WIFF Day Two! (Or One?)

586filmfest20100414

This photo, by The Isthmus’ film critic Kenneth Burns, is from last night’s WIFF opening night screening of The Art of the Steal.  This is festival director/superhero Meg Hamel.  I’m at the upper left of the photo, with my wife Anne leaning in.  The full article is here and captures the WIFF atmosphere pretty well.

Tonight: another documentary!  Tomorrow – probably another documentary I think!  For some reason I ended up with a doc-heavy schedule this year.  You always end up with a schedule different from what you intended, but somehow, at the end, you’re more than pleased.

2010 WIFF, Day One: The Art of the Steal

artofthesteal

The Wisconsin Film Festival launched one day earlier this year, in festival director Meg Hamel’s tentative steps in expanding the scope of WIFF to five days rather than the typical four.  This is the twelfth year of the festival and it’s been growing in popularity each year; I moved to Madison from Salt Lake City, so it’s nice to have exchanged one film festival (Park City’s Sundance) for another that, who knows, one day might be just as big (we did get the world’s second Sundance Cinema, so at least Robert Redford has faith in us).  At WIFF I’ve watched Roger Ebert introduce A Hard Day’s Night and Laura; I’ve seen giant spiders crush Buicks beside fellow Wisconsinite and B-movie auteur Bill Rebane; I’ve solved Timecrimes and watched Sita sing the blues.  This year brings the New York Times’ Manohla Dargis to the festival (introducing Michael Mann’s Collateral); an extensive Bong Joon-ho (The Host, Mother) retrospective; the U.K.’s much-praised Red Riding Trilogy; a Wisconsin film starring Tony Shalhoub and another directed by The Straight Story’s screenwriter Mary Sweeney; and more – but my list was compromised from the start.  Of course everything you really want to see if playing only once and at the exact same time.  That’s how it always works.  You make the sacrifices, you take some risks, you end up seeing a lot of films with a number of extremely enthusiastic local film buffs.  It’s become one of the major events I look forward to every year.  And this year, on WIFF’s “bonus day” (as Meg called it in her introduction), I began my cluttered program with one of the most controversial documentaries of the last year.  (I’d wanted to start with Historias Extraordinarias, the 4-hour-long Argentinian film, but…not on a Wednesday night, and not at the campus’ Play Circle Theater.  Just couldn’t do it.)

The Art of the Steal (U.S., 2009)
D: Don Argott

There was a small uproar when Don Argott’s The Art of the Steal opened a few months back in select cities, particularly from certain persons in Philadelphia portrayed in a very negative light.  That’s because the documentary is an exposé of the underhanded, and quite possibly illegal, methods applied to uproot and violate one of the most distinguished art collections in the world: the Barnes Foundation, an art school and museum, featuring an astonishing array of key works of Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, and Modern Art as collected by Dr. Albert C. Barnes in the first half of the twentieth century.  Barnes fought to keep his collection intact and as he had arranged it: and as the film shows us, the arrangements did not just display exquisite taste, but were astonishing, clustering together disparate works into an unexpected harmony.  He also insisted upon the Foundation operating primarily as a school, closed to the public for most (but not all) days of the week.  Located in Merion, PA, about four miles from Philadelphia, Dr. Barnes’ collection was misunderstood at first - but soon his purchased works by Matisse, Cézanne, Picasso and others would become invaluable as the art world caught up with him; it would be the source of envy of Philadelphia’s art museum and bitter scorn from Barnes’ political enemies.  And the film is never better than in its first half, as it illustrates the battles Dr. Barnes fought to keep his collection intact – he drew up a will which seemed flawless in its foresight and rigidity.  The museum would not be moved, the collection would remain together, the paintings would not leave the walls, and the primary function of the Barnes Foundation would be as a school.  How this will was slowly undermined and then completely undone is the subject of the second half of the film.  In recent years, the Barnes Foundation has fallen back under the sway of Philadelphia, and key players, including Governor Ed Rendell, found a way to undermine the Foundation’s core principles so that it could be appropriated to become, as one interview subject puts it, a “McBarnes.”  The politics so carefully dissected in this half of the film are fascinating to a point – it’s like a how-to guide for using power, influence, and money to get what you want no matter what the obstacle - but ultimately are either maddening or just dispiriting.  That’s the point, naturally.  The Art of the Steal is an Argument Film, a polemic that’s been the fashion of the documentary for the last ten years or so, with a score that pushes all your buttons, sometimes with head-smacking obviousness (keep an ear out for the electric guitar anytime someone’s up to no good); it’s a film about great art that can be accused of being quite inartful.  Much of the last portion of the film is spent hanging out with protesters wielding angry wooden signs.  This film can sometimes be just another one of those screaming signs.  But on the other hand, I can’t help but admire the cause behind the transparent manipulation; this is an Argument Film making a very strong case for something which is actually quite subtle, or - well, not easily comprehended by moneymen and power brokers.  Art resists commodification.  What Dr. Barnes did with his Foundation was to create, essentially, a new work of art, one that could only be appreciated the way he intended it, in the building that had been constructed by his design, with his original displays, in Merion, PA.  It was a school because in the presence of the art you were to be the student.  This is why Matisse called the Barnes Foundation the only “sane” way to appreciate art in America.  The artist’s stamp is important, because he recognized the institute as a work of art in itself.  You cannot, for example, pack up Taliesin or Fallingwater and relocate it inside the walls of a museum – that would betray the essence of Frank Lloyd Wright’s intentions.  The “new” Barnes building being constructed, currently, in downtown Philadelphia, is glimpsed only by its outdoor “under construction” facade, with paintings of representative artwork slapped on in pale representation - paintings of paintings, essentially.  And there, as the final irony: a painting of a portrait of Dr. Barnes.  They needn’t have gained his approval – he’s dead, after all.  They only needed to steal his image for their own wallpaper.

The Prisoner (II)

theprisoner

I feel unqualified to write about AMC’s recent miniseries/remake The Prisoner, now that I’ve finally watched it the whole opus on DVD.

And I’m surprised that I feel so very unqualified.  It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the 1967 original, starring Patrick McGoohan.  Good God, I wrote an agonizingly-geeky essay on the perfect Prisoner episode order, which you can read here.  I’ve seen those episodes dozens of times.  Scrutinized them endlessly.  Applied the ideas and philosophies espoused in the original series to everyday life, almost unconsciously, since I was a teenager.  Hell, I even wrote a piece of fan fiction published by the now-defunct Prisoner fan club Once Upon a Time.  I know my Prisoner.

But the chief deficit in my appreciation for the new miniseries is that I have never watched a single episode of Lost.

I just never cared.  Gilligan’s Island meets the X-Files, I thought, and I gave it a pass when it first premiered; then, when I heard it was terrific, I just never caught up with it.  (I’ve never watched The Wire, either.  I have a long To-Do List when it comes to modern television.)  I stood by the sidelines while people got tired of it, and waited still when they got excited about it again.  It will be off the air soon, and I’ll still be doing other things, namely catching up on some of the great books I haven’t yet read or some of the great movies I haven’t yet watched – maybe, someday, I’ll catch up with Lost.  Until then, I can safely say I’ve watched its rip-off. 

Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner concerned an ex-spy (McGoohan) confined against his will to a green and sunny seaside resort known only as The Village, where everyone has been assigned a number (he is No.6); across its seventeen episodes he struggles to escape, and fights off attempts from his warden, No. 2, to break his will.  He’s hounded by a giant white orb named Rover; he battles against his own doppelganger; he uncovers one plot after another while hatching some of his own; and ultimately he comes to a psychedelic showdown with his captors, set to tunes like ”All You Need is Love” and “Dry Bones.”  It was a counter-culture classic, many things to many people: an action show, a conspiracy thriller, a psychological mindbender, a political satire, even experimental theater with traces of Beckett and Ionesco.  It was, in a word, indescribable.  I finished watching the new Prisoner, written by Bill Gallagher and starring James Caviezel and Ian McKellan, some days ago, but it was only today, reading an online review, that the remake finally snapped into focus.  Of course.  It’s Lost.  That’s all it is.  Why fret about it?  It’s just Lost.

But you haven’t seen Lost.  I know.  That’s why I couldn’t quite put my finger on it until another online reviewer told me it was so.  And I was illuminated.  Certainly, I detected throughout the series cliches of the modern “serious” genre drama, a little Battlestar Galactica, a little HBO this or Showtime that.  Patton Oswalt has argued that we are in a new golden age of television, and I don’t necessarily disagree with him, although I think that you can still trace how one program has influenced the next, and the cliches have begun to emerge.  I love Parks & Recreation, for example, but every time lovely Aubrey Plaza sneaks a glance at the camera I think of how Officey it is, and even The Office (Carrell) took it from The Office (Gervais).  How many one-hour dramas have you watched which end on a musical montage?  I believe this dates back to the excellent Homicide, which made regular use of it.  Bill Gallagher’s The Prisoner bears not the mark of McGoohan but of all the hit one-hour-drama TV shows of the last couple years – I am sure most prominently of Lost, but I will leave it to that other guy, and to you, to confirm for me.  So what’s withered and gone?  The compelling, enigmatic, and engaging qualities of the original; the stew of philosophy, witty dialogue, Big Ideas, and good storytelling sense.  Quite simply, the impact.  A few hours after Bill Gallagher’s Prisoner was done, and I was done with it: done thinking about it, done worrying over it, just done and quit.

So I apologize but I really am underqualified to write about the new Prisoner, because I have never seen Lost, but I can note the following 6  impressions:

1) Just because Ian McKellan is in it does not mean that it’s good.  Further, just because Ian McKellan can act very well does not mean that he’s doing so whenever you’re looking at him.  And speaking of No.2, I don’t care about his family, not his drugged wife nor his closeted child.  I don’t care.  These feel like additions made after a writing workshop.  (”You know what?  I need to care more about No.2.  What does No.2 care about?  Does he have a family?  Now that would be interesting.”)  I miss the mute dwarf manservant.  That didn’t feel workshopped to me; it felt inspired.  I mean, you remember him, don’t you?  That’s the point.

2) In this new version, everyone in The Village has never heard of the outside world.  These Villagers believe that all life begins and ends in The Village.  This is laboriously explained: they even think every invention, and all philosophical thought, originated by someone living in The Village.  Precious time is wasted reiterating this, which is unintentionally funny; but it actually deeply betrays McGoohan’s vision: one of the central points of the original is that the Villagers theoretically could but don’t want to escape.  They–or most of them, anyway–are complacent.  McGoohan’s show was a call for consciousness, a call for waking.  In Gallagher’s version, you can’t blame the Villagers because apparently they’re not aware there’s anything beyond the Village.  Further, it reduces the scenario from a striking, wide-reaching metaphor to an overused science fiction cliche: it feels like yet another story about an isolated city/lost civilization and nothing more.  Yes, there is more, as episode 6 reveals in its big “twist,” which I’ll gripe about last.

3) I like Brian Wilson’s SMILE album too, but maybe it wasn’t such a clever choice to include one song from the album in almost every episode.  Especially when the songs are applied in such a random and downright amateurish manner.  The songs don’t offer any alternate meaning, for the most part: they just queue up, like someone accidentally tripped on the CD player.  (Although I did like the use of “Heroes & Villains.”)   

4) James Caviezel is no Patrick McGoohan.  I know, that’s unfair, but part of what makes McGoohan’s Prisoner such addictive viewing is McGoohan himself.  His performances are electric; he is a joy to watch.  The most I can say about Caviezel is that he remains inscrutable and unpredictable throughout, but it strikes one as an inconsistent performance (and weak writing) rather than a commitment to maintaining the enigmatic quality of McGoohan’s No.6.  Further, you simply do not crave to see more of him, and you don’t care about his plight.  For the show, this is crippling.

5) No one ever tries to break No.6.  The plots that they do hatch are not apparently intended to break No.6 (no one is interested in why he resigned)…I’m not sure what the plots are intended to accomplish, actually.  One plot (in an episode, “Darling,” which is the only one I actually kinda sorta enjoyed) seems mainly intended to get No.6 laid, which doesn’t seem so evil.

6) Nobody needed a concrete explanation for what The Village is.  Nobody.  The explanation, which is the climax to the series, longs to be thought-provoking, but isn’t.  In fact, it is such an insipid attempt to blow your mind that the exact opposite happens: the idea vanishes from your mind almost minutes after you’ve been exposed to it.  A dud.  Do you want to know why?  It’s because it’s a last-minute attempt to introduce a loaded concept which the series as a whole has very little interest in exploring.  Therefore, once you learn it, you are not compelled to reassess everything you’ve seen.  You make a disgusted, rather phlegmy noise and then turn off the TV.  Nobody likes a lame twist ending (ask M. Night Shyamalan – or did he write this show under a pseudonym?).  And speaking of quasi-profound pretentiousness, this series’ remake of the brilliant “Schizoid Man” somehow managed to completely botch an unbotchable concept. 

Oh, you know, I can’t limit myself to only six criticisms, but I must.  I’m starting to get angry again, and this show isn’t worth the anger.   

Maybe I’ll bump Lost up in my Netflix queue instead.

2010 Wisconsin Film Festival This Week

wff_logo
The 2010 Wisconsin Film Festival begins this week Wednesday, running through Sunday at various venues across Madison, Wisconsin.  My annual tradition is to blog the festival, and I’ll be doing so again right here.  Here’s my lineup:

Wednesday:
The Art of the Steal

Thursday:
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg & the Pentagon Papers

Friday:
The Thorn in the Heart (the new Michel Gondry film)
The Exploding Girl
The Bug & the Fox [The Tale of the Fox/The Bug Trainer]
It Came from Kuchar

Saturday:
Waking Sleeping Beauty
A Town Called Panic
Shameless
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Sunday:
The Magic Sword (with Bert I. Gordon in attendance!)
Paddle to Seattle: Journey Through the Inside Passage
Terribly Happy
Mother

These Are the Damned

damned

Joseph Losey’s These are the Damned (aka The Damned) is one of the better thrillers to ever be released by Hammer Studios, although, apart from the presence of studio mainstay Oliver Reed, it hardly seems to fit into their repertoire. Yet they can claim it proudly – there, it says “shot in Hammerscope” in bright white type – and now that it’s finally been released on DVD, in Sony/Columbia’s new set Icons of Suspense: Hammer Films, it can at last reclaim its title as one of the studio’s most unique and striking efforts. Losey is something of a cult director, having made The Boy with Green Hair (now available from the Warner Archives) some years earlier; but These Are the Damned shows Losey at the height of his talents.

The film begins most impressively, with crisp black-and-white photography and elegant widescreen compositions that recall the work of Fellini; no surprise, then, that the main character’s boat is called Dolce Vita.  Set on the rocky English coastline, the film meanders its way, almost reluctantly, toward a plot.  We follow the middle-aged American Simon Wells (Macdonald Carey), who picks up the bait when a pretty young woman named Joan (Shirley Anne Field) casually flirts with him; she leads him straight into a brutal mugging led by her brother King (Reed).  But Joan is intrigued by Simon, and seeks him out again, this time with no apparent motive but curiosity.  Simon, wary at first, escapes with her on his boat with King and his gang of leather-clad teddy-boys in pursuit.  Awkwardly he tries to seduce her, but it becomes clear that Joan is a virgin, any previous contacts with males sabotaged by her jealous brother, who’s psychotically afraid of his sister becoming “dirty.”  (Whether or not this jealousy is caused by sublimated incestuous longings if left for the viewer to determine.)  To hide from King, Simon and Joan decide to break into the home of a resident sculptor (Viveca Lindfors) and lay low, but when the gang arrives with switchblades and motorcycles, the couple flees over barbed wire into a top-secret installation built upon an abandoned quarry.  And here, almost halfway through the film’s running time, we arrive at the real story, for which we’ve only received fleeting hints hitherto: there is something sinister going on underground, at the center of which are the nine children who welcome Simon, Joan, and eventually the unpredictable King into their home.  The kids seem to be living alone, isolated from the outside world.  They have assembled strange shrines to their absent parents in a hideout in a cave.  They seem to know nothing of the outside world.  They can open electronically-sealed doors with a wave of the palm.  And they are utterly cold to the touch.

So what at first seems to be a docudrama about teenage gangs in early-60’s England shifts gradually into a science-fiction cautionary tale for the Cold War, and a shockingly cynical one at that.  The film is eerie and almost muted throughout, the dialogue delivered tentatively or in short bursts, the soundtrack silent apart from the occasional snatches of a rock and roll song which the bikers sing and whistle, reducing it to just a few bars, as the tune comes to sound increasingly unsettling.  The film has the atmosphere of a seaside ghost town.  What makes These Are the Damned so effective is that both distinct halves are solid, although in oddly different ways.  The opening shows off Losey’s skill at doing much with very, very little: it is rarely as compelling as these opening scenes, as the camera hangs back and pans left and right across streets – tracking footchases - and waterways, as Simon speeds away in his boat with the gang leaping into the water or mounting motorcycles to pursue by land.  A bridging section, ostensibly building up the romance between the leads, seems deliberately undercut by the threatening atmosphere, which makes one wonder if the film is headed into Roman Polanski/Cul-de-Sac territory.  Then we slowly realize that the film is transitioning into its second half, which has a slightly different flavor, and steps into genre territory.  The change is less awkward than it might have been because the mystery is so intriguing: we know that something is going on in that quarry and we want to decipher just what it is.  Indeed, there is little reason for the first half of this story to be scotch-taped to the second, except, perhaps, to ratchet up the tension when King is thrust into the mix, now that we know what he’s capable of. 

Critics in 1963 might have seen the story’s structure as a flaw, dismissed the film as a curiosity, but almost fifty years later it sets These Are the Damned stunningly apart from the other films Hammer was making during this period, be they monster movies, pirate films, or Jimmy Sangster-scripted Diabolique homages.  It now can be seen for what it is: a complete original, a brilliant Cold War parable, and much more hauntingly effective than Hammer’s standard output.  (I should warn you that this is one of the most outrageously downbeat endings you’ll ever see.)  Restored and uncut on the new DVD, the film can now take its place as a classic of 60’s British cinema.