Orlando is a movie by Sally Potter based on Virginia Woolf’s book of the same name, starring Tilda Swinton, Quentin Crisp and Billy Zane.

Plot:
Orlando (Virginia Woolf) is a young man during the reign of Elizabeth I (Quentin Crisp). When he vows never to grow old, he doesn’t. The movie follows his life and affairs, first with the Queen, then with the Russian Princess Sasha (Charlotte Valandrey). After Sasha returns to Russia, Orlando leads his life pretty love-less and soon ennui sets in. Then one night, he falls asleep and can not be woken for quite a period of time. Finally he wakes up and finds himself metamorphosed into a woman’s body. And that’s when his trouble really starts.

I admit that I have never read anything by Virginia Woolf, so I can’t compare the movie and the book (yet, at least). But I really enjoyed the movie. It was funny, interesting and beautifully shot. And it has really awesome costumes and a great set design.

The movie is a little strange but with that topic, how could it be different? [And I'm pretty sure that the book is, too.] But in any case, it’s a good kind of strange. What can I say, I like magical realism.

The cast was really good, even Billy Zane (and I do not say this lightly). But of course, the movie focusses on Tilda Swinton, and rightly so. She shines as if the role (and by extension, the book) was written for her.

But probably the best thing about it were the luscious costumes and the sweeping set design. It’s playful, beautiful and really colourful. Very awesome.

Sally Potter does a good job directing it, though the pieces sometimes seem to be a little non-sequitur and more randomly jumbled together. But that never takes away from the enjoyment of the movie.

Summarising: instant classic and utterly rewatchable.

The Deep End is a movie by Scott McGehee and David Siegel, starring Tilda Swinton, Goran Visnjic and Jonathan Tucker.

Plot:
Margaret Hall (Tilda Swinton) is worried: her son Beau (Jonathan Tucker) has an affair with night club owner Darby Reese (Josh Lucas). Not willing to discuss his sexuality with her son, Margaret rather goes to Darby and tells him to stay away. But Darby goes to Beau anyway and the two guys get into a fight. After Beau leaves, Darby stumbles and dies. The next morning, Margaret finds his body, assumes that Beau has killed Darby and decides to cover it all up. But things are far from over: Alek (Goran Visnjic) turns up and tells Margaret that he has evidence of the affair between Darby and Beau and he tries to extort her with that knowledge.

The Deep End is a thriller, noir style. That’s not really the kind of thing I usually like. But even if it was, it still would only be an average film with a mixed cast, some logical fallacies and problems with the pacing. If you like thrillers, I guess you could do worse, but it’s not a must-see.

[Minor Spoilers]

There are many things going on here – maybe too many to do them all justice. Beau’s homosexuality, for example, is never discussed, it’s a plot device and nothing more (because you obviously couldn’t extort someone with a tape of “normal” sex, could you?). Which is a pity, because there would have been a lot room of discussion since Margaret obviously isn’t comfortable with it at all. And because the portrayal of homosexuals was rather stereotyped. [Darby Reese = predatory gay man. Beau = sensitive, artistic gay man.]

Equally, that Margaret starts to suffer from Stockholm syndrome and kind of falls in love with her extortionist (who doesn’t mean what he does anyway and look here, he even tells Margaret not to pay his half, only the half of the people he extorts her for and boo-freakin-hoo).

Tilda Swinton acts very well and Goran Visnjic mostly does a good job. But Jonathan Tucker’s Beau stayed completely bland, like there’s no personality behind the face.

Unfortunately, the pacing was off: Everything kind of strolls along, ambling from here to there and then there’s the finale.

And if I never have to see another movie that touts the bonds of motherhood as the greatest thing ever, it’s not too soon. Seriously, people: Mothers don’t have a special bond with their children that nobody else can achieve. The special bonds come through spending a lot of time with each other and getting to know each other and seeing each other grow older and anyone who takes the time can get them. There’s no mystical “motherhood” thing. It’s a really close relationship and like all relationships, it takes work. *grumble*

Well, anyway. If you like thrillers, it’s fine. But it’s not the movie of the century. Not even the movie of the noughties.

Blutsfreundschaft (which actually means blood friendship, as in a friendship bound by a blood oath, and not initiation) is the newest movie by Austrian director Peter Kern and stars Helmut Berger, Harry Lampl and Melanie Kretschmann.

Plot:
Axel (Harry Lampl) is pretty alone and kind of lost. More by coincidence than actual conviction, he starts to hang out with a group of neonazis. When they attack a group of people and Axel accidentally kills one of them, he finds a refuge in Gustav (Helmut Berger), a gay laundry owner. Axel reminds Gustav of an old lover of his, so while Gustav tries to save Axel from the neonazis and himself, he unrolls his own past with the nazis.

This movie was pretty much ridiculous, I’m sorry to say. The plot, the portrayal of the neonazis, the portrayal of Gustav and Axel… It was all too much like a caricature to actually work. And why Helmut Berger was ever considered one of the great actors is so not clear from this film…

Peter Kern is a polemic person (as far as I can tell): he likes to say and do things to stir people and they will always be things that half the people will admire and the other half will admonish. But personally? I’m tired of polemics that have nothing to back them up. Being polemic just for polemic’s sake doesn’t work. You have to follow it up with communication and discussion and communication and communication. That is, of course, only if your goal is to change things and to make people think. If your goal is to shock and to titilate, then by all means, be polemic. But go bother someone else with it.

And that was my problem with this movie. Or better, one of the problems. Another thing was the ridiculousness of it all: Axel doesn’t mean to kill the guy during the attack. He’s just holding a knife and the other guy stumbles on somebody lying on the ground and falls into the knife. Seriously. That’s what happened.
Or the ending: [SPOILER] The neonazis march through the streets all aggressive and looking for trouble. Suddenly, a ragtag group of people (all of whom would probably end up in concentration camps if the neonazis got their way) block the street. And the oh-so-evil nazis don’t beat them up, don’t scream at them, don’t do anything but disband and go home. What. The. Hell. [/SPOILER]
Gustav’s story was clear from a mile away. I really didn’t get why they made such a secret of it.

But what bothered me more than the ridiculousness of the plot was that the neonazis were portrayed as the ultimate evil. They weren’t even people anymore, they were animals who enjoyed raping (even the leader’s girlfriend) and beating people up (even each other) and had no motivation than the aggression itself. I’m sorry, but if you refuse to acknowledge that nazis are human, too, we will always have problems with them. We need to see and get the humans behind the despicable behaviour to maybe change something (but then again, I’m probably falsely assuming that Peter Kern wants change and not outrage).

Apart from the problems I had with the content, there was also the form. Gustav has a best friend – Christina. Christina is transitioning from male to female, or trying to, and is basically the only social contact Gustav had. Her story is told in a lot of detail but has no connection whatsoever with the actual plot. It’s an entirely seperate movie within the movie.
Melanie Kretschmann, who plays Christina (and is, as far as I know, not transgender), does a good job, as does Harry Lampl (though both performances sometimes are a little over the top. Which in this case I can excuse since it had to fit the rest of the movie). But Helmut Berger? Was so bad. I could basically see him reading the text. For somebody who is such a big actor, it’s especially disgraceful.

This movie could have been really awesome. There’s much too little said about homosexuals in WW II. Problems with neonazis in Austria are often downplayed. The situation of transgender people in Austria is totally unclear to a broader “audience”. But in the end, the film gets caught up in the polemic and the ridiculousness and fails to say anything meaningful.

Man to Man is a one-woman play by Manfred Karge and was filmed by John Maybury, starring Tilda Swinton.

Plot:
Shortly before the WW II, Ella Gericke (Tilda Swinton) takes on the identity of her husband Max after his death to work instead of him in the factory. She continues to be Max until she herself doesn’t even know who she is anymore.
The story is told from her point of view as an old woman.

Ugh. People, this movie is equally really boring and really annoying and very, very trying. Honestly, though Tilda Swinton gives it her best, listening to an hour long rant that’s not broken up by anything, no other person, no visual relief, nothing is not something I can recommend.

[Poster of the theatre production, not the movie.]

I really thought that this movie would be interesting. I can live with experimental, I’m interested in gender stuff, I love Tilda Swinton and the German history is something I at least know a lot about. But when I saw it, I just wanted to make Tilda Swinton shut up for at least a little while and I wanted to strangle John Maybury for the unnecessary and badly done blue screen action and then my body fell asleep. Out of protest.

Maybe, if I had managed to stay awake, a cineastic masterpiece would have unfolded in front of me, but somehow I doubt it. And I know that the thing that will stay with me the longest was Max Gericke’s teeth – they were awful and they grew continuously more awful. And that was probably very realistic but that’s a case where I’d hugely appreciate artistic license.

So, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone but the die-hardest Swinton and/or Maybury fans.

Friendship’s Death is Peter Wollen’s only movie and stars Tilda Swinton and Bill Paterson.

Plot:
Jordan, during Black September 1970: The British journalist Sullivan (Bill Paterson), supporter of the PLO, gets called to identify a young woman (Tilda Swinton) who was picked up without any identification whatsoever. He starts to talk to her and she tells him her name’s Friendship and that she’s an alien, who was supposed to go to MIT but unfortunately crashed in Jordan instead. Though hesitant at first, Sullivan starts to believe her. But Friendship loses more and more interest in her original mission and gets caught up in the events in Jordan instead.

Friendship’s Death is a complicated movie, most of all. The premise is simple enough, but Wollen uses it only as a starting point for philosophical and political discussion. I think it’s a movie I will have to rewatch at least once before I can give a final judgement, but it’s also a movie I’d want to rewatch, so I guess that’s alright.

[Unfortunately, there's basically no pictures from this movie anywhere, at least as far as I can find, so you'll have to do with this one.]

Tilda Swinton was excellent, as usual. As was Bill Paterson. There are basically no other actors (well, there are some, but most of the time it’s the two of them) and both of them carry the film with ease and grace.

I liked the idea and the story, though sometimes it got a little confusing, especially since I wasn’t so firm in my knowledge about Black September.

Friendship raises a lot of interesting points with her rather alien approach to things, though she still remains very human.

I’m having difficulties talking about this movie – it’s hard to sum up and I really have to watch it again. When I do, I promise to post more extensively. In the meantime, it’s a movie I’d recommend, but only to people who a) don’t mind weird and b) don’t mind (sometimes artsy) political discussion.

Caravaggio is a movie by Derek Jarman starring Nigel Terry, Tilda Swinton and Sean Bean.

Plot:
Caravaggio is a fictionalised biography of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (Nigel Terry), a baroque painter. There it focusses on the love triangle between Caravaggio, Lena (Tilda Swinton) and Ranuccio (Sean Bean).

Before you go into the movie, I recommend reading up on Caravaggio and getting acquainted with his paintings. I didn’t and I was utterly bewildered by most of the things until I did.
That’s also the kind of movie it is: One I can appreciate intellectually, but which doesn’t have a lot of entertainment value. You’d have to rewatch it again, probably, to get all the layers, but I’m afraid that I’m not interested enough to do that. [Bad, cultural kalafudra. BAD!] Although, of course, worse things could happen than watching (almost) naked Sean Bean and Nigel Terry getting it on.

Jarman’s movie doesn’t actually have a lot of plots. Rather it’s recreation after cinematical recreation of Caravaggio paintings. Take for example the poster and this Caravaggio original:

Which means that you really should have seen one or the other Caravaggio painting before you see this film.

On the other hand, Jarman not only recreates paintings, but uses principles Caravaggio used in his paintings for his movies. What I mean by that: Caravaggio used to paint biblical scenes with the figures dressed in (then) modern clothes. So Jarman takes the life of Caravaggio and has people using electrical calculators or lights.

But apart from the Caravaggio-spotting, there’s not much entertainment going on here. I mean, qualitatively this is an awesome (in the original sense of the word) film. The camerawork is fabulous, and the acting… I don’t think that Sean Bean was ever this good again. Nigel Terry’s performance was mind-blowing and Tilda Swinton gave a perfect debut.

But the plot is confusing and a little like written by someone with ADD. And if you’re no Caravaggio-expert, this gets frustrating and tedious pretty fast.

Summarising: A movie for movie or Caravaggio über-fans. Other people will be bored.

Eastern Plays is the newest movie by Bulgarian film maker Kamen Kalev, starring Christo Christov and Ovanes Torosian.

Plot:
Georgi (Ovanes Torosian) and Itso (Christo Christov) are brothers. Georgi, the younger one, still lives at home and gets caught up in a neonazi group. Itso is a talented artist but is constantly battling his drug addiction which he’s slowly replacing with an alcohol addiction. When Georgi and his group attack a Turkish family on visit in Sofia, Itso steps in to help them.

Eastern Plays pretends to be a movie about the two brothers, but actually it’s a declaration of love to Christo Christov the actor. Christov and Kalev were good friends and Christov died before the movie was finished. Nevertheless, the movie is an interesting look at Sofia and the political problems it faces today. And the soundtrack was really cool.

Honestly, it’s rather difficult to say anything about this movie because it was completely overshadowed by Christo Christov. He not only gets the most screen time and attention – he demands to have it all. And Kalev and the viewer is all too happy to oblige because he does give a fascinating performance.

But because of that focus Eastern Plays doesn’t give you what it promises. I expected a story of two brothers on different ends of the political spectrum and how they clash together. But in the end it’s Itso standing rock solid and everything around him bounces off against him.

I was also a little uncomfortable with the portrayal of the women in this film. Itso treats his kind of girlfriend (or is she an ex?) like shit while pining after Isil (Saadet Isil Aksoy), the daughter of the Turkish family he saved from the neonazi group. And Isil, as well as Georgi’s new girlfriend, are both treated like they are the only salvation for the men. Yeah, nice try, but whether you think women are more than human or less than human hardly makes a difference: You still refuse to see them as human.

But what the movie did right was the cinematography and the views of Sofia it captured (visually as well as metaphorically). I left the movie with the feeling that I know Sofia a little bit (of course, the only time I was there I saw basically the airport and nothing else, so I don’t know if in the end, my feeling will hold up to the truth).

Oh, and the soundtrack was awesome, especially the songs by Nasekomix.

So, despite its problems, it is a movie worth checking out if you get the chance. If only to get an impression of Sofia and Christo Christov.

Moon is Duncan Jones‘ first feature film and stars Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey.

Plot:
Sam (Sam Rockwell) is an astronaut working on the moon space station by corporation Lunar Industries. They harvest helium-3 there as an alternate power source. He has a three year contract and for these three years, he’s completely alone on the space station, except for talking computer GERTY. Now his time on the moon is coming to an end but it seems that Sam is slowly going crazy.

Moon really blew my mind. While the plot twist didn’t surprise me, I didn’t care about that because it was strong enough without the surprise part. It was beautifully shot and perfectly acted by Sam Rockwell. The soundtrack was a perfect fit (well, it is by Clint Mansell after all). *gush* 

Moon is being hailed and hyped everywhere. And I’m happy to report that it deserves the laudation. I was afraid that it would be boring. “97 minutes practically only one actor? I love Sam Rockwell, but will he be able to pull that off? And what if the movie is really brainy, but not in a good way?” Those were my thoughts before I went to see it. At the same time, I was really excited. There wasn’t one movie that got so many rave reviews this year, it seemed.

And then the film started and I didn’t blink once. I was utterly enthralled. Sam Rockwell not only pulls it off, he does so with ease and perfection. [I don't know what else to say about his performance although it would deserve a whole blog post of its own. Or thirty.] It was brainy, but in the perfect way – a good story, a well thought out plot and with big implications you can ponder afterwards and yet still be engaging and exciting as a story and a movie.

The little budget they had was very well used – the props and the (little) CGI were beautifully done. The stillness of the moon was perfectly captured by cinematographer Gary Shaw.

And the soundtrack… oh the soundtrack. Clint Mansell has written another masterpiece, which I might like even more than the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack. But in any case, it creates the perfect atmosphere.

Duncan Jones and screenwriter Nathan Parker have created a completely convincing and fascinating world which was definitely the highlight of this year’s Viennale.

Summarising: If you’re a science fiction fan, you’ve probably already seen it. [At least, if it was released near you.] But even if you aren’t, you should definitely check it out. It shouldn’t be missed.

36 vues du Pic Saint Loup is the newest movie by Jacques Rivette, starring Jane Birkin and Sergio Castellitto.

Plot:
Kate (Jane Birkin) returns to her family’s circus after years of estrangement. On some lonely country road her car breaks down and Vittorio (Sergio Castellitto) stops his super-fancy car to help her. Afterwards, Kate invites him to the circus. Vittorio shows up and then kinda sticks around for the rest of the circus’ tour.

Beginning with the opening scene, this movie was ridiculous. Most of that was the fault of the script by Pascal Bonitzer, Christine Laurent and Jacques Rivette himself, but the absolutely overblown performance by Jane Birkin did its part as well. When the movie wasn’t being ridiculous, it was boring. So, definitely not recommended.

[SPOILERS]

Where to start, where to start, ripping this film apart? Let’s start at the very beginning:

Kate is stranded on a lonely country road. When she gets out of the car, her hood’s already opened (how did it do that?). Instead of taking out her cellphone (which she definitely owns as is proved later in the movie), she stands around looking desperate. A super-awesome sports car drives past her, turns around and a super-awesome middle-aged man gets out, takes one look under the hood, fixes her car and drives off, without either of them saying a word. They meet again in the nearby village (where Kate could have probably walked to) and that’s when they start talking.

If you weren’t headdesking at least once after this description, you’ll probably like the movie.

And then it gets worse.

Vittorio starts stalking Kate. And I do mean stalking. He drives after the circus, sits in every show, befriends the other artists to find out more about Kate and snoops in her past. And nobody seems to find that weird, in fact, they enable him by telling him stuff about Kate. Whenever Kate says something along the lines of “you know, you’re really persistent” (and it’s never harsher than that), it’s all because she can’t connect to other people anymore after some traumatic experience in her past.

And because Vittorio didn’t save the damsel in distress enough when he fixed her car, he sets out to heal her from that same traumatic experience: As he finds out little by little, Kate’s boyfriend was in the circus and died during an act. Her father, the director at that time, didn’t even take one show off the schedule afterwards to mourn the loss and that’s why Kate left and never really got over that.

So, Vittorio goes ahead and takes away 20 years of grief by staging the same act and having Kate participate. And poof! everything’s great again.

But the best scene in the whole film was a monologue by Kate. She’s alone in the circus tent and the monologue runs basically like that: “After all this time, why do I still remember. I don’t want to remember. Oh, Antoine, Antoine! [I'm not sure about the name anymore, but it doesn't really matter.] The grief, the pain! Antoine!!!!”

*headdesk*

Summarising: Stay away.

Les beaux gosses is the first movie by director/writer Riad Sattouf, starring Vincent Lacoste, Anthony Sonigo and Alice Trémolière (and in very small role: Valeria Golino).

Plot:
Hervé (Vincent Lacoste) spends most of his time with his best friend Camel (Anthony Sonigo) dreaming about the girls in school, especially Aurore (Alice Trémolière). One day, Aurore actually talks to him and a friendship starts to develop between them. Over the course of a year, we see their development.

Les beaux gosses is funny and sweet and I had a good time watching it. It’s not the world’s best movie, but it is good entertainment. The cast was great, most of them newcomers with some better known actors in supporting roles. What I found sadly lacking though was the female perspective.

Riad Sattouf and co-author Marc Syrigas are clearly on the side of the teenagers in that film. There’s no question here that adults might actually not be that bad – they suck. They’re annoying. No doubt about it. This approach lends itself to a very sensitive and respectful portrayal of the main characters.

This is not a movie about the ridiculousness of teenagers (as other movies are), but actually about the growing pains one experiences in that time. Which might be connected to the fact that the actors were actually about the same age as their characters (something that’s hardly never the case in the Hollywood version of these films).

Beneath all the humour and the jokes (and there are a lot of those), there’s a refreshing honesty about this movie: masturbation scenes are shown as unflinchingly as scenes of boring school lessons.

The only thing that really bothered me, as I said before, was the complete lack of a female perspective. Even when the movie touches on feminist issues, the camera stays with the guys (like when rumours spread that Aurore will kiss guys for money and she’s later basically assaulted, though not physically, by some guys because of that. She runs away crying but we get to see the faces of the boys who don’t get what’s going on). That said, at least the women were actual characters.

Despite my issues with that, it’s still a movie worth seeing though I wouldn’t spend oodles of money on it.

Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is the first movie by Damien Chazelle, starring Jason Palmer, Desiree Garcia and Sandha Khin.

Plot:
Guy (Jason Palmer) and Madeline (Desiree Garcia) are a rather happy couple. That is, until Guy meets Elena (Sandha Khin). After Guy and Madeline break up, both try to get their new life on the way.

This movie was boring. Really boring. It was the first boring musical I’ve seen in my life. Which is probably connected to the fact that it’s also the musical with the least songs I’ve ever seen. Half of the time, characters just appeared and you didn’t know where from. The story was completely unfocussed and did I mention that it was boring?

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that Damien Chazelle didn’t convince me of his talent. I mean, he wrote, directed, produced and edited the film and it probably wouldn’t have been bad if he’d had another person giving some creative input here.

For example, you hardly get to know Guy and Madeline as a couple before Guy is seeing Elena. Therefore you lack the basis to understand why it would be bad (or good) that Guy and Madeline split up and subsequently you don’t care anyway.
Another thing that bothered me were the suddenly appearing characters: Madeline starts to date anew and this guy is just suddenly there. Nothing about how they met or how there relationship developed.
And anothe thing: during the dance scenes it was like he showed me exactly what I didn’t want to see right that moment – I’d want an overview of what’s happening, he’d zoom into the details and vice versa.

The performances by Jason Palmer, Desiree Garcia and Sandha Khin were fine, though they didn’t have much to work with. Especially Sandha Khin caught my eye.

The music itself was literally forgettable. I couldn’t hum a single tune of it.

And it was so boring…

Summarising: definitely a movie you can skip.

The Messenger is the first movie Oren Moverman directed and it stars Ben Foster, Woody Harrelson, Samantha Morton, Jena Malone and in a small role Steve Buscemi.

Plot:
Will (Ben Foster) returns from Iraq after he was shot. Since he’s not fit for going into war anymore, he gets assigned to Captain Stone (Woody Harrelson), who is responsible for personally notifying the next of kin of fallen soldiers when those soldiers fall. During this job, Will meets the freshly widowed Olivia (Samantha Morton) and falls in love with her.

The Messenger is not a movie that speaks for or against the war. Instead it looks at the personal tragedies that arise from it. It does so with a lot of sensitivity and compassion. And it’s wonderfully acted (remind me again, why isn’t Ben Foster world famous yet?). If that wasn’t enough reason to watch it, it’s also funny.

The script by Moverman (who also wrote I’m Not There) and Alessandro Camon does a perfect job, not only capturing the grief of the families who get notified but also Will’s own grief, the trauma he sustained in the war and which he tries to deal with but ultimately doesn’t know how. And since he has no support (or doesn’t seek it) from the people around him, things don’t go too well.

Ben Foster… I can only repeat myself: Why isn’t he world-famous yet? Why do I have to explain him with “the dude who played the Angel in X3?” [Which, btw, was his weakest role from those I have seen.] Woody Harrelson was great – I haven’t seen him this good in a while… Steve Buscemi’s turn as a grieving father was breathtaking. And Samantha Morton was awesome.

I liked the story – it felt very real to me. The development the characters go through, the end… Everything’s told with so much respect for the characters and their problems that it’s a joy to watch. [And, even though the movie fails the Bechdel test, it has so well executed female characters that you don't really care.]

And because it is told with so much respect, they can include funny scenes seamlessly. Granted, sometimes the humour is a little bitter, but it’s funny nevertheless.

Summarising, you should really try to catch this one. Totally worth it.

[La Pivellina was the opening film of the Viennale.]

La Pivellina [which means "little girl" in the Italian Circus Slang, thanks to *'s mum for the research] is a movie by Tizza Covi and Rainer Frimmel, starring Patrizia Gerardi, Walter Saabel, Tairo Caroli and Asia Crippa.

Plot:
Patti (Patrizia Gerardi) finds a two-year old girl (Asia Crippa) abandoned on a playground and takes her home – a trailer park of a small local circus. Once there, she finds a note from the mother in the girl’s pocket, asking her to look after the child for a few days while she gets her life back into control. Together with her husband Walter (Walter Saabel) and the young Tairo (Tairo Caroli), Patti faces the challenge.

I liked La Pivellina. Nothing much happens, but the characters are really nice. It’s not a must-see but a definite can-see.

Since I don’t think that you have heard of this movie, here a few facts: all of the actors where amateurs who more or less played themselves. They had worked together with the two directors before, on a documentary about the life in a small circus like theirs. The script was written specifically for them. Asia Crippa might be the cutest child ever.

La Pivellina has a definite documentary feel to it, though it’s not set up that way. It quite clearly is a fictional story. But still, a trace of documentary remains.

That might be because of the amateur actors. They weren’t bad but they basically had to play themselves and I’m pretty sure that they would have difficulties with playing someone else.

The ending remains unresolved. I didn’t mind – it’s not a story that needs an explicit ending to end all endings.

It was an interesting look at the life in a circus like that. The poverty and hardship but also the tight community and strong sense of family, of belonging with each other .

And did I mention that Asia Crippa was incredibly cute?

It’s hard to say anything about it. It’s sweet, it’s worth to see it if you happen upon it and it was an interesting opening for the Viennale. [And the first Austrian movie to be the opening film.]

[And we've entered the Viennale programme. If I continue in this manner, I'll probably be up to date by the end of this year...]

Adaptation. is Spike Jonze‘ movie adaptation based on Susan Orlean’s book The Orchid Thief. The script was written by Charlie Kaufman and it stars Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, (in a very small role) Tilda Swinton and (in an even smaller role) Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Plot:
At the end of the shoot of Being John Malkovich, Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) is trying to get his new project going – an adaptation of Susan Orlean’s (Meryl Streep) book The Orchid Thief. The Orchid Thief is about John Laroche (Chris Cooper), a strangely charismatic florist/thief/survivalist. Just as Susan is pulled into Laroche’s story, the only way Charlie seems to get things going is by writing himself into the story. Especially since his twin brother Donald (Nicolas Cage) decided he wants to be a screenwriter as well and does so with more easy and apparently more success than Charlie.

If that plot summary sounds a little confusing, I’m sorry. But I think that every summary of this film will end in confusion – though the movie itself is rather easy to follow. If you can handle self-referentialism. [If you feed on it, like I do, you're going to love this movie.] In any case, Adaptation. is very funny, well-played and weird. In a very good way.

Charlie Kaufman is very hard on himself. He portrays himself as narcissistic, vain, a snob and generally unsympathetic. But he needs to do that to make this movie work. [And who's to say that he isn't actually like that?] If he painted his characterself in a better light, we’d probably all be assuming that he’s glorifying himself and wouldn’t want to watch this film.

Nicolas Cage shows that he can actually act.* [Sometimes you really have to wonder.] That’s nice to see for a change. Meryl Streep is great, as usual. But I thought that the actual show stealer was Chris Cooper. His Laroche is everything the description says he should be and he pulls it off perfectly.

Spike Jonze does a wonderful job directing Adaptation., capturing everything with a perfect eye for framing and pacing. Starting with the orchids and ending with the characters, you get the sense to really know them.

Probably the most outstanding thing about it is the passion: Laroche’s passion for whatever catches his fancy at that particular moment. Susan’s growing passion for orchids and Laroche. Donald’s passion about writing. Charlie’s passion about himself… It all culminates into a movie that feels like it was a work of love from everyone attached to it. And that’s beautiful to see. [Does that sound esoteric? Because I sure as hell don't mean it to.]

Anyway, you should really catch it, if you can and haven’t already. Especially if you like meta-fiction.

—

*lol:

Nicolas Cage has said that during the filming of this movie, he ignored all of his acting instincts and played the part of Charlie Kaufman exactly as director Spike Jonze asked him to. He then received an Academy Award nomination for it.

www.viennale.at, Tickets

Die gute Frage ist was ist die “Viennale”? Ist das größte Internatione Filmfestival Österreichs, findet jedes Jahr im Oktober statt. Begonnen hat es im Jahr 1960 und findet heuer zum 47. Mal statt.

Es werden österreichische und internationale Premieren gezeigt angefangen von Spiel-, Dokumentar und Kurzfilmen. Die Viennale wird ca. von 90.000 Besuchern besucht und findet in den komfortablen Kinos der Wiener Innenstadt statt. Verliehen wird der Wiener Filmpreis an österreiche Filmproduktionen des vergangenen Jahres und ebenso gibt es einen Preis an das Standard-Publikumsjurry, dieser wird von STANDARD gesponsert.

 Unter den Gästen sind viele von der Film, Produktion und Pressebranche. Die Eröffnung der Viennale 2009 war am 22. Oktober am Badeschiff, das Programm läuft bis am 4.November 2009 für weitere Programminformationen können sie auf der Homepage weiterlesen

Viennale zieht ins Audimax

gestern hab ich mir im rahmen der viennale09 die filmdokumentation über villalobos angesehen.

der regisseur romuald karmakar kündigte den film an, mit dem hinweis das der film die 20fach langsamere schnittgeschwindigkeit hat als ein üblicher spielfilm. lange szenen aus villalobos’ studio in berlin wechseln sich mit aufnahmen aus verschiedenen clubs ab, von berlin bis ibiza. der blick auf oder aus der dj kanzel zeigt vor allem eins: menschen haben spass am tanz zu elektronischer musik.

ricardo villalobos gibt einblick in sein bewertungssystem für die plattenbeschriftung (“es gibt house, techno, techhouse, und manche platten stehen da drüber und sind einfach super, da mach ich dann so ein kringerl drauf” – sinngemäß), erklärt seine herangehensweise beim remix’en, und sein unglaubliches arsenal an studio-equipment.

ich möchte dem film jedem fan elektronischer house/technomusik empfehlen, und natürlich jedem anhänger des villalobos sound.

das publikum war bunt gemischt, die üblichen verdächtigen aus der wiener party- und dj szene gemischt mit experimentierfreudigem viennale publikum, was sich zB an der ersten frage aus dem publikum nach dem film an den regisseur zeigte

“warum haben sie einen film über villalobo gemacht und nicht über eine dj frau”

zur filmwebsite, und ein ausschnitt aus dem film auf youtube: