Well its come and gone; as one of my classmates said, possibly the highlight of Gothenburg’s yearly festivities, at least for film lovers. Overall I would say I am completely satisfied with almost every film I screened, and glad that I chose to invest the time and money into seeing a vast sum of films, 16, as opposed to last year’s paltry 3. Taking the opportunity to see films that potentially wouldn’t cross my radar again has been simply fantastic, not to mention the companionship and discussions provided by Emma during the festival has been, as they normally are, illuminating.

I discovered a great many things about myself during the festival, as I think any open eyed, inquisitive and analytical individual tends to do whilst biting off tremendous chunks of culture hailing from distant and far off places. The most important discovery rests perhaps on the fact I was able to keep up not only with the screening of nearly two films a day for almost a week and a half but also writing about and reviewing said films. This fact shows me that I probably have chosen correctly to study and pursue an academic interest in something I enjoy immensely, something I have stamina and love for; if I didn’t burn out from this I probably never will.

I have often tended to be a very non-critical person when it comes to critiquing other human beings artistic pursuits (music excluded – I won’t hesitate to “throw down” on shitty tunes), in this case films, something I felt changed during the festival. When one begins to feel ones time consumed by these works it becomes nearly impossible to always find positives in everything. When a bad film occupies a limited amount of spots or resources it is only natural to “slag it off”. In the end I have perhaps finally learned the value and existence of a negative review. It’s time for the entire Porkys series to receive additional company in my “dog house” of shit films. This however does not admonish a negative review by some 40 something middle-aged women on Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008), or a teenager trying to explain to me why Benjamin Button (2008) sucks because they didn’t come to grips with its positivity concerning the aging process. These examples are just bad assignments doled out by clueless newspaper and magazine executives that in turn make these reviewers resemble “human dildos“.

It had been my intent to use this “free time” in my life, in between “gigs”, to see how I would manage with a film blog or self appointed assignments of sorts. If academics would translate into more colorful everyday human commentary. To this extent the intensity of Gothenburg’s Film Festival has provided me with a training ground that subsequently has been followed by a positive result upon my potential to succeed in similar endeavors in the not to distance future. The plan now is to attend the 51^st annual San Francisco film festival in late April through May and repeat a similar procedure there. A new goal runs rampant through my head now to, perhaps by the time next fall rolls around, September to be exact, dupe someone into paying for a trip to Toronto along with a few free films that I just have to muse over. This is and hopefully becomes a full time job! If not there is always a musty office in an “ivory tower” somewhere to be had once that PhD title has been obtained, Doctor Higgins I presume, anyone?

Ever been to the movies with someone and discovered after the screening that you and your “compadre” have seen two totally different movies? Three Monkeys (2008) is that kind of movie, or at least my viewing of it was, my “compadre” in this case my elegant wife. The different movies we saw were first of all, the fantastic movie I saw and well as she described it, in a very curse riddled way, the travesty of a film she saw where, “nothing fucking happened”! To show my wife how much I appreciate her opinion I’m going to try in my review of the film to incorporate what I fathom she experienced along with my obviously more educated, and well founded opinion, ha ha ha…

Right, Three Monkeys for starters is not a film I would have been able to appreciate a year and a half ago prior to starting down the track of becoming a film major. Back then I was a fan of science fiction films, bad action and blockbusters, with nary an idea about any film prior to the year of my birth, 1980. Simply put, I had no patience or set of filters to be able to appreciate anything but films that resembled a meal consisting of a can of Coca Cola accompanied by cotton candy. I still enjoy meals consisting of this kind of sustenance but have also developed my palette just a smidgen.

Three Monkeys comparatively speaking to my film viewing past is a very “requiring” movie, it forces the viewer, in essence, to feel the film and come to grips with the silence and non-action. This is taken to an extreme in the fact that there is no music in the film besides a cell phone ring tone. None of the main actions the protagonists go through is ever seen “on camera”, it all takes place off screen, with only its emotional impact gesticulated subtly for the viewers. The film is a technical master piece, from its cinematography, a very de-saturated “Roy Anderson-esque” aesthetic, to its multiplicity of camera angles that linger making masterful use of close up shots.

The same reasons that make Three Monkeys so fantastic are exactly the same reasons that can make you hate the “living shit” out of it. When nothing happens onscreen and you don’t get sucked into the emotions displayed by the characters then I think it has a chance to be images that provide no satisfaction beyond the cinematography, which is unavoidably awesome. This is perhaps precisely why my companion hated the film, which in retrospect I completely understand, even to the extent of seeing myself walking out if, as stated, had I watched Three Monkeys a few years back.

Reviewers of the film throw theoretical adjectives like realism and modernism at this film which I think is fairly off the mark. To me it is a well executed example of a post modern film that is so good at what it does that it is able to “dupe” those people who are so into that “pure” kind of image and film of the past. It is a story where nothing happens at the same time that everything happens. It’s impossible to recommend the result of a film like this, if you will like it or not, since you really have to feel it; however it is completely 100% worth the recommendation for the experience in itself. At the very least it is a beautifully moving photograph.

Originally, Sunday at the film festival was supposed to be a day off, a day to perhaps write and lounge around the house in my long johns, but alas this was not to be the case. You see my lovely wife’s colleagues, knowing that I am a “film man”, have been springing loads of soon to be extinct free movie vouchers upon us. Not one to pass up a freebie this has lead to the inclusion of three extra films under the festival; Revolutionary Road (2008), which played this Sunday, is one of these films and subsequently did also play at the festival so I’ve included it under this heading.

I have to say that Revolutionary Road was a surprisingly well done film, to a large extent an excellent companion to a film like Mammoth (2009), as both films press against what I would consider to be similar theoretical fault lines, albeit from different positions. Where Mammoth treats and sets its critique of modern pursuits in more contemporary terms, Revolutionary Road uses an old “sci-fi” trick in order to gain some “critical distance” approaching the same themes from the past instead.

The difference in the two films, beyond their time periods, is that Revolutionary Road is a much more brutal and raw critique of its subject material. It is a “force feeding” of sorts that hits on many points that are extremely easy for anyone to see in themselves and or relate to. Whereas Mammoth has two extreme positions, one of upper class and one of lower class, Revolutionary Road exists as a sort of middle of the road position, to this effect as stated the two films are great companion pieces.

What is so very interesting here for me, something I stated to my wife upon leaving the movie theater, is the how or why films like these are popping up now, especially in more commercial movie theaters. The question’s answer is easily accessible, of which I’ve hinted at in the title to this post. My theory on the matter is that, like there was at the end of the 60s, there exists now a tear in the veil through which the energy to produce certain types of films, Revolutionary Road included, is pouring through. The time periods in both Mammoth and Revolutionary Road are in no way shape or form the same, just as the 60s attempt at revolution is different from the reforms called for now. What is the same is the continued existence of a hole in the facade of banal pursuits, and the questioning that surrounds what we strive for on a daily basis.

I sometimes joke around with my friends or acquaintances when they ask me what I plan on doing with my degree in film by telling them, “I’m gonna make porno’s!” The truth be told I’ve always been in it for exactly this kind of analysis, to use the filters my film degree has provided me to see the flux of society through films, to see the zeitgeist of our times that pours through a well made film like Revolutionary Road.

One of the true pleasures about a film festival, like the one present on a annual basis here in Gothenburg, is the chance to see films you otherwise might not have contemplated or had the chance to see. There is a tendency, at least in my own case, to take a chance on a few films that look interesting enough from their catalog descriptions that I perhaps know nothing about. It’s Not Me I Swear (2008) is exactly the type of film I speak of and is ever so close to being the highlight of the festival for me, if not for the inclusion of Man on a Wire (2008) it most definitely would have been.

A lot of particulars were in place to enhance the film and make this a great exhibiting experience: I got to see it in Draken, I didn’t have someone’s huge head of hair in front of me this time, and the director was there to give an enthusiastic introduction capped by a Q and A after the film. The content of It’s Not Me I Swear is simply fantastic on a variety of levels. At its simplest, the film is enjoyable for its depiction of Quebec, Canada during the 60s, which for me has always been a more rustic, offbeat version of the US, something I got to experience and enjoy growing up during annual vacations to the country. The film is also high on humor providing many laugh out loud moments, the director Philippe Falardeau possesses the ability to make an audience laugh even during scenes of great tragedy which to me is a wonderful talent. The main character and focal point of the film is Leon, a 10-year-old boy with existential questions coupled with an atomic nature. It’s a character that is wonderfully portrayed by young Antoine L’Ecuyer, perhaps as many reviewers will state the best child actor I as well have had the pleasure of seeing.

The more complex nature of the film deals with the split of the nuclear family and Oedipus complex, something that is really left up to interpretation, that is if Leon is successful or suffers from a psychosis in his resolution of one of capitalism’s main tools of control. It shows the genius of a child’s creativity at the same time that it shows the suffering as they are stripped bare and made ready to become “responsible” adults. The film brilliantly juxtaposes Leon as a child possessing a very adult psyche versus hypocritical authority figures that are not creatively up to snuff enough to rein in and or deal with the existence of a child who sees quite clearly the banality of “growing up”.

It’s Not Me I Swear simply put is one of those few film experiences I sit in awe of while watching, one of those rare few that surprises me with both their simplicity and complexity. A film I recommend for anyone who even remotely enjoys watching films!

I don’t know if it was the fact that I saw The Hurt Locker (2008) at the tail end of a long stretch, or if it just simply is so, but I left highly unimpressed with the movie on several fronts. For starters I have qualms with films dropping in big name stars and then quickly thereafter dispatching them, somehow it comes off as a cheap ploy. However, with that being said it was somewhat of a relief  and quite acceptable to see Guy Pearce get “ganked” directly from the get go, since I had been dreading his presence in the film since reading the cast overview. I also have qualms with Bigelow’s attempts at adding emotional commentary to scenes where they don’t really make sense or belong, aka the entire film. These occur at several various junctures in the film, perhaps reading as they should, i.e. perfect for stupid “uber” macho men, practitioners of oppressing emotions, who will watch the film and appreciate this kind of surface banter about a serious subject. But for people who are in touch with their emotions, well it reads like a mentally handicapped person saying simply “I am sad!” These ploys were acceptable in a film like Point Break (1991) because it was never the intent of the film to portray anything completely in a realistic fashion. However, in The Hurt Locker this is exactly why they backfire. This kind of shallow emotionality just feels out of place with the rest of the picture in its attempts to be “realistic”.

What the film does do well, its potential shining point, is how Bigelow uses the environment coupled with her technical abilities in order to really make the viewer feel what it’s like to be in certain situations or conditions: the dryness of the desert, the overall miserable conditions present in a Baghdad, the sweatiness of disarming a bomb. The sound as well, at least in the theatre I screened the movie in, seemed really well done lending a lot of “thunder” to the film, for lack of better words. Overall I would say these technical aspects make the movie worth watching, as one can learn a great deal from them. For me, a person who is interested in one day making films, this is worth the price of admission. However, if you are interested in some kind of emotional response to the film or caring for its protagonists you’re wasting your money by investing it in The Hurt Locker.