Wednesday, September 26, 2007

so mumblecore


  Recently I read a couple pieces in the NYTimes (on I think consecutive weekends) about young independent filmmakers.  I was intrigued because I like films and I like to be aware of what is happening in the young/indie scenes and I had never heard of any of these fools.  Also the articles used funny terms like "mumblecore" and "slackavetes" to describe commonalities amongst the loose grouping.  All the filmmakers were loathe to be so categorized even though they sort of started it.  My feelings of being left out grew and I was anxious to see some of the source material so I could say "meh, good not great".  
  Cut-to: walking through Harvard sq. to buy coffee and the Brattle theatre has a big Hannah Takes the Stairs poster with all kinds of exclusive engagement nonsense plastered all over it.  Being as my interest was already picqued I totally fell for it and after a week of working and one thwarted attempt (thanks Benno) I peeped it out.  
  As I say I did not want to like a film that fell into the "mumblecore" movement.  I guess they use this term because the characters talk a lot but not in a Woody Allen-stylee, it has more of a "holy shit that's retarded but I have been in some situations that turn out about that astute" feel.  And so I pretty much summed-up why I ended up liking Hannah.  Every painful exchange of late-twenties ennui extends beyond the joke, through the self-importance and into a weirdly sympathetic moment.  I am reminded (slightly) of Todd Solondz in the quickly shifting sympathies.  (IE he's making fun of them oh no wait he's one of them)  Or, and I really didn't want to give them this, a little bit of Cassavetes at least where the length of conversations is concerned.  Cassavetes hits hard because so many scenes play out beyond the lines that would easily define his characters and they get downright awkward.  There's a lot of this in Hannah.  Maybe this plays especially well to me because I am inclined to be above the dilemmas (my job sucks, i wanna be an artist, i'm romantically indecisive) but in the beats after these dilemmas are expressed I realize that I'm not and then what sounds terse 
and stupid becomes pathetic but real.  It's real, it's some real shit.  Wow, so I kind of hate this review/
myself for thinking this way about a movie but I must cop to thiking it was pretty well-done.  
AND I know also that I'm a total sucker for a film that was made cheap/looks cheap/and everybody that's in it gets co-writing credit.  
  On that tip!  I was riding the T home from seeing Yo la Tengo do the Sounds of Science last night 
(maybe i'll write some more about that sometime soon, it was AWESOME) and this scruffy looking youth that I was sitting next to leaned over and said "I know this 
might sound weird but were you in the Nincompoops?"  HAHA  FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME
(he was a friend of Derek Wilson, the brother of one of my co-filmmakers, Andrew/"Norm")

4 comments:

David M. Frank said...

Fame fame fame fame fame... (descending synth bit)...FAME (What's your name?)

Its Vladimir.

I saw Old Joy last night and I guess that might be "mumblecore." (That's about as singularly evocative as genre-titles get). It was slow, non-plot-driven, often awkward, not-so-subtly symbolic. Speaking of Yo La Tengo, they do the soundtrack, which is kinda like the groove from "Return to Hot Chicken" on repeat. (I could probably listen to that groove indefinitely, and this movie certainly put that to the test). I enjoyed it though. A small--and thus, perhaps, unambitious--but dope film.

Please respond with your thoughts on the YLT show. I saw them in New Haven last year (Brian, were you there?) and I was totally satisfiedddddddddddd

David M. Frank said...

Also, I saw Palindromes recently and thought it was a piece of shit. Your thoughts?

vw said...

i didn't finish the YLT thought which is that i saw them do the sounds of science (apparently do the S was sufficient for me earlier) so it was probably a lot like old joy (workin a groove out with no vox) still thats a pretty kickass group of folks and i was much satisfied with the experience. interestingly i saw mission of burma again on sunday at the institute for contemporary art so i've seen a lot of sit down rock lately.

dave, i completely disagree with you on palindromes and i'm a little taken aback...
have you liked solondz in the past?
maybe the different actors thing is a little over the t but i think thats some solid solondz-piece
far more interesting and mature than storytelling though maybe not as "satisfying" as happiness...
just trying to set the parameters, i'm ready for a knock down drag out solondz-debate

David M. Frank said...

Well, I haven't seen Storytelling all the way through, so I can't really comment on it. Welcome to the Dollhouse and Happiness are both amazing, uniquely successful films, because of the depth of the characters, and the fact that they succeed at being really fucking uncomfortable, yet quite entertaining and funny in their own way. Its a type of queasy entertainment that Solondz has a virtual monopoly on these days. (At least, no one else I know makes films like that.)

I thought Palindromes had neither of these good-making features. The actor-switching didn't seem motivated by anything other than a desire to be formally ambitious, and it seemed to preclude any intimacy with the main character. The film brought up some big fat uncomfortable issues (abortion, disability, etc.) but didn't do much with them except make the audience queasy in the familiar Solondz way. Without the satisfaction of something more (especially more rich characters), it just felt empty and--I know this is totally cliche in Solondz criticism--exploitative.

In short, its super easy to make an audience queasy. Its harder to entertain an audience while making them queasy.

I still consider myself a Solondz fan and hope he makes lots more movies because, if nothing else, they will always be worth talking about.