IMDb Film Festival 2016: Arthouse Thread

Eisenstein in Guanajuato is definitely my least favourite I've seen from Greenaway, and also one of the most purely bonkers films I've ever seen. This comment from the AV Club's review summarises the approach quite well and explains why it's ultimately unsatisfying:

Like the film itself, [Eisenstein] is loud and manic, but not alive ... Photos, clips from Eisenstein’s own films and from newsreels, and the director’s erotic drawings are spliced in or sometimes projected over the background, but the overloaded visual plane only underlines the fact that Eisenstein In Guanajuato never moves anywhere; eventually, it becomes stultifying. It’s a movie jumping in place.
I love that last sentence, ha, it's hard to argue against that. That's not to say I think the film is worthless. Greenaway never pretends it's anything but an exercise in style, an excuse to use every trick in the book, and often the creativity is engaging enough (if you're into that side of film). He does take it too far, though, especially in a 5-minute-long scene where the camera doesn't stop spinning around a room. That was just indulgent and unnecessary. It's also a shame not to learn anything about Eisenstein's filmmaking when that could have been an interesting subject. Greenaway's films in the 80s/early 90s have fantastic style while also having real characters and a philosophical point, so it's a pity he essentially abandoned that here.


I’ll be waiting, with a gun and a pack of sandwiches.

Like the film itself, [Eisenstein] is loud and manic, but not alive ... Photos, clips from Eisenstein’s own films and from newsreels, and the director’s erotic drawings are spliced in or sometimes projected over the background, but the overloaded visual plane only underlines the fact that Eisenstein In Guanajuato never moves anywhere; eventually, it becomes stultifying. It’s a movie jumping in place.

The thing is, I can see myself largely agreeing with everything in said quote, perhaps aside from not being alive, but it is definitely stilted. Still, I see all of the noted criticism as positives rather than negatives.

My 1000 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/PkAV7BgvMJg

Overall I can't say I was too impressed with the selection, but all had at something to offer. Interestingly my favorite is Flaiky's least favorite.

Catch Me Daddy (Daniel Wolfe - 2014)
Catch me daddy is a very raw film, which aside from it's sensually detached style (if it can be described as such) won me over by it's very unusual plotting. As a whole it felt incredibly fresh, and seeing their run for safety was very thrilling and gripping. It's a very raw film, with tough edges, and it's imperfections were not really a strength, but overall still a strong viewing experience.

Eisenstein in Guanajuato (Peter Greenaway - 2015)
More than a biographic look at a period in Eistennstein's life, Eisenstein in Guanajuato is an homage to technical ideas forwarded by the master filmmaker, as well as yet another exercice of Greenaway's absurdism. This time however it is not slowly brooding surrealism or examinations of techiques, but rather a full on attack of the senses, using both the previously stated modes of interest, but with a pace so fast that the very concept of time is gone by the time someone tells our protagonist that he's been in Mexico for 8 months.

Do not go into this film expecting a portrait of Eistensteins filmmaking - it excludes it almost entirely - instead prepare for his bigger than life personality. What a performance by Elmer Bäck, who also quite looks the part of a young Eisenstein. If you generally enjoy Greenaway's work, you will likely not be displeased. Definitely my favorite of the selection at hand.

Story of My Death (Albert Serra - 2013)
I'm not going to write much about Story of my Death, as I found barely anything noteable about it - well, aside from the concept itself. The slow pace itself is commendable, but the framing felt flat, and the characters and their "philosophy" equally so.

Thou Wast Mild and Lovely (Josephine Decker - 2014)
Despite suffering from moments that might have tried to shock, but felt like cut-outs from bad b-horror films - Josephine Decker did a tremendous job here. The filmmaking is largely wonderful in it's hand held sensibilities, creating beautiful frames, interesting shot competitions and very well staged scenes. It's short-comings lay in it's overall story, which is not very important for the film as a whole, but which impacted it enough to push it down from greatness. I am however very interested in Decker's future efforts.


And with that, on the very last day, I have now seen and reviewed all the 24 films I had to see this festival. Will likely check out some others too. Sad I missed Tom at the Farm. It is my top priority. I still need to do my Dolan "retrospective", which I have been planning since falling for Laurence Anyways during last years FGFF.

My 1000 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/PkAV7BgvMJg

Oh I actually only watched Eisenstein in Guanajuato, but I consider that my least favourite of the Greenaway films I've seen. I did quite like it though (more than my comment above suggests), especially for the first hour.

I've got Thou Wast Mild and Lovely on my computer, it looks really promising, but unfortunately haven't got round to it yet. The timing has been really bad for me unfortunately, I've been very preoccupied the past 2 weeks. Ah well.


I’ll be waiting, with a gun and a pack of sandwiches.

5/10 for 'Eisenstein in Guanajuato', 'Story of My Death' and 'Thou Wast Mild and Lovely'. 'Catch Me Daddy' I didn't think was worth finishing.

Although all three films I finished were of such an overall quality that I would have preferred not to have spent my time watching them, each one had something of (minor) interest to offer.

"Eisenstein" uses some filmmaking techniques I have never seen before, basically for their own sake. In a review that was already quoted here Ignatiy Vishnevetsky said "it piles the screen with visual ideas that all look like garbage". That's a pretty accurate description, but the upside is that at least they are visual ideas.

"Death", with its artless digital approach and eschewing all theatricalities brings unusual immediacy to a period piece and to a degree demystifies a past that is usually seen through a romantic lens, I also found it somewhat insightful regarding its portrayal of people of different classes, and the very unexpected dabbling in genre territory in the second half wasn't unwelcome by me partly because I'm a sucker for any unconventional vampire film, but that may also be because by that point I didn't really care much anymore because unfortunately its artlessness is only refreshing for a while, and eventually just makes the whole thing pretty dull, and at almost 2 1/2 hours that fact has a lot of weight.

"Lovely" in a way has the opposite kind of cinematography, trying to be sensual and poetic but unfortunately is very much incompetent and falls flat in its attempts. Nevertheless the film at points actually managed to create a modicum of tension in the second half and there was at least one positively impressionistic montage sequence towards the end.

All three films are very close together in my overall estimation, but my vote would go to either "Eisenstein" or "Lovely". Or even better, in an unprecedented move none of the nominated films gets anything because they aren't actually worthy of any awards (and if I am to participate again next year it will only be under the condition that I am a programmer).

As a rule programmers can't double up as jurors, except on sections where they hadn't previously seen any of the titles, so that's a no go, sorry.

Who said I'd want to be a juror?

- just another film blog -
http://perception-de-ambiguity.tumblr.com