Art House Asshole

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Shape of Water

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better. Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you. Well, don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

I’ve been very critical of this year. Primarily because I’ve found that almost everything in this year is good, but not great. There have been very few great films this year, but a lot of “yeah that was good” kind of films. And when I heard that one of the frontrunners for Best Picture was a film where Sally Hawkins falls in love with a fish, I thought “Yeah okay, I guess we’ll chop this year up to the black sheep of cinema”. Wasn’t super excited going in. Assumed it would be another one of those films that I would walk out and listen to everyone rave about while I just sit back and keep my criticisms quiet. *COUGH* lady bird *COUGH*. But I would only go this into detail as to how jaded and how much of an asshole in film taste I am if I was going to go the other way. So yeah. I loved The Shape of Water.

The Shape of Water is the newest film from Gothic Horror Mastermind Guillermo del Toro. And I should also preface, yes I know I’ve done that enough, but I have never been a huge del Toro fan. I’ve liked his stuff, and I do very much enjoy Pan’s Labyrinth, but all of his stuff is like I said before “yeah that was good”. The Shape of Water takes place or is heavily inspired by, the aesthetic of the 1960s. Following a mute janitor at a government facility, played by Sally Hawkins, who finds a creature from the black lagoon type monster in the facility. The creature and Sally Hawkins then fall in love. I’m aware that on paper this film doesn’t work. But take my word for it, that it is the best romance film of the year in a year that has had some pretty great romance films.

The first thing I would like to compliment in the film is the Production Design. If this year has been good for one thing, it’s Production Design. The film completely commits to its 1960s aesthetic as well as the monster film vibe. All of the costumes are perfect, all of the sets are perfect. Which makes sense. When you have a main character who does not have the ability to speak, you have to make the environment speak for them. And that is exactly what happens in this film.

The writing for the film is fantastic. For a film about a monster love story, the film manages to be shockingly human and relatable. The story also never slows down. And I don’t say that in a Mad Max: Fury Road kind of way. But what I mean is that the story never has any lulls. In most films, you have certain scenes that feel necessary, but not necessarily entertaining. The plot point scenes that aren’t the best executed. The pacing and the story of The Shape of Water is so well done, that I never felt bored. Everything felt necessary as well as entertaining. And it made for one of the best theater experiences of the year.

It’s time I get to the acting because that is where this film truly shines. It is no secret or surprise that Michael Shannon is a great actor. But I was thinking, and I am pretty sure that this is his best performance. I’ve never been as terrified of Michael Shannon as I have in this film. When he is angrily yelling and interrogating people, it’s amazing, and I was terrified. And if you’ve seen the film, you know that he does that thing with his fingers and oh my gosh. What a performance. But that was almost a given, and it’s rare that Michael Shannon doesn’t give an amazing performance. The surprise, for me at least, was Richard Jenkins who gives one of my favorite supporting performances of the year. His character is so well written, so likable, so lovable, that he knocks it out of the park. Does he make this character his own? I don’t think so, but that isn’t a bad thing. Jenkins took the character that del Toro gave him and made it one of the best characters of the year. And I think Jenkins does a perfect job being almost the opposite of Shannon.

But the real star of the film is Sally Hawkins. For an actress to give such life and emotion to a role that doesn’t include any dialogue, she knocks it out of the park. Hawkins, at this point of the year, is my favorite female performance and that is saying something because this year has been pretty heavy with female leads. The emotion she portrays with just her eyes is breathtaking and beautiful. When she signs, she does so with such emotion. And I’m aware that I’m swooning and sounding stupid. But I really can’t put into words how much I loved Hawkins performance.

And I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t mention Doug Jones. Every critic has talked about how great Doug Jones is in this film. And there isn’t anything that I could add to that. But his performance combined with the incredible effects and makeup team makes for one of the most interesting characters of the year. Another character who does not speak but conveys such high emotion. I won’t talk much longer, but when talking about the performances of this film, it is important not to forget about his performance.

In general, I think everyone should see this film. I think it will connect with you, even if you are skeptical. I’m a skeptical jaded asshole, and I loved this film. And I hope you see it too. Because I think you will like it.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Call Me by Your Name

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

—

I think hype can be a dangerous thing for a film. I think this film was walking a very dangerous line. Call Me by Your Name premiered at Sundance this year, and was a giant success. Everyone loved it. Everyone talked about how amazing it was. And it cemented itself as an early Oscar contender. I have even talked about it on the podcast about how excited I was for this film. But that was 11 months ago. I have waited 11 months for this film. And often when hype lasts this long, it tends to rot and sour. My expectations go up far too high, and I end up hating or disliking the film. This film manages to pull off the hype, and I didn’t dislike this film at all. It’s not flawless. But there are certain things here worth praising.

Call Me by Your Name is the latest film from Italian Director Luca Guadagnino, who is previously known for his work like A Bigger Splash which I reviewed a little over a year ago. Call Me by Your Name follows a young seventeen-year-old boy who goes with his family to their vacation home in Italy. His family also brings along a friend of the fathers, played by Armie Hammer. Armie Hammer’s character and the seventeen-year-old end up falling in love and having a lot of sex. In very basic terms, that is the plot of this film. So if you can’t handle gay stories, this probably isn’t for you. Because this film is SUPER GAY, but in a great way.

The first problem I had with the film is that it is difficult to see past the privilege in certain scenes for this film. It’s a good thing this film is about a gay kid otherwise I could see critics ripping this film apart for being so rich and white that it is unrelatable for most audiences. There is an argument in this film where two characters debate the origin of the word “apricot”. There is another argument where two characters angrily debate how a musician would perform their piece if they were trying to mimic another musician. Both scenes I was thinking “is this the angry discussion you wanted to have?” That on top of how much money this family is throwing around, it put my poor college ass into a mood.

Another aspect of this film that I should mention is the idea of the relationship between a man in his thirties and a boy who would typically be considered a minor. The film never even mentions that this might not be the best. In fact, the film sells the relationship as one of the most beautiful things in the entire world. And to be fair, the film isn’t promoting relationships with large age gaps. It is just promoting this relationship in particular. But the idea of “this relationship does have a big gap” was present in my mind the entire time. And with the current climate in Hollywood, it is hard not to have that idea lingering. But if I’m not going to mark down The Punisher for being released in a time of gun violence, I’m not going to mark down Call Me by Your Name for being released in a time of sexual predators.

Very briefly I will mention the cinematography, I wasn’t a fan of the slight shakiness of the camera. Almost like it’s on a dolly, but the dolly is also broken or being operated poorly. I know some people are a fan of this choice, but I had an issue with it, and it took me out of the film. But I won’t talk further about it because the composition of the shots didn’t do much to excite me and the slight shakiness is the only thing worth mentioning.

Where I begin to praise the film is with the acting. Walking into the film, I was pretty cautious because I had a bad gut feeling about the lead played by Timothee Chalamet. I have liked him in other things I had seen him in, but I was worried that he was going to be awful in this film. It is probably because he recently started popping up on lists saying he would be nominated for Best Actor and whenever I see someone this young on those lists, I get very skeptical. But after the film, I will say that he did do a good job. For actors in his age group, he is certainly one of the better ones. But with him, it is interesting because he isn’t amazing. He has the opposite problem that I have with other actors in his age group. Typically I see actors like Ansel Elgort or Logan Lerman being able to say lines somewhat believably but struggle to display the emotion on their face and in their eyes. Chalamet is the rare opposite. I feel like a lot of the lines he gives in this film are pretty poorly delivered, but he is so expressive with his face and with his eyes that it makes up for it. And after seeing the film, I would be okay if he was nominated for the film, but that also might just be because this has been a pretty weak year regarding Best Actor. We have this and Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour, and that is really about it, everyone else is up in the air. So if Chalamet is nominated, I won’t be too angry.

The other actor I want to praise is Armie Hammer. Think about the kind of characters that Armie Hammer plays. The heroic manly man. And he is good at playing those characters. Armie Hammer gives a character a blowjob in this film. He doesn’t receive a blowjob. He gives someone a blowjob in this film. This kind of character is so unlike what Hammer normally plays, but he also manages to make the character completely authentic. I never thought that he was playing out of his range as I do with other range building performances. He makes the performance so his own while also looking so effortless in the film. Regarding the Oscar race, currently, I’ve seen a shift toward praising Michael Stuhlbarg. Stuhlbarg plays Chalamet’s father and is present but is never really showy. He plays a father well, but he never did anything to “wow” me. That is until the end of the film, where he gives this long monologue on how to recognize love and what to do with that. And the entire theater was sobbing by the end of the monologue. So I can see why he is being praised. I still think that Hammer is better, but both are great.

I would finally like to talk about the direction of the film. The film is quite flawed. I’m by no means saying this is the best film of the year; it has its problems. The biggest being the fact that it is way too long. But I genuinely think this is the best-directed film of the year. And I know this because halfway through the film, I could smell it. Guadagnino did such a good job with his character building and world building that around the halfway point, it triggered something in me where I could smell the cologne of the characters. The film was so accurate and authentic that it began to come off the screen. And I know that sounds super stupid and pretentious or whatever. But I just tell it like it is. I’m a journalist. This is journalism, right? Yeah sure. I’m a journalist.

So yeah. The film has its problems. But when it hits it, it hits hard. There is a lot to love about this film, and I understand why it’s connecting well with a lot of people. Personally, where I liked it a lot, I don’t think it’s the quintessential film of 2017. But if everything I described sounds interesting to you, I don’t think you will be disappointed.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Beats Per Minute

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

AIDS sucked. I know I’m taking a controversial statement here by saying that I was not a fan of the AIDS epidemic. But I think it’s just worth stating that I was never like “Yeah! AIDS!” And after watching this film, I still agree. AIDS was really bad. Sure. Yeah. That’s how I’m going to start this review. By saying that AIDS is bad. I’m glad that I know how to write so I can write such masterpieces like this review. I have no worth as a human being.

 

BPM: Beats Per Minute, also called 120 BPM: Beats Per Minutes or sometimes called 120 BPM, is a French film following the goings on of ACT UP, an AIDS activist campaign in Paris in the 1990s. Directed by primarily screenwriter Robin Campillo, BPM follows many members of ACT UP but its main focus is on Nathan, played by Arnaud Valois, a non-HIV Positive individual who joins ACT UP and begins a relationship with Sean, played by Nahuel Perez Biscayart, an HIV Positive individual and one of the founding members of ACT UP.

 

To get it out of the way, the biggest issue I had with this film is that it is too accurate. You might be thinking, “Hey! That’s a good thing! Things should be accurate! You have no worth as a human being!” And I agree. The issue though is that it is so accurate that I often don’t understand what the characters are talking about. There are multiple scenes that have the characters talking about the disease as well as the medication that they take or want. And they use these long words and acronyms that I’m sure are completely accurate to the situation. But I’m not fluent in AIDS medication. So when they talk about all of that and have arguments about which drug is better, which pharmacist is better, all of these things, I am just thinking “Wait what are you talking about?” I’m sure that some will look at this as a plus, but for me at least, it would often take me out of the story and it took me awhile before I actually got comfortable with it and understood what they were talking about.

 

On the flip side of this, I want to celebrate this film in being a film about the AIDS epidemic that doesn’t involve doctors. Almost every AIDS film I can think of or have seen is about the AIDS epidemic when it is discovered and the immediate panic. What I think is pretty unique about this film and what I really want to celebrate with this film is the fact that it is about people with AIDS and how no one wants to help them. It shows the ugly side of AIDS, the one where most people just don’t care. This film takes place a decade after the discovery of the disease and it is refreshing and haunting to see how after a decade, there is no cure and there is close to no hope. Then it gets worse when you realize that it’s been over 30 years since AIDS was discovered and we still haven’t cured it.

 

The biggest performance that I want to talk about is Nahuel Perez Biscayart and his portrayal of Sean. I think that Biscayart gives an amazing performance and one of the best I’ve seen all year. As we see his decay you see both his body and soul wither away. From the beginning of the film, it’s obvious the direction the film is going to go in. And when it finally gets there, it’s one the strongest scene of the film and one of the better scenes of the year. The problem is getting there.

 

I like this film. I really do. But it should not be as long as it actually is. It just goes on and on and to be frank it drags. I really like the ending of this film but I am hesitant to recommend this film because it just takes an excruciating amount of time to get there. I think the entire film is very beautifully crafted. And if the Academy Awards had an award for “Saddest Handjob” it would go to this film in a second. But it is very long with very little humor. The cinematography, outside of a couple shots, is nothing remarkable. But the end is so strong that it is hard for me not to like the film. It’s powerful. But it’s a painful blow.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Thelma

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

I have a very love/hate relationship with “groundbreaking” and “influential” cinema. You get a lot of projects that come out and shock or excite an audience because it is something new. These are films that I tend to either hate or not enjoy nearly as much as others. Then, almost like clockwork, another film comes out that is a similar concept but pulled off much better. An example is Boyhood, a film I thought was pretty mediocre, and Moonlight, a film that is spectacular. Thelma is another example of this. This is because Thelma has very similar themes and design and tells almost the same kind of story as Raw. But Thelma isn’t hot garbage.

 

Thelma is a Norwegian horror-thriller film from director Joachim Trier. Trier is more famous for his dramatic works such as Oslo, August 31st and more recently the English Language drama Louder Than Bombs. So the foray into horror and the supernatural is a leap for the director. The screening I attended for the film included a Q&A with the director, producer, and cast. In the Q&A the question of what lead him to do a genre film came up. And the director said that even though the film is this different world than what he is used to, the emotion and tone is still the same. Even though this film is about a girl with superpowers, the film is still about emotion, and the film is still remarkably human.

 

Thelma follows Eili Harboe as the titular Thelma. Thelma is a young woman who leaves her home to attend University in Oslo. There she begins to have a serious relationship with Kaya Wilkins, in her first acting performance. And as things begin to move, stranger and more supernatural things begin to occur. The plot of the film is great. The characters are interesting and feel real. Across the board, the development of the story and characters are great and are aligned with Trier’s other work. And like I stated before, although the film has this idea of horror and spookiness, at the end of the day the film maintains its relatability because of how human the characters and story is.

 

The cinematography of the film is gorgeous. The director of photography is Jakob Ihre, who frequently collaborates with Trier. If you haven’t seen the rest of Trier’s filmography, you might have seen Ihre’s work in The End of the Tour or Lola Versus. In general, Ihre’s strong suit is capturing the feeling of isolation and cold. Which explains his relationship with Trier and it is similar tone frequently used. But I also have to say that Thelma includes my favorite shot sex scene of the year. I won’t spoil it, but it involves lesbians and a snake, and it is amazing.

Thelma is officially Norway’s submission for the 90th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Will it be nominated? It’s hard to say. I very much enjoyed it. To the point of the only problem I had the film was some poorly done CGI. But I’m not sure if it’s that good. It also, in general, isn’t up the Academy’s wheelhouse. Lesbian Superheroes in a Horror Film? Get outta here; we got BPM to watch to make us cry about gay people in the AIDS crisis. By the way, I’ll be reviewing BPM soon, so don’t worry. I do recommend checking out Thelma, but I’m not sure if it will be your favorite film of the year or stick with you as much as Trier’s other work. But if you like cold Lesbian Superheroes doing spooky stuff, you might like Thelma.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Voyeur

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

When I saw this film I had the uncomfortable experience of being possibly the only person, or one of the very few, who were in the audience who did not work on the film. When it started, it was the only screening I’ve ever been to where people not only applauded the distributor logos but also yelled and cheered. They were super into this film, which might have been why I wasn’t as big a fan of it as I might have been.

 

Voyeur is a documentary following journalist Gay Talese and his relationship with his subject Gerald Foos. Gerald Foos was a Colorado Motel Owner who used this motel as a way to spy and watch his guests without their knowledge. Part of me wants to say stop there and watch the film without getting spoiled. But honestly, there aren’t any major reveals that leave your jaw on the ground. It isn’t like The Imposter or Tickled where the plot twists and how you see them are important to the story. When the “plot twists” happen in the film, firstly you see them a mile away, and secondly, they don’t matter. There is a reveal a little after the middle of the third act, and it is surprising but ultimately doesn’t add or do anything with the film. The reveal happens then is almost immediately dropped. And I know this is a documentary and the purpose of a documentary is to show the audience “truth”. But at the end of the film, I was wondering why they would get even through that into the film. Other than to just fit the tone of the film.

 

The film follows the tone that you see in documentaries like The Imposter and Who Took Johnny. That being an overarching darkness being present throughout. Partly because Gerald Foos spied on his guest without their permission and went into detail about watching sex acts and murder. If you have seen enough documentaries of this nature, you know there is going to be a twist because that’s how docs with this tone work. There will be a big reveal toward the end of the film that will be shocking and come from nowhere. You don’t know what it is, but you know it’s coming. Which is why it bothers me that the tone is corrupted by the fact that the documentary filmmakers also try to get you to like Gerald Foos.

 

It might have been the entire audience I saw the film with. But throughout the film, the audience was laughing at almost everything Gerald Foos said. The film tried to get you to see him as this quirky character who was a little out there but was still kooky and fun. But that’s not who he is. Maybe I’m seeing the whole voyeur aspect a bit harsher than I should, but given how straightforward and proud of what he did, I am disgusted by Gerald Foos throughout the film. Which I feel they could have played up a bit more. But the entire film tries to get you on his side. Which I think is both wrong and deluded the film. It’s clear that Gay Talese liked him. There is a scene toward the end of the film which is genuinely the best scene of the film, where Talese can tell the filmmakers are trying to get a “gotcha” answer out of Foos and Talese calls the filmmakers out and mocks them for a solid five minutes. And Talese defends Foos throughout.

 

I think at the end of the day this film’s success is highly dependant on how you view the act of voyeurism. If you think it’s fine, or think it’s a minor crime that isn’t a big deal, then this film will work very differently than how I saw it. But the entire time I was creeped out and kind of hated Gerald Foos, and by extension Gay Talese for his alignment with Foos. But if you view the act differently you will see the film differently. That in itself makes it hard for me to review this fairly because I can see someone thinking this film is great and going along with what the filmmaker wants you to think. But that isn’t something I can do.

Voyeur is a well-made film with a murky message and a tonal problem throughout. I have already recommended this film to a few people, but as I said, you have to be careful with this film. Because at the end of the day if you read the description of this film and think that Gerald Foos is a creep, I don’t think the film will make you change your mind. But if you don’t think that already, this might be up your alley. It is all up to you.

 

Also, in this review, I have to include an image to be the featured image. No images exist of this film yet. Not even a poster. The film comes out next month and I’m sure there will be images then. But because of this, the image in the thumbnail for this film, is one of the pictures that comes up when you google “Horse Dragon”. Because I thought that would be radical.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Square

Do you ever want to feel artistically superior to all of your friends? Maybe you are tired of your friends talking about how great the latest action film is and want to sound better.Maybe you want to impress your date with obscure film trivia. Maybe you think that knowing a lot about film history and art will somehow validate your meaningless existence and will replace that ever-growing pit in your heart that tells you that you don’t matter and no one cares about you/ Well don’t worry! Because I watch a bunch of art house films and can give you recommendations on what to watch and what to feel superior about! So without any delay, let’s get pretentious!

 

—

 

It’s rare that I see a film that understands it’s audience so well, while also completely mocking it’s audience flatly. For context, I saw this film at the New York Film Festival, and this film knows the kind of people who go to film festivals are the only people who are going to have interest in this film. If you read about this film in regards to its plot, you won’t find much. If you go to the IMDB for this film you will find this regarding plot – “The Square is a poignant, satirical drama reflecting our times – about the sense of community, moral courage and the affluent person’s need for egocentricity in an increasingly uncertain world.” I’m not sure you can be more generic while also saying absolutely nothing about the film. There isn’t a trailer for the film that isn’t just a scene from the film. And all of this is done on purpose. Because the film isn’t about anything. But it does say something.

 

The Square is a film directed by Swedish Director, Ruben Ostlund. Ostlund has also directed 2014’s Force Majeure which was one of my favorite films of that year. The Square is marketed as starring Elisabeth Moss and Dominic West. When in reality Elisabeth Moss is in three scenes and Dominic West in two scenes. The main character of the film is played by Claes Bang, a Danish actor who has a fair amount of credits but this is by far his largest role. The film follows Claes Bang as the curator of a modern art museum. And then the film just follows his life as he messes up some things and then because he is a flawed and kind of bad person, just ends up making it worse. And then around halfway through I realized that on a plot level, The Square is just a two and a half hour long version of Swedish Curb Your Enthusiasm. It is just a comedy about a stubborn man who gets into a situation and then tries to get out of said situation but only ends up making it worse. That’s the film at its core. That is what this film is about. And the film is genuinely funny. And I like this film. But not because of what the film is about.

 

At the beginning of the film, Claes Bang is being interviewed by Elisabeth Moss about the museum and specifically about a new installation. And I can’t remember what Moss asks him, but I remember his response. This exchange is in the beginning, and I mean this is the first scene of the film. Claes Bang responds to the question saying that something that he struggles with is the definition of art. Expanding on this he says, putting a piece on display and giving something awards doesn’t make it good art. For more context, this film won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival this year. This is the highest award at what is thought to be one of the, if not the, most prestigious film festival in the world. I will also remind you that I saw this film at the New York Film Festival, arguably one of the most snobbish film festivals that I go to. And I think the film knows that anyone who has interest in this film, are the people that are going to think this film is more than it is.

 

When I left the theater, I was riding the Subway train back to my apartment. While in the train I could hear a conversation happening next to me between three different guys who had also seen the film. The discussion was them talking about all of the symbolism and deeper meaning to all of the characters in the film. The next day I was talking to someone who said the film is a big statement on power structure and the homeless. And the film talks about the poor and power structure, but that isn’t what it is about. Ostlund knows that the only people that will have interest in this film are the people who are going to want to dissect it and proclaim it to be art. When really, at the end of the day it’s just a comedy about some guy who works at a museum and is finding meaningless interpretations to art pieces that have no meaning. And this might be a bolder statement. But I don’t think the film is art. I think it’s just an entertaining comedy that doesn’t say much. And that isn’t a bad thing. You’re allowed to like and make things that don’t have a bold thought-provoking message. Everyone knows that Cannes tends to be more political regarding what they award. And maybe that’s why this film won the Palme d’Or. Maybe the politics that the world is facing is so tiring that perhaps it’s time that film enthusiasts just step back and laugh at a bunch of stacks of dirt.

 

The real question that I still have in the film is whether or not the film warrants to be art or not. Because maybe by stating the fact that it isn’t art, that in itself makes it art. By not saying anything it is saying everything. The film is saying that it isn’t saying anything, thus saying something. I don’t know. Art is pretentious and hurts my head sometimes. Art sucks. Movies suck. Fuck you.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : It’s Only the End of the World

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of It’s Only the End of the World.

—

Like I said in my review of Heartbeats, Xavier Dolan is five months from being a household name. I strongly believe that his next film The Death and Life of John F. Donovan will make everyone in America aware of Dolan’s presence. And after watching his most recent film It’s Only the End of the World, I’m not sure if the world will be in awe or in mockery.

It’s Only the End of the World is the sixth film from 29-year-old French-Canadian director Xavier Dolan. It tells the story of a young world famous writer who returns home for a dinner to tell his family that he has a terminal illness. This film premiered at Cannes in 2016 to pretty harsh criticism, many critics saying this is the worst film Dolan has made thus far. And I will admit that this film is very problematic, but I will not go and say that this is his worst film.

The writing of the film is where I am the most conflicted about the film. Because I think this is certainly Dolan’s most mature and explores more adult themes than the rest of his filmography. So I do want to celebrate the fact that he is exploring these real subjects and is maturing out of what he is brave enough to explore out of what he has been made famous for. On the flip side of this, the dialogue in this film is particularly awful. In almost every scene was at least one line of dialogue where I was taken out of the film for one reason or another. Whether it be that the line is too wordy or the line is too expositional or plain and simple that no one would ever say that. So where his big picture with the story is great, the smaller more precise parts of the film just fall flat.

The film is also fairly predictable in terms of how it plays out. It follows this moving narrative where there is a scene for each character for the protagonist to talk with. You get everyone’s perspective this way but it doesn’t ever do anything to make you care about their perspectives. None of the characters are fleshed out enough to make you truly care about what they think and what they say. You are just watching them explain their perspective without much interest.

Another plus about this film is that the acting is all superb, for the most part. The main character played by Gaspard Ulliel gives the performance of a piece of plywood and doesn’t react to really anything. He has a stone cold face the entire time, and if that’s the point then the protagonist is horribly written. The best acting comes from Vincent Cassel, who always gives an incredible performance. I haven’t seen all of his work but I can’t think of a time where I didn’t enjoy Vincent Cassel’s performance, and he is by far one of the best actors in this film. If Vincent Cassel isn’t the best actor in the film then it has to be Léa Seydoux. both Cassel and Seydoux have this rawness to their performances that make them both incredible. They display this emotion in their performances that make arguably two of the better performances of the year. And a lot of people have been in love with Marion Cotillard’s performance. But personally, I just didn’t find it all that compelling. I adore Marion Cotillard in almost everything she does, but I just thought she was average in this film. Probably because of the fact that the writing for her character is the worst out of all of the rest of the cast. But either way, she didn’t blow me away.

Another thing that I want to talk about quickly is Xavier Dolan’s music choice in this film. Much like Tarantino or a thousand other directors, Dolan uses Pop music in his film very frequently. And in this film, it might be my biggest problem. In Heartbeats, I thought his choice of music worked well, and I think his choice of music usually is pretty good. But like I said earlier, his vision for this film and the one of this film is much more mature and much more serious. And when you match that with the upbeat pop tunes that he puts in, it doesn’t work. It is a jarring contrast.  And one that has no purpose in the film without reaching. If Xavier Dolan wants to make more serious and mature films, then he needs to grow out of the childish tools he used in the past.

It’s Only the End of the World feels very much like a transition film. This is Xavier Dolan dipping his toes in the water and feeling something out before jumping into it. Xavier Dolan has said in interviews that he considers this film to be his best work. And if that’s the case then we as an audience need to learn to adjust to the new direction that he is going in. Because if that is the case then it seems like The Death and Life of John F Donovan is probably going to be even more of what we see in this film. And I can tell you right now, Xavier Dolan is going to be the household name in 6 months. We will either be talking about how great of a director he is, similar to the breakout of Denis Villeneuve. Or we will be talking about the downfall of one of the most promising young directors.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Beguiled

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Beguiled.

—

I think I’m starting to realize that I don’t consider Sofia Coppola to be a good director. I think she did an amazing job with her first film, Lost in Translation. But almost everything else she has made has either been mediocre or straight up awful in my mind. And this film is no exception, spoiler for the rest of the review. I think of the directing Coppolas, she is the best besides Francis Ford Coppola obviously. But honestly, the bar has never been set that high.

The Beguiled is a remake of the 1971 film of the same name directed by Don Siegel. In the original version, we had Clint Eastwood playing a soldier from the North during the Civil War as he is treated by a school for women in the South. The 2017 version of this film, gives the same story but from the perspective of the women. And that in itself is the first major problem with the film.

I will say straightly that the original film isn’t a masterpiece, or even great or good frankly. The 1971 version of the film is fine and something you would catch on television one night, but there is a reason why it isn’t remembered as one of the necessary films of Clint Eastwood’s career. The story in general of “The Beguiled”, really isn’t that interesting. For a film that takes place during the Civil War with members of both sides trapped in the same house together, there is close to no political or racial dialogue in both films. Which I feel is a major missed opportunity. More importantly, however, is that the original story is not interesting enough to warrant two different perspectives on the same situation. The 2017 version is better written in parts. Noticeably is the female characters are more defined and more interesting in general. The issue is that they are more defined characters who do more or less nothing the entire film. The story of “The Beguiled” isn’t complex enough to have this film and the original film work as separate films. There really isn’t anything new or interesting from seeing the story from the female perspective. And frankly, there wasn’t really anything interesting in seeing it from the male perspective either.

One of the more surprising elements of this film that I wasn’t expecting is that for a film that is trying to give a feminist perspective or at least a female point of view, the female characters are fairly weak characters. The most interesting character in the entire film is played by Kirsten Dunst, who gives a great performance. But Dunst’s character is the most insecure and punching bag of a character in the entire film. To the point where I in the final act I couldn’t relate to her character anymore because she became so insecure that it became almost a caricature. Nicole Kidman, again a great performance, but is still portrayed as a villain. The film is from her perspective, and you see that she doesn’t have any cruel intentions, but the direction and the performance are played like a villain which only made me not particularly care for her character. Then Elle Fanning, again a great performance and probably my favorite of the film, doesn’t serve much of a purpose other than to really want to sleep with Colin Farrell. Thinking back to the film, Fanning’s character is used for one specific moment, but other than that her character serves no purpose. For a film that has been boasting about its female perspective and almost reclaiming of the genre, none of the female characters are relatable or likable. The most likable character is played by Oona Laurence, and her performance is probably one of my favorite child performances I’ve seen in a long time. She and Angourie Rice both were the surprises of the film, and I feel like we don’t get enough of either of them. Honestly, Angourie Rice gives the most interesting performance playing the daughter of high-ranking Confederate General. She gives multiple throwaway lines that tease that racial and political conflict I mentioned earlier, that ultimately go nowhere. That isn’t to say that Colin Farrell’s character is any better. I will say that the impression I got was that Colin Farrell’s portrayal was more charming and fits the womanizer angle better than Clint Eastwood. But it has the same problem where I just don’t care.

The tone of the film is never consistent. The screening I went with was laughing almost the entire film. Which there are humorous moments in the film, so the laughs were not completely unwarranted. But when you have these kinds of scenes and the more brutal and “suspenseful” scenes, it just doesn’t click. It feels like Coppola can’t decide between her more comic style that she has used in the past or if she wants to use a more serious and darker style. The film bounces between the two so frequently that I don’t take the darker moments seriously. Toward the end of the film, the conflict between Farrell’s character and the girls rises to an escalation, and I wanted it to go a certain way only because I knew the film would end once that happened. Not because I cared about any of the characters or their motivations, but because I knew that would be the logical conclusion and I could leave. And then it happens and it is the most lackluster moment of the entire film. I won’t call it “anti-climatic” because I think anti-climaxes are often times really good to show a certain tone. And I can tell that Coppola is trying to do that here, but it comes off as nothing as opposed to melancholy. And for a film that is trying to be suspenseful, the film is horribly paced.

A lot of the problems with the tone and pace of the film originate from the fact that this might be the worst editing film I’ve seen all year. It feels like this film could be a solid forty to fifty minutes. But every shot starts too early and every scene lingers a bit too long. If you trimmed that up, the film would be more suspenseful and it would get to the point quicker. That combined with the fact that there are multiple scenes that tease something, but then is never mentioned again are bothersome. The biggest example I can think of is there is an entire scene that is edited in a way to highlight this button. There are at least three close up shots of this button in the scene. The scene is just Oona Laurence talking about this button. We see her very carefully take care of this button, then we never see it again after this scene. There is literally no point in this scene. And there are multiple moments like this in the film. It feels a lot like Sofia Coppola decided on making this film and couldn’t find enough material to make a feature film. Going back to my first complaint that this story isn’t complex enough to warrant two different films.

I’ve been harsh up to this point, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t anything good in the film. The cinematography has good shot composition. I won’t say that it has great cinematography because a lot of the great shots of this film are great stills. I’m sure these stills will pop up around Tumblr blogs and around the web for a great example of cinematography, and they are great stills. But in context to what they mean and why they are composed that way, there is close to no meaning. The camera is completely static the entire film, which just leads to boring cinematography. But the composition of the shots are well done, even if they don’t serve much of a purpose.

I will also say one of the biggest standouts of the film is the sound design. The sound design is honestly the most artistic and well done of the entire project. Throughout the film, you hear cannons going off in the distance. This adds to the suspense of the film. The cannons act almost as a heartbeat to the film. The pounding of the cannons only gets louder and more powerful as the film goes on and after the defining moment of Colin Farrell’s the cannons stop. The sound design has the most artistic merit of the film and it might be my favorite sound design of the year.

Overall, the film is fine. The sound design and the art direction is really where the film shines. The acting is all well done without anyone being what I would call the best performance of the year. The direction and the editing are really where the film struggles and is the film’s ultimate downfall. If you wanted to see the film, I would still check it out. Just know that it is an extremely slow paced film that never extends beyond “Exploitation Film” territory.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : The Manifesto

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of The Manifesto.

—

So this film is the most self-indulgent film I’ve seen in a long time. It thinks it’s so much better than everyone else and that only it’s opinion could possibly be correct. Seriously, I’ve met the most pretentious films students of all time and they would think this film is going too far. I’m sure the director masturbated while making this film. So much so that instead of reviewing this film, I’ve just copy and pasted a guide of how to masturbate. So Julian Rosefeldt, next time you feel like subjecting us mere mortals to your genius, please read this and spare us the eye rolling.

The basic way to masturbate is to lightly grip your penis in one hand, with your fingers underneath and thumb on top.

You then move your hand up and down the shaft. Don’t go too hard or fast to start with – start slow and build up.

With some experimentation you’ll be able to find the finger position, speed and strength of grip that most stimulates you.

If you like, you can pull your foreskin back and include the penis head in the up and down movement.

If you find the exposed penis head is too sensitive, it helps to use lubricant. Alternatively, you can keep the foreskin in place, so it acts as a protective barrier between your hand and the penis head.

Even if you only use your hands to masturbate, you can still add some variety and extra pleasure.

Try not to get stuck on just using your strong hand, as there are some fun ways to include your other hand:

• Sometimes only use your other hand when masturbating.

• Have a go at using both hands at the same time. If you can put them one next to the other on your shaft, lucky you and your future partner. If you’re like most mortal men and you can’t, try squeezing your penis between your palms and experimenting with a stroking action.

• Use one hand to move up and down the shaft while the other plays with the penis head, for example doing a circular motion with the palm.

Remember the last time you got hit hard in the balls, collapsing to the floor with that agonizing nauseous feeling while everyone laughed at you?

Yep, your testicles are seriously sensitive!

They can also be much more than simply an oddly shaped storage facility.

They are in fact an erogenous zone which you can use to heighten your pleasure and orgasms when masturbating.

If you’re only using one hand to masturbate, your other hand is free to explore other parts of your body. Here are a few ideas for including your balls:

• Pull them slightly downwards while masturbating.

• Try caressing, stroking or tickling them – experiment to see exactly what feels good.

• Try just holding them in a light grip with the other hand.

There’s also an important health reason to get to know how your testicles feel. If you know what they feel like normally, you’ll be quicker to spot any unusual lumps or growths, which is important to keep a check on during your life.

It’s a popular belief that only women have multiple erogenous zones. However, the truth is that your body is far more sensitive than you might think (just look at Robin Hood’s inability to shoot straight when Maid Marian blew in his ear).

For example, try playing with your nipples – yes, your nipples! – and experiment with different strokes, pinches, pressure and movements.

Try caressing the inside of your thighs or your stomach. And if there’s anywhere else on your body that feels good to touch, enjoy exploring the different sensations that arise.

Some guys are more sensitive than others in different areas, so it’s up to you to find out what works for you when masturbating. There are no rules, so don’t be shy – get to know your own body and find out what floats your boat.

The Perineum is the area between your anus and testicles. It’s a soft padded bit of skin which can be very sensitive to touch. You can try caressing it or pushing it gently with your one hand you use the other to masturbate.

Tempting as it might be to lock the bedroom door and sit in the same position every time you masturbate, it can be fun to try other positions from time to time.

Here are 4 ideas:

• Lie on your front on the bed, with your penis in one hand underneath your body. It might be easier and more comfortable to arrange some pillows under you to take some weight off your hand. You can then move your hips to thrust into your hand.

• Try kneeling or standing, and also then try thrusting into your hand rather than always keeping your body still and stroking with your hand.

• Change positions during your session: kneeling, standing, sitting, swapping hands or anything you can think of to add variety.

• Some readers have commented about how they sometimes like to put their penis between their thighs and then move their legs up and down. It’s a technique that’s probably not that common, but might be fun to explore if you can do the necessary yoga.

Some say the male G-Spot is like the lost city of Atlantis, and never existed in the first place; others claim that guys are in fact blessed with 2 different G-spots.

Whether they are officially G-spots or not, many guys find these areas particularly sensitive, and that they can increase the intensity of their orgasms enormously.

The first is the area on and around the frenulum – that weird string-like fleshy bit that connects the penis head to the shaft and you always wondered what it did.

If you play with it gently with your spare hand, you’ll probably find it’s the most sensitive part of your penis.

The second G-spot might not appeal to everyone, but some guys like to include their anus when masturbating.

If you’re willing to explore this area, you might find it adds an extra dimension to your masturbation and gives you super strength orgasms. Here’s how to find it:

• Wash your anus and hands before starting.

• Put some lubricant on your finger.

• Rub around the outside of your anus to begin with.

• Gently insert a finger as far as is comfortable.

• You can then just keep the finger inside while you masturbate with your other hand as normal, or move it gently in and out.

• The G-Spot is supposedly a small area a couple of inches inside. It should feel like a little ball just over an inch in diameter, which is actually the outside of the prostate. You can softly rub this spot if you manage to find it.

By now you’ve probably worked out that the key to great masturbation is to experiment and find out what really works for you. Try to be open-minded, but if there are things that just don’t appeal or do it for you, don’t worry about it!

There are two ideas in this article that I recommend above all others. First, take your time when masturbating and don’t rush it. Something Julian Rosenfeldt should take into consideration.

Art House Asshole, Articles, Review

Art House Asshole : Okja

You know how when you’re wanting to go to the movie theater and you look up all the films that are showing and there are alway at least three that you’ve never heard of, let alone have any interest in seeing? Well, good news! I’ve seen those movies. I spend most of my theater experiences in art house theaters watching those movies that you’ve never heard of and then never watch. Yeah, I’m that hipster asshole. My goal with this is to spread information out about these films, that way you can decide one of the following. “That actually sounds pretty cool! I want to see that now!” or “Man, I’m glad I decided to go see the new superhero movie!”. So without further ado, here is my article and review of Okja.

—

I’m going to make an effort to not talk about Netflix in this review because it isn’t necessary. With all the talk about the premiere of this film at Cannes Film Festival, the debate of is this actually a film or is this a television movie has sparked. But at the same time, who cares? If a release is what determines a film’s legitimacy then that’s kind of stupid. Some of the best films are never released to theaters, whether they be just on HBO, Netflix, or even just straight to VOD. Transformers: The Last Knight had one of the widest releases this year and I don’t think that film is any more a film than this one. So if your definition of a film is determined by where you put your ass before watching it, then maybe re-evaluate what your film priorities are.

Okja is the new film from South Korean Director Bong Joon-Ho, known for Memories of Murder and The Host, or how most American viewers know him as the director of Snowpiercer. Okja follows more of a situation than a character. Okja is about the discovery/invention of a new creature that produces requires less feed, produces less waste, and most importantly tastes amazing. One of these “Super Pigs”, as they are called, is named Okja and is own by a small Korean girl named Mija. The corporation that controls Okja comes and takes Okja away to be slaughtered and Mija ain’t having that. Thus Mija goes across the world to save her pet with the help from various characters along the way.

If you have seen Joon-Ho’s work in the past, you know that he does not shy away from things. His films are often brutal in nature and show things that the audience does not want to see. Okja is no exception to this. And I think I might have trouble recommending this film to animal lovers due to how brutal the film is in terms of the slaughterhouses and all of the stuff that comes with this kind of subject matter. And this isn’t brutal in a Marley & Me kind of way either. This is never a cute thing that becomes tragic, this film is straight tragic from beginning to end. It is very much in line with Joon-Ho’s filmography. So keep that in mind before watching the film because it might not be the feel-good film you are looking for or even the emotional animal film you are looking for.

The acting in the film is incredible. Everyone will be talking about Tilda Swinton playing the head of the corporation and for good reason. Tilda Swinton is incredible in this film, just like she is in every film she takes part in. Ahn Seo-hyun, who plays Mija, is also fantastic in the film and does an amazing job with emoting both silently and verbally. In a film that does the same thing that Scooby-Doo did with the CGI animal, Seo-hyun does an amazing job as does the rest of the cast. The person I want to acknowledge the most, however, is actually Jake Gyllenhaal, who gives probably my favorite performance of 2017 thus far. Is it the best performance of 2017, no, but I had so much fun watching Gyllenhaal perform in this film that he was easily my favorite part of the film. Some describe his performance as campy, but I disagree.

The idea of “campy” has been thrown around for this film for in my opinion no merit. Some have complained that the can’t find a balance between Campiness and Seriousness. Which I don’t believe that there really is a lot of campiness to Okja, I strongly believe that the film is just having fun in certain aspects. For example, Paul Dano leads a group of ecoterrorists. The humor to it is that these are the friendlies terrorists you will ever see. The ecoterrorists in the film were another highlight because the humor with them works so well, and as a heads up, there is an after credits scene with them that has one of the best jokes in the entire film. And there is a look of that “quirky” or “fun” humor to it, but I would never call it campy. Campy implies some kind of poor taste or some kind of irony, neither of which is present in the film. When a film is called Campy, it is usually in defense for something bad in the film, and there is nothing really bad enough in this film to warrant the film being called Campy.

I won’t spoil it, but the ending is I think the best part of the film. The last thirty minutes of the film is easily the best part of the film. There is a scene involving the slaughter house and is haunting and one of the best scenes of the year, and the scene following it is the final scene and that is what I think makes this film. The final scene has the overall melancholic feeling to it. It’s a cold scene when it shouldn’t be. And these two scenes alone show how this is the best-directed film of the year. It isn’t the best film of the year, but it is extremely well done. 

Scroll to top