You hear that, Mr Andersen?

2007 Film Festival, Day 4

Jeeni & Lee had already seen Conversations With My Gardener and liked it, and I recognised a number of the actors, so I was fairly confident that I'd enjoy it. And I did -- it's not a big film, but it was a good one.

A thing that struck me during the film is how much watching medical procedurals can seep into your brain without you realising; I heard one of the characters describing crippling pains in their abdomen and a rigid stomach, and immediately thought, "Peritonitis? A perforated bowel? Whatever it is, those are bad signs, and he needs to get to a hospital right away."

It was also... I dunno, pro-Union? The gardener was an ex-railway man, and he still went on trips with the other men from the railway, and saw the doctors that his union provided. Perhaps it's better to say that there was a definite sense of nostalgia, and the good old days when it was easy to find work. And the picture of life in a small community, where everyone has a history with everyone else, was well drawn.

It's worth seeing. Unless you only like robots blowing up ninjas on dinosaurs, in which case I'd give it a miss. :)

* * *

Manufactured Landscapes was the second film I saw... and that might have been a mistake. The movie was about a photographer who specialised in images of the human impact on landscapes -- he started with open-cast mines, and has moved on to dams, factories, piles of coal, the beaches where ships are grounded and dismantled, or the dockways where they're built. They talked about how he tried to show the unexpected beauty of the sites, and allowing the audience's preconceptions and extrinsic knowledge to bring their own commentary to the piece -- and you can certainly see that a Chinese businessman would take away a very different impression of endless rows of manufacturing benches stretching out into the distance than, say, a Californian anti-globalization activist, or a Argentinean unionist.

Anyway, the reason I suggested that it might have been a mistake is because there were long sections where there were long, sweeping tracking shots, accompanied by langourous music and no commentary... which is apparently exactly what is needed to put me to sleep. There was some commentary, but not very much; a friend of mine noted that he would have preferred to have even less, which put me in mind of that other film last year on industrialized farming, where they simply allowed the images of harvesting equipment and sheds full of chickens to tell their own story. I think I agree, kind of -- either make it more informative, or have faith in your images and have little or no commentary at all. (Though that film from last year kept putting me to sleep as well. Very pretty , though.)

I'm glad that I saw it, but I'm not sure I got anything out of it that a decent website or coffee-table book wouldn't have given me.

* * *

Then it was off to the Film Archive to see The Bothersome Man. I'll just note here that one thing that has been quite bothersome with many of the films that I've seen at the Film Archive during this festival has been the quality of the experience -- the film has frequently started out to low, so subtitles can't be read, and this film occasionally bounced quite a bit, making it quite uncomfortable to watch. (And since it was all in Swedish, you couldn't exactly just close your eyes and listen to the dialogue.)

Anyway, I enjoyed the film itself, if not all of the experience. The basic summary? A man... probably dies. And he wakes up on a bus to a new life, with an apartment and a job as an accountant. And everything is muted tones, and stylish, chrome furniture, and... nice. Where the greatest sin seems to be making a fuss. Is he in some sort of purgatory, or is he just in Scandinavia?

I liked this film; the way that it explored its central idea was interesting and consistent. I'd certainly consider watching it again, in a non-juddery format. :)

* * *

Then it was off to Crossing the Line, a documentary on one of the four American soldiers that defected to North Korea during the fifties. James Dresnok came across as funny and personable; and very, very indoctrinated. And there were definitely weird things gong on -- for example, one of the other defectors married a Japanese woman, and the Dresnok said that he and the other defector quarrelled because the other guy realised that she and Dresnok had an affair. But... the wife returns to Japan to visit her family, and it turns out that she was actually kidnapped from Japan, in a weird plot to raise Japanese-speaking spies. And then the Japanese and North Korean governments arrange to allow the husband and wife (and daughters) to meet in Malaysia, because the Americans can't extradite him from there; and then he hops on the plane to Japan, turns himself in, claims that he's been held in North Korea and tortured for forty years, and that Dresnok helped the Koreans by tying him down and beating him up.

A member of the audience asked the filmmaker if he thought that this was true. As it turns out, he asked exactly that question of Dresnok; and was told, "That shrimp? I wouldn't have to tie him down; I could just pick him up with one hand, and slap him around with the other." And the filmmaker was like... yeah, you could.

Another question that got asked was whether the film-maker thought that they could get away with filming some stuff because the North Koreans don't perceive it the same way that we do. He thought that this was true; in fact, he'd had some of his previous films seen by the North Korean authorities, and rather than accusing him of subversion, they said the film was "too boring" -- what he showed was so every-day to them as to be practically invisible. And I could see that in this film, too: Dresnok talking about how he always got his full ration, even when the famine killed millions, was chilling rather than inspirational to me.

In short, an interesting film that didn't demonise the North Koreans, and gave me some insight into the Americans that defected; and gave me absolutely no desire to go and visit. :)

* * *

And the final movie of the day was Aachi & Ssipak. This is the only movie that I've gone to in the Festival that had people walking out; and I'm afraid that I can completely sympathise. I mean, I knew that I was in for fart jokes and the like; after all, the plot revolves around the fact that power is generated by poo, so the government rewards defecation with addictive "Juicy Bars". But... the animation wasn't particularly attractive, people getting punched or dismembered isn't intrinsically funny, and I never really felt any empathy for any of the characters at all.

There were some interesting aspects -- the head of government, who was drawn chibi but who was an evil cigar-smoking dictator; the numerous homages to/rip-offs of other famous films (Robocop, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.); but it just never made me care. I wouldn't bother with it.

Posted by svend at July 26, 2007 8:41 AM