Impressions: This is an animated movie which despite cute fluffy bunny animation on the surface, actually deals with pretty adult topics: politics and relationships between different groups of people in a society. In some ways it feels like a modern day version of Animal Farm: a clever metaphor for current political issues. Not even sure if I would classify it as a kid’s movie at all. The main character is a bunny who is able to overcome the obstacles of biology and prejudice to become a cop. Unfortunately, once she makes it, she is faced with the reality of being given crappy assignments and the job not being as exciting as what she envisioned. Eventually she gets to prove her worth and face her own prejudices: this part is very much the standard American narrative.
The main conflict in the story, though, is between animals who used to be prey and those who used to be predators. Sure, everyone is civilized now, but a series of strange disappearances and attacks points that there is something more sinister going on and animals are turning on each other. As with a lot of animated films where animals are anthropomorphized, there are a lot of clever gags and jokes, which are designed to provide comic relief, and appeal to kids. But really, the film can be read as commentary on the current political situation: a system which strives for fairness is overtaken by unlikely villains with their own agenda, using fear as a method by which to divide and conquer, and justify their own position at all costs. It’s a very smart idea, well executed and with interesting visuals. But it’s difficult to market an animated film to people who are no longer kids, or parents to small kids. Still, there are definite benefits to having young kids watch something like this as a cautionary tale.
Facts: A democratic animal society runs into issues when some of its members start going “savage” and animals disappear.
Extra: This film was a 2017 academy award winner for best animated feature.
Impression: The cinematography and locations/set design are beautiful in this film. The vast empty spaces in giant buildings with only one or two characters inside each frame, the very stark architecture, the black and white colors and the very clean lines are the main settings in the first part of the movie. While it is set during the fascist era in Italy, the film is more than just a commentary on political conformism; it tackles conformism in general. In the beginning, there is a scene where it is explained that the main character’s reasons for joining the fascists are not typical: it is usually done for money, but he just wants to belong. It is particularly strange, because unlike his wife, who is blissfully unaware of alternatives, he is fully aware that it is possible to not conform in political views, in sexuality, etc, but he actively rejects those options in favor of fitting in. The plot constantly jumps through time, that it is almost dizzying to keep track of where in the story you land from shot to shot. But the flashbacks to his childhood and the scenes with his family, convey that he had grown up feeling disconnected from the rest of society, by the virtue of his family’s wealth and position. As a result, his wish to conform is strong. He forgoes his interest in studying philosophy and any wish to find a genuine love interest, in order to serve the system and marry the most mediocre woman he can find, so he can feel ‘normal.’ He eventually develops strong feelings for another woman, but when faced with a choice that would jeopardize his belonging, he chooses belonging over her. At the end of the film, when the regime changes, he is not so much afraid of the political retribution or even for his life, as he is that he will no longer be ‘normal.’ His instinct is to denounce his friend. In a way, The Lobster which was made 45 years later is a complementary piece to this film. While this film explores, the need of one person to conform, the Lobster explores how a society, even one formed by people who did not want to conform to mainstream rules, enforces its own strict rules, and essentially demands conformism.
Facts: A man in fascist Italy actively makes choices that conform with what is expected of him, in choosing what to pursue in love and work.
Impression: A practically silent movie from Kazakhstan; there is no dialogue, but plenty of sounds made, and occasionally a score including traditional instruments and some throat singing. The story takes place in 200 AD, but feels timeless. The entire thing is beautifully shot, in snow, in majestic mountains. The bright open expanses are contrasted with dark, cramped interiors. Lots of interesting shots of strange shamanistic rituals, and quite a bit of nudity. Animals feature quite prominently, running wild, as background sounds, and as clothing and food and workforce. The plot follows the fate of a girl who gets married/sold to a man and returns with him to a hut where he lives with his mother and son. Conflict is introduced when the better looking guy, who in the beginning of the film did not have enough money to buy her, reappears. Well acted, it’s all in glances and look aways and stares. In order to keep interest for over an hour, a movie without dialogue has to be really compelling, and this one certainly is. It provides a little bit of a voyeurism into a place and time that I’ve not thought about a lot. Besides how many movies from Kazakhstan have you seen? And no, Borat doesn’t count!
Facts: In 200 AD Kazakhstan, a girl gets married/sold to a man living in a remote hut in snow filled mountains with his mother and son.
Impressions: Mexican documentary about the inner workings of the legal system, might seem like a relatively dry topic, but it was actually fascinating, and compelling throughout. My favorite thing about documentaries is coming across one on a topic I know nothing about, and would not have even contemplated seeing, until I was already there. “A Great Day in Harlem” was another great example of this. This film follows a guy accused of murder through the whole ordeal including living in prison, his appeals, and a face-off with the witnesses. Some of the processes are mind boggling, especially the witness face-off, and the fact that once convicted no amount of evidence can convince anyone of anything is frustrating. The two young lawyers who took on the case, use the filmmaking process itself as a tool in their fight to free an innocent man. Very interesting and really well done, you should see it! If you ever had your doubts, this one definitely makes you not want to end up in a mexican prison!
Facts: Two young Mexican lawyers fight to free a man convicted of a crime they have ample evidence he did not commit.
Extras: I originally had very brief notes which I wrote in 2009 after seeing this film at TIFF. In order to write a more meaningful opinion, and jog my memory some, I looked at the wikipedia page on it. It’s apparently become the most watched documentary in Mexico, breaking box office records, and was eventually banned in 2011, causing it to be even more popular. It would be very interesting to see what someone from Mexico thought about it. The system and the process were all very new to me, and made me wonder if it’s common knowledge that this is how the system works.
Impression: I don’t often hate movies. I feel like my strongest negative opinion is usually indifference. And most often hate is reserved for movies which I feel were over-hyped, but not that great. So it was quite a surprise to me how strongly I disliked this small Mexican movie. It just really rubbed me the wrong way. And it was not the kinky sex scenes that were disturbing. It was the offensively ridiculous and very literal oversimplification of the role cause and effect plays in people’s lives. No, if your father kills himself while indulging in some strange fetish involving plastic, your two life choices are not to grow up to be 1. a miserable drunk who works in a plastics factory or 2. a fetish prostitute. I really don’t think that’s how childhood trauma works. The movie also felt way too long, although it clocked in at well under 2 hours. It definitely could have used some editing. The premise is not very complicated, and maybe could have made a decent short. It was a mistake to structure it basically as a thriller with flash-backs to something ominous, but unclear in their childhood. The big reveal is how the father died, which is offered up as a resolution and magical explanation of everything wrong in the adult children’s lives. It just felt like a cop out. Or is it supposed to be a cautionary tale, to not engage in weird behaviors that could kill you, because you will ruin your children’s lives? I am not sure.
Facts: An estranged brother and sister lead depressing and unfulfilling lives as a result of something that happened in their childhood.
Impression: It’s a story about what an ordinary guy does when he hears something he wasn’t supposed to, and how he deals with his conscience and outside pressures. And even though, during the Q&A, the director said he was not so much interested in society but what goes on in his protagonist’s head, I think the society he lives in very much influences the protagonist’s ideas of right and wrong and leads to his (in)actions. The way he relates to his neighbors, the job he has, the way he relates to people he encounters at that job, all of those can be read as either the result of the internal struggles he is going through because of this one event, or maybe, all these external interactions have influenced his thinking and cause him to react the way he does. This one had me thinking for a long time.
Facts: After overhearing an argument and its aftermath in an apartment below, what is one to do?
Extra: One of the downsides to only doing rush lines at TIFF is that sometimes volunteers don’t have their act together and let you in after the movie has already started. Usually not a big deal, except when it’s a psychological thriller and something very important happens in the first minute of the movie. It also would maybe not matter if this was not a Romanian movie, and every single Romanian movie I’ve seen aside from being really good, has had me feeling like I have no idea what will happen next. So I felt like this feeling of disorientation was just something Romanians do. Of course the nice couple next to me, let me know what had happened in the beginning as the end-credits were rolling, and I was able to put it all back together. Definitely a different experience than seeing the movie the way it was intended.
Impressions: Directed by Wong Kar-Wai’s cinematographer, experimental/documentary about Hong Kong. Sounds great, right? Well…. It was more than a little rough separating the movie from the fact that Christopher Doyle was either drunk, on drugs or just crazy during his suuuuuper long, completely incoherent introduction, and his girlfriend/producer was obnoxious. He even attempted heckling his own film standing up in front and yelling things to the audience during the opening sequence, which thankfully could not be heard because the sound was turned up pretty high. Finally they settled in on the stairs one person over from me and watched the whole movie from up there instead of in their specially reserved seats. I should note that I adore the cinematography in Wong Kar-Wai movies and this one had some beautiful shots too. The idea behind it is not bad, either: have Hong Kong residents of different ages tell stories from their lives and have this be the audio to his cinematography. Now, I understand it was supposed to be experimental, and maybe I just don’t get it, but it was completely incoherent and seemed to be made up of random footage he took at different points and then spliced together with no rhyme or reason. Shots of the Umbrella Revolution could have been interesting, but instead it switches to a random fictionalized sequence about a teacher leaving his kids on a field trip to go get beer, and a stereotypical rich kid spending all his time with his nanny and missing his parents. This was my least favorite movie of the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival.
Facts: Experimental documentary in which Hong Kong residents of different ages tell stories from their lives on the audio track, while the visuals are unrelated shots of the city.