Hello, friends. Johnny Pomatto here. Lately I’ve been craving an outlet for my creative juices. So I decided that I would start a blog, if for no other reason, I’ll no longer have to repeat my rants individually for all my friends. Now you can simply subscribe to my blog and get the latest on all my thoughts, opinions, and film and theatre reviews. Keep in mind, this is all very new to me, and I’m not incredibly tech savvy. I’m still not entirely sure what the word “blog” even means.
So to start things up, I thought I’d post my reviews for the recent BAM Cinema Fest, which concluded last week in Brooklyn. In years past, this festival was co-sponsored by Sundance, though this is the first year BAM has produced it on its own, and I couldn’t be happier. It’s a great festival, featuring some great films. But not everything I saw was so excellent. Read all about it below.
BIG FAN
With only two screenplays under his belt, Robert D. Siegel may already be establishing himself as a champion of the underdog. In his directorial debut, and his follow up script to last year’s incredible “The Wrestler,” Siegel sets his sights on familiar territory.
Much like Randy “The Ram” Robinson, the titular character in “Big Fan” is a bit of a loser who is able to ignore the sadness in his life by escaping to a fantasy world. While “The Wrestler” focused on the fall of an athletic hero, this film randomly plucks one of the fans from the crowd screaming “RAM JAM” and examines what it means to devote your whole existence to cheering for the accomplishments of others. Beloved stand-up comic Patton Oswalt plays Paul Aufiero, and rather than wrestling, his passion is football, specifically the New York Giants. He uses the pronoun “we” when describing the team. He watches the games from the stadium parking lot on a TV hooked up to his car battery. He writes and rehearses long diatribes that he passionately recites on a sports radio call-in show, though he can’t get too loud and passionate with his mother sleeping in the next room.
Paul’s fandom is tested, however, when a chance encounter with the Giants’ star quarterback removes him from the role of insignificant, anonymous fan, and puts him in the public eye where he is accused of betraying the very team he loves more than anything in the world. While on the surface Paul doesn’t seem disturbed or unbalanced, the events in the film take him to some dark places and to a shocking and surprising conclusion. Patton Oswalt is perfect in this role, with lots of his witty cynicism from his act coming across, though still never overshadowing the character or completely masking his shyness and sadness. Oswalt has the uncanny image of a sad sack, and Siegel mentioned in his Q and A that if you’re going to have a depressed loser of a character, you’d get a much more accurate representation with a stand-up comedian than you would with a Hollywood pretty boy.
Though Siegel didn’t direct his last script, it is worth noting that stand up comics Judah Friedlander and Todd Barry played similar pathetic bottom-feeders in that film. Equally good in the film is the always reliable Kevin Corrigan, as Paul’s protégé and cohort. The two share a relationship of pure understanding, where neither judges the other or questions the life sacrifices they are making out of devotion to their team. “Big Fan” is inevitably going to be compared to “The Wrestler,” and it’s not as strong of a film as that was. Some of the humor in the beginning of the film comes across as too broad, and considering how many thoughts are going through Paul’s head in the last act of the film, I feel the audience is denied some explanation of those thoughts in an excuse to provide some suspense and a bait and switch. Still, “Big Fan” is essential viewing for any Patton Oswalt fans, and for any passionate fans that aren’t afraid to have a mirror held up to them. I know I was scared to see a bit of myself up there.
YOU WON’T MISS ME
Talk about an apt title. Ry Russo-Young’s mumblecore mess of a movie is a profile of a girl named Shelly, played and co-conceived by Stella Schnabel, and it would seem genius has skipped a generation. We see Shelly abusing drugs and alcohol, having numerous one-night stands, engaging in arguments with girlfriends about nothing, going on humiliating theatrical auditions, and loitering and just generally being lazy and annoying. However, in spite of 80 minutes of nothing but Shelly, I didn’t feel I came away with knowing anything about her or who she is.
Despite Russo-Young’s claim that every aspect of Shelly’s history and personality were explored, written, and acted out in rehearsals, there just isn’t really anything to show for it at the end. Shelly seems to care about so little, that I’m pretty sure she would be bored to tears by her own film, so I can’t imagine why she would think any of us would want to see it.
There are several distracting devices employed in this film, including the constant switching of formats and cameras. These were supposedly to show the many different sides of Shelly’s personality, but they seemed pretty random and visually offending. Occasionally we’ll suddenly be watching Shelly from a grainy, hidden camera’s perspective as she interacts with real people, annoying them in such ways of smoking in a hotel and refusing to leave when accosted by the manager. The only real purpose I can guess for these scenes was to pad out the film past the 60-minute mark.
This film is certainly going to have its defenders, and there are a few scenes that work individually, such as a heated argument in a hotel room and a one-night stand barely attempting to feign interest in Shelly. The audition scenes show some promise, but I was always more interested in the director and situation, rather than seeing it as another trial for the protagonist. Ok. I’m going to say it. Are you ready? I won’t miss “You Won’t Miss Me.” Ha! That was awesome.
HUMPDAY
Lynn Shelton’s “Humpday” is one of the funniest comedies I’ve seen in years, and also one of the very best films I’ve seen this year. It tells the squirm-inducing story of two straight, male friends who, on a dare, decide to have sex and film it for an upcoming porn festival. In a slightly more tolerant and comfortable society, this could sound like the perfect premise for a mainstream comedy, starring big name actors in the leads.
However the closest Hollywood film to even approach this idea would have to be “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry,” and you all remember how that turned out. Well, you don’t if you’re lucky. This is an ultra low budget film that treats the subject matter seriously and maturely, while still managing to be hilarious and bold.
The two friends include the free spirited Andrew, (Joshua Leonard, giving Zack Galifanakis a run for his money as funniest bearded man of the summer), and Ben (one of great halves of the The Duplass Brothers, this one being Mark) who is just settling into his marriage. The proposal starts off as a jokingly drunken dare, but the next morning the two friends are still somewhat determined to go through with it. The reasons why is what the film explores. Is it just a macho game of chicken, or an excuse to recapture a wild side that has been lost in marriage and conformity, or could it be that one friend carries a secret attraction for the other? And though one of the friends is married and the other lives a Kerouac-esque lifestyle of hitchhiking and free love, they aren't a simple Oscar and Felix odd couple. The various positions each of them takes and the decisions they make feel surprising, authentic, and very relatable.
The first question for the director at just about all screenings like this, (especially for a mumblecore film) is “how much of the dialogue was improvised?” I was shocked to learn that, according to Shelton, these actors improvised almost the entire film. Shocked because, while the dialogue sounded incredibly natural, realistic, and off the cuff, the film and scenes felt so tightly plotted and structured that I only assumed this was the work of an incredibly careful screenwriter. Props goes to Shelton and her editor Nat Sanders for shaping a seemingly unplanned and open story into a wonderful tale, especially for the, ahem, climax, which Shelton says was written and decided on by Duplass and Leonard on the spot. Also a special shout out is needed for lovely Alycia Delmore, who essentially anchors the film as Ben’s patient, but not so understanding wife.
I really hope people give this movie a chance and hopefully it will become something of a sleeper hit. Hollywood isn’t making films like this, so let’s support the people who do.
IN THE LOOP
I didn’t realize it going in, but “In the Loop” is actually a spin off of a short-lived BBC series called “The Thick of It.” I remember seeing the series on BBC America a few years ago and I remember enjoying it. I don’t, however, remember laughing as hard as I did at the theatre last night. This is a hilarious film that would be considered political satire, if it weren’t so damn accurate in its portrayal of politics and bureaucracy.
Tom Hollander plays a politician in the UK’s department of defense. When he says a seemingly innocent comment about war being unforeseeable, he sets off a chain of events in his country and ours, involving certain political figures pushing to start a war, with others attempting to stop it. The cast is excellent, featuring the likes of Gina McKee, Paul Higgins, James Gandolfini, Anna Chlumsky (My Girl is all grown up), David Rasche, and Steve Coogan. But it’s Peter Capaldi, reprising his role from “The Thick of It,” who steals the film. As the ruthless and profane Malcolm Tucker, Capaldi gets a belly laugh every time he opens his mouth, usually to scream an angry threat at someone.
These are not over the top stereotypes of ruthless and dumb politicians. Every one of these characters is instantly familiar to us. Hollander's character isn't a stupid person, but is just a man in the public eye who makes a few mistakes when he happens to be on camera. Though to be fair, he is a little stupid. The film also look very raw and realistic, mostly shot digitally and handheld, giving it a mockumentary feel, without the lazy device actually being imposed.
My only real complaint for the film is that it’s only a film and not a two-hour television pilot for a continuation of “The Thick of It.” When the end credits abruptly began to roll, the audience actually let out a sigh of disappointment. It would be swell if the film could be spun back into a television show, as I would happily watch this every week. Mitch Hurrowitz produced an American adaptation that never aired a few seasons ago. Perhaps it’s time to try again, but this time, keep the actors, and put it on a network where it’s appropriate to end phone calls with the word “Fuckity-Bye.”
BEESWAX
It can sometimes be difficult to describe the plot of an Andrew Bujalski movie. He specializes in slice of life character studies, not exciting, suspenseful tales of intrigue. But someone might be trying to change that, since the festival was going out of its way to describe “Beeswax” as a legal thriller for the indie world. But fear not. Bujalski hasn’t abandoned his roots, though I would say that “Beeswax” is his strongest and most accessible film to date. It tells the story two sisters, played by real life twins Tilly and Maggie Hatcher. Tilly plays Jeannie, a co-owner of a vintage clothing store in Austin, (I didn’t know they had those there; wink), who spends all her time there and does all the work, though is still under the looming threat of her partner possibly suing her for the rights to her half of the store. Maggie plays Lauren, her supportive but flakier sister, who can’t hold down a job and seems to make excuses to get out of any commitment she makes. Alex Karpovsky plays Merill, Jeannie’s on again, off again boyfriend, who is preparing to take the bar exam, and giving Jeannie legal advice on her potential legal problems.
While this is far more story and exposition than “Funny Ha Ha” or “Mutual Appreciation” had, most of these issues aren’t discussed or spoken of directly. You learn about these things though their attitude, behavior, and things they don’t say out loud. Jeannie is also paraplegic, an issue that is never verbally addressed but is portrayed honestly and plainly as we see her effortlessly adjusting to her situations, such as literally being looked down upon at her own business, to the complexity of getting out of her own car. “Beeswax” is a lovely film and a big step forward for Bujalski. I eagerly anticipate his next film and his future career.
BRONSON
After a quick IMDB search, I discovered that I’ve actually seen Tom Hardy in several films before, though I’ve never really noticed him. In Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Bronson,” you can’t help but notice him. He looks through the screen, into your eyes, and forces you to watch him, and in looking back, I saw an actor destined for stardom. “Bronson” tells the true-life story of Charles Bronson, (a name that he gives himself), who is dubbed the most violent prison inmate in British history. Bronson has never killed a man, but he has spent 34 years in prison for violent crimes, and due to his violent nature, 30 of those years have been spent in solitary confinement.
Bronson is never happier than when he is in prison. It’s where he wants to be. There’s nothing he loves more than fighting and tormenting others. As the film portrays him, he actually wants to make a name for himself this way. We see Bronson in a fantasy world, telling his story and performing for a faceless crowd like he’s a sadistic clown in a sideshow. Think of a cross between Alex from “A Clockwork Orange” and most the cast of last year’s violent offender “Ex-Drummer.”
This film is sure to come under fire for making this violent and terrible lifestyle look fun and exciting. “Real life prison violence doesn’t have such a great soundtrack,” I can already hear them say. These complaints may be valid, but speaking as someone who was not familiar with Charles Bronson and his story, I only saw an immensely entertaining and captivating film. Just about every ounce of credit has to be given to Tom Hardy. With his shaved head, waxed, pointy mustache, and a grin inexplicably full of teeth, he is magnetic and captivating. He looks a bit like a demented, muscle-clad Steve Coogan, and indeed he comes across more like a comedian than a maniac. When he’s speaking, we are hanging on his every word. When he is silent, we are on the edge of our seat waiting for him to explode.
There was a moment in the film in which the only movement in his entire body is the dilation of his pupil, and you can suddenly see him become a completely different person from all the way in the back row. Hardy’s performance will and should be talked about a lot this fall, and this time next year he should have a gaggle of projects being offered to him, though I can’t yet see him playing a positive, good-natured character you would want to root for.
When you think about the actual story of Charles Bronson that has been unfolding for the last 34 years, it probably isn’t a very interesting one. A few brief moments of ultra violence that may only cover a few hours of his life. However, while we watch this film, those small moments are the most important things Bronson has ever accomplished, at least in his eyes. It’s exhilarating to see him proudly take credit for them, even as we fear what else he might do. “Bronson” is not perfect and it will have many haters, but I urge everyone to see this for Hardy’s performance. It has to be seen to be believed.
BROCK ENRIGHT: GOOD TIMES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME
Jody Lee Lipes’ beautiful and jarring documentary chronicles Brooklyn-based artist Brock Enright and his girlfriend Kirsten as he prepares for a solo show at a New York gallery. Since we never get to see Brock’s finished work, it’s a little difficult to decipher and describe what exactly he does. He’s a video artist, a performance artist, a maker of hand-made objects and knickknacks, and he throws in a little live defecation for good measure. Brock seems like a fairly macho and handy guy. His knowledge and use of tools suggest he could have simply been lost in carpentry or construction. But he has a need to create and shock, as well as having a fragile soul. When his brother-in-law to be is confronted by a naked Brock, covered in white paint, he calls him a freak and says he doesn’t understand what he’s doing or why he’d want to do it. This sends Brock into a sobbing tantrum, wailing about how even the closest people in his life don’t understand him.
Brock is always teetering off the edge. When one of the chief investors from the gallery comes to visit, we think Brock will pull it together and professionally display what he’s been working on. Instead, he practically kidnaps the woman, slashing her tires, and screaming at her that he decides when she can leave, sleep, etc. I knew virtually nothing about this film going in and it really got to me.
The ending offers a beautiful surprise that actually made me tear up a bit. Lipes, a cinematographer by trade, has filled his film with gorgeous shots, and seems to show all the little pieces that you would usually expect to find on the cutting room floor for a documentary. There are no interviews. The story tells itself, to a point. The rest is a mystery. I don’t feel like I understand Brock in the way he’d like me to, but after watching the film, I’d certainly love to try.
THE SQUARE
“The Square” shares the same genre as films like “Blood Simple” and “Shallow Grave.” Perfectly nice, honest people commit a little crime to get some money, and everything that can go wrong does, leaving a pile of bodies, and some very unhappy and regretful people. If you’re in the mood for that sort of thing, “The Square” is a competently made flick that offers some intense thrills and layered performances.
Unfortunately it just doesn’t offer a whole lot of fresh ideas or originality. Several throwaway lines signal twists to come, and the last act has a few plot developments that are comical and confusing. A few dream sequence fake outs in particular might have taken the film in some exciting directions were they actual plot developments. Stuntman turned director Nash Edgerton certainly has a lot of talent, and he never makes his film a bore. I just wish I had been on the edge of my seat because I was engrossed in the story, and not because I had seen enough and wanted to leave. A worthy effort, but you’ve seen it all before.
THE EXPLODING GIRL
Along with Alison Pill, Zoe Kazan is one of the best young actresses working in the New York theatre scene today. When she won the best actress award at The Tribeca Film Festival for her performance in Bradley Rust Gray’s “The Exploding Girl,” I was very curious to see it. Having done so, I’m not sorry I did, but I wouldn’t recommend it to many others. The film follows Ivy, an epileptic girl at home in Brooklyn on a week’s break for college. She reconnects with an old friend, plays phone tag with an insensitive boyfriend, walks around the city, and sleeps. That’s really all there is to it.
There is some lovely photography in the film and Kazan’s performance in particular is very subtle and sweet, but what takes 80 minutes could have been done in 30. I hate to simplify it so much, but I just got a little tired of waiting for the inevitable conclusion, and then not feeling much once it came. I’ve loved Zoe Kazan on stage in many plays here and I believe she is going to be noticed by a wider audience in the future, but this isn’t the way to have her introduced to you.
SORRY, THANKS
My least favorite film of the festival has the involvement of some of my favorite people in independent film. Indie faves Wiley Wiggins and Andrew Bujalski are featured in this story about two participants in a one-night stand, and the separate directions they each take following it. The dialogue feels improvised, but in the worst kind of way. Lots of scenes grow monotonous, jokes fall flat or feel poorly communicated, and actors seemingly struggle with conveying just what sort of relationships they share with their co-stars.
The film is full of scenes that feel out of place, like one in which a guy’s friends all casually tell him that they think he’s an asshole. We’ve never really seen him act like an asshole, nor do his friends seem to not like him or have their views affect the way they interact with him. So why is this scene here? Is it just supposed to be funny banter? It always seemed to me that the actors were probably all friends in real life, but couldn’t figure out how to establish a fictional relationship with one another.
There was one thing I really liked about the film, and that was the ending. The last scene in the movie ends in an ambiguous and open-ended kind of way, with practically nothing wrapped up, leaving us to speculate on what might occur later. However the film left me way more interested in what could happen in my own imagination than what the filmmakers actually chose to show me.
Whew! That was a lot of films! I’ve never seen so much digital video in one place! Until next time, friends.
-Johnny Pomatto
