Art House Asshole

NYFF Coverage: The Irishman Review

It’s kind of unfair to compare this film to anything else going into theaters this year. Between being the first Italian Mob film Scorsese has made in over twenty years, and what seems to be impossible to cast, I feel a sense of guilt when comparing this film to the films released this year. It would be like if I went to Post Malone concert and had a good time, but the next night I went to a Rolling Stones reunion concert where David Bowie somehow was touring with them. It is hard to compare the two because even if they are on par with each other, one will inevitably feel more special. 

The anxiety about this film has spread through the film community in an almost toxic way. With two aspects of the film being large red flags of concern, the first of which is the CGI and de-aging of main characters. I will say the first time we go from old to young Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci; it is a bit jarring. But as the film progresses, you kind of forget that it is even a thing. By the time that Al Pacino had entered the story, I was struggling to tell if what was CGI or just great make-up work. Which is a statement on how engaging the story is, where I just ended up getting lost what and who these characters are that I stopped caring about what their appearances were. I will say it is strange to see Robert De Niro and Bobby Cannavale in a scene together where Robert De Niro plays the much younger character. But that isn’t on the film per se and more so that I know for a fact that Robert De Niro is a much older guy.

The second issue was addressed in the previous point, and that being the fact that this film is almost four hours long. Which is long, and I recently have found mass displeasure for a long film. I saw this film at 8 PM and almost planned my eating and drinking schedule around it so that I wouldn’t have to use the bathroom during the absurd runtime. I will also say though, that Scorsese is easily in the top three greatest filmmakers working today, if not the number one. Maybe you disagree with that statement and think of another director as someone whose films you relate to more, whether that be Spielberg, Tarantino, or the Coen Brothers. All valid filmmakers to admire, but I will say straight up that Scorses is the only one of those that made an almost four-hour film breeze. Not only that but the film is packed full of themes and ideas that it makes the 3.5-hour long runtime feel warranted. Schindler’s List is a perfect film that feels long, The Hateful Eight feels long, this film never felt long. If Scorsese has a definitive talent, it isn’t violence, gangster movies, anti-heroes or anything like that. If Scorsese is good at one thing and one thing only, it’s pacing. And I feel like this film cements him as the best director to work with the idea of pacing since maybe King Vidor.

And although I sing high praise for the film, that isn’t to say that I think all will love this film — quite the contrary. Among the massive amounts of themes and philosophies explored in the film, one of them is centered around Male Friendship and the Power Dynamic between Men. One theory in cinema that I’ve rattled around for a few years is the idea of an audience and which the filmmaker is targeting. There are certain films that I believe specific demographics won’t be able to relate to or fully enjoy. Thee example that I typically bring up when discussing this is Marielle Heller’s Diary of a Teenage Girl. A film that is so specifically about the trials of a young girl growing into her sexuality that I had no way of relating to the film and subsequently did not enjoy the film. Is that film bad? No! By no means, I recommend it to my friends very frequently. It is a wonderfully made film. It just isn’t made for me. Which brings us back to The Irishman, a film that is made for masculine white guys, and preferably older masculine white guys. 

Throughout the film, there are two people of color, and there are only two female characters for the most part. The two characters being Josephine Hoffa, played wonderfully by Welker White, and Peggy Sheeran played in part by Anna Paquin. Welker White has a fair amount of lines and has one pivotal and vitally scene, especially for a character listed probably ten lines down in the call sheet. And Anna Paquin’s role might be the most important in the film, but Anna Paquin has I think one line in the entire movie. And giving Paquin credit, she fucking nails that line. But I was hoping to see more of her. But as I slept on it, I began to think that maybe that line is all we needed. Afterall, Paquin’s character is emotionally damaged, and her silence speaks to that. Her choosing not to talk is the point and shows the shortcomings in De Niro’s character. Because although this film is made for older masculine white guys, the film is also a critique of their lifestyles.

Everything in this film is masterfully done. I feel like it would be treading water to go down the list of everything that is explored to a masterful degree. You can tell that everyone involved wanted to give the best product possible. And although the film will undoubtedly be a talking point when it comes out, I think the film is terrific, and I had a fantastic time with it.

Art House Asshole : Uncle Drew

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!

In 1973, French Director Jean Luc-Godard wrote and directed a little-known film titled Oncle Drew. Many called it Godard’s best film, but after premiering at Cannes Film Festival in 1973, Italian Director Roberto Rossellini challenged Godard to a fist fight. The fight was over the fact that as Oncle Drew premiered Rossellini claimed that Godard stole the idea from him and his script for the now lost film called Mio Zio, Drew. Both films featured the plot line of a young man down on his luck soon to be evicted from his apartment. In Oncle Drew the young man was played by Horst Buchholz of Life is Beautiful and The Magnificent Seven fame. In Mio Zio, Drew the role was played by Robert De Niro in his earliest film role. In an attempt to gain short-term monetary gain, the young man attempts to lead a team of sportsmen by winning a championship game. In Godard’s film the sport was soccer while in Rossellini’s the sport was a cricket. The hero of the films would then meet an older gentleman who was surprisingly amazing at the games and agreed to lead the team, this older man’s name in both films was “Drew”. In Oncle Drew, Drew was played by Alain Delon while in Mio Zio, Drew the character was played by Marcello Mastroianni. The similarities were uncanny.

The fight raged on throughout the festival. Many filmmakers took various sides. Andrei Tarkovsky claimed that he read the script for Oncle Drew years previously and that Rossellini merely stole the idea himself. While others such as Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini believed that Rossellini was the true owner of the film and that he had been attempting to get the film produced for decades. As the battle heated to a climax with Agnés Varda, wearing only the blood of Jacques Demy, stabbing Akira Kurosawa. The film community came together and agreed the only way to move forward peacefully was to discard all traces of the two films. Godard and Rossellini agreed, thinking that if they couldn’t have their story then no one could. The 1973 Cannes Film Festival concluded with the community coming together and burning every reel of both Oncle Drew and Mio Zio, Drew. Lost forever, only those able to attend the two screenings of the films would know the majesty and elegance of the films. Many film historians consider any copies either film to be the holy grail of the film community. In 1998, Steve Spielberg claimed to have witnessed a showing of the two films in the depths of Thailand while location scouting for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He said that the beauty of the films inspired him to make Saving Private Ryan and the heart and soul of the films is what gave him the confidence to direct Schindler’s List. Many say that Spielberg was lying and that no copies of the film even exist.

But in 2011, while at the premiere of a colleagues film, Michael Haneke found the original script to Oncle Drew. He quickly sold it to the Museum of the Moving Image in New York. There Pepsi bought the script and began Avant-Garde short films inspired by the story. Many of these short films won awards at Cannes, Sundance, and Venice Film Festivals. One even won Best Live Action Short Film at the Academy Awards in 2013. With the success of their Avant-Garde short films, Pepsi decided the film community was ready for a new adaptation of the controversial picture.

And thus, Uncle Drew, the 2018 Basketball Comedy film about old people playing Basketball and Shaq being a karate master came into fruition. And it was the greatest film of the decade.

Art House Asshole : Still Walking

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!

The best way I can describe the films that I’ve seen by Hirokazu Kore-eda is to say they remind me of a spring breeze. The films of his that I’ve seen remind me of my childhood. His films have the same dynamic tone seen in Yasujiro Ozu’s work, but with just a slight bit more dirt. I really enjoy watching Kore-eda’s filmography and he is one of those directors that I am gladly watching all the way through currently. Which leads me to why I choose this film, Still Walking, for my review this week.

Still Walking, is a 2008 Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda. Still Walking follows the Yokoyama family as they come together to mourn the death of Junpei, the eldest son, on the 15th anniversary of his death. Despite the heavy tone, the film never gets dark I would say. Though the theme of the film reminds me of something I would see in something directed by Jacques Audiard, it never becomes a haunting film that a director like Audiard would make. It remains a Kore-eda film through and through, where the film just feels calm. There is sadness, but there is never sorrow.

If there was a performance that I wanted to highlight, it would probably be Hiroshi Abe. Abe plays Ryota, the youngest son of the Yokoyama family. Ryota feels as though his parents wish he had died instead of his brother. On top of that, he must introduce his wife and stepson to his family, which also causes conflict. Hiroshi Abe’s performance is very nuanced in the film and he delivers something both subtle and impactful with his performance. Abe’s performance completely blew me away in this film.

Though I did enjoy the film, I didn’t enjoy it as much as I was expecting or hoping. I far more enjoyed his film Like Father, Like Son as well as Our Little Sister to a lesser extent. I honestly expected this to be his magnum opus, as it was the average highest rating on Letterboxd. Though the film is by no means bad and is actually very good, I might have just had too high of expectations and I should have just checked those expectations at the door. But currently, as it stands I was a tad bit let down by the film.

I don’t have much else to say about the film. It’s a very calm and enjoyable film. It doesn’t push the boundaries of film nor does it revolutionize anything. But it doesn’t need to. Because it is a great way to calm down. It’s a great way to smile. I think this film has a lot to enjoy because it’s one of those films. Kore-eda is the director equivalent of a feel-good hangover movie. You can just put it on, and not have to worry about anything. You just let it play.

Art House Asshole : You Were Never Really Here

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!

BOY was I worried about this one. For over a year now I’ve heard nothing but praise for this film. This film premiered in Cannes, last year and ever since I feel like I haven’t been able to avoid talking about this film. And I’m not even a huge Lynne Ramsey fan! I’ve seen We Need to Talk About Kevin, and I thought it was pretty good. I wasn’t blown away by it, but that is primarily because I was a big fan of the book and had too high of expectations. But I thought she was clearly a stylish director with a distinct vision and had nothing against her. I had no reason to think this film was going to be bad. And every film person around me was like “HOT DAMN HAVE YOU SEEN THE TRAILER/POSTER/PROMOTIONAL TELEVISION AD FOR THE NEW LYNNE RAMSAY FILM, WHICH NAME IS LONG AND I HONESTLY CAN’T FULL REMEMBER WHAT EXACTLY IT IS?” And I’m like “yeah”. And that’s how that conversation goes. And usually, when this kind of situation happens, I end up seeing the film and thinking “yeah”. And that’s about it. So I was worried that I was going to walk into this film and think it was just okay. But it’s actually a bit higher than okay! So that’s nice.

You Were Never Really Here is a new thriller from director Lynne Ramsay. You Were Never Really Here follows Joaquin Phoenix as Joe, a man whose job is to find kidnapped girls when the client doesn’t feel comfortable going to the police. Joe is hired to find the daughter of a state senator and then things start going south fast. This is one of those films that talks quietly and moves loudly. You might not fully understand every element of the film. But you will understand enough to get from point a to point b.

The first thing I will mention is how good the acting in the film is. Joaquin Phoenix is great as always. And what this film does that I thought was an interesting choice was to cast primarily unknown actors. Each actor has been in a few films here and there. But with the exception of Phoenix, most of the actors are fairly low level and non-famous actors. It definitely adds to the experience and disbelief. And although almost no character has more than maybe ten lines, they say so much with those lines as well as what their emotions and actions say. I want to give a special shoutout to Judith Roberts, who plays Joe’s Mother. As she might be one of the major highlights of the film.

Briefly, I want to point out that while I watched the film I very much enjoyed the soundtrack, which is composed by Jonny Greenwood, who also did Phantom Thread last year. While I enjoyed it when I was watching the film, I write this review almost a week later and I can’t remember most of the score off the top of my head. So I guess keep that into consideration.

I think if I had to give a favorite aspect of the film, I would list the editing. How the film is presented I think is, for a lack of a better word, charming. How the story is told is woven with Joe’s own personal PTSD which makes for a very interestingly presented film and story. Again, you might not understand exactly every part of the film. But you will get from point a to point b. You might not understand why Joe has PTSD. But you will understand the effects on him which is really the point of the film.

At a really brisk runtime, I would recommend this film to those that are looking for a more artsy thriller, or at least a different thriller. I described this film to a couple people as what would happen to Liam Neeson’s character if Taken didn’t have a happy ending. It’s a slow burn until it isn’t. But when you get there, you realize that the fire of the slow burn was leading to an explosion.

Art House Asshole : Godard Mon Amour

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!

Aight, so I have a lot of opinions on Jean-Luc Godard. I’m going to try to keep those to myself as I will inevitably get sidetracked into talking about that for too long. But I might dip into that naturally as this is essentially a biopic on Jean-Luc Godard.

Godard Mon Amour, also known as Le Redoutable in some countries, is a new film from French director Michel Hazanavicius. If that name sounds familiar and you don’t know why Hazanavicius won best director and best picture for The Artist a few years back. Godard Mon Amour tells the love story between legendary and influential filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard and actress Anne Wiazemsky. I honestly think this film is fairly well-intentioned and is fairly inoffensive. So before we get into the shortcomings of the film, let’s talk about what I thought was good.

I would say the film in all aspects is fine. Nothing really stood out to me as fantastic or absolutely amazing or anything like that. Everything is passable, from the script to the set design to the acting. I will say that the two leads to a fine job. Again, nothing huge or noteworthy but good enough to not get too tired of them. Louis Garrel, who usually is a pretty boy in what I’m familiar with him, plays the gross looking Godard pretty well. The audience I’m fairly certain is not supposed to like him, and he plays a not well-liked person well. I was more interested in Stacy Martin’s performance as Anne Wiazemsky a bit more though. I can’t place my finger on it, but I thought Martin’s performance was just a tad bit more drawing. She has a better stage presence and knows how to fill a shot well. Again, nothing great. She certainly won’t make anyone’s best of the year list. But she does a fine job.

I will also say that the editing of the film is interesting but primarily because it mimics that of Godard’s filmography. This is where the film starts to get a little tricky. The film’s intentions are clearly not in favor of Godard. In fact, you could say the film acts as one big “go screw yourself” toward Godard. I mean given how much Godard screwed with Cannes throughout the years, then to premiere this film at Cannes… It’s a bold move. What’s kind of interesting but in a way a downfall is that the films selected audience are people who have seen Godard’s films and don’t like them.

You need to have a pretty vast knowledge of Godard’s style and filmography to fully understand and appreciate this film. But at the same time though, the film doesn’t want you to particularly like Godard either or his styling. So in order to fully appreciate this film, you have to watch Godard’s films, not like them, then continue to watch at least half of his filmography. So you have to be me. And even I didn’t really like it all that much.

The film tried to add more stylings into its base to make a fairly simple romance biopic into something more. And I give it credit for at least trying that. Unfortunately, the style doesn’t match the substance. The film has both, which can be a great thing. But watching this film is like biting into an apple and tasting an orange. Both are good, but they don’t particularly complement each other very well.

Art House Asshole : Have a Nice Day

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 that this is the first Animated film that I have reviewed for Art House Asshole. It goes to show how few independent and art house animated films there are out there. And I have to say that we aren’t starting particularly strong with this one either. But there really wasn’t anything else out so I guess this is filling the slot for a review this week. So yeah. Here is my review of Have a Nice Day.

Have a Nice Day is a Chinese Animated film from director Jian Liu. Liu previously directed Piercing I back in 2010 with some success. Piercing I won the Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and Have a Nice Day was Liu’s return. Now I haven’t seen Piercing I so I can’t say if it’s good or bad, but that also means that I didn’t really have any expectation going into this film. What really intrigued me about this film is the fact that Have a Nice Day was done almost entirely by Liu by himself. The idea of a feature film being done almost entirely by one person is pretty mind-boggling and impressive to me. Unfortunately, as soon as the film started, I thought “Yeah this looks like it was done by one person”.

Have a Nice Day follows a few different people intertwined in a gang. Things get chaotic and there is violence and fun to be had. Except there really isn’t but we will get to that in a moment. The film feels very cheaply animated. The whole thing cost less than 1.5 Million USD, so I give it credit for that. But the animation looks like its done in Flash. It’s extremely minimalistic, which isn’t a good thing. The shots barely move in each scene. You get a close up of one character and the only movement is an extremely small lip movement to show that he is actually talking. The face doesn’t move besides that. And that doesn’t work because there is a disconnect between what the face of the character is saying and what the lines and voice performances are saying. It just doesn’t work and is a huge turn off in the film.

The film is labeled as a dark Comedy. And this is actually the second Chinese Comedy I’ve seen this year. I’ve watched a couple other Chinese Comedies and I’ve come to the conclusion that the sense of humor in China is very different from almost every other country I’ve seen. What I’m getting at here is that this film is as funny as watching paint dry. The film is far more boring and painstakingly dull that either funny or interesting. The film is only 75 minutes long, which is nice. Because if this film went any longer I don’t think I would have been able to stand it.

I don’t have much else to say about this film. In short, the film is boring, lazily animated, and overall pointless. It’s just… ugh. But unfortunately, this was really the only option this week. So here you go. A review that no one will read and even I will forget I wrote in a few months. Maybe that says something about me. Maybe it says something about the film. Either way, everything sucks.

Art House Asshole : The Insult

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 the trailer for this film was released, I was pretty much constantly rolling my eyes at it. It was promoting the director and a film he has made, which I haven’t heard of but that doesn’t knock its quality. Other than that it just listed a bunch of films nominated for Best Foreign Film in the past couple of years and boasted about this film having the same distributor. And that typically isn’t a good sign. But for a company that takes pride in its distributor, the sure did a botched up job with the subtitles. There was no outline or drop shadow on the subtitles and the film is very bright. This leads to the subtitles being difficult to read due to them blending into the picture. So if you by chance are distributing a film in another country anytime soon, please keep it in mind to back your subtitles legible.

So The Insult is the new film from Lebanon by director Ziad Doueiri, known for The Attack according to the trailer. The film follows two men in Lebanon, one a member of the Christian Party played by Adel Karam and one a Palestinian Refugee played by Kamel El Basha. The two get into an altercation, starting with Basha cursing at Karam, Basha then goes to apologize, Karem insults Basha’s heritage, then Basha assaults Karem, then the rest of the film is the court case between the two. I won’t say what the actual insult is, as that is clearly what the trailer is hiding. But given the fact that one is a member of the Christian Party and one is a Palestinian, you could probably put two and two together and get the picture.

The film can really shift what the audience’s opinion on the film depending on where the audience already lies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This is a very political film. And although it does attempt to give two sides, you can clearly see the filmmakers opinion on the matter. And if your opinion lines up or is different from the directors, you can easily either love or hate this film. My opinion on the matter is pretty in line with the directors, but I still had quite a few problems with the film.

The first problem is that the film lacks any real subtlety. I know how the court was going to rule and how the two would react within the first thirty minutes. And I knew this because they specifically make one side out to be almost villain like. And once the courtroom drama starts, it really follows all of those cliches. Which is also irrelevant because all of the arguments that are presented throughout are meaningless by the time they present the final piece. Because the courts’ decision is just in the one piece. It kind of makes the rest of the film just meaningless. And the film still ends as expected, making the film insufferably pointless. It’s just frustrating, given the fact that the film is asking a somewhat interesting question. That combined with the multiple scenes screaming, “Look! They aren’t so different!”, makes the film pretty eye rolling.

One of the positives is that the two actors who play the main characters are very good. Looking at their history, Adel Karam is very new to film acting as well as Kamel El Basha who is an established theater actor but is also fairly new to film acting. The two do a great job although they play annoyingly stubborn characters without much depth. There is depth to the characters but the film doesn’t give them nearly enough time for the performers to show talent with that depth. And what is worse is that around halfway through the main characters essentially shift from those two to their lawyers, who are far less interesting and far worse actors.

The film does get a bit interesting when the court case becomes known nationwide and the two are painted into being and having opinions they don’t have. Again, unfortunately, this is not explored nearly enough. But it was a bit interesting.

Overall, I’m a little surprised that this ended up being nominated for the Oscar, as it is one of the worst foreign films I’ve seen from this year. And it has many problems beyond its hard-hitting political message. There are a few positives for the film, but not enough to out warrant its major shortcomings. Maybe I’ll watch the filmmakers other film, The Attack, maybe that will be something worth checking out. But I’d say that this film is pretty forgettable and not worth your time.

Art House Asshole : Faces Places

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!

Whelp. Fuck it. I don’t get it. Sorry. I choose to watch this film because it has been on my radar since it released. And now it is considered a frontrunner for Best Documentary, and there have been some seriously good documentaries this year. So I had to check it out. Caught one of the last screenings I could find. Bundled into the small theater and my god what an insanely boring film. I don’t like using that word when reviewing a film, “boring”. But it is really the only word that I can come up with to describe watching this film.

Faces Places is a documentary co-directed by contemporary artist/photographer JR and cinema legend Agnes Varda. The film follows the two of them as they travel around France meeting people and pasting art across various buildings and places around the country. The real issue I have with the film is that this could have easily been a really good seven-minute long short film. But instead, it’s an hour and a half.

There is really no variety to the film. After the two do the first art installation, you really see everything the film has to offer. After that first installation, you understand what they are doing, you see the process of putting the art up, and you see the reaction of the subject. Unfortunately, it doesn’t change from there. They then go to the next location and repeat the same process. You understand what they are doing, you see the process of putting the art up, and you see the reaction. None of these three steps is very different from location to location, with the exception of one piece on a beach. Thankfully the film is short enough to make this not detrimental.

Another issue I have with the film might only be an issue I have and is surrounding the idea of what a documentary stands for. In my mind, a documentary is giving truth to a subject. And because of this, I have a problem with obviously fabricated elements in a documentary. And that ranges from the story being fabricated to elements such as sound dubbing and re-shoots. I like it when a documentary needs to put in subtitles or the cameraman goes the extra mile to get an angle. And when there are scenes in this film where it has clearly gone through ADR, that bothers me. It takes me out and it makes me question the authenticity of the film. But again, that might be a problem that only affects me.

One thing that I do appreciate about the film, and is probably something that the filmmakers didn’t intend, is how the subjects react whenever the piece of art goes up. Now of course when it goes up some of the subjects are very grateful and are moved by it. But more often than not, the subjects just kind of stand there awkwardly and giving the “I don’t get it, but it clearly means a lot to you” face. Now I’m very well versed in this face. I went to an art based high school and am currently attending an Art College. I know this look, I’ve seen it at myself and I’ve seen it at others. The look has the eyes of confusion with a slight smile. This continues with a brief moment of silence. Then a “wow”, then the person will tell them how good of a job they did without really mentioning the piece. It happens almost every time with this film and every time it is equally hilarious.

The film will hit at something that sounds like it is taking a detour to another angle. Like Varda asking JR if his art stops him from having meaningful relationships. Or Varda starting to self-reflect on mortality and if it scares her. But it never goes beyond hinting. It’s just flashes in the pan of something far more interesting. But instead, we have a film funded by MoMA about two huge artists that most non-art people have never heard of. Following these two going to these non-art people and doing modern art that they can’t understand or appreciate. Directed by a woman who doesn’t care if it connects and creates for the sake of it, and a man so egotistically that he can’t tell that others don’t think he is as cool as he does.

Art House Asshole : In the Fade

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!

There are certain aspects and functions of filmmaking that I often think can make or break a director. For example, the three-act structure is one of these traits. Directors that understand story structure and can experiment with the three-act structure can make that the best part of their films. An example of this is Quentin Tarantino with Pulp Fiction. I’m not the biggest Tarantino fan, but my god does he understand story structure. But you don’t even need to experiment with story structure to make it good. Recently Martin McDonagh recently released Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and that is one of the best-structured films I’ve seen in years. Doesn’t do anything weird with it, but it perfected it. With In the Fade I don’t know if the story structure is fantastically well done or poorly done. So that’s a weird thing for me to have to deal with.

In the Fade is a German film from Turkish director Fatih Akin. In The Fade follows Diane Kruger as a woman who’s Turkish husband and son are killed in a bombing perpetrated by Neo-Nazis. The film really follows a strange three-act structure. To the point where each act is almost a different film. It works systematically in the presentation of the story. It never feels jarring. But the tone of each act changes each time we move. The first act follows Kruger’s grief and struggles after her family’s killing. The second act follows the trial against the Neo-Nazis. The third act, without giving away much, is about redemption. Each segment works well on its own and I can see each one being its own film. And I guess my biggest problem is that the trial part of the film is so good that it made everything else feel a bit less than it actually was. And I’m not exaggerating. The trial segment of the film is so well written and so engaging that I wish the entire film was the trial segment and I wish this was just a punk rock inspired courtroom drama. It’s not, and the two other parts of the film are still good, it is just a double-edged sword that the trial segment was so great.

Diane Kruger won Best Actress at Cannes this year. Though it is important that even the Jury at Cannes said that the festival was exceptionally weak in terms of female lead films this year. This doesn’t take away from Kruger’s fantastic performance though. Kruger gives a stellar performance and is one of the highlights of the film. That being said, I was never quite wowed by her. She is certainly good, but I wasn’t knocked out of the park like I was expecting with all of the praise she has been getting. Again, she is one of the better performances of the year. But I wouldn’t go in expecting one of the best performances of the decade.

I think that is the films biggest flaw. The fact that it is good, but never gets above that. There is very little wrong with the film. And it is certainly in the upper half of the films of the year. But there was never a point in which I thought “This is one of the best films of the year”. This is a film that I will think about for a couple of days, maybe weeks if I don’t find another film to think about. But come June of 2018, I don’t expect to remember this film. It’s good and certainly not a bad film. But the film won’t stick with me. Again, not a bad thing. But something I thought I should mention.

In general, I think the film is pretty good. If you are looking for something with variety, this might be up your alley. And I would say the film is worth checking out for the trial segment alone. But if I wasn’t able to impress you with this review, I don’t know if the film will be able to do much either. It’s a good film. But not much else.

Art House Asshole : Tom of Finland

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 consider tone to be one of the most important things in a film. I can look past poorly lit cinematography. I can excuse subpar performances. Hell, even piss poor writing I can look the other way. But if a film has an inconsistent tone, that can be difficult for me to ignore. And an inconsistent tone becomes deadly when it is partnered with pacing issues. And unfortunately, where I think Tom of Finland is something that I find fascinating, these two issues are present and difficult for me to look past.

Tom of Finland is the latest film from Finnish Director, Dome Karukoski, who I have never heard of and if I haven’t heard of him or his work, most likely neither have you. If you are aware of Dome Karukoski’s work, or you are Dome Karukoski, Hello! It’s nice to meet you! Sorry for insulting you right off the bat of this review! That was pretty shitty of me to do! Tom of Finland follows the true story of Touko Laaksonen, a Finnish artist known primarily for his homoerotic fetish art, which was highly illegal at the time in Finland.

Now, if you know me, you know gay dudes are right up my alley. I flock to gay dudes on screen as faster than my girlfriends question my sexuality. So when I walked into this film, I was predicting a movie of the year or something like that. But the first problem I ran into with this film was the fact that this film moves at a snail’s pace. The film covers a lot of ground. From the Winter War in 1939 to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. And usually, when a film covers that much ground, I tend to think that the pacing goes to quick. But somehow in Tom of Finland, a film that is just shy of two hours feels like twenty years. Cards on the table, I think I dosed off for a couple of minutes in the beginning because it takes its sweet time to get to the meat and potatoes of the story. The film doesn’t have any focus on Touko’s potential struggle with masculinity or questioning his sexuality, which are pretty standard themes in LGBT films. From the beginning of the film, Touko’s seems to have a pretty strong grasp on the fact that he is gay and is pretty accepting of that. The struggle he faces is less with him being gay and more with the fact that the world doesn’t accept that. Which is great! The problem is that the struggle doesn’t happen for what feels like forever.

The other problem I had with the film was this constant shift in tone. Because as much as the film is about Touko trying to succeed as a homoerotic artist, it is also about his struggle with PTSD from the Winter War. To the point where it makes this statement about one of his most famous characters in his art being modeled after a man that he killed in War. Both the struggling artist storyline and the PTSD storyline work if you view them separately. But the tone of each story is very different from one another. The artist storyline is filled with leather bars and muscular happy gay men in California. Where the PTSD is a dark, unsettling storyline in the winter with haunting images and hallowing scenery. This could have been an interesting contrast, but the real issue is that the two never seem to come together. They just kind of exist on their own, and neither concludes. Although Touko Laaksonen has now passed, and there should be some be some closure, there doesn’t seem to be any in the film.

The positives of the film do start with the acting. The film is very well performed with Pekka Strang playing Touko. Later in the story, Touko meets two Americans who help him with his work in the United States, and both of them are played well too. None of the performances is anything to write home about, but they are worth briefly mentioning in this review, so you know that the film does have some positives.

In general, the film is pretty average at its core, beyond the pacing and the tonal shifts throughout, there is nothing really awful about this film. But there is also nothing that really blew me away either. I wanted to like this film more than I did. And I certainly didn’t hate it. But it just left me feeling kind of unfulfilled. If you already are a fan of Tom of Finland and his work, I would check it out because, at its heart, the story is interesting. But if you aren’t a fan of his work or don’t really care for this kind of story, this film won’t be able to sway you the other way.

Scroll to top