Peter's Film Viewing Journal (Beeswax)

An attempt to write my random and initial thoughts for every film (of note) that I see, especially retrospective selections I have viewed on the big screen, with little editing and lots of brevity and focusing on thoughts/reaction, not criticism; taking the tone of "notes to self".

Beeswax
2009
Directed By: Andrew Bujalski
Screened @ Symphony Space in NYC

Finally saw Beeswax at Symphony Space. Nice theater, the Leonard Nimoy - they have what kind of amounts to a long couch in the middle of the space. We had it to ourselves. Melissa took her shoes off and pretty much laid down. Felt strange to get that comfortable in a theater. But that's what was cool.

There is too much to say about this film and I simply don't have the proper means of expressing it properly. I really feel like people don't fully understand what Bujalski has done here.

I feel like I watched a movie without performances, which make them, in actuality, absolutely incredible performances. Particularly the Hatcher twins and Anne Dodge, who I think should get some supporting actress, end of the year nods, but won't, because as I said - It doesn't feel like she is performing AT ALL. There were some scenes that I was simply astounded at the tone and level of reality. But what was really amazing for me was the way that Bujalski was able to slide in and carry out the narrative completely "under the radar"; so much so that people might actually not even realize that it was "written". This, to me, is an incredible accomplishment.

Melissa, had an interesting reaction to the film. She said she didn't like any of the characters except the Asian girl (Atietie Tonwe) that came in in the end of the film just for a moment. She felt like she was the only person that was different from the others, that all the other characters where exactly the same and that she suspected that Bujalski would have molded her into being like the others if he had more time with her, but because she was only in it for a moment, she had her own personality and that none of the other characters did.

She didn't like any of the characters, thought they had no "real reaction" to anything that was happening, and hated that there was no resolution. "But I was engaged throughout the whole thing," she said. I asked her why. She took some time and said, "I don't know."

When I was in film school, in the mid 90s, I spouted on about how I thought the next step to strive for in performance would be one in which the actors are totally not even talking for the camera in any way, that they are just talking only for each other, to the extent that the audience could actually think they are not even trying to be heard by the mic. I felt that this would lead to a greater reality in the film, so long as other convention tools were not discarded. (I have, since then, tried this to some extent in my own films) People totally didn't get what I was talking about. But now I feel like the evolution of Bujalski's films has lead to this film, which is, in a way, what I was dreaming of back then. As an audience member this is very exciting to me.

-Peter Rinaldi

Peter's Film Viewing Journal (The Resnais-ties Festival : Part 1)

An attempt to write my random and initial thoughts for every film (of note) that I see, especially retrospective selections I have viewed on the big screen, with little editing and lots of brevity and focusing on thoughts/reaction, not criticism; taking the tone of "notes to self".
Alain Resnais (pronounced like the name"Rene") is a filmmaker I have come to admire only recently, having seen the incredible Last Year at Marienbad, for the first time, in a theater earlier in the year. That expereince, combined with my appreciation for his first non-documentary feature Hiroshima Mon Amour has sent me looking for more of his work.

Resnais is one of the lucky filmmakers who have their significantly lesser known films available on DVD in America. A number of films he did in the 80s have been put out from Kimstim in a box set called Alain Resnais, a Decade in film. I decided to view some of these to get an idea of what he has done in the latter part of his career. (I caught his newest film Wild Grass at the New York Film Festival in September. It was wild indeed. Need to see that one again before I can get my head around it)

Love Unto Death
1984
Directed By: Alain Resnais
DVD

When I was watching this one, I kept thinking about Fassbinder. Not because they have the same style, but because they both share a very similar combination of playfulness and command of the cinematic language.

He does an interesting, bordering on annoying, thing in this film - he separates almost every scene with a shot of stars shimmering and a musical interlude. It is strange but sometimes very nice.

He does a nice job of eloquently addressing love's relationship with death. The acting is top notch and on an equal level. A really nice surprise.

Melo
1986
Directed By: Alain Resnais
DVD

As much as I have grown into someone who has a large problem with films that do not act like films (by this I mean ones that rely too much upon story, or ones that rely too much on dialogue thereby acting more like literature or plays than the visual medium of film) I also despise when something is dismissed simply for these reasons.

This film, Melo, is taken from a play and adapted by Resnais himself (very rare for him to write his own screenplay apparently) and he has no problem in shooting it like he were shooting a play on the stage- long takes, all interiors, very artificial looking sets. It kind of shocked me that this master of the film form should abandon all that technique this time out. It almost felt like an experiment, one to see if he could shoot something and make it feel completely NOT like a film.

If the acting would've not been as good as it is, this would have been interminable. And yet, I couldn't be pulled away from it. I still felt like I was in the hands of a master. What a filmmaker! Even his disasters are interesting and spellbinding.

More to come...

-Peter Rinaldi

Peter's Film Viewing Journal (Il Grido)

An attempt to write my random and initial thoughts for every film (of note) that I see, especially retrospective selections I have viewed on the big screen, with little editing and lots of brevity and focusing on thoughts/reaction, not criticism; taking the tone of "notes to self".

Il Grido
1957
Directed By: Michelangelo Antonioni
Screened at BAM Rose Cinemas, Brooklyn NY, November 9 2009 (Not a great print)

What a joy this was to see finally. Neorealism, for sure, but with hints of what was to come in the oeuvre of this master. I have La Notte on again as I write this (which is probably sacrilege), I just wanted to see something a few films later, when he was right in his next period, to see the growth directly. Very interesting.

It was so strange to see so much music in an Antonioni film. But it was used so wonderfully. And it was very effective music. Although, sometimes a little "leading".

The lead performance by Steve Cochran was extraordinary.

Saw Le Amiche at MOMA a few weeks ago. That's the film he made right before this one. And it too had something else going on under the surface, but to a lesser degree. It's very interesting to see an actually progression toward a complex, subtle, subtext-style.

Watching his films is an ongoing process. Like TS Elliot said of Dante when a friend told Elliot that he had read the Divine Comedy, "You mean you have begun to read it".

Peter's Film Viewing Journal (The Touch)

An attempt to write my random and initial thoughts for every film (of note) that I see, especially retrospective selections I have viewed on the big screen, with little editing and lots of brevity and focusing on thoughts/reaction, not criticism; taking the tone of "notes to self".

The Touch
1971
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Screened at MOMA, November 8th 2009

I am not a big Bergman fan. In fact, I tried to watch Wild Strawberries a little bit ago and couldn't get far at all. Not really sure what bugs me about him. But MOMA has this Film Preservation program every year where they screen the films that have been lucky enough to get restored or preserved that year. One of these films this year was The Touch, Directed by Ingmar Bergman from 1971, not a very well know Bergman selection at all. It stars Elliot Gould, for Heaven's sake.

You can see why this one didn't really rise out of the' obscure' status. Another somber adultery premise, with Bibi Andersson as a seemingly happy mother and wife and Gould as an eccentric archeologist with whom she has a strange, intense affair.

There were a tremendous amount of annoying people around me at this screening. Two old women behind me kept clicking their tongue against their teeth at the screen to create the universal sound for disapproval or shame. The woman next to me kept talking to herself, "Wow." or "Why is she doing that?", so often it was alarming. If I had been captured by this film, I would've given these freaks a piece of my mind, but the fact is I was finding it hard to get into this one. The camera was doing a lot of wacky things. Strange zooms, quick pans. The editing was also erratic and almost experimental. Not so sure what Bergman's other films from this period are like, but this one was strange.

I was really there for what followed, an hour long doc on the making of The Touch called, simply Ingmar Bergman. This was really great because it showed the director at work in long takes and up close. You really got an idea of how this man worked. There is a nice sequence where he tries to explain to Andersson why the pants that she is wearing are not going to work for the scene. It goes on in real time for, like 10 minutes. Maybe this would be boring to someone else, but it was fascinating to me. I can watch a great director at work for hours and hours. So it was very interesting to see an up close making-of doc right after seeing the film. On the way out a stranger just said to me out of the blue, "It feels like just worked on this movie for months, doesn't it?" I agreed.

-Peter Rinaldi

Peter's Film Viewing Journal (Metropolis)

I'd like to try to write my random and initial thoughts for every film (of note) that I see starting today, especially retrospective selections I have viewed on the big screen, with little editing and lots of brevity and focusing on thoughts/reaction, not criticism; taking the tone of "notes to self".

Metropolis
Dir. Fritz Lang
1927
Screened at MOMA on November 4 2009

I am embarrassed to say that I had never seen this legendary silent film. I am not sure why. But I jumped at the chance to see it on the big screen. Unfortunately I found myself extremely fatigued suddenly right before the film was to begin. So much so that I actually closed my eyes and dosed off. I don't recall ever doing that in a theater.

So needless to say, I was struggling to stay awake during the beginning of the film. But I soon regained control of myself. I was a little surprised about this film. I was expecting, having heard so much about it over the years, to be constantly bombarded with expressionistic and futuristic sets and designs. This wasn't so. It was very much seeped in a "silent drama" essence.

Lang is an amazing filmmaker. There is no way you can approach his stuff, considering the time period, and not leave in awe. But, just like with his Mabuse, The Gambler film, I really found it hard to follow a lot of the time. Could this be because I was half awake? Maybe.


I really responded to the expressionist moments in the film, and not so much the futuristic aspects. That was surprising. But the bottom line is I need to see this classic again, with some energy.

-Peter Rinaldi