Film Review: Buttwhistle

Buttwhistle is an odd film about an even odder (even odder? that sounds weird to me) relationship between Ogden and Beth, but actually it’s more about them as individuals and about their singular perspectives on the world.

The film begins with a telemarketer on the phone, telling an obviously unenthusiastic party about a free gift. Then when he takes a bite of his lunch, his head explodes. The film then cuts to a couple in bed, and then quickly to an acrobatic man running along a street, dodging cars, fences and the opening credits. It’s actually a really cool and impressive opening credit sequence.

The man is Ogden (Trevor Morgan), and we learn that he’s still connected to an old flame, whom he often thinks of and speaks with. Pulling him momentarily out of those images is another girl, Beth (Elizabeth Rice), passing him on her way down to her death. Ogden grabs her hand, saving her life. And she then becomes completely involved in his life. She says she owes him, and tries repeatedly to pay him back with sexual favors (which of course he eventually succumbs to – who wouldn’t?). But he at first counters with, “Ten bucks.” It’s interesting how quickly and easily she inserts and entangles herself in Ogden’s life.

When a homeless man comes up to them, saying he hasn’t eaten in two days, Beth responds, “I wish I had your willpower.” Ogden gives him money. That’s a good indication of their characters right there.

The film has an unusual sense of humor. Ogden gives his parents a homemade anniversary card with a five-dollar bill tucked inside. And then as the scene is transitioning to the next scene, we hear Ogden ask, “Hey, Dad, can I borrow five bucks?” A little later, Ogden toys with changing his name to the sound of a horn, and Beth plays along, saying that he had told her that everyone calls him Buttwhistle. What’s great is that Ogden’s parents go along with the joke. It’s like all the characters in this film are part of an improv troupe, accepting each thing that is said and building on it. When his parents suddenly leave on a trip, they blow the horn as they say goodbye to him.

And don't worry: the film doesn't forget about that opening image. On the news periodically we hear that the police are looking for Elizabeth, the daughter of the man whose head exploded. And Beth begins to act weirdly possessive regarding Ogden.

Nothing seems to bother, or even affect, Ogden. Not even when Beth throws away a lot of his clothing to make room for some of her own clothes. Not even when she steals money from him. Not even when she bangs up the car. And, perhaps most shockingly, not when he learns that photos of his old girlfriend are missing. His old girlfriend appears at one point and tells him, “Your problem is that you don’t have a problem.” Perhaps. Or that he refuses to acknowledge the problems he does have. But there is something very appealing, in a way, in Ogden’s outlook. I’d love to be that calm and easy-going.

There is an odd progress to this film. It doesn’t quite flow naturally, but that seems deliberate, to put us more firmly into a sort of disjointed state. Because the reality of this film is a bit at odds with the realities I’ve known in my life so far. At times, it’s delightful, like when Ogden’s parents play along with the horn joke. At other times, it’s more disconcerting, like when Beth becomes acting possessive.

At one point, two detectives arrive at Ogden’s door. Though they appear like very serious individuals, their introduction has a decidedly comedic tone. They first ask to speak with someone who lives two doors down, then ask for the person living next door. And then we see them inside Ogden’s house. I love that the film doesn’t bother showing us them coming up with the right name. We see them get closer, which is perfect. However, the scenes with these two detectives get a little tedious and are not quite believable, even within this odd world of the film. The film doesn’t always work, but it’s basically quite enjoyable, and I appreciate its peculiar take on the world.

By the way, someone covers one of my favorite Syd Barrett tunes on the soundtrack.

Buttwhistle was written and directed by Tenney Fairchild. It is available on Video On Demand, and is scheduled be released on DVD on May 27, 2014.

Film Review: Neverlake

Neverlake is a delightfully creepy, dark fairytale of a film, with good performances and some wonderful imagery. In fact, the opening images are excellent. We are in the water, looking up at the surface, where a girl is floating on her back, seemingly dead. As she floats, a hand comes into view in the foreground, deep below her. The fingers are not moving, so we might assume it’s also a corpse. We’re not even a minute into the film, and I’m already hooked.

The girl above begins to sink, while in voice over she recites a small portion of a poem from Percy Shelley. And we see that she is not dead. And the hand that we saw in the foreground is part of a doll or statue. There are other such limbs and other doll parts which rise to the surface as the girl sinks. She reaches out, as if to grab a photograph that passes her, but she can’t grasp anything. And in voice over she says, “My father thinks that poetry is for people who haven’t yet reached or have just lost the gift of reason.”

How is that for an opening sequence?

Neverlake tells the tale of Jenny, a teenager who at her father’s behest travels to Tuscany, where she was born, but where she hasn’t been since. At her father’s home, she meets Olga, a strange but beautiful woman whose role in her father’s life is not at first clear to Jenny. Jenny’s father is mysteriously absent for the first couple of days she’s there, and Jenny goes exploring the Lake of Idols on her own. The lake plays a big part in her father's studies, and is the reason Jenny believes she was sent for. There she meets a young girl with a bandage over her eyes. This girl takes her to an old hospital where she and a few other sick children live. She befriends them and reads Shelley (and later Shakespeare) to them. And it is clear that they need her for something.

The atmosphere is sufficiently creepy. One of the children says: “Try not to let the adults see you. They’re bad.” What’s really wonderful about this is that Jenny doesn’t take them all that seriously. Daisy Anne Keeping gives quite a good performance as the teenage girl who is out of her element without at first being aware of it. Her performance is true and honest and believable, and that helps us feel even more for her, as we as viewers have more of a sense of foreboding than she does.

This film really does feel like a twisted fairytale. It has those classic elements: a girl in a place far from home, a strange and mysterious woman who has entered her father’s life, an absent mother, a land with potentially magical properties (the lake), and a sense of danger that surrounds her and makes her alone and vulnerable.

The film mostly sticks with Jenny, helping us identify with her. We know little more than she does, except what we pick up as impressions, and this really pays off. There is a scene where she suddenly wakes up in a hospital room. She has absolutely no idea how she got there, and neither do we. Though we begin to have very strong feelings about just how she got there, and whom she should not trust. But it’s as much of a jolt to us as it is to her to find her in a hospital room, with her father at her bedside. He tells her she’s fine, that she had a small operation. The calmness of her father adds to the frightening aspect of this scene.

Jenny gets more and more involved in the mystery of the lake, of the children, and of her father’s secret work. It’s a really good film. Sure, there are some minor problems. There are two characters that we see at one point outside the building where the children live, and it’s never clear just what part they play in the story. And there is a moment when it seems the father should be more concerned about something that Jenny has revealed to him, based on what he knows and she doesn’t. And it’s not entirely clear just why Jenny’s father sent her away in the first place. There is a little information about this, but I started wondering about the timeline, though not until after the film. But none of these minor issues detracted from my enjoyment of the film.

Neverlake was directed by Riccardo Paoletti, and is going to be available on Video On Demand starting June 6, 2014. It is also scheduled to be released on DVD later this summer.

DVD Review: Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?

Michel Gondry and Noam Chomsky are two people who never fail to be interesting. So I was excited to see Michel Gondry’s new film, Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?, in which he interviews Noam Chomsky. If you know Michel Gondry’s work (Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, The Science Of Sleep, Be Kind Rewind), you know this is not going to be a normal, straight documentary film. Gondry has his own perspective on reality, and that of course comes into play, most obviously in the way the film is presented – the conversation is animated.

At the beginning of the film, Michel Gondry explains why he decided to use animation, mentioning the manipulative nature of film which often confuses the voice of the subject with that of the filmmaker, something the audience often forgets about. But with animation, they’d be always aware. Gondry says: “Animation… is clearly the interpretation of its author. If messages, or even propaganda, can be delivered, the audience is constantly reminded that they are not watching reality. So it’s up to them to decide if they are convinced or not.” Of course, this sequence itself is animated. So…

Michel begins by asking Noam about his first memory. By the way, we do see a little of Noam in his regular, unanimated state on occasion. He relates a very early memory of not wanting to eat oatmeal. The animation that goes with it is wonderful. Michel Gondry does the animation himself on this film. Some of the animation made me burst out laughing, like the caveman hitting a walking brain with a bone until it moves away.

Of course, much of the film is fascinating even apart from the animation, such as Noam’s views on children’s early development of language. (At one point, Noam says he wanted to be a taxidermist when he was young, because he liked the word.) About education, Noam says, “If you’re willing to be puzzled, you can learn.” They talk about the relationship between a word and the object, and also about inspiration, science, and beliefs. It’s a film that gets you excited about thought itself.

At a couple of points, Michel takes a break to talk a bit about the project. The second break comes when there has been a communication issue. Michel admits, “As you can see, I felt a bit stupid here.” It’s interesting, because as the filmmaker, he is in control of what we see and hear, and can insert his own thoughts when he sees fit, something Noam is not given the opportunity to do.

Special Features

The DVD includes several bonus features. The first is Animated Noam Chomsky, an interesting behind-the-scenes feature which shows us Michel Gondry at work. He talks about his animation while working on it. He drew everything on paper, plus shows his use of photos. There is also a bit of an interview with him, where he talks about his impressions of Noam. There is some footage of Noam speaking at a Q&A at a New York screening. This is approximately nine minutes.

The second is Democracy Now! Interview, and is an interview with Michel Gondry about the film. Michel Gondry talks about how he became interested in Noam Chomsky. He talks about his method of animation, using a 16mm camera. And he talks about the interviews, which totaled approximately three hours (so Gondry used half of what he had for the film). He also talks about how he got his start, and a bit about advertising. Unfortunately, this feature includes a few long clips from the film, so the interview isn’t as long as it could have been. And there is also footage of Noam Chomsky talking at the Q&A. This feature is approximately forty-one minutes.

The DVD also includes the Q&A from the DOC NYC Festival, from November 21, 2013. (It actually begins with Michel Gondry’s introduction for the film.) The Q&A is with Michel Gondry and Noam Chomsky. Noam talks about some of the ideas explored in the film, such as language. There are a couple of questions from the audience at the end. This feature is approximately thirty-two minutes.

There is also an interview with Michel Gondry from Huffington Post Live. He talks about what attracted him to Noam Chomsky, and about those moments when it seems Noam is dismissing Michel’s input. He also talks about the freedom he had on this project. This interview is approximately twenty minutes.

The DVD also includes the film’s trailer.

Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy? was released on DVD on May 13, 2014.

Film Review: A People Uncounted

A People Uncounted documents the rarely told story of the Roma, with a focus on the Holocaust as well as on more recent events. I knew very little about the Roma before watching this documentary. There was an episode of The Practice that dealt with arranged marriages within the Romani traditions, but most of what we hear about them in popular culture is that fanciful image of them as “Gypsies.” Rarely do we hear about the realities of their struggles and the discrimination they face.

The film opens with small portions of interviews, including one woman who shows the tattooed number on her arm. She tells us: “‘Z’ for ‘Gypsy,’ 6399. I stood in front of the crematorium twice myself. But the Zyklon-B they needed was empty.” And we see a famous photograph of a girl on a train just before the door is shut, and learn that she wasn’t Jewish but a Gypsy. When we think of the Holocaust we tend to focus almost entirely on the atrocities committed against the Jewish people. And sometimes we forget there were other groups the Nazis wanted to wipe out.

We then are taken to a district in Kosice, Slovakia, where Roma currently live, and it’s a horrible area, full of trash. Jaro Kerner, the public relations officer of the city of Kosice, explains that the people living in these buildings have water only twice a day for a total of four hours. The problem is unemployment, and the discrimination the Roma people face. And not just there, for we learn that the vice mayor of Milan declared Milan a “Gypsy-free zone” in 2010, where many Roma were evicted from their homes. (I would have liked a little more information on this.)

The film delves a bit into the popular images of the Roma in films and music, where they are seen as musicians and dancers. (Singer Shakira, in her song “Gypsy,” sings “I might steal your clothes and wear them if they fit me.”) Bill Bila, a Romani activist, explains that “gypsy” is a misnomer, derived from “Egyptian” because Europeans believed the Roma had migrated from Egypt. The film is kind enough to provide definitions of both “Roma” and “Sinti” as well. The Sinti are the subgroup of Romani people living in Germany and surrounding areas (and were people who were rounded up and removed from Berlin before the 1936 Olympics).

Regarding the dominant image of the Roma as nomadic, Bill Bila points out: “In the Austrian part of the empire, Roma were not allowed to own land, so they had to travel. They went from town to town looking for work.” But not all Roma traveled. He says, “In Hungary, they were required to be settled.” What strikes me is that in both cases they were told what to do by law, not by their own choice.

As I mentioned, a good deal of this documentary focuses on the destruction of the Romani people during the Holocaust. There are interviews with several Holocaust survivors, and some of the details these folks provide are shocking (yes, even now, even after hearing of Nazi crimes for decades). The material on Doctor Mengele’s experiments on Roma children is horrifying. One survivor describes his experience. (Though I really wish the interviewer had pressed the issue a little more, and asked just exactly what was done, and how he managed to survive.) Likewise, the stuff about Eva Justin (and her studies on Romani children) is incredible. I knew nothing about that before, and the fact that she continued working until her death in 1966 is appalling.

The film really focuses on genocide (the term “genocide” was coined by a Polish lawyer in 1944 to describe the Holocaust). This is, for me, when the film becomes really fascinating, when it points out the signs that lead to attempts at genocide, and ties in what happened during the Holocaust with what is happening in Hungary and other places today. There is a political campaign ad from 2010 in which someone asks, “Are Gypsy criminals allowed to do whatever they want?” More disturbing is footage of a political speech in which is said people “should not endure the Gypsy terror.”

The film focuses on the persecution of the Roma, but does not provide much in the way of details on their beliefs or practices as a culture. Though that information seems outside the intended focus of the film, I think a little more would have helped my understanding of the Roma, and certainly would have been appreciated.

A People Uncounted was directed by Aaron Yeger. It opens in New York City on May 16, 2014. 

DVD Review: The Zombinator

The title The Zombinator leads you to expect certain things, such as references to other films and a light, playful tone. You might also expect something to do with time travel and robots. I did. But no, there is no time travel aspect, and the Zombinator is not any sort of android.  The DVD cover has to do with the film’s title, but nothing whatsoever to do with the film itself.

The Zombinator, despite its title, is actually quite good for a while. It isn’t until the title character becomes a major force that the film falls apart. It opens with shots a family of three eating breakfast, and a voice off camera asks, “How would you guys describe Joanne?” Joanne is the young woman at the table, the daughter of the other two people. So it’s set up to be a documentary on a woman who is pursuing an interest in fashion.

Early on there are shots of the crew as well, talking about murders in the area. Seems silly, but the filmmakers save it by having Joanne (off screen) ask, “What’s it like outside,” to which one of them responds, “Murdery.” It’s actually a nice, totally believable moment, especially for anyone who has worked on a low-budget film project. And the rest of that scene is kind of delightful, with Joanne saying she’s upset that they’re talking about their next project while they should be working on her story.

And then in the next shot apparently Joanne has adjusted by deciding to become part of that story as well, taking the crew (along with two female friends) to the train tracks where supposedly some murders have occurred. Joanne says “supposably,” and I wonder, is that a character flaw, or an actor flaw? They see blood on a concrete pillar under a bridge. And while Joanne and her friends get ready for a party, the camera crew remains, looking at the blood, the sound guy even licking it on a dare.

The film crew then goes to the party, which is actually a wake for a soldier named Bobby, though Joanne gets a little upset when people talk about Bobby instead of about fashion. But all of this is believable, because of the characters. The tone is not too silly or goofy. Though finally one of the guys, Marcus, does ask about the cameras, then points out, “You guys realize this is a wake, right?” And we’re introduced to The Colonel, the man who brought back Bobby’s ashes (so I guess they cremated him overseas). In a film full of young characters, the Colonel says the dumbest thing thus far: “They talk about the Greatest Generation, but I really believe that this is the greatest generation, and Bobby was a member of that.” And even though Marcus pointed out that it’s a wake, a hard rock band dressed like zombies begins playing, and folks dance.

There is a commotion outside, the sound of gunshots, and then the zombies arrive. So of course there is plenty of jumpy camera work. And we briefly see the Zombinator (a man dressed in a dark coat and sunglasses) shooting zombies. People scatter, and one of the camera men follows Yanna (Diana Sillaots), a really beautiful girl in a furry coat (I would too, even though she’s not the subject of their documentary). Soon everyone regroups at a school, and they begin discussing the situation.

One girl becomes hysterical, saying “I don’t like this, something isn’t right.” It turns out she is upset because she left her pet zebra alone. So there are crazier things than zombies in this film. And in the building they run into another crew, this being a group of paranormal researchers hired by the owner of the building. It’s kind of funny that the paranormal team doesn’t believe the college students about the zombies, an irony not lost on the students.

Because of the hand-held nature of the filming, there are moments when it’s not exactly clear what’s going on, like when one girl, Nina, goes to investigate a sound. And after that, the group scatters again, and again one camera guy follows the blonde in the fur. I like this guy. She runs off with a guy named Scott, and then tells Scott she’s breaking up with him. Scott is understandably shocked, saying, “Get a fucking grip, this is not the time for this shit.” But the camera man must be pleased.

There is, of course, plenty of bad dialogue. Even though there are zombies all over the place, one guy suddenly confesses that during his childhood he was abused by his dad. But it’s when the college students run outside and are rescued by the Zombinator that the film begins to fall apart.

First of all, what happened to the paranormal investigation team? They were a nice touch, a sort of mature voice of reason, so it’s a shame to lose them so early on. But mainly the problem becomes the logistics of the documentary camera crew. Basically at this point the whole idea and conceit of the camera crew ceases to make sense or be the least bit believable. And that’s a shame too, because the film is surprisingly good up to this point.

The Zombinator ushers the college students into the back of a truck. One camera guy and presumably his sound man get in the truck. But the other remains behind, as we get footage of the zombies banging on the truck as it drives away. Wouldn’t they want to stick together? Does each camera man have his own sound person? Well, the camera man who is left behind is never heard from again. So you’d think you’d only get one angle from now on. Not so. By my count, there are at least four different camera men, including the one left behind. That was going to be some fashion documentary.

The truck stops, and the Zombinator yells at everyone to get out. He doesn’t remove his dark glasses, and it’s quite dark outside, so isn’t Corey Hart having trouble seeing? Don’t you want someone with a gun to be able to see well? Anyway, he leads them inside some building. Yanna and Marcus take off, not trusting him. They seem the most sensible at this point (that will soon change). And this time the camera guy doesn’t follow Yanna (perhaps the one who liked her is the one left behind).

At this point it still seems like there are two camera men in the room because we get two angles of everything (though later there will prove to be three). The Zombinator orders everyone up against the wall, except the camera crew, which is odd. But this is a sort of theme throughout the rest of the film. No one bothers about the camera crew. Not the Zombinator, not the zombies, not the Colonel (who turns out to be the villain of the piece). It’s one of the problems inherent in the chosen method of telling this story.

Anyway, the Zombinator tells the students that the zombies are the result of military experiments. “They have a cure, but they will not use it until it gets so big, after Youngstown is gone. And then they’ll present it on the market and make billions.” Scott decides it’s about time to go looking for his girlfriend. The rest babble about what they should or shouldn’t do.

Joanne decides to leave with another guy, and a camera man follows them. Another remains in the room with the others. But the next shot is of Marcus, who is still inside, but no longer with Yanna. Why not? No idea. But this means that a camera man did follow Marcus and Yanna, but stayed with Marcus when they split up. And this is the moment we realize Marcus is actually the stupidest character in the film. He is standing in front of glass doors, looking out at a mass of zombies. Apparently he thinks a couple of the female zombies are cute, so he opens the door. Unfortunately, they all come in, cute ones and not-so-cute ones, and of course kill him. And now the zombies are inside the building. And though there are lots of them, they completely ignore the camera man who is right there.

But hey, Joanne is still alive, so they can finish their fashion documentary later. The Colonel shows up with a few other military people, and they grab Joanne and another guy, who are hiding in the bathroom with a camera man. But they leave the camera man alone. He follows them outside anyway, along with another camera man, and both are allowed total freedom of movement, even later when the Colonel is revealing the plot to the chained-up Zombinator. It seems odd that the Colonel would allow this to be filmed, as he is implicating himself in a heavily illegal plot that has already resulted in several deaths. The Colonel then leaves the room, leaving the Zombinator chained up. So of course the two camera men unchain him. The Colonel didn’t consider that possibility?

Oddly, at this point one of the sound guys quits the project. Why would he leave? Being part of a film crew is the only thing that makes you invulnerable in the world of this story. Everyone leaves you alone to do your thing. I’d want to keep that shield as long as necessary.

Where are the police, by the way? There have been a lot of gunshots, and quite a lot of murders. Aren’t the police the least bit curious about this? And if the Zombinator was in on the project, as the Colonel revealed, and knows there’s a cure, why isn’t he going after the cure instead of killing everyone? The zombie cure isn’t going to help anyone with a gunshot wound in the head or heart. And in fact, he really hasn’t saved anyone.

The documentary conceit is constant trouble. There is a moment where the film crew is following the Zombinator down a flight of stairs. The Zombinator stops right at the bottom of the stairs and engages in a gun battle, keeping the film crew at the top of the stairs. And yet, one camera man is magically downstairs. How did he get there? Was he there already, somehow guessing where the Zombinator would go? It makes no sense whatsoever. And again the Colonel leaves him alone, even as he takes another person hostage (it’s unclear how that woman got there too, come to think of it).

It’s a shame, because as I said, this movie started off surprisingly well. But the filmmakers should have realized that the whole documentary crew conceit was just not going to work.

The DVD includes the film’s trailer, but no other special features. The Zombinator was directed by Sergio Myers, and is scheduled to be released May 13, 2014 through Inception Media Group.

DVD Review: Piggy

Piggy is a thriller about a man named who becomes numb after his brother is killed, until he meets Piggy, who encourages Joe to take the law into his own hands. This film might sound like a simple revenge thriller, but it is much more than that. It’s an intense psychological portrait of a man who is afraid to take action. It has a wonderful build and a more serious, intimate tone than most films of this genre.

When we meet Joe (Martin Compston), he is working as a messenger, delivering letters and packages. In voice over he tells us: “This was the first job I’d had in years. I’d been too shy to work. I didn’t even like going out the door.” And we see him interacting awkwardly with his co-workers. He tells us: “This wasn’t a good job for me. I found it hard being so close to other people. And the more I was around them, the less I felt part of their world.” And through the camera’s placement, we’re close with him as he walks along the streets. We’re closer to him than anyone in the world of the film. It’s almost as if we’re inside his head, and the voice over narration is composed of his own thoughts to himself.

At one point we see him stop himself from going down an alley because at the far end there is a group of people blocking the way. From his perspective they seem like they might be dangerous. And so he walks the long way around. And when he sees them from the other side, after going around, he sees (and we see) that they’re in fact children, and Joe laughs at himself for avoiding them. It’s a nice moment. On his way back, he walks through them, saying “Excuse me,” and smiles. It’s a small victory for Joe, and we feel it just as he does. This is a really wonderful way of establishing his character and perspective. And I love that the film takes the time to really create Joe's character.

One day, the doorbell rings, startling him. He unlocks several locks on his door, and John, his older brother, comes in. His older brother has a positive effect on his life and his disposition. We see how his brother makes Joe more comfortable, almost more human. He even gets him out to a pub. We also see Joe pining for a girl named Claire (Louise Dylan), a woman that his brother used to date.

Then one night Joe is mugged while walking home, which clearly sets him back. His brother still is able to get him to out to a bar, but then a minor incident leads to much bigger trouble. Joe pushes his chair back to get up, and unintentionally bangs into someone behind him. He immediately apologies, but the guy becomes angry. Joe soon leaves, as that man and his mates keep looking over at him. And then the next morning the phone wakes Joe, and he rushes to the hospital. Claire is already there, and we learn that John was attacked late in the night. After John dies, Joe is alone again.

Until one day, someone knocks on his door. The set is great, by the way, as there is a small hall that Joe must walk along to get to his front door. So he has to make a deliberate move to it, to walk to it, which gives him the time and opportunity to really think about his decision. Walking to his own door is like moving out of his comfort zone, even within his own apartment. Those simple moments really feel like a struggle between action and inaction.

At his door is a man who introduces himself simply as Piggy, a man who knew Joe’s brother. Joe says, “I think I remember you from when I was a kid.” Piggy (Paul Anderson) says something needs to be done about his brother’s murder. It’s a very strange, unsettling scene – with Joe standing and Piggy seated, repeating what a terrible thing John’s murder is. He leaves, but soon Joe and Piggy begin getting together. At one point, Piggy gives him a gift – a large life. “For cooking, you need a sharp knife,” he tells Joe. And Joe actually seems happy.

Piggy offers to help Joe. He takes him to the building where lives the man who mugged Joe. They follow the man, and Piggy attacks him. He tells Joe to hit him, but Joe is frozen. Here is a man who goes to great lengths to avoid confrontation, and now he’s put in a position where he’s seeking it, and it’s too much. Piggy stomps on the mugger’s hand, but doesn’t kill him, and tells Joe the man won’t rob anyone any more. Of course, there is the question: How did Piggy even know about this mugging? And even if he knew about the mugging, how did he find the mugger?

But now they discuss a plan to go after the five men who were responsible for John’s murder. Piggy has them both wear rubber pig noses. Piggy says, “The more stupid the disguise, the more they won’t be able to see past it.” But there is question of just who Piggy is, and what his motives are.

Claire stops by Joe's apartment while Piggy is there, so Joe tells him to hide in the other room. Claire and Joe talk about John's murder, with Claire saying, “It’s like they took not only his life, but his past too, because you can’t think about him without thinking about them.” A good point. And suddenly Piggy is standing behind her, motioning to Joe after Clair wonders aloud if the murderers will ever be caught, and you get the sense that perhaps Piggy is a figment or concoction of Joe’s imagination.

This film boasts good performances, particularly by Martin Compston as Joe. And it's well shot, and completely engaging.

The DVD contains the film’s trailer, but no other special features. Piggy was written and directed by Kieron Hawkes, and is scheduled to be released on DVD on May 13, 2014 through Inception Media Group.

DVD Review: Alexander Calder

Alexander Calder is a documentary on the artist and sculptor who created the mobile art form. It’s really a celebration of his work, with footage of many of his pieces which have both a beauty and an innocence. Alexander Calder was filmed as part of the American Masters series.

The film opens with a shot of a large sculpture reflected in water. The camera then pans up through the grass and foliage at the edge of the water to the sculpture itself, giving it the sense of rising out nature, though also being in contrast to it. There are then shots of mobiles in action – some small, some large – and there is such grace and beauty to the movement.

Brendan Gill says that before Calder’s time, “Sculpture was an expression of solidity, of motionlessness.” Arne Glimcher says: “He changed the nature of sculpture. He redefined what sculpture was, could possibly be, and now is.” That gives you a sense of his impact right at the beginning of the film, before the documentary then goes into his biography.

His parents were both artists – his mother a painter, and his father a sculptor, so he was creating from the get-go, even making his own toys when growing up. And his upbringing is perhaps part of what allowed him to maintain that childlike quality throughout his life. Several people interviewed in this film describe Calder as a child, that he was a child his whole life.  By the way, the narration, which is done by Tovah Feldshuh, at times embraces and embodies that feel itself, and is kind of humorous, as when she says, “He grew an unfortunate moustache,” or when she sort of imitates Calder’s way of speaking.

The film shows us lots of his work, including his early sketches and paintings, and then his early wire sculptures, such as his Josephine Baker work. He would make wire portraits of people at parties, as gifts. And then he created a wire circus in his home, and would perform all the acts for friends and others who would pop by (like Man Ray). And it was his wire circus that got him his first solo exhibition in New York.

Several people are interviewed in this film, including family members, art critics and friends. Arthur Miller is one of those interviewed, and he talks about the circus creations.

One thing that really struck me was how Alexander Calder worked in all forms, and seemed to master them all. In addition to wire and wood sculpture, he worked with glass, designed stage sets, illustrated books, created anti-war posters, made jewelry, and even painted two jets. His creativity was inexhaustible.

And of course there are his abstract sculptures. The film shows us various examples of his larger sculptures in places around the world. The story of the sculpture in Grand Rapids in 1969 is particularly interesting.

Bonus Material

The DVD includes a few special features. The first is a new interview with director Roger Sherman on this film. It took four years to make it. He talks about what he learned about filming sculptures and also talks about the narration. This feature is approximately six minutes. There is also a Roger Sherman biography.

The DVD also includes a photo gallery, with photos of Calder’s work, of Calder himself, and photos of Roger Sherman filming the sculptures.

Alexander Calder was directed by Roger Sherman and released on DVD on May 6, 2014 through First Run Features.

DVD Review: God Loves Uganda

God Loves Uganda is a powerful and disturbing documentary about the effect of United States evangelical missionaries on the people and policies of Uganda, particularly involving a proposed law criminalizing homosexual activity.

It opens with a bit of voice over: “I love Uganda…But something frightening is happening that has the potential to destroy Uganda. And it is coming from the outside.” The film then traces the source of the troubles, going to Kansas City, Missouri, to a place called International House Of Prayer. The sign outside the building says, “24/7 Worship & Prayer For Global Harvest.” Inside, people are jumping with their hands up to the ceiling, while a Christian rock band performs on a stage.

And we meet some of the folks involved with this church, including Lou Engle, who says he is excited about the religious possibilities in Africa, and Jono Hall, the media director who talks about how they broadcast their sermons, which reach 160 to 170 nations regularly. The film actually has footage of a meeting of the Uganda Missionary Team.

Balancing this perspective is Rev. Kapya Kaoma, who went to Uganda to research the Christian Right. After supporting gay rights there, he had to flee the country and has not been able to return. American evangelicals have built churches across Uganda, as well as Christian universities, schools and orphanages.

We are treated to footage of the Miracle Center Cathedral, Uganda’s largest church. And right away we see the similarities between the service there and that of the church in Kansas City. It’s eerie. The film also interviews Pastor Robert Kayanja, who is thankful to the United States because it was U.S. money that built the church. And we soon see why he’s thankful. There is a shot of the exterior of his residence, and it’s a gorgeous mansion (that shot, by the way, is positioned right after a shot of people putting money into a basket at the church).

The Christian religion seems pervasive there. There is footage of people preaching with megaphones to those stuck in traffic.  There is also a series of shots of signs for shops, places with names like Party For Jesus Shoe Maker And Repair, Holy Face Of Jesus Pharmacy, and Born Again Brokers. It’s so ridiculous as to first seem hilarious. Except no one there is laughing.

And we also meet the missionaries who travel from Kansas City to Uganda. These are mostly young people, including Jesse and Rachelle Digges, a couple that married at the age of eighteen. Rachelle says: “There is a very strategic position that Uganda is in. Fifty percent of the population is under fifteen years old. This is a youth nation. What Jesse and I could do is so limited, but we can multiply ourselves in these young people, and they can reach multitudes.” And we see the missionaries leading children in songs about Jesus.

The film doesn’t jump right into the subject of homosexuality. It sets the stage first, giving the background information about the U.S. missionaries and introducing us to many of the people involved. The film also provides information on the abstinence programs there (when George W. Bush forced his way into the presidency he cut all funding, except for those programs preaching abstinence). So we’re basically up to speed when the film turns to the subject of a bill which would criminalize homosexual acts, the proposed punishment being death for repeat offenders.

Scott Lively, a pastor, preaches against homosexuality, saying “We need public policy that discourages homosexuality.” He is a guest on Spotlight, a television program there, and on that show he spouts the belief that gay people recruit children. Insane stuff, to be sure, but stuff that is listened to there. Lively was actually able to address Parliament and help create policy, resulting in the anti-homosexuality bill.

Lou Engle says, “If you throw God out of the picture, then everybody has rights to do anything, and you get moral chaos, and that’s really what’s going on, I think, in our nation.” He was a supporter of Proposition 8 here in California, which outlawed gay marriage, but was eventually overturned because it’s unconstitutional.

This entire film is completely engrossing. One segment that stuck out for me is part of an interview with Joanna Watson, one of the few older missionaries there. She says that when she was in her twenties, she was “involved in acting – you know, that whole scene is full of homosexuals.” She continues: “I had some male friends, and we would go to the homosexual bars and dancing…I really started to be attracted to other women. I am one been healed from sexual brokenness, and it took a long time.” No surprise there. It’s so sad, really. Here’s a lesbian who is denying a core aspect of herself, and instead wrapping herself in layers of warm, comforting hypocrisy. Earlier in the film she says that God wants homosexuality stopped. She clearly hates herself.

That’s a shame. But that’s a personal issue for her. The problem is that people like her are causing policy to be implemented which will destroy lives. And, as one of those interviewed in the film says, “The Americans, when they preach hate here, they forget that they are preaching to people who will just take the law into their hands.”

Bonus Features

The DVD includes quite a bit of bonus material. The first is “Out In Malawi,” footage of a screening of the film which brought together gay people and religious folks. It’s definitely worth watching. “The Pastor Wars” has information about how the money involved in religion leads to one pastor accusing another of being gay. “Gospel Of Intolerance” has more footage with the missionaries, including Joanna Watson (here identified as Jo Anna Watson). And there is footage from the question and answer panel at the Sundance Windrunner Forum. All of that totals approximately twenty-five minutes.

There are also a few deleted scenes, including footage of Bishop Christopher Senyonjo touring the U.S., as well as a scene of Joanna Watson conducting her fundraising and talking a bit about her life and marriage. The deleted scenes are approximately ten minutes.

God Loves Uganda was directed by Roger Ross Williams, and is scheduled to be released on DVD on May 19, 2014 through First Run Features.

Film Review: Dark Hearts

Dark Hearts is an odd love story about two brothers, one of whom is a painter, the other being…well, a painter’s assistant, I suppose. They both fall for the same woman, though it is the painter who approaches her first. She warns him early on that she’s no good, and indeed, a lot of trouble is brought into the brothers’ lives through her presence. But the painter also finds his artistic voice, and artists will go to great lengths for their muses. This is a film that is awkward early on, but gets much better as it goes along.

The film opens with a shot of a car driving in the desert. A man and woman get out and remove a foul-smelling sack from the trunk (presumably a body), and a gas can. They drag the sack behind a large rock and set fire to it.

The film then cuts to two weeks earlier (that “2 weeks earlier” on screen is the film’s biggest problem, as at least three months’ worth of stuff happens, but more on that later), and Sam (Lucas Till), the man we saw in the desert, and his older brother, Colson (Kyle Schmid), go into a club where a sexy girl group is performing. Colson is immediately taken with the sexy, charismatic lead singer, Fran (Sonja Kinski). And who wouldn’t be?

Colson approaches her at the bar, and is watched by an older man, Armand (Goran Visnjic). Fran tells Colson, “He manages this place…and me.” A nice, simple sentence that indicates a lot. Soon she and Colson are out in her convertible, making love. Apparently Colson abandoned his younger brother. But  Sam got home all right, because the next scene finds the three of them in Colson’s studio in the morning, with Colson sketching Fran. Moments later Fran asks Sam is he’s ever been with a woman, which seems a ridiculous question to ask someone you haven’t even met yet. But worse is Sam’s response: “Oh yeah, a lot, loads” (meaning, of course, no, he hasn’t ever been with a woman). Perhaps she thinks he’s gay? After all, it’s not like his fourteen.

Fran then tells Colson, “You hunger for the truth, yet you find it in other people but never in yourself.” Wait, didn’t they meet just last night? When did she find the time to get to know him? Time is a big issue in this film. Clarissa, the woman that Colson has been painting shows up for a sitting. Upon seeing Fran, she says, “Onto the next muse already, huh?” Colson responds, rather cruelly, “Come on, this time it’s special.” Interestingly, Clarissa is the keyboardist in Fran’s band, and apparently the two of them have had some sort of relationship.

Well, though Armand saw Colson with Fran at the bar, apparently his jealousy takes a day to manifest, and he shows up at Fran’s place, and smashes her guitar. As much as I hate to see a guitar being destroyed in any film (it even drives me nuts in Animal House), this scene is actually really good, because Fran immediately breaks down. We’ve only seen her as a cool rocker chick, seemingly in control of every situation, so it’s wonderful to see her weakness. It’s the moment we begin to like her.

Even with Clarissa taking off, Colson is able to finish his painting of her and takes it to Astrid (Juliet Landau), who has a gallery with Colson’s earlier work. (Any time there is an artist named Astrid, I think of the woman from Hamburg who was associated with The Beatles early in their career, and wonder if the character is named after her.) Anyway, Astrid tells Colson that there have been no sales, but then oddly offers him a larger studio space (which doesn’t really make sense). She tells him there’s a show next Friday, and asks him to bring something fresh.

Meanwhile Armand and a crony attack Colson and Sam. And Colson’s blood gives him an idea of how to create the painting of Fran. He then finishes the painting, and it’s great, and he takes it to the gallery as Astrid had requested. So it’s already the following Friday, so approximately a week has passed. (Remember, this entire film takes place in only two weeks.) Astrid tells him: “You found your voice. Now use it.” She encourages him to do more paintings more like this one. But of course that means more blood. He starts cutting himself, and Fran donates her blood as well (she says, “Here, paint more of me,” as she holds out her bleeding arm).

His next painting of her is excellent. But again, it leads me to wondering about the timeline. Astrid tells him she’s going to get him a solo show at the end of the month. The fact that he has only two new paintings doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Besides the timeline and some clunky dialogue, there are a few other problems. There is a scene where Armand attacks Sam in Fran’s apartment. He holds Sam down and then hits him with his belt. Apparently, Armand had blood or red paint on his belt, because after he hits Sam with it, it leaves a big wet red stain on Sam’s yellow T-shirt (it can’t be Sam’s blood, because the T-shirt isn’t even torn). The second hit leaves more red near the shoulder of his T-shirt (a stain which then moves in the next shot). In that scene, we learn that Sam was abused as a child, as he flashes back to his childhood.

Sam suggests paying homeless people for their blood so that Colson can continue painting, which leads to some silliness. But it is soon after that that the film really starts to get good. Colson begins going a bit mad. Armand shows up at this place with Clarissa, which is interesting, but then attacks Fran. In self-defense, Fran ends up providing Colson with even more blood.

After that, we see Colson painting. And there are flies and maggots. He tells Sam, “You get used to the smell.” And Sam tells him, “We’ve got to get rid of that body soon.” Again, how much time has passed? This is the longest two weeks in history. Colson really begins going mad, but his work is getting even more interesting (the artwork created for this film is quite striking). And even Sam has a moment where he hallucinates, so it’s clear that Colson isn’t the only one that’s being affected by these events. Things are certainly getting weird.

And then Colson has his show. So it’s now the end of the month. And yet two weeks have not yet passed. How is this possible? Anyway, a lot more is fit into that increasingly magical fortnight before the film ends and we end up back in the desert. But by now we’re caught up in the film and allow it all the room and time it needs. The feel of this film is interesting, as are its characters. It just seems that the structure didn’t receive enough care and attention. It just needs a bit more work to be believable. But a good deal of the film is still enjoyable.

Dark Hearts was directed by Rudolf Buitendach, and was released on DVD on April 29, 2014.

DVD Review: Tentacle 8

Tentacle 8 is film about an NSA agent, Ray Berry (Brett Rickaby), who is caught up in some political intrigue after a computer virus knocks out the systems in the intelligence community and causes several hundred personnel files to disappear.

It opens with a few title cards letting us know that “The National Security Agency (NSA), formed in 1952, is considered to be the most powerful and secretive intelligence gathering operation in the world” and “Recently, the entire computer systems and networks at the NSA crashed unexpectedly, and went dark for nearly three days.”

The film has an intriguing opening. We’re introduced to Ray Berry, who packs his belongings, then lies down on his bed. A close-up shot of the clock tells us it’s 4:45 a.m. The clock and the screen then go dark for a moment. Then the clock flashes “12:00,” as if the power has gone out. It’s a really interesting way of letting us know something has happened. Ray then wakes up one minute later (the clock is flashing “12:01”), and rushes out of the room.

So right away it feels like one of those films that is full of details that may seem insignificant, but which you feel will later prove to be important. After passing by a homeless man, he goes into a store, where he asks for Ahmad. The cashier then tries to rip him off. Meanwhile a woman is stealing something from the store. And there is a slip for a book store on the counter, which causes Ray to run outside. There he is jumped and pushed into a van. Later we’ll learn more about Ahmad and the homeless man and the book store.

Meanwhile two officials are discussing the computer systems crash. The scene is fine until the older of the two men takes off his glasses, stands up, and spouts: “But if this turns out to be an attack, we must be very clear: No one fucks with the United States of America.” Geez. There is some bad dialogue like that throughout the film. In the very next scene, two soldiers approach Ray Berry, who is a prisoner, and one says, “Another day in paradise.” (They then begin beating him, but we don’t know why, or even who these soldiers are.)

But bad dialogue is not this film’s man problem. The main problem is that it’s confusing, and it seems pointedly, purposefully confusing. The film’s chronology is something that is left for the viewer to work out. For example, you’d think that the after Ray was shoved into the van, he was taken to that cell where he was beaten. But it turns out the scene with the soldiers takes place long before the scene where he is shoved into the van. In fact, I don’t think we ever learn how he got into the cell with the soldiers.

The film then takes us to a book store, where Ray is working. Tabitha Lloyd comes into the store, and Ray talks to her about his childhood and his father ("My father wasn't around much, but he'd always bring me a book from my travels, and they kept me company...Then one day my dad stopped coming home and all I had were these books"). It seems way too early to be getting this sort of back story. After all, we don’t even know what he’s doing in the present, or who this woman is yet. It’s an odd and infuriating way of presenting information. (It turns out this woman works for the CIA, and she and Ray are dating – though they don’t seem very close yet in this scene.)

From there we go back to Ray in a cell. A man comes in and writes some numbers on the wall. This turns out to be the man posing as homeless earlier (or, later) in front of the store. How did that man get in there? We don’t know. We never know.

There is more bad dialogue as a man named Rolland Towne, holding his cell phone at an odd angle several inches from his face (the whole scene I kept wondering why he was holding his phone like that), says, “Tell me some fat fuck in a sumo suit is going to jump out of my trunk and say something funny because I am very close to going nuclear.”  Yeah, he actually says that, so you immediately hate this guy. He’s annoyed because he’s losing his job. But of course we don’t even know who this guy is, or what his job is, or anything. He does some drugs with a woman that he is apparently having an affair with, but another man is in the room, ready to discuss his severance package. Rolland talks about how the truth will come out, a noble enough idea, but we’ve already had such a bad first impression of this guy that we can’t possible root for him. But no matter, as he then disappears from the film for a long time.

Anyway, Tentacle 8, as it is explained to us, is a rogue group within the intelligence community that might be responsible for the network breaches. A man is sent to the military installation, is handed two stacks of folders and immediately pulls from those files a photo of Ray Berry and asks about him. Meanwhile Ray is in the cell, and he starts talking about his father again, this time to a female soldier who does him the kindness of ordering another soldier to get him some water. As he talks, the camera remains close on the woman’s reaction in the foreground, as if we’re supposed to understand and care how his speech is affecting her. But we’ve never seen this character before. We have no knowledge of her. So why would we care how Ray’s tales of leaving home and returning for his father’s funeral affect her? This film seems to have no center whatsoever, and no idea of how to present information and characters so that we care at all about them.

And of course the scene has more bad dialogue. Ray tells her (as she faces the camera in the foreground): “This is no place for a lady like you. The only difference between you and me is my hands are tied.” He gives her the series of numbers from his cell wall, and that magically frees him, and we next see him getting into a car, where he is then drugged and given a big wad of cash and dropped off at home. Nothing makes any sense, and after a while you sort of give up trying to sort it out.

Later while at a pay phone, a man comes out of a store and offers him some water and crackers. Then for some reason this guy waxes all nostalgic, telling Ray where he’s from and so on. But why? Who is this guy? Are we supposed to care about him, and whether he can return home? Well, it turns out his Ahmad, the man Ray wanted to see in the first scene. Ray gets a phone and gives Ahmad some money from his big wad.

At some point, Ray learns that Tabitha Lloyd’s job is somehow related to Tentacle 8, and is not what he first believed. And then when he sees her, she’s pregnant. So apparently seven or eight months have passed. But he doesn’t ask her about her job, or about Tentacle 8. Instead he tells her he doesn't know what she wants from him. She says: “It’s real life, Ray. It’s messy and inconvenient. It’s not a little blip on your map you can just erase.” That wasn’t a response to what he had said, and also feels like dialogue from another film. Is she working against him? At moments it seems so.

She hands him an envelope that says, “Open if you change your mind,” an envelope we saw at the beginning. But they are planning on meeting each other in Montreal. So is he to open it if he changes his mind and decides not to meet her? I don’t know.

Usually when a film is confusing, I feel confident that the filmmaker has a reason for it, and that it will all come clear at just the right moment. So for a long time, I held out hope that the filmmaker was taking us on this particular journey for a very precise purpose, and there would be an “ah-ha” moment. But there isn’t. The director posted a message on the film’s IMDB message board, which reads in part: “Questions are good things, and I trust that upon repeated viewings, more things will become clearer. I too hope that as more and more people get to see the film, they will exit wanting to talk about it, what it's about, what they understood and what they didn't.” Really? It’s as if he expects people to not understand his film, even desires that. That’s not going to make people want to see it again. I’ve watched many films more than once, and yes, sometimes it was to see more clearly how the filmmaker had created tension, or to see the pattern of how information was given. But with all of those films, I enjoyed them the first time, and so wanted to see them again.

We eventually get back to the beginning of the film again, with Ray packing up, and the clock suddenly reading “12:00.” But guess what? We still don’t see what caused the power outage, and what effect it actually had on what Ray was planning to do. Ninety-three minutes into the film Ray asks the homeless-looking guy, “What’s this all about?” Yeah, we still don’t know, but I really want it to make sense, especially because of its 9/11 angle.

Other than the film’s trailer, the DVD contains no special features. If ever a film needed a commentary track from the director, it would be this one. Give us some explanation of what he believes is going on, or what he intended to have happening in the film. Then we can figure out just where he went wrong.

Tentacle 8 was released on DVD on March 18, 2014 through Grand Entertainment Group.

DVD Review: Brownian Movement

Brownian Movement is a film that really surprised me and got its hooks into me almost straight away. It opens with a still shot of a brightly lit, very neat, sparsely furnished apartment. And then we see Charlotte (Sandra Hüller) looking over the place. When she sits on the bed, a voice off screen tells her the mattress is new. She doesn’t respond. But then she pays the woman, in cash, only speaking finally when asked a direct question, and even then responding with just a single word: “Berlin” (when asked where she was from).

It’s an intriguing opening scene, and I’m pulled in immediately, wondering about this woman who has a certain mystery about her. We see her alone on the bed, and only after we get a sense of her by herself are we shown her family. She reads to her son at night. And then in the daylight we’re introduced to her husband, Max (Dragan Bakema), in a very wide shot. We’re not at all close to them, as she asks him to pick up their son. Then, in great contrast, the film cuts to an extreme close-up of them making love. In fact, we’re so close that at first we can only see her face, with him in shadow. By bringing us close to her in that moment the film gives us a glimpse of what’s important to her, what’s happening in her mind.

It’s only after that that we learn she is a doctor and see her at work. White curtains separate the patients, and she looks in on a man. She enters, then draws the curtain closed behind her, and the camera lingers for a moment on the closed curtain. One thing I love about this film is the way the camera is allowed to remain on an object or a scene. The film is not in a hurry, which is refreshing.

The camera then shows us details of the apartment she’s rented, and we see there is a man there, asleep, next to her, turned away so that we can’t see his face. His face is unimportant. His identity is unimportant, to us as well as to her. It’s a nice, quiet scene as she rolls over toward him. This movie is able to do so much without dialogue, which is another thing that I love about it. It draws us in, almost having us experience these moments rather than telling us about them.

The shots are so well composed. There is a shot where she stands in that apartment, and she is at the right side of the screen. On the left side, slightly back, is the bed, which extends close to the center of the shot. A man enters frame, but actually stands so far to the right side as to be partially out of frame, and his back is to us as he begins to touch her. So while the action is his, the more dominant elements are Charlotte and, of course, the bed. And there is no dialogue.

Charlotte is beautiful and oddly enchanting, even as she approaches these liaisons in a somewhat scholarly way. We do see her in bed again with her husband, showing the great contrast, almost like she is a different person with him. For one thing, she actually speaks to him. “I love you,” she says. And she appears happy, even radiant, which is so different from how she appears in the apartment.

Each scene’s focus is very strong. There is one scene in the apartment where the camera remains on her, while we hear a man come into the room. What we see is her watching him, until he eventually comes into frame. Then in a parent-teacher conference scene, the focus is on Max, giving us the sense that perhaps he suspects something. It’s done with the composition of the shot as well as the actor’s look toward her, but without any dialogue.

The film becomes even more interesting when she unexpectedly runs into one of the men she slept with. She freaks out and even attacks him, and it seems like it’s because she is not in control of the situation. This is not a scene of her own making, and she can’t handle it. And that leads to a change in the film, when her husband learns about her actions, and they enter counseling.

There is something eerily serene about Charlotte, even as she talks to the counselor or takes her husband to the apartment, which gives you the sense that her inner turmoil must be all the worse. Sandra Hüller’s performance is remarkable.

Brownian Movement was written and directed by Nanouk Leopold. The DVD contains no special features. It is scheduled to be released on May 6, 2014 through First Run Features.