TIFF 2017

I only saw 5 movies this year. Here is my dumb opinion on them in no particular order.

FIRST REFORMED

This is a great fucking movie. It’s Paul Schrader’s return to themes previously explored in TAXI DRIVER, with Ethan Hawke playing the Travis Bickle role. It has the instant feel of a Criterion collection movie; it’s clearly inspired by classic cinema, and made by a guy who has a lot of respect for those movies. After last year’s, DOG EAT DOG, part of me was kinda worried about Schrader. That movie wasn’t bad, but it felt like it was just dark for no reason. It’s not a movie I can recommend to people, but I can watch it myself. FIRST REFORMED, however, felt like Schrader’s return to dark stuff with purpose and integrity. It’s dark not because Schrader is a negative guy, but appropriately because life is dark. FIRST REFORMED felt like a movie only Schrader could’ve made. When an audience member asked him if he has any hope for the future of cinema, he replied, “I don’t even have any hope for humanity. Homo sapiens.”

HAPPY END

I’ve discovered the work of Michael Haneke at home the last couple of years, and he has easily become one of my favourite filmmakers. I’ve always wanted to see a film of his at an actual theatre with an audience: they’re all so heavy, and beg to be seen without the ability to “pause.” Unfortunately, HAPPY END is not his best work. It’s still quite good, it’s just not as strong as his others. I just felt like I wanted more out of everything: the characters, and the story. It seems like it has repeat value though, maybe I’ll like it more on a second viewing now that I know what to expect…

I LOVE YOU, DADDY

I have mixed feelings about this currently. As a fan of Louis CK, and his work (TOMORROW NIGHT, and HORACE AND PETE specifically) I kind of know what to expect. Which is to say, I know to expect the unexpected in his work. In Louis CK’s filmmaking he kind of likes going all over the place, often shifting tonally, and taking pleasure in surprising the viewer. As he said in the Q&A at the screening I was at, “I like shitting and pissing over an electric fence.” I LOVE YOU, DADDY has all the hallmarks of his work, and for a quickly shot independent film I can’t criticize it too harshly. But I will say: it feels a little uneven. Louis has a lot of ideas he wants to present, and by the end it’s a little scrappy. There’s some minor continuity errors, and even sound issues. And thematically, I’m not even sure Louis knew what he was trying to say 100% of the time - kinda funny given the fact that “making art for the sake of it” is one of the themes of the film. In an interview he stated, “I don’t really think it’s things I’m trying to say, it’s just observations. It’s observations and explorations.”

Louis is still editing the movie (as he did between the first and second screenings), so I cannot judge it that much yet I guess. I have a feeling the final cut will be a lot better than what anyone saw initially. All criticism aside: as a fan of his I really liked this movie. It’s certainly one of the most memorable things I’ve seen in a long time. And who else is going to make a movie in 2017 and list the 1933 film DINNER AT EIGHT as one of the influences? Louis CK is one of the last true artists alive, and I strongly hope he makes more movies.

ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ

This is one of the most disappointing movies I’ve ever seen. NIGHTCRAWLER is one of my favourite movies of the last few years, and I felt that Dan Gilroy really missed an opportunity here. It’s so sad to see a movie bungled this badly because the people involved with it are so damn talented! The thing is: even Denzel Washington’s acting in it isn’t bad. The problem for me lies in the writing and directing. This movie has no idea what the fuck it wants to be. It seems to me that a lot of intelligent people have so many ideas that they have problems keeping them in focus. When I was walking out of the theatre I said to my friend, “Well….that was a movie! I can definitely say that at least.”

WINTER BROTHERS

I sometimes struggle with “art films.” I have a low tolerance for movies that are too experimental. In University I took an Avant Garde Cinema class and I was forced to sit through 3 hours in a row of things like a sailboat just sitting there, menstrual blood doing menstrual bloody type things, etc. And then I had to hear the interpretations of what these things meant from 20 year olds definitely not qualified to opine on anything, let alone film. Someone would say, “The menstrual blood represents woman’s desire to transcend existence.” And then they’d ask me and I’d say, “I thought the blood was just supposed to be blood. That’s just me though, I don’t really know…”

After so much of that, my threshold for a lot of art cinema is low. I say all this to explain my affinity for WINTER BROTHERS. I was not prepared to like this film at all, and yet I left the theatre thinking about it long after it was over. The reason why I liked this movie so much is because it’s the perfect blend of experimental arthouse cinema, with an accessible narrative. It complicates things without ruining the movie; a very delicate balance to pull off. One of my favourite movies of all time is RED DESERT, and WINTER BROTHERS kinda made me feel the same way: intrigued but entertained.