302 posts shown.
Honestly, I think the early stuff from the Lumiere brothers will probably stay my absolute favorites for as long as I live.
The Fall of a House, card games, factory workers, those train clips—every single time I rewatch them, I’m just hit with this massive wave of awe. It’s actually kind of intimidating, honestly. Even Murnau and those other cinematic wizards don't quite trigger that same feeling in me.
And man, their other early work is top-tier too. You've got "Grandma's Magnifying Glass," "The Great Train Robbery," and that one movie about a dog—I think his name was Rover Dover or something? I can't remember! But he saves this little girl every single time, pulling you right into the director's vision with those tight shots.
Look, I love all the legends, but those first ten years of cinema? They’re probably the best there ever was.
This movie’s been out for over two years, but it just finally hit our theaters here in the States
Man, what can I even say? I'm totally split on this one.
The critics pretty much trashed it, but Roger Ebert and Eriq La Salle both gave it two thumbs up.
Personally, I had a blast, though it was a bit of a grind—kind of intense, maybe a little exhausting and slow toward the end, but overall a fun ride.
I haven't seen anyone break the cinematic rulebook like this in ages. Shaky shots, weird music choices, flashbacks where they don't belong, and those repetitive loops back to the past trying to fix things. It's wild.
But honestly? I can't say I hated it. In fact, I kind of loved it.
There are two standout scenes for me: that brutal shoulder shot where the arm gets ripped off, and the massacre at the end set to "Don't Tell Mom" performed by Tom Jones. That vibe is just perfect.
Also, the movie is absolutely packed with pop culture. It's been a long time since I've seen a modern production lean into it like this.
The soundtrack is all over the place, there are endless nods to old and new movies, you've got Jerry Springer and Ian Ziering playing themselves, and then out of nowhere—like a total deus ex-machina that shows up a little too late—Tom Waits pops in playing some guy with a super weird mission.
At certain points, the whole spectacle (especially with those movie references) feels deeply metatextual, but it doesn't quite commit to the bit before just ending with a crazy guy driving a TV truck.
The cast is solid. Christopher Rourke and Keira Knightley command the screen effortlessly, and that Latino actor is great too. Christian Slater has a really interesting role, Christopher Walken is an absolute legend, and Shirley MacLaine is so presence-heavy she practically carries the entire ensemble on her back.
Last but not least, Keira Knightley is just so incredibly magnetic that it actually makes sense why her character needs that "redemption."
The directing is seriously impressive. The narrative structure is clever because it leads you down one path while actually talking about something else entirely. Acting was solid too—that old mobster played by Armin basically steals the show right out from under Bardem without even trying. Music was great. Overall? I’d give it an 8.5/10. It’s a really good movie, nothing more, nothing less.
For a modern production, it's extremely well-done.
Just looking at it broadly, it's a perfectly decent, solid film.
I honestly don't get why Cronenberg is such a big deal, though this is my first time seeing his stuff.
We'll see once I've checked out his older work.
Joseph Lee3 said:Oh, totally! I had the exact same thought when I rewatched "Babel" the other day. That whole vibe in Darjeeling Limited is clearly just Anderson's way of paying homage to Fellini.
See, I don't actually think it's an homage. I mean, that's a relatively obscure Fellini flick, and honestly, directors pull moves like that all the time—I'm sure people were doing it way before Fellini even touched it.
It just fits the mood perfectly, much like how Fellini did it. He probably just went with that style because it felt right for the scene.
Chloe Nguyen said:It might actually hold water. It is true that not everyone posting here qualifies as a film scholar. For instance, there is that crowd that shows up just to drop a review consisting of a single smiley face. Yet, even those individuals have almost certainly watched Sixth Butt more often than they have seen anything by Tarkovsky or Fassbinder (whom I would never dream of spoiling).
I genuinely believe that spoiling Sixth Butt is about as redundant as stating that water is wet. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I really don't see any reason why I should be labeled either an idiot or intellectually stunted for it. Besides, as you can see, I have improved my behavior and refrained from spoiling Passion. 🙂
I bet they’ve watched *Sixth Sense* more than they've ever touched a Tarkovsky film, though honestly, even that’s a bit of a stretch.
Chloe Nguyen said:It might actually hold water. It is true that not everyone posting here qualifies as a film scholar. For instance, there is that crowd that shows up just to drop a review consisting of a single smiley face. Yet, even those individuals have almost certainly watched Sixth Butt more often than they have seen anything by Tarkovsky or Fassbinder (whom I would never dream of spoiling).
I genuinely believe that spoiling Sixth Butt is about as redundant as stating that water is wet. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I really don't see any reason why I should be labeled either an idiot or intellectually stunted for it. Besides, as you can see, I have improved my behavior and refrained from spoiling Passion. 🙂
I'm totally against spoilers for any movie, whether it's Sixth Sense or a Forest of Lamentation. Period. That's just how it is.
Look, if you think it’s messed up to call someone an idiot just because they believe spoiling *Sixth Sense* is as obvious as saying water is wet, then fine. Whatever. That's your call. 😁I’m just kidding! Look, I didn't call you an idiot. I just meant this whole thread is a total joke. Honestly, it’s such a moronic move to come into a spoiler-free discussion and start dropping spoilers everywhere. It's just plain stupid.
I haven't seen Passion, but I already know how that guy with the beard ended up—he learned his lesson in school.
My bad if I offended anyone. Anyway, enough with all that theory talk.
Let's not spoil it, period.
Chloe Nguyen said:I don't think your analogy quite lands. Sarcasm might pass, but only if you're at a negative three.😉
I suspect all our ruling politicians at least know where they can grab a coffee over at the Capitol. It’s roughly the same level of expertise one might expect from a film buff who has at least seen Sixth Butt.
Man, I wish we could stop this, but you just keep pulling me back in. You're saying everyone who knows where the coffee is in Congress—by your logic—is a politician. But clearly, everyone hanging out on this forum isn't some hardcore cinephile.
Ha! See that? That's a +3 analogy right there.
Chloe Nguyen said:Fine. My grandmother doesn't know how Sixth Butt ends. But then again, my grandmother doesn't spend her time lurking on film forums. The people who frequent these boards are supposed to be somewhat cinematically literate, and among such individuals, certain things are simply common knowledge. For instance, whether they have actually seen Passion or not, people generally know that SPOILER: the protagonist gets killed at the end... what a shocker... 🙂
In any case, I have shared my side of the story (at least in a post that was subsequently deleted), unlike some other people here. I was mistaken, so I suppose I shall go pray to ten different saints and offer ten Hail Marys so that I won't 😉
anymore.
Well, that much is obvious.
And our politicians? They’re all political science experts who care deeply about the prosperity of the United States.
Larry Martin11 said:...if you’d just cut back on using the word "stupid" (and its various synonyms), we’d all probably get along a whole lot better 🙂 that’s why the post was deleted—because, you know, we should actually maintain some level of decent communication 🙂 personally, I don't care; I'm used to being hated 😁 but it's a different story when it comes to everyone else...
...you won't believe it, but we actually agree 🙂 I really should have deleted the spoiler for Sixth Butt—the rules are clear about no spoilers 🙂 but do you want to know why I didn't (aside from my belief that it's basically the only movie everyone has actually seen, making it a bit pedantic to insist on it here—though, sure, it could have been any movie)? It's because it isn't my job to spend 24/7 policing every single thing people write and correcting every little slip-up; if people don't want to be respectful toward one another, then so be it. This thread is supposed to be a place where we all remember that in any conversation (and clearly, that includes spoilers), you SHOULD think about others—that we should laugh at the reveal and think twice next time. But since this place has turned into a venue for bickering and accusations, I don't see the point in acting differently 🙂 seriously 🙂
...or maybe it's because I'm a mod? Am I supposed to give myself permission to play the "corrector" for every instance of rudeness, just so God forbid some guy doesn't feel offended when he gets called out for failing to use his brain beforehand? Thanks, but no thanks 🙂
I'm actually using the word way less than I should be, but whatever.
Larry Martin11 said:...if you’d just cut back on using the word "stupid" (and its various synonyms), we’d all probably get along a whole lot better 🙂 that’s why the post was deleted—because, you know, we should actually maintain some level of decent communication 🙂 personally, I don't care; I'm used to being hated 😁 but it's a different story when it comes to everyone else...
...you won't believe it, but we actually agree 🙂 I really should have deleted the spoiler for Sixth Butt—the rules are clear about no spoilers 🙂 but do you want to know why I didn't (aside from my belief that it's basically the only movie everyone has actually seen, making it a bit pedantic to insist on it here—though, sure, it could have been any movie)? It's because it isn't my job to spend 24/7 policing every single thing people write and correcting every little slip-up; if people don't want to be respectful toward one another, then so be it. This thread is supposed to be a place where we all remember that in any conversation (and clearly, that includes spoilers), you SHOULD think about others—that we should laugh at the reveal and think twice next time. But since this place has turned into a venue for bickering and accusations, I don't see the point in acting differently 🙂 seriously 🙂
...or maybe it's because I'm a mod? Am I supposed to give myself permission to play the "corrector" for every instance of rudeness, just so God forbid some guy doesn't feel offended when he gets called out for failing to use his brain beforehand? Thanks, but no thanks 🙂
😁😁😁
Total mess from start to finish.
Just one thing: please, no spoilers.
Larry Martin11 said:...I deleted it because it was genuinely offensive, and honestly, this whole thread has completely lost the plot—instead of people becoming more tolerant here, everyone’s just doubling down on the bickering and fighting;
And let's be real—Chloe Nguyen hit the nail on the head. Everyone already knows how the Sixth Butt ends up, but seriously... everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, nitpicking over tiny details whenever it suits them, just because nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong...
Then you could have just wiped the insult and kept the rest of the post.
Larry Martin11 said:...I deleted it because it was genuinely offensive, and honestly, this whole thread has completely lost the plot—instead of people becoming more tolerant here, everyone’s just doubling down on the bickering and fighting;
And let's be real—Chloe Nguyen hit the nail on the head. Everyone already knows how the Sixth Butt ends up, but seriously... everyone is acting like they've lost their minds, nitpicking over tiny details whenever it suits them, just because nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong...
I'll be real.
I'm wrong all the time, just like everyone else. But it's a pretty dangerous assumption to claim that "EVERYONE" doesn't know how the sixth sense ends. I honestly have no idea where you're getting that from.
Even if EVERYONE actually knew how a movie ended, knowing the ending is still a spoiler.
That's what the "No Spoilers" thread is for.
Where posts containing spoilers get deleted.
Really sorry, but that's just pure stupidity.
Larry Martin11;12751810 said:...just so there's no confusion, I deleted the second post because it was just quoting the first one, and it wouldn't be fair to leave it up...[/SIZE]
Okay, now I am seriously lost—so you scrubbed my post, but you left these two spoilers about "Sixth Sense" and "The Usual Suspects" hanging around?
Screw this whole thing...
Carl Sullivan6 said:Regarding the organizers behind the programs at Central Park: thinking any of them actually care about this forum, or even what the audience thinks of their lineups, is pure delusion. They ran six German avant-garde programs straight from a DVD, plus some local stuff, and pocketed something like $4,000 for it. That’s just throwing money into a black hole. If I cut the budget for every single screening by a few thousand dollars, I'd still have plenty left over... for what? For Fellini? Buñuel? (I watched the whole thing on my own DVD). For a series of domestic films? Or something from the Film Archive? FOR WHAT? What is all this money actually paying for, besides their outdated operation where two people do all the heavy lifting while everyone else collects checks, stroll through fashion shows, and send three local films off to some international festival... and don't even get me started on the summer series. It feels like we, the viewers, have become the least important factor lately. The funding from the Department or city agencies mostly flows in because they act so concerned about us during the planning stages: "Oh, where will our poor students and cinephiles watch these gems if we don't host them?" If we, the audience, don't decide enough is enough, clearly nobody else will. All of this ties back to the Human Rights Film Festival mentioned in the title: I don't know what it offered me that I couldn't find myself with minimal effort—high-speed internet or a couple of good friends 🙂. And then someone smugly and pseudo-intellectually tells me that a place like a party town isn't meant for watching movies... that is the real test for any festival organizer: bringing everything you might need up to a hill (where there is usually nothing), along with the film reels and projectionists as a requirement. Whatever I've ever thought about any festival (or film institution, or theater), I've always given extra credit for the effort involved, and the Human Rights Film Festival and Central Park are at the very bottom of my list. Not to mention the MoMA center; that’s probably the most nauseating example of cheating and deceiving the audience. You have a program organizer (Lawrence) giving this long, overly clever introduction to the lineup, only to have him pop out of the booth ten minutes later to say: "Sorry, we can't show the movie today, our DVD died 🙂
Honestly, massive props to the organizers for the sheer effort involved. I know firsthand just how much gear is missing out there in the sticks. But, I'll be real—there's some truth to the idea that the festival has turned into more of a giant rager than a serious film event.
Mark Smith56 said:I’ve completely stopped going to Central Park lately, and honestly, there are a few big reasons for it.
First off, the copies they play are absolutely terrible. Second—and this is just plain stupid—is how they program the events. Correct me if I’m being too much of a diva here, but calling something a "film cycle" and then just showing two movies back-to-back over two days by simply flipping the schedule is straight-up small-town movie theater behavior. I get that these films are probably just on rental, but come on, common sense says that shouldn't be the way to do it. Even with just one screen, you should run cycles in parallel—like, if not for every single film, then at least for the big ones, there should be at least four screenings throughout the month. Not to mention that Central Park is mostly closed on Sundays, so they aren't even using those perfect weekend matinee slots. Plus, starting a screening at 9:00 or 9:30 PM is just way too late; I wish they’d move everything up by half an hour, especially since they keep pushing these directors who have a tendency toward those super long runtimes.
And third—this part is totally unacceptable—the staff from Hemingway's constantly barge into the lobby carrying crates of drinks in and out because their storage entrance is right through that same foyer. It’s catastrophic and honestly feels pretty degrading. To make matters worse, that lobby doesn't offer anything besides one pathetic coffee machine and two large ones for all the visitors, and because it's so cramped and interconnected, you can't rule out some serious voyeurism happening.
Everything here is spot on. Seriously. It would be absolutely great if someone from the organizing team actually took a look at this post.
rustyseal40 said:We’ve drifted quite a bit from the main subject, and honestly, Central Park is a conversation all its own. But I have a suggestion on how to bridge the two—how about we organize a betting pool for every screening in Central Park based on what percentage of the film print is damaged? Whoever guesses closest wins a burnt DVD that’ll be featured at next year's Human Rights Film Festival as a grand prize! 😁
A bit of well-intentioned advice for the Human Rights Film Festival crew: take a page out of the playbook of other festivals within the Human Rights Film Networks, such as that brotherly festival over in Nuremberg http://www.humanrightsfilmfestival.o...ilm_details=62
Only when you approach every single film with this level of rigor—providing full data on the producer and distributor for EVERY title in the lineup—can you truly claim to be a legitimate festival. If other human rights festivals aren't playing these shady games with copyright interpretations and instead uphold professional festival ethics, then what exactly is the issue here in America?
Otherwise, why shouldn't us folks on the forum just organize our own Film Forum? I bet we’d outperform every single festival out there with a program pulled straight from our own home archives 😛 Fuck cinema, give me a festival!
Wait, really? Then why isn't there a dedicated thread for it? If it's not open, we might as well drop two or three posts right here, since this is way more important than the Human Rights Film Festival anyway.
rustyseal40 said:We’ve drifted quite a bit from the main subject, and honestly, Central Park is a conversation all its own. But I have a suggestion on how to bridge the two—how about we organize a betting pool for every screening in Central Park based on what percentage of the film print is damaged? Whoever guesses closest wins a burnt DVD that’ll be featured at next year's Human Rights Film Festival as a grand prize! 😁
A bit of well-intentioned advice for the Human Rights Film Festival crew: take a page out of the playbook of other festivals within the Human Rights Film Networks, such as that brotherly festival over in Nuremberg http://www.humanrightsfilmfestival.o...ilm_details=62
Only when you approach every single film with this level of rigor—providing full data on the producer and distributor for EVERY title in the lineup—can you truly claim to be a legitimate festival. If other human rights festivals aren't playing these shady games with copyright interpretations and instead uphold professional festival ethics, then what exactly is the issue here in America?
Otherwise, why shouldn't us folks on the forum just organize our own Film Forum? I bet we’d outperform every single festival out there with a program pulled straight from our own home archives 😛 Fuck cinema, give me a festival!
😂😂😂
rustyseal40 said:Thanks for pointing that out; I was thinking about heading over to Central Park today, but honestly, until they fix their projection issues, I’m just going to ignore them. It’s a shame, really, because it isn't that I don't have an affinity for Fellini 😢
I can't help but think back to a Bergman cycle, and I truly fail to grasp why it's such a struggle to contact, say, http://www.sfi.se/sfi/smpage.fwx?page=5673
to book a decent print. They could perhaps screen some of his films that haven't been worn thin by endless TV broadcasts, and while they're at it, see what's new and interesting coming out of Sweden, maybe even organize a retrospective of more recent titles. But forget that kind of logic when the Human Rights Film Festival is apparently broke—as if a measly budget of $135,000 for programming is somehow insufficient when they'll clearly go bankrupt over a mere $500 fee! If they could just bother to use their brains once in a while, send a couple of emails, or make a few phone calls! It actually occurred to me during the Berlin International Film Festival that it would be perfectly natural for films from the Film Forum section, for instance, to become regular features in the Central Park programming. And don't even get me started on the films from Rotterdam. Isn't it absolutely absurd that Central Park is basically turning into a video archive simply because films arrive through sheer inertia and cost them nothing? Not to mention that I'm expected to pay to watch a degraded Fellini—yeah, thanks, but no thanks!
You're spot on. I have no clue why they aren't doing that.
The only high-quality print—well, maybe the only good reel—of Fellini's stuff we got was "Danguba," and man, seeing a masterpiece on a proper strip of film was something else.
But if you ask me, they probably won't even bother looking for a new print until the current one is totally trashed. Like, once it's over 40% damaged. 🙄
Watched it a few days ago.
First time seeing an Anderson film.
Opinions are pretty split on this one.
Technically speaking, it’s easily the best directed movie I've seen in years—right up there with "Babel" and "Zodiac"—but man, it’s missing a lot of other stuff.
Anderson really knows his craft. Every single shot felt better than the last from a directorial standpoint. Especially those sequences on the train, specifically in the corridors... just incredible. Pure classic cinema if you ask me.
And that bit near the end, where they flash through everyone briefly as if they were all on the train (kind of like how Fellini did it in "Danguba" the other day, both times)—brilliant.
The acting hits the mark too. Everyone was great.
I also have to praise the soundtrack. He has such a knack for picking music from different directors. Those Indian sounds reminiscent of Ray's films fit perfectly at one point, and then you've got The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, and whoever else pops up.
But I just don't feel that depth. It lacks that emotional... I don't know what to call it... touch. Sure, the brothers' relationship is fine, their thing with the waitress (she's good!) is fine, the mom running away is fine, I get it—but it all feels a bit too superficial to me.
I wouldn't complain if this were just a standard movie, but with directing, acting, and music this high-caliber, it's a real shame.
Plus, there are moments where it gets incredibly boring, which shouldn't happen with a director of this level.
So, that's my take on "Darjeeling Limited".
As for "Hotel Chevalier," which they released right before as "Part 1," I won't ramble too much, but I'll just say it's a 10/10 for me. It belongs among the greatest films ever made, and it's enough to make me love and respect Anderson for the rest of my life.
I actually went back and watched "Chevalier" again, and I'll definitely do it at least once or twice more.
"Where do you go to (my lovely)" is probably the most perfect song used in a movie since Karasov's guitar in "The Third Man."
In short: brilliant.
Wait a second, I just saw that Central Park is getting funding for some kind of video library and whatever else they're up to.
Hmm, yeah, why don't we actually dig into where that money is going? Like, what's the actual deal with those funds?
Who's even in charge of overseeing this stuff?
And while we're on the subject, regarding those worn-out tapes—it is seriously high time they start looking for and paying for better quality, restored, or whatever you call it versions. Because yesterday, watching Fellini was a total disaster. The picture kept glitching, the sound dropped out, it was just a mess.
Honestly, it’s just no fun trying to enjoy a masterpiece when it looks like this. It totally ruins the whole vibe.
Larry Rivera83 said:Basically, it's about a lawyer who finally grows a conscience. 👍
...and this Amanda Nguyen5 person is talking a mile a minute here, and honestly, it sounds like they haven't even seen the movie.
Look, of course I haven't seen it! Why would I need to sit through the whole thing just to answer a simple question?
A buddy of mine told me the whole story.
Man, the way he exposes them at the end is just incredible.
Dora Baras and Lucia Zora were the brains behind the side program, and their whole vibe was basically trying to build this "how female directors actually shape cinema" project. They wanted to show how these women truly impacted film history. Honestly, pulling that off in just five days? That’s a massive undertaking—maybe even a little ambitious if we're being real—but they nailed it. We got to choose from some seriously heavy-hitting directors, the kind you don't exactly see playing on the big screen every day. It’s a shame we didn't get to see them on the big screen during this specific run, but hey, I'll get to that later.
Monday kicked off the first full day of the festival, and man, they didn't hold back on the classics. We started with "Beudet’s Jealousy," a gem by the French director Germaine Dulac. It’s this heavy look at a woman whose romantic dreams are basically crushed by her primitive husband. People call it the first real feminist film, and honestly, I can see why. Dulac was way ahead of her time, using all these experimental camera tricks just to show what the characters were feeling deep down. It was a total trip. It was a bit of a bummer that the screening was just a DVD rip, though. There was this massive HBO watermark stuck in the top right corner the entire time, which was super distracting. But hey, better than not seeing it at all, right? It really made me think about how Dulac paved the way. Everyone always talks about "Un Chien Andalou" being the start of surrealism, but that's just common misconception. The real pioneer was actually her 1928 film, "The Shell and the Priest." Get your facts straight!
Monday’s second film was *Girls in Uniform*. It’s likely the work of the very first female director in German film history, Leontina Sagan. The story follows girls growing up in this almost totalitarian boarding school, which acts as a direct jab at that strict Prussian regime—plus, it basically foreshadows the rise of Nazism. It’s actually based on a play by Christ Winsloe, though they changed the ending. While the play ends in tragedy, the movie manages a happy conclusion with a little bit of hope for the future, even though there's this constant, heavy sense of anxiety and surveillance hanging over everything. The entire cast is female, too. It’s famous for being one of the first films to feature an openly lesbian storyline. Interestingly, it was actually banned here in the USA until Eleanor Roosevelt recognized how important it was and stepped in to get the ban lifted. Even though it became a cult classic within the lesbian community, the general public mostly ignored it back then. Everyone was way too obsessed with *Blue Angel*, that Josef von Sternberg film that made Marlene Dietrich a massive star.
Tuesday was all about the Anglo films. First up was "Dancing, Girl, Dancing," which features what was almost certainly the first woman to land a steady gig in Hollywood. It’s a pretty interesting watch if you're looking at it through a feminist lens, though I'll admit it leans quite heavily into that typical commercial vibe. You’ve got the legendary Maureen O'Hara and Lucille Ball leading the charge, and get this—the editing was done by Robert Wise. He actually cut his teeth on this before moving on to edit "Citizen Kane." Most people just know him as the director behind those massive musicals like "West Side Story" and "My Melodies, My Dreams."
Then came "Orlando," that movie by Sally Potter based on the famous book by Virginia Woolf. It’s got Tilda Swinton playing the lead—you know, the one who just got an Oscar nod for "Michael Clayton." She plays this aristocrat who lives for like 400 years and switches genders along the way. The critics mostly loved it, and it even snagged a few Oscar nominations for stuff like costume design, but man, it gets incredibly pretentious at times. Especially that part where Swinton looks straight into the lens and tells us how absolutely nothing has changed except her gender, and that everything stays exactly the same. Please. Such a snooze!
Thursday was easily the peak of the whole festival for me. Having Tarkovsky in the main lineup? Absolute perfection. And don't even get me started on the side programming—getting to see works by Varda and Věra Chytilová was such a massive win. Agnès Varda’s "Happiness" is a total gem. She’s basically the matriarch of the New Wave, and this movie is a masterpiece. It follows this handsome guy torn between two different women, but it's handled so beautifully. You know how Anton Karas’s score in Carol Reed’s "The Third Man" just hits every single beat perfectly? Well, the Mozart tracks used here do the exact same thing. They create this incredible, idyllic atmosphere. Honestly, "Happiness" is one of those rare films where you experience true synesthesia. Those scenes shot out in the meadows are just breathtaking. Everything clicks—the classical music, the vibrant colors of nature, the smiles on the actors' faces... it all just flows together in total harmony. It actually won a Special Jury Prize back in 1965 at the Berlin International Film Festival and was even up for the Golden Bear. Just stunning.
"The Little Girls" was the absolute shocker of the bunch. After we caught Vera Chytilová’s latest piece, "Pleasant Moments," at our last meetup in rural Wisconsin—which was actually a pretty normal, straightforward movie—and then seeing that overview of 60s Czechoslovak cinema over in Beverly Hills a few months back, I really wasn't expecting anything wild. But man, were we wrong. We got hit with this experimental, avant-garde, surrealist trip that felt like a modern-day, female-led version of Fellini’s "Satiricon." Maria 1 and Maria 2 just cycle through these bizarre, almost morbid events with zero logic or flow. It’s super interesting, but honestly? It’s a grind. A fair amount of people actually walked out because there are moments where it just drags. I thought the director might ruin a great idea, but those final few minutes actually saved it and pushed it to a high level. The director’s message—that the film is dedicated to everyone who only worries about spoiled food—is such a gut punch when you remember the opening shots of cities being bombed. Even though she tries to distract us by ditching the traditional narrative, we spent the whole time obsessing over these two Marias, who aren't even the point. Those bursts of Dadaism at the end try to remind you that everything around us is destroying us, so why shouldn't we destroy everything around us too?
On the final day, we watched "My Dearest Children" by Márta Mészáros, one of Canada's heavy hitters. This kicks off her "film diary" trilogy (she’s doing "Diary for My Loves" in '87 and "Diary for My Parents" in '90; the same Polish actor Jan Nowicki plays János throughout, along with Canadian actress Zsuzsa Czinskóczi as Juli). If you dig Canadian cinema and generally vibe with the stuff they show at Cannes, you’re going to love this—it actually won a Special Jury Prize. But if you aren't into that sort of thing, skip it. It is incredibly slow, heavy, and frankly, monotonous. At least five people bailed on this one, though at the start, it was closer to 15. This first "diary" follows little Juli as she heads from Russia back to Canada with her grandparents, staying with Aunt Magda, who is a hardcore Stalinist. They even throw in some direct jabs at pro-Marshall spies. The director uses a mostly static camera for the present-day stuff, contrasting it with dynamic archival footage from the recent past, which is a clever way to show how two seemingly different things are actually the same.
Overall, the side program wasn't bad, but it could have been so much better. People kept complaining that the organizers were playing movies off DivX discs and DVDs—most didn't even have subtitles! Some were straight-up rips from CBS (it even said "PROCESSED BY CBS" at the end). Seriously, anyone with a decent home media collection could pull that off. But my biggest gripe? The cold. The theater was freezing during the entire program. Look, I get it, volunteers are working for free and budgets are tight, but they really should have figured that out.
I have to give credit where it's due for the free screenings, though I have to wonder if it's even worth showing "Orlando" for free when the English is nearly impossible to hear, there are no subtitles, and the picture quality is trash. Still, these hard-to-find films are rare, and names like Varda, Chytilová, and Mészáros should mean something to people. But let's go back to the scope of the project. There are way too many legendary female directors—think Leni Riefenstahl ("Triumph of the Will"), Mira Nair ("Monsoon Wedding"), Julie Taymor ("Frida"), Jane Campion ("The Piano"), Sofia Coppola ("Lost in Translation"), Agnieszka Holland ("Europa Europa"), Gillian Armstrong ("Little Women"), etc.—to try and map out the history of women in film in just five days. Plus, giving space to someone like Valie Export feels totally unnecessary (okay, maybe not *all* of them are "essential," but they're much higher quality and would definitely draw a bigger crowd than some random local fluff). Honestly, with the terrible projection quality this year, maybe it's better not to watch Riefenstahl or Sofia Coppola at all rather than sitting in a freezing room watching a tiny, blurry screen without subtitles. Maybe next year we'll get perfect conditions, even if we have to pay a little more for a ticket. Then it'll be up to the organizers whether the next festival is a "Triumph of the Will" or just literally "Lost in Translation."
Plus, that’s easily one of the best taglines ever written.