Filmfest diary 1.03: Masters

I got very little sleep in between my first movie on the first night of the festival, and my second on the morning after. The day's schedule consisted of two films, both at the Scotiabank Theatre, which was a much larger complex than the Varsity Theatre where most of the opening night screenings were held. This meant that the only really large line outside was the line for last-minute rush tickets.

Les Amours d'Astrée et de Céladon
(Romance of Astrea and Celadon)
Director: Éric Rohmer
Country: France/Italy/Spain

Based on L'Astrée, a classic French novel from the 17th century by Honoré d'Urfé, this film tells the story of, as the title suggests, the romance of two young shepherds, Céladon (Andy Gillet) and Astrée (Stéphanie Crayencour). At the beginning of the movie, we soon find out that the two are deeply in love. However, Astrée sees Céladon kiss another girl (a deception intended to please Céladon's parents), and complications arise as Astrée forbids Céladon to ever set eyes on her again, to which Céladon reacts by throwing himself into a river to try to drown himself. Céladon survives, naturally, but this sets the scene for the rest of the story.

The movie plays out as a classic comedy of errors, with plenty of dramatic irony to please the audience. The acting was good, although I can't really say it's great, as I tend not to be able to judge foreign-language acting quite as well as acting in English. What really made me love this movie was the production. Éric Rohmer, most famous for his role as one of the pioneers of French New Wave cinema, obviously had a clear vision of what he wanted to do when he adapted the novel, and it shows. The film is preceded by a message regarding the filming of the movie, which did not take place at the original setting, but at a similar region that was less touched by human expansion. From this, you could tell that Rohmer really wanted to do the story justice. As a result, the movie felt as if it had stuck close to the original material (although I can only assume this, as I have not actually read the novel, nor can I read French). I found this approach really refreshing.

I highly recommend this movie to anybody who doesn't mind a bit of old-fashioned romance with a whole lot of comedy, and I especially recommend it to those who are sick of the overproduced romantic comedies that come out of Hollywood. Perhaps the only disappointment that I had with the movie was the fact that Éric Rohmer wasn't on hand to do a Q&A session with the audience.

A Londoni férfi
(The Man from London)
Director: Béla Tarr
Country: Hungary/France/Germany

The story, yet again based on a novel, follows Maloin, a regular joe who happens to one night witness a deal gone bad at the French port where he works. Maloin goes about his business, but with the knowledge of what had happened that night on the back of his mind, and also, it soon becomes apparent, with the British currency that he recovers from the harbour from that night. Soon, a man from London turns up investigating some missing money.

I really didn't like this movie but, oddly enough, I did like most aspects of it. What first caught my eye was the old-fashioned use of blacks and whites, in the style of the really old film noir of the early days of cinema. I immediately thought "awesome". There are not enough modern black-and-white films that have imitated the movies of old quite as well as The Man from London has. I also really like the point of view from which the story is told, and that is, from Maloin, who is not involved in the death at the beginning, but is hounded by this mystery as he tries to go on doing what he normally does.

Unfortunately, what will undoubtedly make this movie disliked is Béla Tarr's method of storytelling through his choices in cinematography. I haven't seen any Béla Tarr movies in the past, but it soon became apparent to me that he had a distinct style, in particular with his penchant for long takes. He wants the audience to really soak up each scene, and this is evident from the very first take, a 12-minute shot that sets the scene for the events to come. This makes the film very atmospheric, almost a snapshot of the environments familiar to Maloin, but also tests the audience's patience more than a few times. In fact, I noted that a lot of people left before the movie even ended, and as early as halfway through the 135 minute movie. Also, a lot of people would start whispering to one another whenever the next scene started to drag on. I respect Tarr's decision to do these long takes, but I admit even I thought that, most of the time, they went on for far too long.

I'm afraid that, apart from film buffs, who would no doubt find purpose in Tarr's long takes, I cannot recommend this film lightly. If you like Béla Tarr, I suppose you would probably like it, and if you like film noir, it's a good study on how to tell an otherwise noir story in a somewhat unconventional fashion while keeping true to the most of the conventions of the black-and-white crime genre. In fact, the story style, coupled with the long takes can almost make this movie classifiable as an anti-noir.

Q&A: I stayed for about half the Q&A session, but there didn't seem to be a lot of people interested in asking questions, so I left after a few minutes.

Adaptations, remakes, and sequels

A general observation that I've made with film trends as of late is the seemingly increasing amount of films that are based on other material, or are sequels to previous movies. The first three movies that I've seen during this festival, for instance, have all been based on novels. Even 3:10 to Yuma, which I watched in between the two movies reviewed on this post, was a remake of a 1957 western. Now, I do like any movie that is done well, but I would really like to see more and more people doing something original and making it work, instead of a constant stream of adaptations, remakes, and sequels.

9 out of 10

Soon after purchasing my tickets, I realized that I had made a potentially fatal mistake. Well, maybe not fatal, as it wouldn't kill me, but it would sure dishearten me. I turned out that I had scheduled two movies on the same day that only gave me 25 minutes in between in which to move between theatres. This was bad because people are not generally let in after a film has begun, and the two theatres were about 15 minutes apart at best. Not only that, but the first movie that I had a ticket for was Diary of the Dead, which is, out of every movie in the festival, the one that I really wanted to see.

The prospect of having to skip out on a possible Q&A with George A. Romero was really getting to me, so I went on Craigslist, and sold the ticket (to Juno) on there, leaving me with only nine movies, unless I decide to see another movie. It worked out pretty well, as I only lost 50c in the whole deal. In the end, I don't even know if George A. Romero will be on hand to answer questions for a daytime screening, but at least I won't have to worry about it.