5. Inherent Vice
It has been since the turning of the century that drug-infused films were popular (Trainspotting, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Big Lebowski, Human Traffic, Go, Requiem for a Dream, Blow, Spun,...). After that, tons of stoner comedies were made along the lines of National Lampoon's legacy. The last few years though, more ambitious drug movies are on the rise again: Enter the Void, Crystal Fairy & The Magical Cactus, Spring Breakers, A Field in England and now Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice. While I enjoyed all of Anderson's films in the past, I cannot say he has ever made a film that I consider to be one of my all-time favorites. He's undoubtedly very talented, but his films all have a rather pretentious feeling to them. Inherent Vice is no exception to this. At the same time, it is a film that hasn't been as well received as most of his others (which of course still is a reception that was way above average). I cannot really point out why that is, since Inherent Vice is definitely my favorite Anderson film. Just like most of his older work, this isn't a very accessible film: the plot is rather complex, with a lot of supporting characters and strange (often drug-infused) dialogues. It is the adaptation of a book by Thomas Pynchon, an American writer who is known for his dense and abstruse novels. "Inherent Vice", the book, was conceived as part-noir and part-psychedelica and that's exactly what Anderson made out of it - a worthy adaptation indeed. The eccentric performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin, alongside the compelling voice-over of Joanna Newsom and the hazy soundtrack of Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, make Inherent Vice into a neo-noir to be reckoned with. The fuzzy storyline isn't as important as the 1970s atmosphere Anderson, Greenwood and DoP Robert Elswit try to create. Keep that in mind when watching this film. It'll be so much more rewarding in the end.
3. Birdman
Praised by the press and movie buffs everywhere, slandered by the many people who thought they were going to see a witty take on the superhero genre. Best film of the (past) year(s) vs. ridiculously overrated. It seems there's no real "in between" when it comes to Birdman. It also seems the first, more elitist reception will make it into the history books. In this case I say: deservedly so. Yes, Birdman is very deceiving in its presentation of the one long take, Iñárritu's script is incredibly conceited and the final tone of the film offers nothing but a cynical view on the way Hollywood and Broadway work. That's all true. But what's new? Isn't Marvel doing exactly the same in their own way? At least Birdman isn't deceptively ironic and doesn't try to conceal lack of content by CGI-ing the shit out of us. It is angry. Frustrated even. But in its frustration, it hits the right spot: in a world and time where the so-called free market dictates what is good and what is bad, where an artist should be more of an entrepreneurial businessman than a creative free spirit and where money buys critical acclaim through marketing and media coverage, Birdman - in all its arrogance - actually tries to say something meaningful. It is a pity that Iñárritu couldn't really transcend cynicism, but why shouldn't there be more cynicism towards an industry that blindly wallows in its own greatness? Maybe he should lighten' up a bit. Maybe he shouldn't emphasize the difficulties of making "art" so much. Yes, yes. Humans aren't flawless, so don't expect them to be. The pure seriousness of Iñárritu's work testifies of his personality: he probably isn't a man of great humor and possibly has issues putting things into perspective sometimes. In the world we live in today, I can relate to that. So yes, cynicism is a red line through some of my favorite films of last year (Youth, Irrational Man, The Big Short, While We're Young, The Lobster): I truly believe our lives are construed through free-market capitalism and cultural navel-gazing; I also believe that's why gleeful entertainment, high profit and their preservation seem to be some of the most important aims left - so we can compare ourselves to others in terms of success. That's my kind of cynicism. But it isn't an indifferent or frustrated cynicism. I see it as a beautiful, joyful way of looking at today's world, provoking me to look for alternatives and solutions in corners and places I haven't looked before, or to find beauty in things that aren't capitalized upon as much. Birdman therefore is a euphoric piece of cinema: it triggers adrenaline in me. It makes me combative and prevents me from throwing in the towel. When I see Mad Max: Fury Road, I enjoy its entertainment value and I'm captivated by its technical and artistic merits. When I see Birdman, I feel compelled to do something more than just passively stare at films and write about them. It's the difference between entertaining and vigorous cinema - the former makes me feel cheerful, the latter makes me more invested in life. I need both.
1. Victoria
Scene one, shot one, take three. Action! ... ... ... Aaaaand... Cut! That's a wrap, people! Translate to German and you get a general idea of how the shooting of Victoria sounded like. Unlike Iñárritu's Birdman, director Sebastian Schipper's Victoria is genuinely a film shot in one long take. It took him three attempts, but the film itself consists out of only one take. It's not the first time this happened in the history of film, but it nevertheless is nothing short of brilliant. After I saw this - two times now - I wanted to swamp everyone with an overload of superlatives. Germany really is a country to keep an eye on: the past few years we got a lot of great stuff from there (Der Samurai, Feuchtgebiete and Oh Boy). It appears this creative wave is not over yet, but we'll have to wait to see if these films get into theaters in Belgium. Some of them were screened uniquely on film festivals, like German Angst, Von jetzt an kein Zurück, True Love Ways and Wir sind jung. Wir sind stark, but others (like Tod den Hippies!! Es lebe der Punk!, Love Steaks, Der Nachtmahr and Der Bunker) seem to get no attention whatsoever. Since Germany is a neighboring country, it often stuns me to see how few German films we get to see in our theaters. Especially compared to French and British films. Luckily Victoria did get a chance. With tons of improvised dialogue, incredibly authentic acting and often discomforting, but humane interactions between the protagonists, this film is really the best thing I've seen in 2015. And although it wasn't particularly underrated, it did deserve a lot more attention and acclaim in the press and on social media. This. Is. Cinema.
I'd like to close this top 25 with some honorable mentions of films that didn't make the cut. The Belgian films Paradise Trips (nice to see lifestyle anarchists and contemporary hippies not being portrayed as a bunch of stupid, juvenile losers) and Le tout nouveau testament (minus the final scenes) were a lot of fun, more so than the slightly overrated (but still very well-made!) D'Ardennen in my opinion. I also enjoyed Relatos salvajes, Turist, Mia madre, Umimachi Diary, Que horas ela volta?, Il capitale umano, La meraviglie, Le petit prince, Les cowboys, El club and the rather underrated Når dyrene drømmer, O menino e o mundo and Tu dors Nicole. American indies like The Diary of a Teenage Girl, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby and Slow West and other mildly popular films like The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Shaun the Sheep Movie, A Most Violent Year, The Voices, Hungry Hearts and The Gift all too deserve to be mentioned. By contrast, festival favorites like Omoide no Mânî, Mita tova, The Dark Horse, La isla mínima, Mustang, Dheepan, As mil e uma noites, Ixcanul, Hrútar and Shan he gu ren just left me indifferent or even bored. Others were a bit disappointing, like Métamorphoses, Loin des hommes, Lucifer, Xenia and Schneider vs. Bax.
Biopics and historical epics (often the only way Hollywood tries to offer something else than entertainment) still aren't my cup of tea, so Unbroken, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Foxcatcher, Selma, Bridge of Spies, The Water Diviner, Far from the Madding Crowd, Woman in Gold, Mr. Holmes, Suffragette, Black Mass, Pawn Sacrifice and the most overrated piece-of-crap of last year, American Sniper, didn't do anything for me. I did enjoy some biopics and period drama's though, first and foremost the British (and quite underrated) Belle, followed by Wild, Big Eyes, Jimi: All Is by My Side, Phoenix and Son of Saul. It is very deliberate that I put Son of Saul last. While I absolutely stand in awe of its technical merits, the film itself bothers me: it's too voyeuristic and it appeals too much to the horrific images we associate with the Endlösung. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a product of the Holocaust Industry, but it isn't provoking us either. It's too observing. It's like watching a re-enacted documentary. All in all, the film feels to me a bit too much like an application for Europe's arty-farty film elite...
If 2016 will be as good a film year as 2015 was, there won't be much to complain about. Provided that you aim your eyes, heart and brain in the right direction and don't expect anything unrealistic. Don't be deceived by marketing or critical acclaim. Follow your gut. When doing so, every year will have a lot of wonderful movies to offer, and bitter or outdated remarks about lack of talent and creativity, will vanish into thin air. Just don't confuse entrepreneurial sales pitches with genuine, humane enthusiasm - both are optimistic and confident, but the former is deceitful and empty (nothing should be expected from it), while the second is full of life and inherently anarchist.
4. Dear White People
Dear white people, we address this film to you. *nominations for the Academy Awards are announced* Dear white people, thanks for nothing. We don't need to get into the god-awful white, heterosexual, cisgender dominated Oscars again. Although I want to stress that those who agree with Charlotte Rampling on this, really need to be educated. Not enough black people to have deserved a nomination? How about O'Shea Jackson Jr. (Straight Outta Compton), Shameik Moore (Dope), Michael B. Jordan (Creed), Teyonah Parris (Chi-Raq), Will Smith (Concussion), Idris Elba (Beasts of No Nation), Mya Taylor (Tangerine), John Boyega (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) or Samuel L. Jackson (The Hateful Eight)? Or where were Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Belle), André Benjamin (Jimi: All Is by My Side) and Tessa Thompson (Dear White People) last year? And this is just the actors... Moreover, this probably is just the tip of the iceberg. I think the best response is to just ignore the Oscars. Their authority is only derived from the fact we always keep on referring to them as if they have some artistic, creative or qualitative merit, while it all is just a festivity of Hollywood's glitter and glamour. Yes, black people should fight this, since nobody should be excluded from even the most shallow kinds of celebrations, but on the other hand, why not look to the alternatives? Dear White People offers us exactly this kind of tension: do black people want to be part of white peoples' "world" or do they want their own "world"? And what about integration, assimilation and subversion of white and black "cultural differences"? Dear White People shines a light on all those positions and, for once, cherishes even the anarchist point of view. This movie is funny, thought-provoking and intensely human, all drenched in an authentic hip hop soundtrack (not a nostalgic one like in Straight Outta Compton and Dope, but a contemporary and militant one). It embraces the complexity of ethnic oppression and at the same time it is very clear on one subject: racism today still exists, and the fight against it is not over. Don't be trapped in the dual "with us or against us" framework, but do pick a side in the complex, polygonal shape our world is made out of instead of insisting that it's all the same. Praised by the press and movie buffs everywhere, slandered by the many people who thought they were going to see a witty take on the superhero genre. Best film of the (past) year(s) vs. ridiculously overrated. It seems there's no real "in between" when it comes to Birdman. It also seems the first, more elitist reception will make it into the history books. In this case I say: deservedly so. Yes, Birdman is very deceiving in its presentation of the one long take, Iñárritu's script is incredibly conceited and the final tone of the film offers nothing but a cynical view on the way Hollywood and Broadway work. That's all true. But what's new? Isn't Marvel doing exactly the same in their own way? At least Birdman isn't deceptively ironic and doesn't try to conceal lack of content by CGI-ing the shit out of us. It is angry. Frustrated even. But in its frustration, it hits the right spot: in a world and time where the so-called free market dictates what is good and what is bad, where an artist should be more of an entrepreneurial businessman than a creative free spirit and where money buys critical acclaim through marketing and media coverage, Birdman - in all its arrogance - actually tries to say something meaningful. It is a pity that Iñárritu couldn't really transcend cynicism, but why shouldn't there be more cynicism towards an industry that blindly wallows in its own greatness? Maybe he should lighten' up a bit. Maybe he shouldn't emphasize the difficulties of making "art" so much. Yes, yes. Humans aren't flawless, so don't expect them to be. The pure seriousness of Iñárritu's work testifies of his personality: he probably isn't a man of great humor and possibly has issues putting things into perspective sometimes. In the world we live in today, I can relate to that. So yes, cynicism is a red line through some of my favorite films of last year (Youth, Irrational Man, The Big Short, While We're Young, The Lobster): I truly believe our lives are construed through free-market capitalism and cultural navel-gazing; I also believe that's why gleeful entertainment, high profit and their preservation seem to be some of the most important aims left - so we can compare ourselves to others in terms of success. That's my kind of cynicism. But it isn't an indifferent or frustrated cynicism. I see it as a beautiful, joyful way of looking at today's world, provoking me to look for alternatives and solutions in corners and places I haven't looked before, or to find beauty in things that aren't capitalized upon as much. Birdman therefore is a euphoric piece of cinema: it triggers adrenaline in me. It makes me combative and prevents me from throwing in the towel. When I see Mad Max: Fury Road, I enjoy its entertainment value and I'm captivated by its technical and artistic merits. When I see Birdman, I feel compelled to do something more than just passively stare at films and write about them. It's the difference between entertaining and vigorous cinema - the former makes me feel cheerful, the latter makes me more invested in life. I need both.
2. The Duke of Burgundy
Without a doubt, Peter Strickland (Katalin Varga, Berberian Sound Studio) is one of today's masterminds in aesthetic cinema. He proves this mastery yet again in his latest effort The Duke of Burgundy. The stylish costume and production design, the visual perfection, the cunning dialogues, the vivid acting performances, the entrancing score and the thought-provoking script all contribute to one of last year's most immersive experiences. In this movie a lesbian couple lives according to the 'DS' of BDSM: Dominance and Submission. It portrays two female lovers, Evelyn and Cynthia, with a slight age difference who almost constantly maintain the dominant and submissive role in their lives. But who is it that actually dominates: the dom or the sub? Everyone who has some knowledge of or experience with BDSM knows that domination is a layered concept, especially in sexual relations. It's not the rather simplistic notion people read about in 50 Shades of Grey. Christian Grey is an abstraction of the dominant figure. He's nothing more than a (fe)male rape-fantasy. This rape-fantasy however comes closer to DS-reality: in a rape-fantasy it is the person who comes up with the fantasy who is actually being the dominant one. (S)he makes up the rules, the context and the words of the fantasy. (S)he decides who is allowed to "rape" or dominate her/him, not the person who is considered to be the dominant one. Nothing of that in 50 Shades of Grey of course, since this meta-reflection would destroy the fantasy of the book (and film). But that makes it possible for men's rights activists (aka. male chauvinist pigs) to still believe that many women want a strong, dominant man at their side - and those who don't, subconsciously want it. The Duke of Burgundy smashes this ignorant, macho bullshit in its face. There's not one male actor present in this film. And although the director himself is male, it never feels as if he's lusting for some cheap girl-on-girl action. The movie doesn't give in to that lesbian fantasy some men suffer from, since they're not invited to the party. At all. Penetration is just completely absent. The Duke of Burgundy defies our notions of sexuality more than 50 Shades of Grey ever could. This film is must-see material from one of the world's most interesting and promising directors working now.Scene one, shot one, take three. Action! ... ... ... Aaaaand... Cut! That's a wrap, people! Translate to German and you get a general idea of how the shooting of Victoria sounded like. Unlike Iñárritu's Birdman, director Sebastian Schipper's Victoria is genuinely a film shot in one long take. It took him three attempts, but the film itself consists out of only one take. It's not the first time this happened in the history of film, but it nevertheless is nothing short of brilliant. After I saw this - two times now - I wanted to swamp everyone with an overload of superlatives. Germany really is a country to keep an eye on: the past few years we got a lot of great stuff from there (Der Samurai, Feuchtgebiete and Oh Boy). It appears this creative wave is not over yet, but we'll have to wait to see if these films get into theaters in Belgium. Some of them were screened uniquely on film festivals, like German Angst, Von jetzt an kein Zurück, True Love Ways and Wir sind jung. Wir sind stark, but others (like Tod den Hippies!! Es lebe der Punk!, Love Steaks, Der Nachtmahr and Der Bunker) seem to get no attention whatsoever. Since Germany is a neighboring country, it often stuns me to see how few German films we get to see in our theaters. Especially compared to French and British films. Luckily Victoria did get a chance. With tons of improvised dialogue, incredibly authentic acting and often discomforting, but humane interactions between the protagonists, this film is really the best thing I've seen in 2015. And although it wasn't particularly underrated, it did deserve a lot more attention and acclaim in the press and on social media. This. Is. Cinema.
I'd like to close this top 25 with some honorable mentions of films that didn't make the cut. The Belgian films Paradise Trips (nice to see lifestyle anarchists and contemporary hippies not being portrayed as a bunch of stupid, juvenile losers) and Le tout nouveau testament (minus the final scenes) were a lot of fun, more so than the slightly overrated (but still very well-made!) D'Ardennen in my opinion. I also enjoyed Relatos salvajes, Turist, Mia madre, Umimachi Diary, Que horas ela volta?, Il capitale umano, La meraviglie, Le petit prince, Les cowboys, El club and the rather underrated Når dyrene drømmer, O menino e o mundo and Tu dors Nicole. American indies like The Diary of a Teenage Girl, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby and Slow West and other mildly popular films like The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Shaun the Sheep Movie, A Most Violent Year, The Voices, Hungry Hearts and The Gift all too deserve to be mentioned. By contrast, festival favorites like Omoide no Mânî, Mita tova, The Dark Horse, La isla mínima, Mustang, Dheepan, As mil e uma noites, Ixcanul, Hrútar and Shan he gu ren just left me indifferent or even bored. Others were a bit disappointing, like Métamorphoses, Loin des hommes, Lucifer, Xenia and Schneider vs. Bax.
Biopics and historical epics (often the only way Hollywood tries to offer something else than entertainment) still aren't my cup of tea, so Unbroken, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, Foxcatcher, Selma, Bridge of Spies, The Water Diviner, Far from the Madding Crowd, Woman in Gold, Mr. Holmes, Suffragette, Black Mass, Pawn Sacrifice and the most overrated piece-of-crap of last year, American Sniper, didn't do anything for me. I did enjoy some biopics and period drama's though, first and foremost the British (and quite underrated) Belle, followed by Wild, Big Eyes, Jimi: All Is by My Side, Phoenix and Son of Saul. It is very deliberate that I put Son of Saul last. While I absolutely stand in awe of its technical merits, the film itself bothers me: it's too voyeuristic and it appeals too much to the horrific images we associate with the Endlösung. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a product of the Holocaust Industry, but it isn't provoking us either. It's too observing. It's like watching a re-enacted documentary. All in all, the film feels to me a bit too much like an application for Europe's arty-farty film elite...
If 2016 will be as good a film year as 2015 was, there won't be much to complain about. Provided that you aim your eyes, heart and brain in the right direction and don't expect anything unrealistic. Don't be deceived by marketing or critical acclaim. Follow your gut. When doing so, every year will have a lot of wonderful movies to offer, and bitter or outdated remarks about lack of talent and creativity, will vanish into thin air. Just don't confuse entrepreneurial sales pitches with genuine, humane enthusiasm - both are optimistic and confident, but the former is deceitful and empty (nothing should be expected from it), while the second is full of life and inherently anarchist.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten