Psycho Raman (Raman Raghav 2.0) (2016)

I've always wondered why Bollywood films haven't found a bigger market in the West. They make an enormous amount of films and yet they rarely receive recognition by the Academy or in film festivals. If this movie is any indication of what other Indian films are, I think I might understand. It is vastly culturally different in terms of style from what we're used to. From an American perspective, it comes off as kind of tacky. You get a similar feeling watching some East Asian television shows but they seem to have assimilated to Western style in their films. This is a small thing, but I think a good example is the title sequence. No other movie I saw at Cannes had a title sequence. There is high octane energy. You can tell they put some budget into this title sequence that I didn't really care for. The acting style was also noticeably different. I didn't think the acting was very good. But all of the actors acted in a similar style that wasn't particularly expressive or exciting. It's one of those movies where you hate all of the characters, and the acting doesn't help make them any more likable. They don't shy away from gruesome images. This movie about a serial killer is expectedly violent. There are usually limits to what you show on screen, but they kind of just go for it.

I wasn’t really sure what to make of the plot. It seemed manufactured. Raman Raghav is a reference to a real Indian serial killer, but this is not about him. That is made clear from the beginning. Maybe something was lost in translation, but the title seemed totally insignificant save to evoke fear. Raman needs his Raghav but isn't it one name?  I wasn't really buying the into the concept.

I do want to point out that the cast was the probably the most impeccably dressed cast I saw in Cannes. 

Wolf and Sheep (2016)

This movie was so unbelievably boring. There is no plot whatsoever. It is simply observes the life of children in the tribal regions of Afghanistan. Is it a documentary? Kind of. But despite the lack of plot it is scripted. It is kind of a narrative, yet there is an anthropological aspect to the film that makes it seem like a documentary at times even if it is not marketed that way. The actors are not professional actors. I suspect the director told them what to say, but then kind of let them improvise to make it seem more real. In the Q&A, the director used the words "cinema verite" which sounds awfully documentary-like, but she wasn't really committing to it.  She explained that she wanted to go back to her childhood and paint a picture of Afghanistan without war, because the West has a hard time separating Afghanistan from terrorism and the wars it fought there. Except in the end, it is determined that this cannot last as war finds the protagonists.  It was pleasantly surprised that this movie from Afghanistan was directed by a woman, as we do not think of working women in Afghanistan. There are also some pretty brutal scenes in terms of gruesomeness. That part I woke up for. Wolf and Sheep won the Directors' Fortnight, which is incredible because it was the worst movie I saw in the Directors' Fortnight. 

Apprentice (2016)

This movie is a tense slow burn. It has a new and interesting take on the death penalty, from the perspective of the executioner. And for good measure, the executioner is the son of one executed. It is a nuanced perspective that we haven't seen before. The ethics presented in the film are complex, necessarily building quiet tension until the final moment in the film. It is admittedly a slow movie but that makes it suspenseful.  As does the dark cinematography in the spooky prison corridors.

Beyond the Mountains and Hills (Me'ever Laharim Vehagvaot) (2016)

There is a great song in this movie that was on repeat for an hour outside the Debussy theater. And then it makes a brief appearance in the movie. I didn't get sick of it though. It is a quiet ballad that I believe is biblical in nature, though I don't really know. I shazamed it and I have it saved in my phone.

Going into the movie, I was told by Gillian that it is an anti-capitalist film. The synopsis talks about "Dark forces" that were supposedly capitalism. But this was not the case. The "Dark forces" were actually dark forces, not just a communist exaggeration. This movie tells a complex story about a pretty messed up family. The main character is technically the father but I think his story is the least interesting. His daughter is entangled in some Palestinian terrorism, and his wife is hooking up with one of her students. It is a really tense movie, as you could imagine a movie about terrorism is. It is not thrilling, but it's suspenseful. And the wife's storyline actually made me laugh a few times. Not sure if it was meant to be funny, but juxtaposed with the terrorism it kind of was.

My Life as a Courgette (Ma Vie de Courgette) (2016)

I had no expectations going into this film. In fact, I was going to attend a different screening at Debussy, but Gillian and Renee convinced me to accompany them to Courgette and I'm glad I did. It is a stop motion animation. The figures have enormous heads in proportion to their bodies. There is a sculpture of Courgette outside one of the hotels we've been passing by and now I know what it is. It is sort of the in the style of Coraline. It is a story of an orphaned boy finding his way. It has heart and the screenplay is touching. It makes lots of appropriate vegetable jokes because the boy's nickname Courgette means zucchini. And the ending made me cry. It is really sweet and funny and heartwarming.

What is interesting is that it doesn't have to be animated. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a good stop motion film. A lot of the animations we see in the United States have screenplays that wouldn't work in live action, whether they're talking fish or monsters or superheroes or fantastical beings. But this is a simple story that could have been told with real people. The director simply chose to use the medium of animation to convey this story. What does the animation add to the story that real people couldn't tell? Maybe it just adds to the sweetness factor though I'm sure they could've found cute kids to empathize with. 

Tour de France (2016)

This is a typical road trip movie transposed to France following a minority played by French rapper Sadek and an old racist played by Gerard Depardieu. And at the end, as expected, the racist comes around. Racism exists in France too. I mean, it could've worked perfectly as an American film too. It's not that the rap is bad, but I have a slight problem with foreign hip-hop. It is undeniably cultural appropriation to a certain degree. Hip hop is ingrained in African American culture and to take it out of that context is a level of appropriation. I mean, he even has beef with other rappers. How stereotypically rap is that? That being said, Depardieu rapping the French national anthem was ridiculously funny. Sadek was pretty good, especially considering that he is not an actor, continuing a long line of rapper-turned-actors like Queen Latifah and Common.

We didn't stick around for the Q&A after the screening because we were afraid it would just be in French and we were trying to catch another screening right after. But since I wasn't in love with the movie or anything I didn't feel bad, even if Gerard Depardieu is a brand name.

Bright Lights: Starring Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds (2016)

I've never really had much of an opinion of Carrie Fisher; I was indifferent. But she is actually a hilarious woman. She was at the screening to introduce her film, but she left before it started. She has been spotted around Cannes with her dog walking the red carpet. This dog is very prominently featured in the movie. Her banter makes for great TV cause she is funny. But apart from being funny, the movie is sweet. It is about her relationship with her mother, Debbie Reynolds, who I did not realize was her mother. Time has taken its toll on Reynolds. Her body is succumbing to age, but she continued to perform shows like she was still young. But also time has faded her star power. She rides her scooter through a casino in Vegas before her show, and countless people pass her without even turning their head, unaware that they were in the presence of a star. HBO also recently made a documentary about Anderson Cooper and his mother, which I have not seen, but I can't imagine Anderson Cooper is as much of a riot as Princess Leia.

The Transfiguration (2016)

On the surface it is just a vampire movie, except the vampire is a kid, and the kid is black and impoverished in the projects. To be more exact, it is a vampire movie that may or may not involve any vampires (maybe a vampire wannabe?). It's not flashy like some other vampires, but it is dark and slow. Going into the film, I wasn't sure if I was walking into a horror film. It is kind of scary and creepy at times but it isn't a horror film. There are no cheap scares, they are all earned. I think what is scariest is how young this kid is. An orphaned boy who can't just be a regular kid due to his hostile environment. The cinematography is strikingly haunting. And coupled with the ambient score, the audience is left shivering with fearful anticipation.

There are some parts in the middle of the film that are quite suspenseful, but that sometimes reads as frustratingly slow. But I think the denouement is well done, tying up the story nicely and cleverly with a well thought plan.

Harmonium (Fuchi ni tatsu) (2016)

I admit that I kind of fell asleep in the first third of the film. I was really tired, but it was also just really slow. These Japanese films really love their deep silences. And this isn't a bad thing. It intensifies the drama. I just wasn't really in the mood for that type of movie yet. It picks up a little in the second half (you'll know exactly when the demarcation is), but it still moves at quite a slow pace. It is a very sad story, and the emotions are only exasperated by the speed at which we experience them. It is a slow burn and the actors marinade in the fire.

It is a very sad and poignant movie. It is left open ended which is a little frustrating but I can understand why that had to be done. What I don't understand is why it is titled Harmonium. The Japanese title is not Harmonium, but rather "Stand on the Brink." That harmonium plays a relatively minor part in the film, but it is given outsized importance by the title. And why not any other instrument? A more common one perhaps, rather than a variation on a piano. 

The Handmaiden (Agassi) (2016)

Park Chan-wook is kind of like Quentin Tarantino. I noticed some elements in this film that I saw in the Hateful Eight, but The Handmaiden was so much better. Park's violence is not as gratuitous as Tarantino's, but there were certainly some over the top scenes. He does have a lot of nudity in this film, but it is mostly necessary to the plot, save for the final scene which is purely gratuitous as the movie had already finished. The weird thing is I usually don't like Tarantino, but I loved this movie. It was a more tasteful and less comic than Taratino's recent work in the way that his recent films don't compare to Pulp Fiction.

Park cleverly transposed the source material from Victorian England to colonial Korea, making the story his own. The style is apparent from the very beginning. There are some gorgeous shots. I particularly loved the design of the mansion that is half-Western, half-Japanese, and fully Korean undergoing westernization and Japanese imperialism.  It has that creepy feeling that Victorian homes have, while it also retains the openness of a Japanese courtyard. The costumes also take inspiration from two worlds. The design and cinematography is just so beautiful, as are all the actors.

The film unravels in parts, with new twists being revealed by rewatching the story from different points of view. It is a clever way to tell a story and it keeps the viewer guessing what the next twist will be. The Hateful Eight was also like that, but with just three main characters this was a little more manageable.

I did notice an interesting translation. The French title Mademoiselle retains the original meaning of the Korean title Agassi, in reference to the lady. However, the English title refers to the lady's maid. The English title leads us to believe that the maid is the protagonist, and she is for part one. But the story evolves and Agassi takes center stage too. Why the change? I'm not so sure. I am very glad I got to see this one in the palace. It was my first film in the main competition and it didn’t disappoint.

Train to Busan (Busan Haeng) (2016)

I didn't have many expectations for this Korean blockbuster, but I was pleasantly surprised. I don't usually like horror films, but this was very well done. And I appreciated that most scenes took place in the daytime in the light. You don't need the dark to scare people. I don't know if you can even really classify it as a horror because I don't think the objective was to scare so much as entertain. It tells a story that happens to have scary elements. But the daytime atmosphere does actually make the fear more bearable.

There were some nice shots that I noticed. Specifically there is one in a bathroom on the train where we see the protagonist on the phone. We see his reflection in the mirror, but we don't know that until the camera pans over to the real deal and continues panning to an opposite mirror. It is a neat trick. There is also a significant death scene that is not viewed directly, but rather the shot is of a shadow falling off the train. To film this, the dolly must have been moving as fast as the train in unison. Or special effects I suppose, but it is a cool shot.

I especially appreciated the Asian cast. Obviously in a Korean movie, they cast Korean actors. But I think the characters were more relatable because they were Asian. It is absolutely true that seeing people that look like you on the big screen, and receive such applause and praise, has a real effect on the psyche. If there were more Asian-American actors represented on screen, this would give a major confidence boost to this group of people. Currently, this issue has come to light with the casting of Scarlett Johansson in Ghost in the Shell and Tilda Swinton as an old Chinese man. A campaign called #starringjohncho puts John Cho's face in recognizable movie posters featuring white male leads. Why not cast John Cho? Diversity is a real issue of importance in film representation.

As I have been told by Wanda, Gong Yoo is a big deal in Korea. And he was pretty good. The little girl that played his daughter though was excellent. And in the room, the girl was really milking the camera. Watching this in the big room with the cast right next to us was very cool. The atmosphere really got me into the movie when everyone simultaneously cheered the hero or gasped in fear. 

Clash (Eshtebak) (2016)

Wow wow wow! This movie was incredible. What a pleasant surprise! It was so intense and rich in character. It is an intricately woven story that borrows from real life drama. The politics is super interesting by itself, but the human element adds a dimension of emotion to this movie. You sympathize with these characters and you feel for their country. And the drama is very natural, the conflicts between the people in the truck are very believable. It is politically charged and this colors the narrative.

What stands out most obviously is the style, shot entirely from within a truck. The camera must have been really small and portable to navigate in this small space between so many people. It makes you feel claustrophobic just watching. There is a light that hangs in the center of the truck that I'm assuming has a microphone hidden inside of it. They film sometimes from the perspective of the characters looking out the windows through a grate, and moving from window to window to follow the action outside. But the camera never leaves the inside of the truck itself. They stuff so many people into this little space and it is hot and everyone is irritated and fighting with each other. Maybe this comparison is inappropriate, but it's like 12 Angry Men with much higher stakes.

The way in which they stage the exterior riots is stunning. There are a lot of extras who are quite well choreographed throwing rocks and molotov cocktails and pointing lasers. It feels like an authentic representation of what Egyptian streets were actually like following the most recent military coup. Everyone is on high alert and no one is safe. In fact, one of the most interesting dynamics is between the Muslim Brotherhood and the army supporters in the truck, and then the two American journalists. Their relationship is constantly shifting from the benevolent to violent. And ultimately this is the force that drives the film into its climactic and emotional ending. Overall, a very rewarding experience.

I waited in line by myself for about an hour and a half to make sure I got into this movie. Now I know I didn't have to get there so early. I was second in line, but we get last priority as Cinephile badge holders. I was afraid I wasn't going to get in when they stopped the lines, but it turned out that there was plenty of room. They were just really slow seating everyone. We watched the cast walk the red carpet, though we didn't know it was the cast at the time. They seemed very down to Earth, just happy to be there, representing Egypt on a big stage (though Egypt probably doesn’t appreciate the representation). 

Masculin Feminin (1966)

We sat next to Professor Mason, who actually teaches this movie so she was able to explain a little bit to us. This is a new restoration. It is a very difficult movie. It allegedly takes several viewings. My takeaway is that Godard tells his story (it arguably doesn't have much of a plot) in a non-linear fashion. There's a bit of story here, a parallel story there, and a whole mess of a love quadrangle. He really likes to linger on the misogyny and he makes no effort to hide it. It is quite overt. And Professor Mason said this is somehow a movie about birth control, which was illegal in France at the time and this was supposed to educate young people. And yeah, it was in the movie a bit, but was that the whole point of it? Cause there was a lot of seemingly unrelated points.

I did appreciate the acting. They all do facial expressions very well. And the viewer often reads the characters' reactions in dialogue. By that I mean that in dialogue, the camera often focuses on just one participant. We hear the other speaker off camera, but we watch the one person react, and it really emphasizes physical acting. And the retro music plays a big part too. There is apparently a big emphasis on sound in this restoration. And the score comes in and out at awkward moments and in snippets. I'm not sure if this is intentional or part of the restoration. It sometimes even overpowers the dialogue in a weird imbalance. And at times, it seems out of sync with the picture but again, that may be intentional.

There are intertitles that have some great one liners accompanied by gunshots that sort of cue the viewer in to what the scene is supposed to evoke. But you really have to think hard about it. And to be quite honest, I didn't get enough sleep to think that hard at that time of day (12:30). I dozed off a bit and I was sitting right next to the professor. She may or may not have noticed, but if she reads this by any chance, then I guess she'll know. When I came to, I surprisingly saw Brigitte Bardot make a brief cameo, but I'm not really sure what that was about. I think somewhere there was a political message about Communism, which would make sense because Godard was really into Marxism. I kind of had some traumatic flashbacks to Kuhle Wampe. Brecht's distancing effect is definitely present. Godard was trying to get me to think about my condition, but I was not having it.

I'm trying to appreciate Godard, but at the end of the day, I just didn't really follow. Maybe it takes another viewing, but there's so much out there to see I don't know if I'm going to get to another viewing.

Cafe Society (2016)

Café Society is a return to form for Woody Allen after some not-so-great movies in the last few years. It was actually quite reminiscent of some of his earlier work, relying on the same themes and characterizations and brilliant use of his beloved jazz that brought him fame. I could not help but see a little of Woody Allen in Jesse Eisenberg as Bobby. Eisenberg really embodies the neurotic, quirky, fast-talking, exasperated, sarcastic characters that Allen used to write for himself. This was especially apparent in the scene with Parker Posey in which he has an awkward encounter with a hooker. He says everything he's thinking as it comes to him in his high-level lightning-fast thought process. Allen holds nothing back in his dialogue.

All the acting was actually quite memorable for the right reasons, including all of Bobby's very-Jewish family back in the Bronx and a surprisingly adept Steve Carrell playing far away from his iconic character on the office. But of course, Allen is known for his female characters and Kristen Stewart is just superb. In her very first scene, she has just a couple lines of dialogue, but she has this afternoon glow (and smile to match) about her that radiates and holds your attention. And this lighting effect recurs several times for Stewart's character. There are some really great shots in Central Park that are made whole with this effect. She shows so much depth in her facial expressions and delivery that it makes me wonder if I have overlooked her work in the past (though on second thought I don't think there is any redemption for Twilight). She nails both the plain but charming secretary and the elegant society woman.

As for the story, it has been incorrectly marketed as a story about old Hollywood, but I think a majority of the film actually took place in Allen's beloved New York (it is even sort of anti-Hollywood). He doesn't use the words "café society" until Bobby returns to the east coast. In fact, for the first half of the film it seemed as though Bobby would stay in the middle class and not rise to the upper intellectual class that Allen typically writes about.  I think it is Allen narrating the film as well, though I wasn't entirely sure. Much of the plot is actually told to the audience through the narration instead of shown, which is a stylistic choice that works in well-written comedy. Like a classic Woody Allen plot, there is an impossible love triangle. It is delightful and fun. Have we seen it before? Yes, but it is good to see the master of romantic comedy returning to what he does so well.

Now, we're rubbing shoulders with this high society. We walked down the red carpet that the cast did and into the palace at the 11pm screening at Cannes. That was an experience in itself.