The film introduces us to its voyeuristic protagonist, who relies on a camera and a hair ribbon to propel his adventure, while he is at home in a secret room. The room contains a display where he keeps her paraphernalia, including pictures, sticky notes, and cards.

His pursuit of the girl begins in the following scene when he sees her walking down a sidewalk. She, perhaps purposefully, drops a blue ribbon that he immediately finds. The ribbon seems to perpetuate his stalkerish pursuit, which continues throughout the day: he watches her play football, eat, and leave her house on a bike. Remembering that her ribbon is still in his pocket, the stalker-protagonist decides to chase after (literally) his viewing object in order to return the ribbon she dropped, ultimately, giving him an excuse to talk to her.

Not much is exchanged between the two and they both go home. The films final scene is endowed with a somewhat unexpected twist ending. She is, indeed, a stalker as well. Someone else’s stalker, but a stalker nonetheless.

Cute and clever, this film is about how everyone is someone else’s something. We are, apparently, all interconnected and can share each of our petty vices with those whom we least expect. The stalker, stalks a stalker, who stalks another stalker, ad infinitum. Point taken.

So, does that mean we’re all practically the same?

The film lacks a reliable cinematography and screenplay which, for a topic as pervasive as voyeurism, should have been much subtler than it was. Facebook, Twitter, or any of a number of voyeuristic portholes could have replaced the all-to-cliché dropping of the ribbon. The act of stalking itself has morphed in to a subtle, uncontrollable, and, at times, unintentional act that the film failed to represent; stalking with a camera is so nineteen nineties. A lack of believability also hindered the film: stalkers don’t ever try to impress by striking a Heisman pose.

On the up side, the guitar score was cute.

Reel Score: 4 (out of 10)

The short film ‘Thinking of You’ (2009), directed by Sean Day, Obreanna McReynolds, and Jessie Neill, is 4 minutes long and can be found in the DVD insert of volume 22 of ‘blue moon.’

The first film in the insert, Tyler Calkin’s ‘EmPlosive,’ is perhaps the most difficult to grasp because of its lack of plot. That’s not to say, however, that it needs one. Calkin’s exercise here is one of artistic ingenuity.

The film is a montage of symbolic images that seemingly have nothing to do with one another. The image of blood (I think) being poured into water (also, just a guess) recurrs throughout the film and is, ultimately, what links the images. Calkin, wearing a hazy looking shirt that turns out to be a green screen for the image of poured blood, is working out. Interspersed with his workout is an image of him hugging a girl.

As his workout continues, the flashing of these images becomes more rapid and the techno rifts become stronger. The blood runs thicker through his ’shirt’ (also, possibly, a window into his entrails) as his effort becomes more palpable. In the most gut-wrenching moment of the film, violence itself becomes palpable: Calkin exerts a final effort to do one more repitition in concert with a gush of crimson that flows down his shirt.

The highlight of the movie is the, perhaps, a self-reflexive (and, hence, metacinematic) moment when Calkin becomes exhausted and no longer has the energy to work out. The metacinematic moment comes when he looks down at his ’shirt,’ perhaps noticing the flowing blood it contains.

The final scence shows Calkin flipping through an undeterminable medium to the rythm of the gushing blood. The music changes and so does the mood.

The film tries to be emotive. The male-oriented symbolism of blood, women, and working out (my apologies for the mysogenistic triumvirate) are interplayed, however, for no underlying reason. Even the gut-wrenching scene described above does not provide a purpose for Calkin’s ambitiously artful project. Indeed it is this desire to create art, one that is not couched in, say, a theoretical manifesto, that weighs down the film.

Reel Score: 3.5 (out of 10)

The short film ‘EmPlosive’ (2009), directed by Tyler Calkin, is two minutes long and can be found in the DVD insert of volume 22 of ‘blue moon.’ 

Or so I thought.

Perhaps I was a little premature thinking that this year’s ‘blue moon’ – vol. 22, for those of you counting – would blow away the competition at next year’s Columbia Scholastic Press Association awards and stir-up an on-campus reception that could’ve been stronger in recent years because of the new visual media insert. It most definitely won’t. That’s not to say that ‘blue moon’ isn’t still the same-old intriguing little literary magazine we like to call our own, but it isn’t yet the groundbreaking, envelope-pushing literary magazine I’d like to see it soon become. Hopefully it will get there some year, but not this one.

If you haven’t noticed by now, I had high expectations for vol. 22. Perhaps too high. But I don’t think that these are unwarranted, especially when the addition is one of visual media. Whitman boasts a superior film studies department with some exceptional filmmaking.

Ben Kegan, ‘09, is already on his way to becoming a major presence in American short film with his recent ‘Team Taliban,’ a poignant, methodical study of stereotype, race and religion through the world of professional wrestling, receiving invites to the Ann-Arbor, AFI Dallas, and Tribeca film festivals. These festivals, of course, are three of the most prestigious in the U.S. and that each festival has invited less and less films per year only amplifies Ben’s already remarkable achievement.

Dena Popova, ‘10, is another exceptional filmmaking (and, of course, screenwriting) talent. Her short screenplay “At the end, it rains” was a finalist for an international screenwriting competition and, out of all the finalists, she was the youngest.

So maybe my expectations are not so capricious after all.

The crop of films in the DVD insert were not terribly impressive, with the exception of several individual shots (from different films) and Sam Alden and Zach Ellenbogen’s film ‘Boys Will Be,’ the artistic acme of the insert. There was an eerie stalkerish theme throughout most, if not all, of the selections (I’m not sure if it was intentional) that was as unimaginative as it was uncomfortable. Films should make you uncomfortable, but with that discomfort should come a motive.

In any case, I will do a series of posts (perhaps one each) reviewing the six films in the ‘blue moon’ DVD insert in an attempt to give each film a ‘fair’ shot. Regardless of my subjective interpretation of their quality, I’d like to thank all of the filmmakers for their contributions. It is because of you all that I can even hold discussions of film on campus. Thank you again, enjoy, and keep reading.

Painfully patient and dauntingly deliberate, Steve McQueen’s (not to be confused with the American actor) film ‘Hunger’ is an intrepid look at the last few weeks of IRA hero Bobby Sands without the glossy, feel-good swathe you’d expect from a new feature film director. The artist-turned-feature-film-director is no stranger to film. In his art, which won him the Turner Prize in 1999, McQueen typically projects black and white, silent films onto one or more walls of an enclosed space in an art gallery. He has cited nouvelle vague and the films of Andy Warhol as his inspiration, and, fortunately, he has seamlessly carried these inspirations with him to his new cinematic quest: feature films. Some have called ‘Hunger’ another “art project” in an attempt to criticize its ‘artsy,’ ’silent-film’ quality, but is “art” not what all films try to achieve in the first place?

‘Hunger’ is indeed artsy – that pejorative term people use for things they just don’t get – and that is what makes it beautiful. It is told from several perspectives, transitioning fluidly between each: Bobby Sands, the IRA guerilla who started the 1981 hunger strike; Raymond Lohan, the type-A guard who is the prison hygienist; cellmates Davey and Gerry, the former a new IRA prisoner who is described as a “non-conforming prisoner” and the latter a weathered IRA prisoner who has perfected the art of smearing feces on his cell wall; and, arguably, a nameless priest, who talks with Sands for an uncomfortably long, yet necessary amount of time about the morality of a hunger strike.

The film opens nearly wordlessly. Lohan, the prison guard, is preparing for work. You see his bloodied knuckles, but don’t understand. You watch him check underneath his car and start it, but don’t really know why. You notice his wife holding her breath before he starts the car, and assume paranoia. Suddenly, you meet Davey, the new prisoner. He is asked one question by a guard behind a desk: will you wear the uniform? Not a word more before he is stripped naked and given only a blanket upon which to sleep.

The juxtaposition of these two scenes – one led by the prison guard, the other by the prisoner – sets McQueen’s ideal tone of ambivalence for the rest of the movie. He does not take sides, for to do so would be to undermine his scathing critique of violence over politics. Rather, he provides a study of violence – corporeal, psychological, and aesthetic – that is uncompromising and unflinching. Though you may flinch at several times throughout the movie (don’t worry, I did), his camera does not. A long, patient shot of a prison guard soaping and subsequently sweeping away prisoner’s urine that made it to the prison corridor far exceeded the violence of an IRA assassin shooting a prison guard, who was visiting his mother at a retirement home, in the back of the head.

McQueen’s ambivalence is highlighted in an over 20 minute scene in which Sands and the priest are sitting down, alone, in the prisoner meeting room. The movie’s entire backdrop (i.e. history) is unpackaged: the 5 year protest by IRA prisoners, the first hunger strike, the priests’ former sympathy for the IRA, Margaret Thatcher, and the IRA’s claims for political status, among others. The scene is as much a history lesson as it is an exercise in patient, ambivalent cinematography. The camera (for nearly the whole scene) is positioned at a comfortable distance from the conversation, such that Sand and the priest, as well as the table that separates them, can be seen in their entirety. No taking sides. Just listening and observing.

The film’s overly symbolic ending is, perhaps, what obstructs it from reaching greatness. The days, weeks and months wane quickly. The drama becomes slightly watered down. It felt as though an ounce of truthfulness had bled out of what would have been a near perfect film (if it is even appropriate to suggest that overly Platonic notion). Nonetheless, ‘Hunger’ is a profound, emotive and painful film – in a good way – that will require your undivided attention for every second of its modest 96-minute length. It is a film that will make you think. I know of no higher praise.

Reel Score: 9 (out of 10)

The film ‘Hunger’ will likely not come to Walla Walla until it reaches the Penrose Library. It should have, however, already opened in most major cities.

The Whitman women are currently in fifth place in the NWLA, one spot out of the playoffs.

Seymour is a senior captain for Whitman who now will officially be hired as the club’s first coach next year after she graduates. Feuillet on the other hand is a sophomore player who will likely fill the leadership role Seymour will vacate after graduation.

Hayashi and Wilson play in the Ojai tournement semifinals later today.

Whitman SID Dave Holden has the write up here.

 
The 62nd installment of the most prestigiuos film festival in the world, the Cannes Film Festival (May 13-24), announced their official selection today. All of the big directors with new films this year, with the notable exception of Woody Allen, submitted their new cinematic projects. The films are typically put into one of three categories: in competition, un certain regard, and out of competition. Ultimately, the films submitted are vying for the Palm d’Or – its Oscar equivalent would be ‘Best Picture’. Only the films selected for ‘In Competition’, however, have a chance to take home the coveted Golden Palm. Last year, a neorealistic French film about the experience of a literature teacher in an inner city Parisian middle school, “The Class”, directed by Laurent Cantet, won the Palm d’Or amidst pretty strong competition from Ari Folman’s “Waltz with Bashir” and Matteo Garrone’s “Gomorra”. French actress Isabelle Huppert, best known for her collaborations with Claude Chabrol, will head the jury and “Up”, the upcoming Pixar film directed by Peter Docter (Monsters, Inc.), will be the first animated film to open the festival. The following are the selections for this year’s Cannes Fim Festival:

In Competition:

Pedro ALMODÓVAR – LOS ABRAZOS ROTOS (Broken Embraces)

Andrea ARNOLD – FISH TANK

Jacques AUDIARD - UN PROPHÈTE

Marco BELLOCCHIO – VINCERE

Jane CAMPION – BRIGHT STAR

Isabel COIXET – MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO

Xavier GIANNOLI - A L’ORIGINE

Michael HANEKE – DAS WEISSE BAND (The White Ribbon)

Ang LEE – TAKING WOODSTOCK

Ken LOACH – LOOKING FOR ERIC

LOU Ye – CHUN FENG CHEN ZUI DE YE WAN (Spring Fever)

Brillante MENDOZA – KINATAY

Gaspar NOE - ENTER THE VOID

PARK Chan-Wook – BAK-JWI (Thirst)

Alain RESNAIS - LES HERBES FOLLES

Elia SULEIMAN – THE TIME THAT REMAINS

Quentin TARANTINO – INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS

Johnnie TO – VENGEANCE

TSAI Ming-Liang – VISAGE (Face)

Lars VON TRIER – ANTICHRIST

Un Certain Regard:

BONG Joon Ho – MOTHER

Alain CAVALIER – IRENE

Lee DANIELS – PRECIOUS

Denis DERCOURT – DEMAIN DES L’AUBE

Heitor DHALIA – À DERIVA (Adrift)

Bahman GHOBADI – KASI AZ GORBEHAYE IRANI KHABAR NADAREH (Nobody Knows About The Persian Cats)

Ciro GUERRA – LOS VIAJES DEL VIENTO (Les Voyages Du Vent)

Mia HANSEN-LOVE – LE PÈRE DE MES ENFANTS

Hanno HÖFER, Razvan MARCULESCU, Cristian MUNGIU, Constantin POPESCU, Ioana URICARU - AMINTIRI DIN EPOCA DE AUR (Tales From The Golden Age)

Nikolay KHOMERIKI – SKAZKA PRO TEMNOTU (Tale In The Darkness)

HIrokazu KORE-EDA – KUKI NINGYO (Air Doll)

Yorgos LANTHIMOS – KYNODONTAS (Dogtooth)

Pavel LOUNGUINE – TZAR (Le Tsar)

Raya MARTIN – INDEPENDENCIA (Independence)

Corneliu PORUMBOIU – POLITIST, ADJECTIV (Policier, Adjectif)

Pen-Ek RATANARUANG – NANG MAI (Nymph)

João Pedro RODRIGUES – MORRER COMO UM HOMEM (Mourir Comme Un Homme)

Haim TABAKMAN – EYES WIDE OPEN

Warwick THORNTON – SAMSON AND DELILAH

Jean VAN DE VELDE – THE SILENT ARMY

Out of Competition:

Alejandro AMENABAR – AGORA

Terry GILLIAM-  THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS (L’IMAGINARIUM DU DOCTEUR PARNASSUS)

Robert GUÉDIGUIAN – L’ARMÉE DU CRIME

Peter DOCTER – UP

Here is the official press kit for this years festival.

It’s difficult to imagine how such a complex and intriguing story, like Mike Tyson’s, didn’t reach the big screen earlier. Told with fidelity and a genuine interest in the subject, James Toback’s documentary ‘Tyson’ is as honest a documentary as you will find: he lets Tyson talk – a relatively straightforward endeavor few investigators of the truth (e.g. reporters, journalists, etc.) have ever attempted.

Tyson, though, is a difficult subject. He can be both verbose and incoherent, ruthless and compassionate, confident and self-deprecating. In order to highlight these subjectivities, the documentary plays several conventions of documentary filmmaking as well as one unconventional way to illustrate the contradictory and overlapping modes of Tyson’s thought. Toback splices together three angles of a given shot in one sequence in order to show the many perspectives one can take on Tyson’s words, which the audience hears in the background. The narration, however, is also spliced together almost seamlessly, but segments frequently overlap and bounce back and forth between ideas. Finally, the image focuses on one perspective and one Tyson narration to segue into the next discussion topic.

The film opened, I thought, unconventionally yet appropriately. You’d think it would open with scenes from Tyson’s second fight with Evander Holyfield – the fight in which Tyson bit off part of Holyfield’s ear. Instead, it opened more appropriately with the highlight of Tyson’s career: his 1986 bout with heavyweight champion Trevor Berbick. The film didn’t really go into the Tyson-Holyfield debacle until over an hour in. Then again, that was but an event in the roller coaster life of Mike Tyson.

Don’t mistake this film for Tyson propaganda or a type of chicanery to prop him back up to stardom. It truly isn’t. Tyson criticizes himself often and, as cold of a machine as he may seem, opens a door – his raw countenance – through which you can see his humanity.

My primary quibbles with this film are both its unoriginal subject matter and chiefly conventional documentary-style cinematography. Unlike, say, ‘Man on Wire’, ‘Tyson’ isn’t a viscerally captivating movie. I’m not sure if it really ever had the potential to be one.

Reel Score: 7.5 (out of 10)

The film ‘Tyson’ opens this Friday in New York and Los Angeles.

Tyson (James Toback, 2009)

-Billy Low

The Bicycle Thief (Ladri di biciclette, Vittorio De Sica, 1948)

Welcome to “Reel Analysis”, the blog where good movies become immortal and bad movies don’t, where mathematics and celluloid are weaved into a linguistic tapestry that will never cease to amaze, and where words like ‘godfather,’ ‘potemkin,’ and ‘psycho’ only have one definition. I’m just kidding; “Real Analysis” is a blog about movies – good and bad, new and old, and any other dichotomous cinematic relationships you can think of. So please, feel free to comment and debate as much as you’d like. But, most importantly, watch movies.