Reel Girly

A diligent effort in indie improv filmmaking, Alejandro Adams’ Around the Bay intelligently plays at the disintegration of family in the face of struggling business in the Silicon Valley.

Disaffect and self-absorption play a central role in this story about a wayward Los Gatos family. Daisy (very well played by Katherine Celio) lives in an unnamed town, works at a grocery store, and casually missed fall’s college enrollment deadline. Fortunately (or unfortunately) her errant father, Wyatt (glassily portrayed by Steve Voldseth) whom she hasn’t seen for the last decade, has just lost his girlfriend and his presumably high paying Silicon Valley job in the same week. Ill equipped to care for his nearly unbearable and yet empathy inspiring son Noah (also well played by Connor Maselli) he invites daughter Daisy to give Noah his ‘three meals a day’. She concedes and comes to stay in his guest house, beautifully attired and poetically divorced from the hollow, family nest. Wyatt contends that five-year-old Noah is self-governing and “knows himself,” a view that accounts for Noah’s aggression and unwillingness to befriend kindly Daisy.  

Like a lot of improvised dialogue, the conversations take on an inchoate air of meaninglessness, saying much and saying nothing at the same time. This paired with Adams’ repeated use of Steven Soderbergh style (or should I say “Lindsay Anderson” style?) non-sync sound gives the characters and their messy attempts at communication a feeling that everyone is at sea with no anchors in sight. Adding further to weightlessness and the volatility is Adam’s metaphorical use of water. Noah swims, Daisy reads by the pool, Wyatt spends endless moments in the overly attired shower. Captured largely in mediums and close-ups one even senses a dreadful sort of floating when Daisy takes the train with Noah to unknown destinations, or when Wyatt’s traveling in his car towards but another ill fated meeting with investors. 

 Performances are consistent and dialogue, though sometimes a bit thin, is really intelligent. Voldseth’s Wyatt is a perfect shell of a man. Trying little he seems to have made his fame skirting reality and Daisy, who turned out well (raised by her mother), is the only person willing to call him on his disingenuiness. Though his last moments are ones of remorse, one can’t feel as though his justice is one he’ll really aim to grow from – and cued by Celio’s response to him, it’s pretty clear that whether or not he mends his ways, the damage is pretty well done. 

Alejandro Adam’s Around the Bay will be doing fest runs shortly beginning with CineQuest ] in March and he’ll be appearing on SF360 Movie Scene, with Rod from the Film Society and the ever-glamorous Cheryl Eddy of the SF Bay Guardian.

Note: Monsters will see you at the Sephora so beware. 

This action film has such high saturation advertising that if you know about it, you probably already know if you care to see it. Which is just as well because I’m not writing this review to help you make a sound financial investment: I’m a film critic, not a stock broker. However as the work of the film critic has slowly devolved from “cultural commentator” to “box office investment advisor ” most every review has become commentary to aid a financial proposition: “Spend $10 here” or “don’t waste your money.” This is part of why film criticism is slowly damaging the tiny movie. So, I’m hoping to offer some tiny criticism for this massive movie that likes to look small.

An aside about the blog: There’s a tricky thing that happens when you review indie films or documentaries. The tiny filmmaker may or may not get many reviews to put in his press kit and in many instances, the number of reviews amount to the number of records of screening. Which is to say, if you don’t have reviews, it’s almost like your film hasn’t screened, and nearly like it doesn’t exist. My favorite film of 2007 was Jessica Yu’s Protagonist. One of the most brilliant pieces of art I’ve maybe ever seen, and it had a medium sized opening (for a doc) and ridiculously few saw it. My second favorite film was Heddy Honigmann’s Forever. I dare you to hit the street and find someone who’s even heard of it. Maybe you see where I’m going. Cloverfield directed by Matt Reeves and produced by J.J. Abrams (fellow Sarah Lawrence Alum) is going to be reviewed so extensively, this one bad review can hardly do damage. This doesn’t mean we should launch all out assaults on blockbusters and molly coddle the little films, not at all, but these market factors can’t help but influence the ultimate outcome of our involvements with the films. So, this is why I’m starting the blog again.

At my day Job at Rottentomatoes.com, we often have to limit our scope of film coverage to the biggest box office films. The idea is that people in Mythic Middle America, film fans who would likely go out to see something like Forever if they only could, have no access. As a result it’s almost alienating to tell them all about how great it is. As journalists, we all struggle to create balance. On the one hand we have to speak to our audience, on the other hand if we talk about Protagonist maybe, just maybe, theatre owners will get requests and maybe, it’ll play in Omaha. At work, I’ve begun creating these little alliances with doc makers. They send me photos and screeners and it’s occurred to me recently, that I can do something with this alliance. So I will. There’s lots we can do in this world. But this is about Cloverfield, which will likely play all over Omaha, and won’t suffer terribly from this bit of monster-movie indigestion.

Cloverfield strikes me as a non-event, however, it will be historical for one contribution: It is the death knell of first person spectator handheld. It was great in Blair Witch, enlightening in Peter Watkins’ The War Game and it’s had its bright spots in other films too, but here, it was fundamentally done to death. The gimmick in Cloverfield is that the end of the world, well, technically, the end of Manhattan, comes at the hands of a beast of unknown origin, best documented by this posthumously found video of a going away party gone grisly. The brightest spot of the film in its entirety is the fellow behind the camera. TJ Miller  like the rest of the film’s cast is still categorically “unknown” which will change soon, I think. However, not because of his part in Cloverfield. Miller plays gawky oddball Marmaduke on Bruce McCulloch’s (of Kids in the Hall Fame) new sitcom Carpoolers and he’s got magnificent, dry delivery. It’s a big credit to Miller that he’s so memorable given his character (Hud, the cameraman) is so infrequently on camera he could just as soon be credited as a voice actor.

The other characters in the film are sort of ridiculous. They’re supposed to be bourgie 20 somethings in their parents’ apartments. The notion that our record of the disaster comes from the recent grads of Gossip Girl sounds a bit too fortunate. Like if I had the occasion to psychically channel a character from the French Revolution and was lucky enough to tap into Josephine’s handmaiden. It’s just kinda…dumb. There are tons of working class people in New York, plenty of them with dv cams…before the looting started.

There are certain ways the film could stand apart as a monster/disaster flick. The ending is pretty beautiful – a little predictable – but worthy nonetheless, and possible political readings (Lady Liberty’s head flattens nest of baby Neo-Cons) could be taken in worthy directions. If J.J. Abrams is still feeling his highly argumentative Sarah Lawrence Oats, there’ll be something from lefty field to read in this one. So though it is a worthy thing to do with your time and money, (note: sacred few films aren’t) it’s still tragically hollow – even for a film that critics foresee as the big iPod download for summer. You know what they say, merchandise, merchandise, merchandise. However else will the culture machine go on?

I’ve been working PT for Rottentomatoes.com! Best job ever!

Most of my time there has been dedicated to learning the programs, adding reviews and editing older entries (they work so hard there!) but Thursday I got to contribute my first news item! I’m really looking forward to more writing on the horizon!!! We’re discussing an interview with the godly brit Danny Boyle! I couldn’t possibly be more excited about that! The production blog is exciting! Though I suppose I should see Sunshine before I get too emotional. It’s at 82% but the critics are all over the place! What do us critics know? Some hype was meant to be succumbed to.

Even before I saw his doc, The Ghosts of Cité Soleil at SFIFF50, Asger Leth appeared to be something of a bad boy – but you know, in that European fashion that doesn’t require motorcycles or overt cliché. He had a way about him that was both genteel and determined and how he handled the controversy brought to light by his film was nothing short of impressive. Americans, it seems, have found copious causes for offense at Leth’s doc about the Pro-Aristide gangs in Cité Soleil, Haiti, as the conflicts depicted by the film naturally implicate the actions of the global community (the US in particular) to condone or even support the tragedies in the towns. The audiences voiced their irritation in many (not so friendly) ways after the film’s Fest screening but Leth was stalwart about his cause. I hazard a guess that the US is not done saying things about Ghosts and to their aid, I wanted to post this interview with Leth. Hope it’s valuable.

How did you infiltrate the Chimeres?
That was quite easy. It was a matter of timing and then Lele, this French woman who is part of my film, was like the only white person going in and out of the slum. She was totally fearless. She’d been going in and out for months and had complete access to these gang leaders. And they loved her. All of them. And then when this civil war started, these guys were up against the wall. They were working for Aristide, knowing that he was probably going to leave them, and there would be a price to pay and they were probably going to die. I think it’s a drive they had – they wanted to tell their story. No one wants to disappear when they’re 22 years old, you want to make sure somebody tells your story, so once I got access through Lele, it was unstoppable.

How did you hear about Lele?
I heard about her through another friend, a woman who I know in Haiti. A Frenchman meets another Frenchman…you know. So I heard about Lele through her and that she was in there with a Serbian guy, Milos Loncarevic and he was just hanging out taking still photos. He’s a young guy, just 24 at the time, and he also knew these gang leaders.

Tell me about camera for this film. The people of Cité Soleil were yelling “it’s war” and your cameraperson was fearless!
We were only three people shooting this film: Me, Milos – the Serbian guy, I gave him a camera - and another Danish guy, Frederick Jacobi. It was the three of us and we decided to do it and we were there and there was no way out. Milos really filmed a lot of the extreme stuff. He grew up during the war in Serbia and he’s not fazed by anything. Of course we tried to avoid the heaviest stuff as much as possible – so we’d drive out, and all the sudden we’re in the middle of a checkpoint with guns pointed at you –it’s not like we would drive up to danger to film it, we would go outside and stuff would happen and we’d let the cameras roll. And anyway, we couldn’t leave. The planes stopped flying. The planes take off right over Cité Soleil, and the gangs threatened to shoot down the American Airlines planes so they stopped flying so there was no way out for a long time.

Lele gave you an entry point but when did you decide to begin filming?
I started shooting even before [I met] Lele because I was banking on her help. I was paying close attention to Haitian politics. I know it very well. It’s like a broken record. Every time a rebellion starts up in the city of Gonaive it always ends up with a dictator, or the President, or whoever is involved with the country at the time, being forced to leave, and always in February. Also, the Haitians know this so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I knew about the Chimeres and I knew that was where the story had to be and the rebellion more or less began with a rebel Chimere gang that broke off from Aristide and I thought, “Wow, this is going to be interesting.” Very quickly I had to run around borrowing equipment and I had to get free or close to free film stock. I didn’t have any money: I didn’t have a company at the time so I was financing the film myself with loans and credit cards and I really wanted to tell this story. I didn’t really care what happened. I just got all the gear and started shooting.

It sounds almost like you were inspired by the risk.
You could say that. Also I’d just gotten divorced and I was like “fuck it.”

Was the issue of context ever something you felt burdened by? I know when documentaries are portraying historical or political subject matter or events, I often hear documentarians expressing they felt a burden to contextualize the events.
I believe that’s a mistake. If you’re doing a political film, that’s only political and it’s got nothing but talking heads, sitting and debating issues, you really have to maintain a balance and there’s all kinds of rules you have to apply to but that’s more in the area of journalism. My film isn’t journalistic; it’s a personal drama about two brothers who are gang leaders in the world’s most impoverished slum, in a horrible place. It’s really a personal film. The political side is really just framework. I also think it’s a major mistake to think that when you want to tell a story that you have to tell a complete story because you can’t actually do that. You’d have to make an 18-hour film. You have to choose your angle and what side of life you’re portraying. And hopefully other documentarians will make other sides to that story and altogether, all these films and all this information will give you an image that, in it’s togetherness, is complex and comprehensive and you’ll be able to form your own opinions. A lot of these political films try to convince some people about something they’re already convinced about.

When Nicholas Rossier made Aristide and the Endless Revolution he had access to Aristide but well after Aristide was out of danger. You’re very much in the thick of it. I wanted to know if you’ve experienced much of the controversy that would arise from showing this point of view of the drama? The audience I saw the film with was quite vocal about their views.
Of course! You know there’s a political disconnect in the sense that when Aristide came to power he was a man of the people. He was an ex-catholic priest who had been excommunicated because he was such a man of the people. He was such a hope for Haiti and many people thought that and became supporters of his. Myself included: I really believed in the guy. Over here, you get a media image of Haiti when it’s in the spotlight and then it disappears and people forget about Haiti and then when it comes back in the spotlight you see it again. I think there are many people here in the states that came to be very strong Aristide supporters and they didn’t hear about Haiti in all these years, and they didn’t follow the slide to see what happened to him. So all the sudden he’s in the spotlight again and then they still remember him from ten years before: this man of the people. But they don’t realize he stopped being that in many senses. Still he was a man of the people in many ways. The slums still loved him. But he also became something else. He became powerful and power corrupts…even Aristide. So, a lot of people over here don’t understand that [transformation] and they’re shocked to see it and I’m showing it. I’m not really even trying to prove a point. For me it’s common knowledge and I’ve known about it for years. I’m not even trying to prove anything and it’s not a political film in that sense but it can become a political film to those who are shocked by it. It’s also sometimes shocking to those who didn’t know, when I show the connection between the Chimere and Aristide. So that can be shocking and as you said, to a lot of people, who hear you mention Bush in the context of all this stuff that happened and landed Aristide in South Africa. I don’t know how to say this [long pause] I hate Bush as much as anybody else and the [his] Administration might have been involved – in many ways – but not involved in the ways people think. A lot of people think Aristide was kidnapped and I know for a fact that isn’t true. These guys that I’m filming were the guys guarding Aristide nightly, on top of the American bodyguards, but the Chimeres I filmed were in Aristide’s house every night of his last two weeks, including the night he left. I know he wasn’t kidnapped but I also am pretty sure that the US Administration helped the rebels perpetrate the idea – this idea there were thousands of them that weren’t true. They helped facilitate a state of mind that made it clear Aristide had to leave. You could twist that any way you want and maybe the Administration did help the rebels in all sort of ways – we don’t know – but it’s possible

The levels of involvement are so specific and there are so many gaps in our information.
There are so many ways to facilitate a change in government. Lots of ways, it doesn’t have to be “we’re going to pick you up.” These rebels who came from the North, they were really strategically clever. They would take one town with just 50 people, then leave [that] town and go to the other end of the county to take another town, so it seemed like they were all over the fucking place and that’s very clever. So if they wanted to show Aristide they were “on their way” they did it the right way. In that sense, I can imagine the US government could help [the rebels] by not helping Aristide understand that this was not the case.