Sydney Film Festival: My Awards

I know what you're thinking... Where the %^#&@ has Josh been?! My Sydney Film Festival coverage screeched to a grinding halt after merely two films. How tragic of me. End of semester colliding with many films to see and many things to do meant that the blog had to go on the back burner for a little while. But now it's back. Rather than do a outdated scrambled and time comsuming summary of every film I saw at the festival, here's my "awards" for the festival. Heartbeats, the film by young Xavier Dolan, won the official award, and Boy won the audience award. I'll be seeing Boy soon so I'll let you know if I agree, but as you know I have seen Heartbeats and really liked it. Without any further ado, my awards:

Best Film: I Am Love
Runners Up: Heartbeats & If I Want to Whislte, I Whistle

Best Director: Sylvain Chomet ~ The Illusionist
Runners Up: Xavier Dolan ~ Heartbeats, Luca Guadagnino ~ I Am Love

Best Actor: Devin Brochu ~ Hesher
Runners Up: Pistireanu George ~ If I Want to Whistle, I Whistle, Ewan McGregor ~ The Ghost Writer

Best Actress: Tilda Swinton ~ I Am Love
Runners Up: Anne Dorval ~ I Killed My Mother, Jullianne Moore ~ The Kids Are All Right

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Ruffalo ~ The Kids Are All Right
Runners Up: Tom Wilkinson ~ The Ghost Writer, Pierce Brosnan ~ The Ghost Writer

Best Supporting Actress: Piper Laurie ~ Hesher
Runners Up: Maria Paiato ~ I Am Love, Olivia Williams ~ The Ghost Writer

Best Screenplay: The Kids Are All Right
Runners Up: Heartbeats, I Killed My Mother

A few notes; even though I give Hesher two acting wins, I would like to point out that it was truely awful and those two performances were the only good things about it. Also, I don't mention the delightful anime Summer Wars or the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America but were both definitely worth seeing.

Also please check out the interview I did for Filmink with the star and the producer of If I Want To Whistle, I Whistle: http://www.filmink.com.au/feature/new-talent/

And here is my review for The Most Dangerous Man in America: http://www.filmink.com.au/review/the-most-dangeous-man-in-america-film_2/

Sydney Film Festival: The Illusionist

My latest blog for FilmInk about films at the Sydney Film Festival.

Who says actions don't speak louder than words? Sylvain Chomet follows up his unique and brilliant feature, The Triplets Of Belleville, with another quirky animated triumph, The Illusionist, and continues his tradition of having little to no dialogue throughout the entire film. Much like the film which preceded it, The Illusionist is adorable, humorous and at times very emotionally moving. However what separates the two is The Illusionist's curious inability to ever fully engage the audience.

Me looking over the number of people who read this blog.

The Illusionist begins with the elderly illusionist waiting in the wings of a rock concert to perform after the show. The theatre is packed with screaming girls more hysterical than a group of twi-hards at a Twilight convention. The slick rock stars twist and gyrate all over the stage and hilariously prance off stage effeminately when the curtain closes, leaving the illusionist to perform. The curtain reopens to find the entire theatre empty except an unenthusiastic elderly lady with her gum-chewing grandson. This opening is indicative of the film's charm and wit, with the movie revolving around the end of an era for the Illusionist and the world he used to belong to. We follow him as he travels throughout Europe looking for a place to call home, meeting many great characters along the way, including a young Scottish girl who follows him but begins to cherish the things he buys her over his company.

"Now I ain't saying she a goldigger..."

The film's greatest achievement is its ability to communicate the story and characters purely through visual means far better than most conventional films do. The caricatures the film paints of humanity are exaggerated but still manage to contain a human truth with regard to how absurd we all really are. There are depths to the characters captured in simple gestures, actions and the way they interact with the world around them, and because of this the absence of dialogue never feels gimmicky.

The Illusionist chooses to travel with the Hogwarts express.

Whilst still being a truly unique and compelling film, The Illusionist doesn't feel quite satisfying once the credits roll. This is perhaps due to the lack of an over-arching plot, instead the characters just drift from one scene to the next so their wants and needs aren't as easily communicated. This wouldn't be a problem if the film had a pay-off, but The Illusionist seems to be building toward something truly magnificent and profound but then the credits pop up to disappoint the audience. It's disappoining that this delightful film is over but also because it just fell short of being outstanding.

Sydney Film Festival: Xavier Dolan's Hearbeats.

I hate Xavier Dolan. It’s not that I didn’t like his film Heartbeats which screened in competition at the Sydney Film Festival, in fact it’s quite the opposite. It was fantastic. Only, you know that person you resent because they’re your age, but somehow manages to be infinitely more talented, successful, attractive, and charming etc etc? That’s him. While he has not one, but count it, two films at the festival (Heartbeats and I Killed Me Mother) whilst I… am sitting in the audience in jealous awe. At only 21 Xavier Dolan has had his two films collect accolades all over the globe including Un Certain Regarde at the mother of all film festivals Cannes earlier this year.

"Hi, my name's Xavier and I'm more sucessful and attractive than you'll ever be"

Ever since the eye catching and sumptuous trailer for Heartbeats debuted I’ve had an eye out for this one, and was very high up on my “must see” list for the festival, and I am pleased to say it does not disappoint. As well as directing the film, Dolan wrote, starred in and almost every second name on the ending credits reads “Xavier Dolan”. See what I’m getting at here? It’s the lemon juice being squeezed on our own inadequacy. Dolan begins his film with a series of short, but delightful vignettes of people telling a short story about love, romance, sex or lack there of. We are then introduced to BFF’s Francis (Dolan) and Marie played brilliantly by Monia Chokri, who simultaneously become enchanted with the new hottie in town Nicolas, played with just the right balance of cockiness and charm by Niels Schnieder. Cue the ultimate ménage a trois that is always tethering on the edge, waiting to happen. Both Francis and Marie become engaged in a silent battle for the flirtatious “Adonis” with ambiguous sexuality, and the tension between them simmers beautifully.

Two's company...

There is a certain demographic of the hipster culture that the film certainly lends itself toward and this may put off some viewers. The film is jam packed with any and everything hipster from the upturned bottom of skinny leg jeans, unconventional hair, vintage clothes, pop culture references but only to films and actors pre 1960, unmatching tea sets and an affinity for all things twee. This is certainly evident in the fact that the majority of adoring twitter responses to the film after the screening were for some reason written in French. Tres chique. That’s not to say it’s not a film accessible by many people but it might have to be something Dolan might have to watch if his career is really set to boom.

Curls get the girls. And boys apparently.

That said, it’s Dolan’s visual flair that pays homage to many filmmakers, accompanied with a very witty, engaging and heartfelt script that really make the film a cinematic treat. Whilst Dolan’s journey as a filmmaker is certainly very developed for someone of his age there is still certainly some room to grow, but this only makes his promising career all the more exciting to watch out for.

Link the ink.

Filmink that is. As you may or may not know, I am ongoing contributor to Filmink magazine and the website. So here's some of the latest of my writings that've been put up on the website.

Review/blog on Polanki's new thriller; The Ghost Writer (As you can see on the side panel, I enjoyed it immensely):
http://blog.filmink.com.au/2010/05/31/sydney-film-festival-the-ghost-writer/

Review of City Island: ***1/2
http://www.filmink.com.au/review/city-island-film/

Review of 2.22: *
http://www.filmink.com.au/review/222-dvd/

Rant about remakes:
http://blog.filmink.com.au/2010/04/22/when-are-remakes-acceptable/

Also a reminder that the current issue on stands now, with more reviews by yours truely.

What happened Ridley? Or: Why Gladiator is still awesome, and Robin Hood is kinda lame.

There was a time I would have call Ridley Scott one of the greatest directors of all time, and with classics like Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, and Gladiator tucked under his belt it’s easy to see why. However, it seems like his pool of talent has dried and his films this last decade are only getting the dregs that he can wring out. Hannibal was a forgettable follow up to Silence Of The Lambs, Black Hawk Down was decent but hardly revolutionary, and then came the days of his undying love for Russell Crowe, trying to make lighting strike twice between the two of them, but thus far failing on all counts. The best way to show what I mean is by a direct comparison between their latest collaboration Robin Hood to their last great film Gladiator, a comparison I couldn’t shake from my head the whole time I was watching Robin Hood.


First and foremost the most obvious connection is old Rusty, who really his fulfilling his cinematic quest of “fightin’ round the world”. Crowe is certainly a capable actor, and is fully deserving of all the accolades he has accumulated but I think the reason Crowe delivers a much more iconic performance as Maximus over Robin, is the fact that Maximus is a much more complex and interesting character. Maximus is an esteemed general who looses everything, including his family and is outlawed by the Emperor in the opening scenes. Robin is a talented archer who starts of with little, ends with little and is outlawed by the King, except this time this spans over an entire movie not just as a character introduction. Because of this Maximus has a clearly defined goal, revenge and perhaps the liberation of Rome too, whilst Robins story is far too episodic to become completely emotionally invested in his character arc. He wants to flee from the army, he does soon after. He wants to return the sword to Nottingham, he does soon after. He has to pretend to be Maid Marion’s husband, he does for a short while afterward. He wants to unite all of England to defeat the French… Now I won’t give away the ending, but I’m sure you can guess. And at each step it’s never really that difficult for him to achieve his short term goals, he does it all with relative ease.


Now for every dashing leading man there is always a cranky villain twirling his moustache in the shadows. Joaquin Phoenix got Oscar nominated for his performance in Gladiator, and deservedly so. His character was emotionally complex being menacing but also naïve, jealous and petty who has a feasible emotion behind every decision. I for one wanted to pull him out of the screen and beat him to a pulp during that fantastic scene where he describes that Maximus’ wife moaned like a whore when she was being murdered. Now that’s a villain. Now who exactly is the antagonist in Robin Hood? Well the fact that this isn’t easy to give an answer is the major problem. We’ve got Mark Strong playing Godfrey, the man who betrayed England to the French. We’ve got Matthew Macfayden as The Sherriff of Nottingham, the man whose selfishness and greed is greater than his duty to his township. We’ve got the King of France who aspires to conquer England. We’ve got King John of England who youth, jealousy and greed makes him an enemy to all the English. And not one of them has a motive more interesting than money or greed, plus it makes it hard to know exactly who we’re rooting against. Phoenix’s Commodus was such a successful nemesis in the way you could understand where he was coming from.



So we’ve got out leading man, got our villain, but there’s also our damsel in distress. It always good to see female characters not merely being arm candy and waiting on the side for the men to do all the work, which is thankfully not the case in either film, but where Gladiator once again emerges on top is in how this is achieved. Connie Nielsen plays Lucilla, sister to Commodus and it’s implied she has lingering feelings for Maximus. She’s strong willed and ballsy, always trying to do what’s best for the country and especially for her son and certainly plays ever card she has to offer to do so. Blanchett’s Maid Marion is also a strong willed and ballsy woman, but in this instance the film goes one step too far, not merely relying on her to have a strong personality but having her physically picking up a sword and charging into battle ahead of a small troop of juvenile delinquents on Shetland ponies. This even seems to be all hypocritically undone when Maid Marion swiftly gets her ass handed to her on the battle field and requires Robin to come and save the day. To remain historically accurate does not mean presentations of women need to be as sexist as the times they live in, but there still needs to be an air of authenticity. Lucilla never had to enter the Coliseum twirling a sword in order to prove her strength as a character.

Don’t be mistaken, I did enjoy Robin Hood and I do anticipate the sequel that the entire films sets itself up for but this is once again another problem. The film starts far too early, and finished halfway through where the real movie should have been. Consider this as an alternative: Meet Robin Hood, soldier for the English army living in Nottingham where he is respected by the town folk and surrounding towns too. When a war between England and France arises, he pretends to be a knight to unite England and they emerge victorious but the king is jealous of the way the people praised Robin over him, and thus outlaws him for pretending to be a knight. This could have been the opening third which would then lead into a film with a much clearer objective, making for a much more satisfying ending.


There were many things I enjoyed about Robin Hood, including the opening scenes, the rousing battle sequences, the occasional tongue in cheek (would have liked more of this), and his band of merry men added a much needed flair to the events of the film. It certainly contains the visual feast that Gladiator had to offer, with impeccable art direction and costumes. However unavoidable comparisons to Gladiator make you realise just how much better it could have been.

Review: The White Ribbon

If I had a calorie for every time I've thought about Haneke over the last week, I'd be obese. So here's getting some thoughts off my chest:

After torturing a family a family twice in Funny Games and it's pointless remake, harassing another with video tapes in Hidden, and presenting an abusive fetish driven relationship between a teenage boy and an elderly woman in The Piano Teacher, director Michael Haneke brings us his next family caper showing us Nazi Germany: The Wonder Years in The White Ribbon. Anyone who has caught a glimpse of a Haneke film will be familiar with the edgy, twisted dimensions he adds to his films that push the envelope so hard that it would give you paper cuts. All poor analogies aside, people who have seen more than a glimpse would realise that Haneke is never exploitive, and creates tension you could cut with a knife without a knife or any other weapon ever needing to appear.

In perhaps his most successful and mature piece yet, The White Ribbon paints an eerie picture of a small town in Germany just prior to World War One where there appears to be something sinister lurking beneath everything, particularly the children. Haneke masterfully keeps the audience uneasy throughout the film letting them know something isn’t right, but you’d be damned if you could pin point what that is. But Haneke, is all his nihilistic wisdom knows what it is, and better yet he knows what his audience will and won’t know. It’s so refreshing to have a filmmaker not treat his audience like an idiot, but challenge them every frame and as a result it makes The White Ribbon, like many of his other films linger long past the closing credits. He tests them too, at every corner with the increasing dread simmering throughout the film, you’re just waiting for it to boil over and limbs to severed, bowels dismembered and people to scream, and most curiously, is it wrong to say we’re disappointed when it doesn’t happen? It’s toying with expectations that make The White Ribbon so effective, and whilst the mystery might not have a Poirot to tweak his moustache and solve it, it doesn’t matter. There are far more interesting things going on.

Credit is also certainly due to the talented cast and crew that truly elevate the film. Each frame seems like a creepy stoic postcard you’d find under a floor board, but also has a visual beauty to it that makes it a pleasure to watch. The costumes and set design are likewise pitch perfect in historical accuracy, but unnervingly sinister just in the way Haneke presents the people who occupy them. The cast too is commendable, with so often bad child actors ruining a movie, it was a risk to have the children play such a prominent and vital part of the film, but they all nail it. Are you listing Hollywood? If Haneke can do it with an entire cast of amateurs why did Jake Lloyd have to taint the entire Star Wars franchise? But that’s a whole other ramble entirely.

Review: The Secret In Their Eyes

Not for the faint of heart, the Oscar winning film The Secret in Their Eyes avoids everything Hollywood to bring a gripping, melancholic and powerfully moving film. The Argentinean film stars Ricardo Darin as Benjamin Esposito, a man investigating the brutal rape and murder of a young beautiful woman with the help of his alcoholic assistant Ricardo Morales, (Pablo Rago) and the beautiful woman he secretly pines over Irene (Soledad Villamil). This traditional crime solving set up dissolves quickly, moving unpredictably through its plot whilst keeping the focus firmly fixed on the emotional and moral dilemmas the characters face.

Many viewers may find the film unsettling, and it certainly packs as punch. This is not only due to the constantly surprising narrative and occasional brief brutal violence, but also to the mood set by the film. There is an understated grief, accompanied with an anger that underscores the film never letting the audience become complacent. Without a predictable or traditional story arch the movie could have tried patience of audiences, but an extremely clever script by Juan Jose Campanella brings a smooth cohesion to a disjointed plot. The non-linear structure of the film is particularly handled well.

At the centre of this noir-esque drama, is a romance between Irene and Esposito which is utterly believable and moving, due to the two leads who cover decades in their roles thanks to some fantastic aging makeup. In particular Soledad Villamil gives a truly outstanding performance with charisma, heart ache and grace, though there is not a weak link in the cast.

Technical aspects are similarly expertly done, with seamless editing between different time periods, and between fantasy and reality. Director Juan Jose Campanella uses restraint effectively, never becoming showy but remaining true to the tone of the film, making a film that’s often thrilling but always emotionally engaging. The films greatest strength is in the portrait it paints of these characters and the inner dilemmas they face, and it is this that will linger with the audience long after they leave the cinema.