Les amants criminels (1999) - François Ozon

Serioulsy can't really relate François Ozon to New French Extremity apart from Les amants criminels. This film is distinctively different from his more recent works. Ozon is the first french directors whom I admire but Les amants criminels is not the Ozon that I have always known. Maybe it's at that period of time it was a trend to make (a bit more) provocative films. Or people changed?

A Escondidas [en: Hidden Away fr: Fronteras] (2014) - Mikel Rueda

A escondidas did a really good job in conveying one single feeling and it succeeded in making us on edge, deliberately denying what we want to happen or see. Somewhat somehow we have all been there, right?

The last scene, it’s simple but extremely emotional. It contains hope but we could have guessed what happened. It’s not personal, the director uses that scene on propose and there isn’t a hundred ways to interpret it. I like it, because it represents life. Life is unpredictable and the only thing we could do is to be prepared and hope for the best.

Divines (2016) - Houda Benyamina

I guess films about the suburb (banlieue) population is a legit genre. People who are from the lowest social ladder try really hard everyday to strive or simply just to survive, most of them have one thing in common, anger. People who are just like us but not really. It’s hard to admit and nothing derogate. Some people just struggle to put food on the table. 

What makes Divines different from it’s genre? It’s funny, it’s light but it’s also hard to watch at times and it definitely doesn’t sugarcoat anything. There is this incredible friendship between the two young actresses which is something rare to see in this kind of genre. It’s interesting how they play with gender roles in the film, they put the female lead into dealing and the male into dancing. When he asked: “do you know how much my life would change right now?” There is a sense of irony, viewing that she was making fun of him working in security for a supermarket on the side while he was auditioning for a dancing company. Obviously she thinks she makes a better choice than he does but does she?

A little side note, the male lead… you will know what i mean when you watch it. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t think so.

Nocturnal Animals (2016) - Tom Ford

I was way too hyped about Ford’s new movie that I looked up his inspiration and started reading it (Tony & Susan). When I was reading it, a lot of questions came through my mind. Most importantly how he was going to adapt it onto the the big screen. To my surprise the changes he made actually give it an edge or a twist. Making Susan (Amy Adams) a contemporary artist and a curator allows him to play with visual cues, considering the limited screen time, this particular decision helps building up the story and even elevated it. 

Nocturnal Animals is extremely brutal and a bit sick in some way. Imagine someone writes a novel just to make you feel bad like really bad. Providing that it could only work if the other end still has feeling for the former of course. It is also about how we perceive ourselves and who we aspire to be. In the case of Susan, she is trying to run away from the shadow of her parents, she doesn’t agree on how they (stereotyped Texans) interpret the world and especially doesn’t want to “become” her mother. She doesn’t want to live in someone else’s expectation but at the same time she is afraid that her mother could be right which eventually leads to her fallout with Edward (Jake Gyllenhall).

The smart part about Nocturnal Animals is the script. The novel Susan is reading, is a guiding tool. The paper cut is the first warning about the true nature of the novel. The story within the story is compelling enough as a thriller but where does it stand between the two worlds. To most of the readers it is just a normal thriller but for Susan it is more than just that. As she says earlier in the film that she did something terrible to Edward thus the novel is the "revenge", how? I guess you have to watch it yourself and find out. Some would say the title Nocturnal Animals give away a little since Susan is basically Tony in the novel. The suspense and the anticipation serve for both Tony and Susan (the original book title), even if you don’t get the point where they are the same person you will still be affected at the vey last scene. 

Ford opts to use Nocturnal Animals as the movie title for obvious reason, to tone down the complexity of the story or simply for better understanding. I personally enjoyed a lot watching the Nocturnal Animals, ever since Ford’s debut, he is one of my favourite directors. Nocturnal Animals just solidifies a place for Tom Ford in the movie industry. 

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - Stanley Kubrick

Do you know why woman were used to get married? it’s because they could lose they virginity and be opened to freedom and the things that they wanted to do. A stranger told Alice at the party. 

Gender roles play a big part in Eyes Wide Shut. What man think woman are capable of hence leading Alice (Nicole Kidman) confesses what could have happened, the big “if” which leads Dr William Harford ventures off to a sexual adventure.

Is it unfaithful having a dream about having an orgy in front your husband? Or is it more unacceptable telling your husband you are willing to risk your marriage for one night with a stranger you’ve just seen?

The confession scene is so powerful, the tension between the two leads is unbearable. Seriously, what are people thinking during the day? What is your thought when your genital are being examined. Any fantasy? Yes, the patient might got carried away by the possible “bad news” but what if everything is fine? To man (or Dr Harford) woman are not capable of being sexual, the mother instinct will keep them in line. What happened between Dr. Harford patient’s daughter amplifies his insecurity which made him doubt the reason why he is being “good”. Maybe it is a bit over exaggerated comparing being promiscuous to going to a high end sex club.

We couldn’t judge one person by one night or a dream against the rest of their life. Alice said to Will.

I think Eyes Wide Shut is a bit underrated. Psychologically it is a mind blowing experience.

Westword (1973) - Michael Crichton

Out of curiosity I watched the original Westword, to sum up the movie in a sentence: it is a crossover between Jurassic Park and Terminator. The attraction park has gone wrong and a robot tries to kill you no matter what. 

Honestly I am really disappointed (story wise). Even Westword has seemingly touched the subject of morality, sadly it didn’t translate as much as it was expected. Since when did we set rules on how we treat robots or machines? The main protagonist questions his behaviour in the park, maybe it has something to do with how immoral to hurt and kill the robots but I think it is more about self assuring. Killing machines which basically act and even die like a human can be read as human wanted what they were forbidden. The need of breaking rules excites them. 

It is a bit degrading how they depict woman. Man wants to kill and shoot things and woman just want to get laid by hot guys?! The social stereotype in the 70s was really something. And there is a big plot hole, if all the guns were programmed to which they couldn’t fire while aiming at something thermal then how on earth the Gunslinger could even kill anyone? (please correct me if I’m wrong.)

One thing admirable about Westword is the fact that it is a thriller. There is no doubt that the Terminator was based on the Gunslinger. Westword paved the way of this new genre (sic-fi thriller, the battles with the  A.I.s). It was pretty forward in it’s time.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) - David Yates

If Harry Potter is about minorities then Fantastic Beasts expands on this idea which J.K Rowling has been trying to convey for years. 

It is not a coincident Rowling wrote the Fantastic Beasts, if the world of magic is a metaphor of homosexuality (or any minority) then the beasts in the Fantastic Beasts are the outcasts within the outcasts. From the beginning of the film, they make it clear that the magical world/ culture is different between England and the States where they are not supposed to make any contact with no-maj’. The premise of the film is about Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who is on a journey to write a book about the Fantastic Beasts and try to get people to understand them instead of killing them, travels to New York and accidentally his pets run away. Scamander represents an utopia for the mythical creatures, a sanctuary where they shouldn’t  be needing it in the first place. It is just like any fights on equal rights, we should even need to flight for them in the first place.

The concept of “Obscurus” is somehow literate and interesting. It refers to people, mainly kids, who are oppressed/ denied their ability in magic and for some reasons  they become the prefect host for the “virus” obscurus where dark magic takes over and they could no longer control their power and could even be consumed by the virus. Doesn’t it ring a bell? Orlando shooting, the shooter was raised in a conservative background where he was told being gay was not normal to a point he even believed it and took action on it (of course it was just a hypothesis) but it fits perfectly here. 

The idea of outcast is amplified with the characters, Scamander was expelled from school and have no friends, Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) was reassigned to a different department in MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) and Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) was an outcast of the working class, and we have Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), Langdon Shaw (Ronan Raftery) just to name a few. The Fantastic Beasts is basically a propaganda for the minorities, stop fighting within ourselves, we should get together and fight for a better life. 

The message behind was overshadowed for years but the Fantastic Beasts brought it back to the limelight. The special effects are as good as usual. It was really a delight watching it. 

Jules et Jim (1962) - François Truffaut

I know people say Les quatre cents coups [The 400 blows] (1959) is one of his best works but seriously, personally, I prefer Jules et Jim. Les quatre cents coups is a personal journey of what Truffaut went through as a kid, for which I admire. However, on the other hand Jules et Jim is more of an eternal story which no matter the time and cultural differences somewhat you could find something to relate to.

I am not talking being “friend zoned”, in my case, Catherine (Jeanne Moreau), it’s not a cliché that I relate myself as the female protagonist. I have valid reasons of my own. The fact she is candid, reckless and a little egoistic seem like a perfect description of me. I could totally see myself standing on the thin line, juggling my life as it comes. I guess I like playing with fire. Hope I won’t end up being burnt.

Jules et Jim is considerably really forward for it’s time, even today 3-way relationships are still being looked down on. Just because love is blind and it has stood before time way before our existences, it is still as represented as a taboo. I am pro-love, which means, just let people do whatever they want.

Les demoiselles de Rochefort (1967) - Jacques Demy

Hitchcock said suspense didn't have to be fear, it could be a lot of other things. The anxeity of whether the protagonists will find love is almost unbearable, especially the character of Delphine (Catherine Deneuve). Demy playfully sugarcoats the tone and the visual of the movie which is absolutely brillant. 

"Anticipation" is strongly present in Lola (1961) and in La paraluie de cherbourg (1964), but all three of them have a different interpretation of the "wait", either hopelessly or desperately in love and in Les demoiselles de Rochefort, they are more like romantically looking for the love of their lives/ their dreams. It's not sad but it's the suspense that I couldn't stand. The more joyful it seems the more painful for the audience (ME) to anticipate the end, which is brillant how Demy links the audience and the film together with the same concept.

Sausage Party (2016) - Greg Tiernan, Conrad Vernon

Sausage Party is really a surprise, I thought It would be straight up stupid jokes but instead it is deeper than expected. And the food porn scene will forever be in my head, I think it is a way to say “Fu*k you” to all those dirty minds out there. I simply don’t know how to react to it. It’s brilliant and explicit, it’s so wrong but it feel so right at the same time. 

How interesting they are trying to deny the existence of GOD. All we need is to believe in yourselves no matter how isolated and despair you feel. As long as you are determined you will succeed even if God is in the way.

Elephant (2003) - Gus Van Sant

What makes Elephant stood out from it’s genre is it’s subtleness, just a normal school day, everything is completely as usual and who knows what would happen next. The editing makes the audience on edge since we all know the premise. The movie keeps going back to the same moment before it happens. The suspense is unbearable. 

Sant didn’t put any emphasis on the event itself nor any political statement which I found really interesting because he leaves it to the audience to decide and judge what’s good in believing we are born innocent which is the total opposite of the movie.

For some reason this movie makes me think of the Orlando Shooting. Violence doesn’t need any justification, we put a label on it doesn’t make it any less bearable or acceptable.

Swiss Army Man (2016) - Dan Kwan, Daniel Scheinert

This movie is not for the faint-hearted. This is the genre I personally love the must. Sometime we don’t need to explain ourselves and calculate every single second of the movie. Just let it goes out of hand and see what happens. There are so many shocking moments which make you pounder the credibility of the movie but yet you just smile your way through. 

There are a lot of similarities between almost all of Quentin Dupieux’s films (for example: Rubber 2010)) and Swiss Army Man. In terms of running wild and out of control, somehow the comedic storylines magically merge with each other and become something unexpectedly intelligent and raw at the same time. Dupieux gives us the epic monologue at the beginning however the latter integrates a shocking surprise at the end. Both ways work wonderfully. We might not be used to these eerie ideas and craziness nevertheless, they are way too captivating to ignore. It’s hard to react to these kind of over-exaggerated visions. When they are nicely made, they could be one fine piece of work itself and would be forever immortalised. (There are more and more of these kind of movies in the market, I wonder is there a proper term to describe it or even a study on it.)

Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe deliver a fantastic performance. Ever since Harry Potter Radcliffe tried very hard to break out of his Potter image and he has proven himself a serval times already. Paul Dano, no explanation needed. He has been amazing ever since I knew him from Little Miss Sunshine (2005). 

Not to mention the social issue which is the foundation of the movie. It couldn’t happen then or later, it’s relevant. The isolation deduces from social media that causes the lost of touch between people is getting serious. We never talk about it but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

Swiss Army Man might be one of the weirdest movies of 2016, it might not be a big fan favour now, trust me, in maybe few years it will definitely be on the lists of must-watch cult movies of all time.

Mala Noche (1986) - Gus Van Sant

Sant directorial debut, filmed in 16mm B&W. 

Mala Noche is about chasing that something we dersire, the blurred lines in relationships. In term of editing, it could be better, it's kind of confusing at times but it did a good job in conveying the message and the tone of the film,

The Gus Van Sant exhibit at La Cinémathèque française is really a good introduction of his works, what inspires him, etc.

My own private Idaho (1991) - Gus Van Sant

Beautifully shot and written.

The scene in the wood with Scott and Mike, it brings back so much memories, not that I have built a fire in the woods before, is the fact that admitting your love to somebody and that someone loves you too but just not the same way. I felt like it happened to me a lot of times!

아가씨 (2016) - Park Chan-wook

The scene where Lady Hideko is reciting one of her uncle’s famous work in front of a first timer “book club member” Count Fujuwara. That fan trick and the chocking just sweep you off your chair. Simplicity, just a flick of her fingers plus her highly seductive intonation, there is no need to understand the content, the performance itself speaks louder than words. 

At first The Handmaiden might seem atypic for a Park Chan-wook film at least the first half. A smart decision to divide the movie in 3 parts. It resonates the revenge trilogy. The further we advance the more twisted the plot gets, which Park excels at in almost most of his movies. They are all looking for a way out, their freedom.

Unlike La Vie d’Adele (2013), the sex doesn’t feel redundant and less forced. Sex is not an easy thing to depict, it could easily stray to a more pornography vibe. The Handmaiden is one steamy hot lesbian fantasy from a man point of view, it is a bit too rehearsed to fit a certain mindset. Even though it is full of girl on girl actions somehow it feels too masculine. On the bright side, it captured the first sexual encounter vividly. The tension, the awe, the sweat, the climax, and those bells.

Still remember the first time watching the Oldboy (2003), I was completely in awe. The violence was teeth-cringing. There is this authenticity in his imageries that it’s hard to watch at times but you could not fight your curiosity. I wonder how could one imagine or create something as bloodthirsty as the revenge trilogy. (I still have to see Mr. Vengence) Park is the Asian version of Tarantino but less comic. A broken arm is a broken arm for Park, you feel it with the protagonist.

julieta (2016) - Pedro Almodóvar

Almodóvar said in an interview that every single colour used in the film meant something, from the wardrobe to the wallpaper. (a lot of directors do pay a lot of attention to colours but not all of cause like Gus Van Sant [not as much]) And julieta is different from his other films since the presence of female dialogues are less prominent even through the film is guided by the narrative point of Julieta.

Kids - Larry Clark

2015, I decided to explore a little more in movie. During christmas I accidentally stumbled across "new french extremity" (http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-essential-films-for-an-introduction-to-the-new-french-extremity/), downloaded a bunch of movies. (watched a few already, quite enjoyed them, will post my thoughts later) 

Since Larry Clark's new movie "The Smell of us" is going to be in french and be released in the french market first in like 2 weeks, so why not get to know this director. I finally took time to watch a Larry Clark movie, his first one, Kids. I do found some similarities of those two: like trangrassive. I don't think Kids fits in that category but according to wikipedia the movies which Larry Clark make are quite controversial. (Kids was banned in some countries, since it was accused to be simulated child pornography)

Skins, the first thought after watching Kids are, an under produced version or the original version of the UK TV series Skins. Unlike the US version (yes they tried to make a US version but it faiedl so bad that they candled it like after 2 or 3 episodes), Kids is super honest, no fancy production, complicated plot lines. Kids is simply depicting a phenomenon in the 90s and how kids were like in those days (I have to say there aren't much differences from now) It was about sex and drags and since it was in the mid 90s, AIDS was a big element as it was the new emerging disease which affects almost everyone. It was just a day of those teenagers' lives. 

I would say it is pretty good at addressing the problem. How the boys thought what the girls like and vice versa how Telly loves to fuck virgins, how gullible people can be. As I said it was a honest interpretation of adolescents, it felt so real and natural.   

Larry Clark has a love for the subject adolescents (a lot of his other works are about teenagers too), and always tires to re-define the boundaries between art and pornography, like his short film in the movie Destricted, Impaled, which explores the comfortability of man acting in porn instead of woman, is basically a porn, during 30 minutes you are watching a few casting with actual intercourses. I found it less convincing, however, some other shorts like HOIST (which I absolutely love) and Balkan Erotic Epic are more justifying in this subject. 

After all Kids is a photo from 90s which no photoshop, a movie isn't afraid of telling what people dare not speak of. 

The Bling Ring - Sofia Coppola

This is a movie about how fame-obsessed our generation is becoming. Totally understand why Coppola put her hands on this topic. The flick directs us to the crime, the obsession, the truth is, the picture is way bigger.

I wonder how many of our younger generation check the boxes of what the movie depicts, not only they were  raised by consumerism under their roof, they are also in the age of social network. Let's put aside the crime for a second, if, I'm just saying only if they hadn't bragged about their visits or posting pictures (self obsession) on social network with acclaimed items, they wouldn't have been caught that easily. How many teenagers got caught per year because they bragged about their crime on social networking sites. I am not encouraging them to commit any crime but if they do, please be a little smarter! (For me this is actually something really sad, the brains of our younger generation are actually deteriorating.)

The rest of the story is just old wine in a new bottle. Same old reasons why teenagers commit crimes - single-parent family, peer pressure those kind of stuff. That's at least pretty much sum up the two leads in the flick Marc Hall (Israel Broussard) and Rebecca Ahn (Katie Chang). What interesting is when all the characters come together, how each of them represents a certain a type of teenagers. The insecure one, the bossy one, the bitchy one, the innocent one, the fake one. I would say they are troubled kids and the fact is they are basically everywhere. And who should we blame, the child or the parent?  Nicki Moore (Emma Watson) is the perfect example. How ignorant if the parent truly believed Nicki was innocent and nothing suspicious about her child, considering her kids went out late on a school night, having suspicious new dresses and stuff. (the real life Nicki (Alexis Neiers) is actually really intriguing, she got caught right after she filmed the pilot of her own reality show, and was placed right next to Linsey Lohan while she was in jail.)

Alright the crime, I think what made them bolder was Paris Hilton, the movie didn't touch on this matter much as Paris herself agreed on letting them film at her place but it didn't cover the fact that how stupid she was (in the original press release of the actual crime, the convicts dubbed her dumb as a reason why they broke into her apartment and it might actually be true!) They have at least broke into her place for like 7 times. Not until Miranda Kerr reported the crime with a surveillance TV footage, then Paris noticed that she had also been a victim too. If breaking into someone's property is like eating a piece of cake, key under the door mat, don't you think the kids would be encouraged? Or maybe the kids were not as stupid as we thought they were, despite the fact that they posted pictures of themselves at Paris' place on facebook. Is either Paris or the kids or both, you pick. 

This is a reminder to us of what we are doing to our kids. 

On The Road - Walter Salles

Not until the credits rolled up and Neal Cassady's name appeared on the screen then I realized this movie is about the Beat Generation. The bromance shared between Cassady and Kerouac was sort of like playing with fire (I really have to read the original), I need reasons why Cassady left his wife and found Kerouac, I need to know why they were so close, what connected them.

The frame of the movie is such an interesting story, a wonderful piece, perfectly depicting the generation in the 50s. What Jack Kerouac did was actually documenting his generation, one person in particular Dean Moriarty/ Neal Cassady. They were like the rock bands in the 70s and 80s but they were much more sophisticated, they were all writers. (I believe youth do drug in all scales, not only in one particular group of people. Only people in that group were not ashamed of what they were doing and saying it out loud makes the difference.) Everyone behind this story was interesting enough to have their own story/movie. Allen Ginsberg did, Howl. It would actually be more interesting when you start reading all those writers back in that time and start putting missing puzzles together.

What intrigues me is the story not the movie. Somehow the story and the movie are disconnected. The cast is not convincing enough to make me believe as ke$ha sings “let’s make most of our night like we’re gonna die young”. Kristen Stewart is a one-trick-pony, flashing her boobs doesn’t make her a good actress. 

Weekend - Andrew Haigh

Met someone at a nightclub, spent an awfully wonderful night with someone. Something seemed to be cooking between the two of you. However, the next day the both of you had to go separate ways. Does it ring any bell? Andrew Haigh wrote and directed the “Weekend”, took us down to the familiar alley and rekindled the feelings we had fought back a thousand times.

I wonder how many of us have actually done what Russell (Tom Cullen) did, declining a friend’s invite and went to a bar alone and went home with a stranger, Glen (Chris New). This was how the "weekend" started, followed by unanticipated attractions, heated discussions, erotic sexes and eventually an undesired goodbye. Obviously, most of us have been through or did something somewhat similar, it was pretty predictable, but why it is a compelling movie?

It was how Haigh engaged in the emotions, the differences of the two protagonists. The authentic personalities set both of them on very diverse grounds. The distinct personas drew the audience like me, pondering their own experiences. Unlike the typical gay themed movies, it was not about coming out, struggling within the society. It was more of an individual awakening, striving for what they need, and it was exactly the initiative of why Russell walked into the nightclub alone.

What drew Glen to Russell was a different story; an intended affection left him helpless. What the both of them represented were the two emblematic norms of this generation gay perspective. On one hand, hoping to be loved; on the other hand losing faith in love but still constantly falling into it.

The bona fide characters not only brought by the sensitive measures the director took, but also letting the leads improvise, Haigh revealed in an interview with the SXSW Film Festival 2011. The genuine dialogues and the subtle development of the story carried out a sense of togetherness which was extremely relatable.

This year I have come across two very similar movies, “Weekend” and “Room in Rome”, Spanish director, Julio Medem first English movie. Both featured same-sex encounters in a short burst of time. Is it just homosexual relationship could easily end up having an instant fling or it was a sheer coincident that both movies depicted the same scenario?

No matter what the reason is, both movies inspired and brought back a lot of memories. Today there aren’t many low-budget movies with such quality which could leave you ponder and nodding your head with appreciation.