reviews, interviews, features | BRWC

Blog

  • Truth To Power: Review

    Truth To Power: Review

    Truth To Power: Review. By Trent Neely

    Can music change the world? This is the question at the heart of this documentary following System Of A Down frontman Serj Tankian. Specifically, the film follows Tankian as he discusses the formation and rise of System Of A Down and the evolution of his artistic career, as well as his passion as an activist for a variety of complex social and political causes including: the consequences of the Armenian genocide for both his own family as well as the Armenian people as a whole, the struggle to have the genocide recognized as such by the U.S. and other world governments, and his desire to help the people of Armenia have a voice in governmental proceedings while standing against government and corporate corruption.

    The film also examines how these issues have influenced the music Tankian and System Of A Down have made, and in turn how that art has impacted public conversations on these issues. The film also serves as a meditation on what the role of art should and can be. Can art be a tool in bringing awareness and change to social and political issues, or is it meant to purely be an entertaining and creative expression? These are the ideas that Truth to Power grapples with.  

    One striking thing that writer/director Garin Hovannisian and the entire crew accomplish in this film is how natural and seamless the observation and recording of Tankian feels. To the extent that in some ways Tankian feels like a co-director and driving force in the film as much as he does a subject. For instance, there is an early section of the film where Tankian discusses growing up in the Armenian neighborhood of Los Angeles. The film does not cut to to archival footage of immigrants arriving in LA during this section, but instead allows him to speak on his memories and show footage of him interacting with locals, highlighting the respect people in the Armenian community have for him and vice versa, while also allowing the audience to feel like Tankian himself is imparting information to the audience rather than the filmmakers themselves doing it. 

    When the film does use b-roll, it serves to highlight and add context to things that Tankian and others are discussing that a pure testimonial cannot fully capture, such as footage from when System Of A Down played in Armenia for the first time in 2015. Much of the film details Tankian passion for Armenian issues and how he wants the art he makes to also contribute to bringing awareness and action about. We see footage of Tankian on stage over the years calling for people to bring attention to the  Armenian genocide, we see clips from music videos containing controversial imagrey on war and violence as Tankian and others talk about the importance in engaging in cultural conversations when making art.

    So when it is time to discuss the System Of A Down concert in Armenia, the filmmakers have established the importance of that moment for Tankian himself as well as the band as a whole. Consequently, rather than purely relying on testimonials on the atmosphere and reaction by the crowd, Hovannisian and editor Michael T. Vollmann chose instead to show footage of the concert and the reaction to the band by those in attendance. Meaning, we the audience can clearly see and understand how much the band and its activism have meant to the people of Armenia because we are seeing the audience’s genuine reactions and combining it with the context given to us by the film earlier.

    Viewers expecting a film that broadly touches on System Of A Down’s music, formation, and the opinions of the other band members on social and and political issues, or interviews with other artists regarding how they view the ability and need for art to engage in broader conversations may be disappointed by the film’s emphasis on Tankian and his views as an individual.

    However, if you are looking for a documentary that truly helps you understand and empathize with the views and passions of its subject and ask interesting questions on what drives people to create art, how that art can take on a life of its own, and the ability or responsibility artists have to impact and engage in the public discourse, watch this film if given the chance.     

  • I Blame Society: Review

    I Blame Society: Review

    Written, directed and starring as herself, ‘I Blame Society’ follows Gillian Wallace Horvat as a struggling filmmaker hoping to get any of her scripts greenlit. However, after receiving a compliment about how she would make a good murderer, she sets out on filming how she’d actually commit a murder.

    ‘I Blame Society’ is an interesting concept and one that I was intrigued by. Taking inspiration from films like Netflix’s ‘Spree’ and 2006’s ‘Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon’, this type of synopsis is unique to the horror genre as it provides a perspective that is rarely seen: the perspective of the slasher. The film’s layout is also reminiscent of a behind the scenes feature, an aspect that I enjoyed. It added a sense of realism to a horrifying scenario. Furthermore, the extra layer of realism is added to this film specifically when I discovered that the lead actors were actually playing exaggerated versions of themselves. 

    However, ideas and execution of those ideas are what makes each film stand out from each other and is what makes or breaks them. Unfortunately, ‘I Blame Society’ belongs to the latter group. 

    While the plot is intriguing, ultimately the pacing and lead character let it down. Gillian plays a psychopathic version of herself, allowing her obsession to commit a murder of her own be under the disguise of her filming a slasher film that must be perfect. However, her awful personality can’t be ignored. And, while her lack of empathy is deliberate as to make the audience realize how she gained the ‘good murderer’ compliment, it was still frustrating to watch.

    The film even shows her scripts getting rejected due to her films having unlikable characters, considering that she herself is unlikable right from the opening scene. The film would’ve worked better if Gillian had started out as a nice and caring person then been given the compliment that ignites her downward spiral. However, ‘I Blame Society’ gives us an arrogant, condescending and manipulative lead from the start and expects viewers to be ok with that. 

    ‘I Blame Society’ is also extremely slow paced. While that type of pacing works for some horror films, it really doesn’t work here, and a lot of interactions could’ve been cut. The biggest aspect that should’ve been removed was the side plot revolving around Gillian meeting up with two distributors, only to find out that they want to mould her into something that she isn’t. This plotline was clear in its message: women are overshadowed by men in the horror film industry and it’s frustrating to see females struggle in this industry.

    It’s an issue that still occurs today and something that I have even faced on a smaller scale, so I understood her frustrations. However, this could have been separated from the actual murderer plotline as a spin-off or sequel. While it is an important aspect to have, it felt out of place in this film and made the already slow pacing uneven.  

    Overall, ‘I Blame Society’ is an example of a good idea with bad execution, which is a shame. The plot is fantastic and intriguing, but the execution needs to be just as good to keep me watching. Unfortunately, it was let down by slow pacing and a lead character who was extremely insufferable to watch. And while this may have been a deliberate decision, it still doesn’t excuse the fact that viewers have to spend nearly 90 minutes with her as she stubbornly carries the film along. Whilst the film may blame society, I blame this film for wasting my time. 

  • Alexis Bruchon: FrightFest Interview

    Alexis Bruchon: FrightFest Interview

    Alexis Bruchon: FrightFest Interview – Ahead of FrightFest’s UK special screening of THE WOMAN WITH LEOPARD SHOES at the Glasgow Film Festival, director Alexis Bruchon talks about his love of Noir, casting his brother and directing in his underwear…

    Your background is in illustration and graphic design. Was making a movie the next logical step as an artist? 

    From a very young age, I wanted to make a movie (as a teenager I did make a slasher called Ice Crime a true masterpiece!) – but drawing is direct, cost nothing and allows you to produce any images you want. So, I started with two unpublished graphic novels. The good thing with comics is that I realised you can tell a story with very few elements… and no money! 

    So, when I started on THE WOMAN WITH THE LEOPARD SHOES, drawing was highly important in the making of the film because I storyboarded everything with a lot of indications like light, moments, actions etc.

    What was the inspiration for THE WOMAN IN THE LEOPARD SHOES? 

    Noir films are a huge inspiration for the movie, especially Robert Siodmak’s movies. The Killers (and Don Siegel’s remake!) is one of my favourites. I love very different noir films, like Murder My Sweet, Laura, Kiss Me Deadly, Road House (a very rare film from Negulesco), 

    I was also inspired by gothic cinema, especially the films from the Hammer and Amicus with Freddie Francis’ films, a true master! Mario Bava and Jacques Tourneur are the two other big influences, because they are masters of the off-screen. Giallo were a huge inspiration for the script because it is made of twists and manipulations. 

    It’s a perplexing story, twisting and turning all the time, was it difficult to write and navigate the complex revelations? 

    It was the hardest part because you have a very minimalist starting point: a mute character, one room and a specific situation. There were two traps, in my opinion: making a telephone thriller with a lot of dialogues and no visual elements, or making another survival film with action and action alone. The idea on the contrary, was to develop a complex story, close to the 70’s paranoiac thrillers, told with images only, and where the solution is outside the room, invisible from the audience.  In fact, I developed the script through the set: a writing desk, a little bed, a closet, a window and a door, that’s it! With these limitations you have to play with space because it becomes information: if my character goes here, it tells something and it brings something to the story. Basically it’s the story of a man walking around a desk. 

    Your leading man Paul Bruchon is obviously a relation. Which, and why choose him? 

    Paul is my brother and he has never acted before! At the beginning, I planned to hire a real actor and I have to confess that the role was written for a woman at the beginning. One day, my brother just asked ‘’well it could be fun, just to see’’… I took my camera and started to shoot. He was exactly what I was looking for! He has a real presence and most of all a real elegance. It’s difficult to explain, because he’s my brother, but on the screen, when he moves you can feel his presence in the room. 

    THE WOMAN WITH LEOPARD SHOES
    THE WOMAN WITH LEOPARD SHOES

    All my family contributed to the film: Both my parents play a character, in fact each person of the crew plays a character! For example, I play Boyer but one day, for a scene, I was alone with Pauline Morel, my best friend and first assistant and I had to be behind the camera… so I dressed her in my suit and tie and here I am, in my underwear, yelling action to poor Pauline, who had to act like a forty years old upper class man!. 

    The story is told visually through silhouettes and shadows in super black-and-white,. You never show other people but their presence is always felt. All creative and budgetary choices? 

    All these choices were made for the script but, yes, also because of budgetary reasons. The film had a small budget but with a big set that we had to build entirely so it was impossible to us to show anything else and I think (I hope) it’s for the best. 

    Black and white was logical for me because colour can distract the eye. Benjamin Cognet, our gaffer was helpful to achieve it and we built the entire room in order to control light. 

    All the shooting takes place in my parent’s home. I measured the living room and built, with Leopol Maurice, a big box. The shooting was a very happy time; the crew was composed of my friends and my parents made food!

    You edited the movie too and also composed the evocative soundtrack. Had you done anything like this before and how big a learning curve was it? 

    It was my first experience from writing to editing and it was a personal challenge. It will sound pretentious but I’m not a good pupil, I always hated school and I prefer to learn by myself. Of course it would be more efficient to employ an editor, a cinematographer, a sound designer, but I deeply wanted to learn how to make a movie from start to end. Obviously, the first day I was in front of my computer to edit the first scene I was a bit panicky because I didn’t know any techniques.  

    From the beginning I knew sound would be very important. Sound is a character in itself and I decided to work it as a visual element. Music was a big source of stress… I had never composed a single note and I planned to hire a friend of mine to make the soundtrack but, once again, he was not available so I started to listen to some soundtracks that I love and decided to write the music on the editing timeline, directly with the images. I recorded very different sounds with a microphone and stole some rhythmic, very brief moments from various soundtracks (there is a sample from Alien for example) and I edited it like rushes. 

    THE WOMAN WITH LEOPARD SHOES

    How did the COVID-19 outbreak affect the film?

    The music was written during the first month of lockdown in France so the beginning of COVID was (sorry to say) but pretty fun for me… A perfect film for our socially distanced times: set almost entirely in one room, with one single silent character on screen and most communication via text message., 

    More generally, COVID shows the growing importance of digital tech in our lives. Sometime it’s for the best and your digital edition of FrightFest is a good example, sometimes it’s for the worst… 

    Where did you get the pair of leopard shoes? We want some! 

    Gorgeous, aren’t they? Well, it was difficult to find the right ones. Me and Pauline Morel (who chose most of the costumes of the film) are real shoes fashionista now! Ask us everything you want about leopard shoes! The pair you see were found on the internet so… you just have to click and find them! 

    Finally, what’s next? 

    I’m about to shoot my second feature in March! A horror film made with the same circumstances as the first. The Woman with Leopard Shoes is the first film of a trilogy with the same concept: one character, one situation and almost no dialogues. The idea is to cover three genres, the film Noir with the first one, the horror film with this second and the paranoiac thriller with the third. The script and the storyboard are finished, we have the actors and the set is ready to be built! Me and my father have built a crane which permits the camera to go absolutely everywhere because tiny spaces will be very important for the story. 

    All I can say is that it’s a movie which began like a possession story then goes to a ghost story and finally to a fantastic thriller. I’m very excited to start shooting! I have also my first script, a story of kidnapping but I need more money to do it. It’s not an expensive film at all but impossible to make just on my own… but I will do it, one way or another!

    THE WOMAN WITH LEOPARD SHOES is showing on demand for 72 hours from 4.00 pm 5th March, as part of the Arrow Video FrightFest Glasgow 2021 Digital event. 

    The film is geo-locked to the UK and limited to 500 tickets, Tickets are priced £9.99. For more information: www.glasgowfilm.org/festival

  • Crisis: The BRWC Review

    Crisis: The BRWC Review

    Crisis Synopsis: Three stories about the world of opioids collide: a drug trafficker arranges a multi-cartel Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the U.S., an architect recovering from an OxyContin addiction tracks down the truth behind her son’s involvement with narcotics, and a university professor battles unexpected revelations about his research employer, a drug company with deep government influence bringing a new “non-addictive” painkiller to market.

    Writer/director Nicholas Jarecki broke it big with his 2012 narrative debut Arbitrage. Despite relatively muted expectations, Jarecki’s effort became a critical darling while achieving rare success on a financial level (the film had a successful theatrical/VOD simultaneous release long before that was common). Nearly nine years later, Jarecki is finally returning to the screen with his opioid ensemble piece Crisis.

    In the vein of ambitious social dramas like Disconnected and Crash, Jarecki orchestrates three distinct arcs to ruminate on the cynical beasts behind the evolving drug epidemic. This Hollywood-ized depiction boasts a few limitations, but Jarecki exhibits prowess operating in the confines of your standard-issue dramatic thriller.

    As a craftsman, Jarecki continues to operate with self-assured poise behind the camera. He presses all the right buttons to elicit tense discomfort, skillfully blending Raphael Reed’s pulsating score with Nicolas Bolduc’s thoughtful visual pallet (the usage of neon lighting in dimly-lit areas sets a fittingly grimy aesthetic). Jarecki also displays a tactful touch when it comes to heavier dramatic frames. His reserved presentation allows the actor’s emotive portrayals to take center stage without utilizing tacky gimmicks. In a climate where grounded adult thrillers rarely receive the time of day, it’s nice to see the writer/director repurposing familiar genre devices within his contemporary subject matter.

    Working as a tightly-wound ensemble piece, Crisis benefits greatly from its veteran cast. Gary Oldman is an actor’s actor for a reason, with the star imbuing his conflicted professor role with gravitas at every turn. Evangeline Lilly delivers a career-best performance as a mom recovering from a heartbreaking opioid crime. In a role that easily could’ve traversed down mawkishly theatric territory, Lilly’s authentic presence helps ground the role amidst a few puzzling developments (well get to that). A sturdy supporting cast including Greg Kinnear, Michelle Rodriguez, and Kid Cudi help prop up their fairly procedural roles.

    Jarecki’s multi-narrative structure does an adequate job highlighting the different spheres affected by opioids (from the commercial sphere to the seedy crime transactions, both magnified by Lilly’s arc amidst the aftermath of tragedy). Where Crisis limits itself stems from the basic levels of depth imbued into each arch. The three narratives flow seamlessly into one, but they can occasionally feel like they are competing for Jarecki’s interest as he attempts to create a finite thesis. It’s not like each arc is particularly revelatory (you could probably reference films that follow similar road maps), so a bit more insular nuance would’ve helped rather than Hollywood theatrics. The overworked plot dynamics become apparent during the noisy third act, which reaches an implausible and far too clean destination considering the subject matter.

    Crisis doesn’t break new ground with its timely subject matter, but credit to Jarecki for still spinning an engaging yarn for audiences to invest in. I hope we see Jarecki on the screen sooner than last time, as he’s a promising voice with a confident hold on potentially-combustible issues.

    Crisis hits theaters on February 26th with a VOD release scheduled for March 5th.

  • Plemons, Paddington, Phoenix: Weekly Round Up

    Plemons, Paddington, Phoenix: Weekly Round Up

    Plemons, Paddington, Phoenix: Weekly Round Up – So, perhaps the biggest movie news this week to come from the old Hollywood machine is that a sequel for everyone’s favorite marmalade loving bear, Paddington 3 is officially in the works. Based on the classic children’s character who first appeared in the book A Bear Called Paddington in 1958, Paddington 3 will mark, unsurprisingly, the third big screen outing for the loveable Peruvian, and is sure to be hotly anticipated given the character’s two previous cinematic outings netted a tidy $280 million and $225 million worldwide (that’s a total of over $500 million combined and is not to be scoffed at).

    Still, despite the universally welcome reception both Paddington films received – they were a hit with audiences and critics alike, something that is becoming ever more unusual in these days of cinematic universes and studio fan pandering – this third movie is sure to be something of an uncertainty given director Paul King, the man who helmed both the previous installments, has not only stated that he won’t be returning to oversee a third but has more recently announced that he himself is working on his own new project, a prequel to Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory entitled simply Wonka.

    Now, brushing aside the fact that literally no one on the face of the earth has ever read Dahl’s classic and wondered what the reclusive chocolatier was like as a child, King’s absence from a third Paddington movie does raise some alarm bells. Of course, it’s worth being cautiously optimistic, given how brilliant the first two are, but I am inclined to feel that a big part of what made the first two Paddington films as good as they were, was King’s directorial style and his unique approach to the material.

    As a property it could so easily stray over the line and land in – shudder – James Corden as Peter Rabbit territory. In fact, I’ll hold my hand up and admit that when I first saw the trailer for the original Paddington outing, I dismissed it as a cynical and heartless studio cash grab, destined to disappoint purists and newcomers alike… I was happy to be proven wrong.

    But without the inventiveness of Paul King’s singular voice, in which he seemingly blends the creativeness of early Disney animations with the oddity of Wes Anderson in a uniquely British way, is it then possible that something integral to the Paddington machine could be lost without his involvement. After all, what makes the first two Paddington films work so well is that there appears to be not only a genuine love for the character, but an understanding of what the character is and how he should work in an increasingly isolationist Britain.

    What does a Paddington without that focus and understanding look like? And, perhaps more importantly, who will be up to the challenge of taking on Paddington in a post-Brexit Britain? Are we about see a Paddington movie where Mr Curry gets his wish and Paddington is shipped off back to Peru? I don’t know. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

    Now, if there is one filmmaker we can be certain will never shy away from tackling difficult and complex contemporary topics with masterful skill and genre thrills, it is Jordan Peele.

    Peele, of course, brought us the groundbreaking horror of the academy award winning Get Out and then followed it up quickly with Us, which like its predecessor was aa critical and commercial success. Since then, though, he has taken a step back from directing and instead turned his attention predominantly to producing – Nia DeCosta’s Candyman reboot is one of my most anticipated films of the year – and hosting the reboot of The Twilight Zone. The all looks set to change, however, as his third film, an as yet untitled “horror event title”, seems to be gaining some real traction.

    This week we learned that Jesse Plemons, who you may recognize from, among other things, Fargo and I’m Thinking of Ending Things, had to turn down a lead role in the project due to scheduling commitments with another project Plemons signed up for this week, Apple TV+’s Martin Scorsese movie, Killers of the Flower Moon.

    Plemons on People TV:

    But Plemons isn’t the only potential cast member we learned out this week, as we also got news that Daniel Kaluuya, who starred in Get Out, is currently in talks to reunite with the director, although the deal is yet to be finalized, and that should he come on board he will be joined by actor and singer Keke Palmer.

    Any other details surrounding the film remain a mystery at this point but given the pedigree behind the camera and the intrigue in front of it, you can be sure to hear more about it in the coming weeks and months.

    Another filmmaking who is often stated to be making ways in the horror genre is Ari Aster, who wrote and directed both Hereditary and Midsommar for A24. Despite his somewhat divisive reputation, Aster has become something of a poster-boy for that frustrating of all sub-genres, “elevated horror” (frustrating because, well… it just. Doesn’t. Fucking. Exist).

    It would seem A24 are keen to reunite with the director, though, and for his third film Aster has cast none other than Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. The film will be titled Disappointment Blvd., and while details are thin on the ground for this one, we do know that it is being described as “an intimate, decades-spanning portrait of one of the most successful entrepreneurs of all time”.

    If you’re confused by that description, then you’re about where I’m at. But if you want to be even more convinced, then keep reading, because the film was described by an entirely different report as being a “surrealist horror film set in an alternative present”.

    Now, I’ll admit, I’m not a massive Aster fan – Midsommar is good, Hereditary is so dull and predictable outside of THAT scene – but I must say that I’m very curious about this one. Luckily, it would seem, we don’t have to wait too long to see what it’s all about, as the film will reportedly begin shooting later in the year. – Paddington, Plemons, Phoenix: Weekly Round Up