Sports drama “Playing Through” tells the fascinating true story of Ann Gregory, a pioneer and trailblazer who was the first black woman to play in a United States Golf Association Tournament.

The film stars Andia Winslow as Ann Gregory and Julia Rae as her competitor Babs Whatling. They give extremely convincing performances and it is difficult to believe that they both have never acted before; Winslow being a professional golfer and Rae a singer and songwriter. Andia Winslow has a strong and dignified presence and gives a powerful portrayal of Ann Gregory. Also noteworthy is actor Ronnie Blevins who gives a solid turn as conniving and weasely Bucky Calhoun who wants to make sure Babs will win, no matter the cost involved.

“Playing Through” was directed by Polish-American director Balbinka Korzeniowska and it was written for the screen by Curtis Jordan. The film features stunning and vibrant cinematography by Paul Cannon.
“Playing Through” chiefly concentrates on the USGA Women’s Amateur match between Ann Gregory and a privileged southern white golfer Babs Whatling.

Ann Gregory born on on July 25, 1912 in Mississippi. She was orphaned at the age of 4 due to a horrific car crash which killed both of her parents. Gregory married at the age of 26 and only started playing golf when she was 31 years old. She was 44 years old when she played the USGA tournament.

Korzeniowska creates a convincing sense of the time and place while the golf sequences are impressively filmed. The athleticism of the lead actors shines through. The film is tense and exciting to watch, and is one of the best sports dramas to be released in recent years. Both of the lead characters are sympathetic and well-written.
The inspirational and important picture shows the inner strength of two very different women and their fight to be taken seriously in their career and by the society, despite the institutionalized racism and misogyny of 1950s America. It shows strong women who do not bow down to society’s expectations and manage to hold on to their individuality. The match ends up also being a journey to self-discovery for the pair who is pitted against each other by the racist public. The film is extremely current and revelatory.

“Playing Through” will be of interest to those serious about golf and also to the casual observer due to its entertainment value and warm heart.
The prototype of the character Babs Whatling is Curtis Jordan’s mother, golfer Josephine “Dadie” Knowlton Jordan, who competed in real life against Ann Gregory.

Writer’s Statement
Playing Through is a feature film about Ann Gregory. Ann was the first black woman to play in a United States Golf Association Tournament. She was a groundbreaker in both sports and civil rights. It is a fictional story that celebrates Ann’s life, a life long deserving of this spotlight.

This is a sports story that tells of the human condition to succeed and be self expressed. It’s a story about two driven and highly competitive women struggling to be the individual they want to be regardless of who the world around them wants them to be. These women come from very different back grounds, the world around them will never allow them to be friends but over the course of this match they learn to respect each other, understand each other and because of that they support each other.

These two characters (Ann and Babs) tell a story about the desire to exist fully, equally and authentically. Both Ann and Babs were willing to risk a life of certainty and conformity in order to chase their dreams. They refused to be spectators in life. Neither were going to comply to the expectations of others. In 2022 breaking the chains of conformity is not easy, in the 50’s it was almost impossible.

Andia Winslow (Ann) and Julia Rae (Babs) were chosen as the two leads. Neither of these women had ever acted before. Andia had been a collegiate golfer at Yale and was now an award winning voiceover actor. Julia was a talented golfer in her youth. Now she was a successful singer/songwriter with some experience on television.
The success of this film is due to the hard work and performance these two women delivered. With the help of director Balbinka Korzeniowska these women not only exceed our expectation of them on camera but they were instrumental in structuring the action and dialogue to make the story better.

Unknown to the producers at the time of choosing Andia, she was friends with Ann Gregory’s family. Through Andia, the Team got to know Ann’s family. This proved to be of great historical benefit as well as a real connection for Team to the story. We have had some very heartwarming and funny conversations over that past several months.
Both Ringling College of Art and Design as well as The Westcoast Black Theatre of Sarasota became the primary partners on the production. Each of these performing arts centers provided cast, crew and facilities for the production.

Director Balbinka Korzeniowska

Balbinka is a writer / director who has worked in the entertainment industry for over 13 years. She’s been in front and behind the camera and in 2016 received her MFA in Directing from UCLA in 2016 where she was nominated for a Student Academy Award for her film, “Awaken”. Balbinka has shot and is now editing a documentary “The Intimacy of War”. It follows Ukrainian refugees as they settle in Poland.

The post Playing Through appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

The film “Blonde” is so disgusting and disrespectful, talentless and vulgar, that, from my point of view, everyone who made it it is covered with dirt until the end of life, including film director, producer, lead actors.

The film is not based on facts, but on sheer lies, which have nothing to do with life of Marylin Monroe, JFK, Cass Chaplin or other real people depicted in the film. It is really sad, that someone can watch this trash and assume, that it is based on real events. No, it is not. It is just another attempt to spit on a grave of an actress. To destroy the truth and to create another reality, which must replace history. And future generations, especially those people, who are not well informed, will judge Marilyn after this trashy film.

Marilyn is still an icon 60 years since her death. People still love watching her films. Not only she is physically attractive but she also personifies vulnerability and sensuality all in one. Her songs were made into so many covers and yet no one can sing them as beautifully as she did. Her best films such as masterpiece “Some Like it Hot” still make people laugh as no other films can.

She was sexy but never vulgar. And film Blonde is a quintessence of vulgarity and bad taste, full of pornographic images and events which never happened.

No, there were no threesomes with Cass Chaplin and Marylin. There was no murder attempt by Marylin’s mother. In the beginning of the film, Marilyn’s mother, Gladys Baker, tells her daughter, that her father was a famous actor, and it is hinted, that Clark Gable was her father. Gladys is inaccurately portrayed as a lonely mad woman, while in real life she was married three times and had three children. Marilyn even continually kept contact with her sister Berniece.
Cass Chaplin did not write to Marylin letters pretending to be her father. Unlike in the film “Blonde”, he also died several years after Marilyn did.

And Marilyn knew who her real father was. Her father was RKO Studios employee Charles Gilford, she tried contacting him he refused connect with her. However, after many years have passed, he contacted her from a hospital bed, but Marilyn no longer had any interest in knowing him.

A scene where Marilyn performs oral sex on John Kennedy, while he is speaking on the phone is the most appalling. The film suggests that John Kennedy kidnapped Marylin who was under the influence of drugs. After oral sex with disinterested in her JFK, Marylin vomits. The scene is not only insult to MM but also to the former president of USA, one of the best and most admired presidents of all times, who should have been treated in a respectful way. John Kennedy was never a rapist and was probably one of the most charismatic men in politics. By the way neither the film director, nor the lead actors are Americans and with this film they prove that they have no respect towards American history.

Why to cast Ana de Armas, a Cuban actress with Cuban accent and Hispanic look to play a blue-eyed American icon with a Nordic look? Why make a President look like a rapist and spread vicious lies about him?

Director Andrew Dominik did not even attempt to hide his zero interest in Marylin personality nor her films. He said that before this project he did not watch her films and even called the film “Gentleman Prefer Blondes” a film about well-dressed whores. Using his own language, we can call the film “Blonde” a film about an undressed whore. Nothing more. A cheap Cuban whore from Havana Street who wants to earn more money by pretending to be the Blonde.

It ridicules and mocks the gentle movie star and tries to sling as much dirt as possible.

However it is probable that it is not just the bad taste of a film director obsessed with perversion, but maybe it is a task which he obediently fulfilled – to throw dirt at a leftist Monroe. ”She told us about her strong feelings for civil rights, for black equality, as well as her admiration for what was being done in China, her anger at red-baiting and McCarthyism and her hatred of (FBI director) J. Edgar Hoover”, wrote Frederick Vanderbilt Field, whom Marylin visited in Mexico few months before her death.

Against the sexist “dumb blond” image of Monroe created by the Hollywood machine and exploited again in “Blonde”, her real life reveals an intelligent and sensitive woman who read lots of serious books, and was involved in politics and social issues. Her house was wiretapped by FBI and CIA and she was surrounded by people spying on her, for example Eunice Murray, her housekeeper. None of these important facts are reflected in the film.
Monroe’s sympathy for anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggles still bother the dark forces which now have conquered all the world.

Perhaps this film is not just a fruit of sick imagination, but a well-planned commission — an act of character assassination and discreditation. This hackjob has several tasks — to destroy a pride of American cinema, to crush the bright image of John F. Kennedy and to make people forget real facts. It is easy to shit on an icon and slander someone who cannot defend themselves from the grave.

The film “Blonde” has horrendous dialogues, terrible acting, the cinematography is boring and often inept. Marilyn as portrayed by Armas, calls all husbands Daddy as if she has nothing else to say. A big part of the film depicts embryos shown on the screen speaking with the protagonist. Another disgusting moralistic scene is in the movie theatre where a foetus tells Marilyn “and for this you killed me?”. Is it anti-abortion propaganda or something else? Seems well-timed, as America attempts to take away the basic right to make an abortion. A scene where Marilyn attempts to escape from the abortion chair is completely ridiculous and unrealistic.

All acts of the Blonde are stupid and senseless. The film is very long and very depressive. Films where Marilyn played were full of humour, charisma, featured beautiful singing and dancing. None of that is reflected in the film.
And this piece of trash full of disgusting pornography was screened at Venice Film Festival and received a 14-minute ovation! What a joke. The festival which used to screen films of Bergman, Tarkovsky and Antonioni, screens a cheap sadistic porno, a spitting to the icon of cinematography.

Shame on you, selection committee and jury. Shame on Netflix. Shame on you, producer Brad Pitt. You have fallen really low.

The post Blonde appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Andrew Garfield in “Mainstream”

Social media satire “Mainstream” by Gia Coppola (Palo Alto) starring Andrew Garfield (The Amazing Spider-Man) and Maya Hawke (Stranger Things) was released at the Venice International Film Festival in September 5 2020 and on VOD on May 7 2021.

“Mainstream” tells the story of Frankie (Hawke), a young woman who is bored with her bar-tending job. By chance she befriends a mysterious man named Link (Garfield) who scoffs at the mainstream and even refuses to own a phone. She finds Link charismatic and decides to make an online celebrity out of him. Frankie starts posting videos of Link’s anti-establishment critiques which rapidly gain popularity on YouTube. Link develops an online persona of “No One Special” and gains viral fame. Quite soon they both start achieving their goals. Later they become romantically entwined, but Frankie does not know Link’s full life story, and his past threatens to catch up with him. Additionally internet stardom comes with its dark side.

“Mainstream” had a moderate audience success, but has also received many negative critical reviews. Nevertheless, the film is definitely underestimated. In reviews critics claimed it to be full of cliches and Garfield’s character Link to be unlikable and having no redeeming qualities. This is true, but there are valid reasons behind these creative decisions. Our life is full of cliches and “Mainstream” reflects this, also Link is supposed to be off-putting. Brilliant acting by Garfield makes this film a real masterpiece and is destined to become a cult classic. Link is an outrageous and eccentric character and Garfield’s frenetic energy is just right for the role.  Newcomer Maya Hawke also gives an adequate performance. “Mainstream” has impressive and atmospheric cinematography by Autumn Durald, the story is both gripping and realistic. In our social media obsessed times ordinary people can become famous influencers for no reason via meaningless vlogs, yet can also lose everything due to cyber-bullying, which can drive people to depression and suicide. The film reflects this, so calling “Mainstream” superficial is missing the point, because it is intended to show the superficiality of our lives.

Coppola has said that her film was inspired by Elia Kazan’s “A Face in the Crowd”  which starred Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal. Griffith’s character is a drifter who first experiences success on the radio and later becomes a television host who ends up using his show as a gateway to political power. But despite being openly influenced by “A Face in the Crowd”, Coppola has created “Mainstream” as a distinct and separate work using her own unique vision. Gia Coppola proves yet again to be a filmmaker to watch out for, and to be a worthy successor of the Coppola film-making legacy.

Garfield and Hawke in “Mainstream”

Interview with director Gia Coppola

Tell us about the story behind Mainstream. How did the idea come to you?

After I had made my first film, Palo Alto, I was thinking about what inspired me and if I were to make another film, what would it be? I was watching Turner Classic Movies and I wasn’t fully paying attention, but I caught the end of the Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd. The ending was so haunting, with Andy Griffith maniacal laugh and the last shot of a glittering Coca–Cola billboard that fades to black. I immediately searched for the film so I could watch it from the beginning. Even though the film was made in the 1950’s, it felt dangerously relevant to me. It’s essentially a satire about the transition from radio to television, the power of entertainment, but at the core it is a heartbreaking love story with a sort of Frankenstein undertone; a young woman (Patricia O’Neil) who creates a monster (Andy Griffith).

My friend was working at Maker Studios at the time representing YouTubers. I didn’t understand what she did for a living; Millions of people all around the world tune in to watch people play video games, unbox toys etc. My friend said: “They’re so
mainstream, mainstream doesn’t even know it yet” I was baffled that people found this engaging, there was no story, just charisma.

I craved to figure out a way to combine these two worlds: A Face in The Crowd and the fast–approaching internet stardom. I also, wanted to express and understand personal avenues and what I was feeling when I went on social media; what constitutes popularity, the struggles of trying to be creative in a modern age of “cool” and growing from a teenager into a woman.

With Mainstream being your second feature, can you talk about the development and production process, and any significant departures from your debut?

I think the typical “Hollywood” route is you make an indie film, then you get hired to retell the same story again but with more money and more producers. I wanted to get the story of Mainstream out of my system and challenge myself. It’s a weird movie, so it took a long time to find the right people to partner up with that believed in it. I was grateful to team up with the producer Fred Berger. I then pitched the concept to
Andrew Garfield, who eventually came on board, and introduced me to Tom Stuart, who I collaborated with to finish the script.

Garfield in “Mainstream”

Were there any major challenges?

Shooting for only 19 days was way harder than I anticipated. 

Can you tell us about the casting process and working with Maya Hawke and Andrew Garfield? And Nat Wolff, who was also in Palo Alto?

I always knew Nat Wolff was going to be in it: I wrote the character for him. On Palo Alto he was such troubled character, but in real life he’s a really sweet kid. One night while we were hanging out, he was idly playing a song he wrote called “Winter Baby” I thought was so moving, it became the basis for his character Jake, and is also in the movie.

I am a huge fan of Andrew Garfield, he’s one of the greatest actors of our time. I met Andrew a while back because we work with the same acting coach, Greta Seacat. Before the script even existed, I was loosely talking about how I was feeling towards pop–culture and my love for Face in the Crowd. He was passionate about the same things I was looking to express. He’s extremely intelligent but also has a sense of humor and can dance. I felt he could help and teach me, but he also has a sweetness that could play against the character.

Andrew, Tom and I were working on the script. I still hadn’t found the right actress to play Frankie. I had just photographed Maya for Zac Posen look book and we really hit it off. Even when photographing her, Maya always seemed to be able to read my mind and know exactly what I was looking for. I had her fly down to do a reading with Andrew and she won everyone over, it was without a doubt we had found our Frankie.

Talk about working with cinematographer Autumn Durald, who also worked on Palo Alto.

Autumn is one of my best friends. It’s effortless between the two of us. I trust her whole–heartedly.

What is your favorite memory from production?

I don’t want to give it away, but there’s a scene where Andrew does something very radical down Hollywood Blvd.

Mainstream approaches very timely, complex, and also sensitive topics. What do you hope audiences take away from the film?

I feel it’s a kind of cautionary fairytale about what our culture values and the psychological dangers that can come with it, but also tells a story about storytelling. I hope the film inspires or helps people to find self–acceptance within themselves, and that each journey is unique to oneself.

Do you have any favorite films or filmmakers that influence your work?

I’m influenced by so many different things but the movies I watched over and over again for Mainstream were: Broadcast News, Network and Face in the Crowd.

The post Mainstream (2021) by Gia Coppola appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Film “M” by Finnish director Anna Ericsson won the Grand Prix and Best Feature Film at the Prague Independent Film Festival, and also Best Feature Film and Best Cinematography at the Vienna Independent Film Festival. The film initially premiered at the Venice Critics’ Week in 2018. Ericsson, best known as a singer in her native Finland, directed and edited the film, composed the film’s score and played the lead role.

The film is extraordinary in its form and content. Inspired by life of Marylin Monroe it reflects her fears, desires and torments. The structure is original; we hear the voices of actors mostly on tape recordings, which adds a morbid undertone. Almost all characters and events happen to be mystical and it is difficult to separate the dreams and imagination from reality. Red lips whispering “mmm” are shown on the screen several times; we see them opening and solely darkness is inside. There is something haunting and enigmatic in these frames. In this film Marilyn is in limbo, she is between her dread and wish of death. We see in close-up bloody meat, nailing of human flesh and these sinister images build gradual tension and symbolize not only physical pain, but also emotional deterioration of the protagonist. In “M” Marilyn is often nude and it creates the image of an exposed and fragile woman.

It is a surrealist story, with the last period of Marilyn Monroe’s existence serving as the main influence. Anna Ericsson successfully conveys the suffering and fears of the actress. It is a an experimental, mysterious picture, where the physical world converges into dreams and nightmares. A soul in agony is depicted – a vulnerable woman who is lost in a cruel society which takes advantage of her. Sexually used, lonely, betrayed and disappointed, she is on the dark way to death. Marilyn Monroe once said – “Dogs never bite me. Just humans.”

Excellent music and sound design are the key elements of the film that set the ominous atmosphere. Camerawork is precise and impressive. Even the most shocking scenes are aesthetically immaculate. This film is not for everybody – it is not for someone who expects a standard biopic.

Marilyn Monroe is a tragic figure, a woman who was often misunderstood and misrepresented as many other women who were sexually exploited in man’s world and did not possess the possibility to assert themselves.

“M” is very expressive and has a completely unique cinematic language and style, it is wholly engrossing although it does not have a straightforward linear narrative.

Marilyn Monroe experienced insomnia for many years, and when a person does not sleep for a long time, one can be in a state between being awake and being asleep, what was well exemplified by the last scene, where Marilyn runs alone in moonlight towards the blackness which engulfs her whole.

The post M (2018) – Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

The Factory

Yuri Bykov became known with the film The Fool, an art house social drama. His new film The Factory attracted great interest from his fans who expected another strong drama with pointed social commentary. Nevertheless, the film became a big disappointment. Nothing in this film makes sense; the script is weak, boring, the dialogues consist of stereotypes and are not interesting at all, the idea of the film is stupid. Bykov did not succeed in making a social drama, an art house film nor an action film, although it was an attempt to combine all of these genres.

From the very beginning we see that Bykov wants to show a class conflict – a confident oligarch versus the suffering workers. The oligarch wants to close the factory which fails to provide a profit, and the workers decide to hold him hostage and demand a ransom. The attempt fails, and the simple idea of the film is clear – life is not fair, so no one should try to fight the natural order because it is pointless. Bykov tries to illustrate the idea that one can only fight social injustice by becoming a criminal. This very idea is untrue, stupid, harmful, but is beneficial for the ruling class. The story of class conflict is depicted in the media as a fight between separate criminal elements. There is an attempt to show the idea of justice as ridiculous and unfashionable. With the film Bykov also shows his own transformation, of himself and his ideas – he began as a socially pointed director who ended up working for the state funded Channel One. With the film The Factory he attempts to justify his conformism, since there is no justice and the is no point in the struggle. By making a deal with the power, he betrayed his own talent, and the result is this talentless and dimwitted picture.

The film is worthless in the artistic sense, as well is ideologically. The film leaves the audience completely cold, as there are no memorable characters or actors. Everything is predictable and completely dull, with many creative failures. The only competent aspect of the film is the cinematography, which contains many visually interesting nocturnal scenes, but this alone cannot save the film. The film also contains bad editing as the music does not match the picture and sometimes overpowers the dialogues, the tempo does not fit the action, which causes the musical score to be a burden for the audiences ears.

The director made the film about a topic which does not truly interest him and which he does not understand. Bykov also wrote the weak script and failed to be  objective, as the screenplay is full of stereotypes and is simply not professional. All of this caused the film to fail at the box office, since it could not satisfy anyone, neither those who wanted to watch an art film nor an action film.

The post The Factory – Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Pawel Pawlikowski who won the Academy Award for Ida in 2013, once again received a great deal of attention for his film Cold War.

The title Cold War sounds promising, as this time was full of intrigues and there were many stories stranger than fiction connected to the period. But unfortunately the film leaves one with a feeling of disappointment — first of all, the script is weak and ends up being a mess; the motivation of the characters is lacking and all actions of the heroes are stupid, confusing and unconvincing. The director wants to convince the audience that they are witnessing a dramatic love story, but there is no chemistry between the main characters. The so-called love story consists of not particularly exciting sex scenes which seem overplayed and inauthentic. The lead actress Joanna Kulig lacks charisma and we do not feel chemistry between the lead actors. The same things happen again and again – lovers meet, have sex, argue over something, and separate. And when this kind of structural repetition becomes boring, the audience has the right to ask; why these two people want to be together?

The film is a tribute to the love story of Pawlikowski’s parents. It is possible that the director could not, and did not want to be completely sincere, and that important details of the real story were left behind and therefore the motivations of the characters are unclear and confusing; for example, why Zula is released from Poland and why does she return there. The plot does not make sense. It is possible that she was a secret agent, but the audience can only guess. This part of the story, Pawlikowski does not wish to, or cannot disclose about his parents. These half-truths are worse than complete fabrications. Additionally the film is too boring and long. In the end of the film the couple gets married in an old church and then take pills, probably committing suicide. Why? For what? It is absolutely baffling and not convincing, the scene does not provoke any feeling, nor regret, nor compassion.

The script is dull and revolves around one single thing: the love of the two protagonists, the eternal love which is proclaimed but not shown, as there are no interesting dialogues, nor character development. There’s also very little about the political aspects of those times.

The film is stylish, but cold. The positive aspect of the film is its aesthetic, however the cinematography is not as interesting as in Ida; too many symmetrical compositions give the film the feeling of claustrophobia. The impression one gets is that the director is attempting to repeat himself and is afraid or experimenting. There is no meaning or depth to be discovered behind the glossy picture, the more you watch it the more  superficial the film feels, like its has been made from fragments borrowed from other films.
The film might have some visually attractive parts, but as a whole it does not leave any strong impression and is just another mediocre film which pretends to be art but does not have the depth or sincerity of a true masterpiece.

The post Cold War – Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Profile

Well-known director and producer Timur Bekmambetov presented his film Profile at the 68th Berlin International Film Festival. It was part of the Panorama section, where it won the Panorama Audience Award.

The film tells the story of a young female journalist who received an assignment to write a story about European women sent into sexual slavery by the ISIS. For this purpose she creates a fake profile of a British woman who has recently converted to Islam. On the internet she meets an ISIS fighter in Syria and they begin conversing with each other via Skype. The film’s action takes place entirely on a computer screen and is part of the Screen Life genre pioneered by Timur Bekmambetov.

British-Pakistani actor Shazad Latif portrayed the ISIS terrorist convincingly. Valene Kane also created an interesting image of a frustrated British female, who has problems with her job, finances and in her personal life.

The film touches upon several important issues — the phenomenon of women who have been recruited by the ISIS, a real problem of our time, which has become more widespread in recent years. When we read about these things in the press, it is difficult to understand the motivation of these women, as they should know what can happen with them in these countries. However, the film convincingly shows how how a woman becomes transformed from a successful journalist into a woman who is willing to leave everything and go to war-ridden Syria.

The film is also about lie and deceit which exists in different variations on the internet. We should not forget that screen representation is only a small slice of life, which can be either truth or complete fabrication.

Press conference of Profile

Timur Bekmambetov said at the press conference in Berlin that the journalist must find truth and publish it, even if it concerns the liberal government.

In this sense the film is very current, since in the epoch of the internet there are a lot of fake news and boundaries between truth and lie become difficult to distinguish.

Timur Bekmambetov, started his career working on independent films, then became famous for his blockbuster fantasy and action movies made in Russia and in Hollywood. In Berlin he said that he prefers working on independent films, as he has more artistic control.

The film was one of the best films of the 68th Berlin International Film Festival, and it was a pity that it was not shown in the main competition section.

The post Profile – Berlinale 2018 Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

7 Days in Entebbe

7 Days in Entebbe was presented at the 68th Berlin International Film Festival by director José Padilha and gave of an unpleasant impression. The film is based on real events of the hijacking of a passenger plane in 1976. The main character are the German hijackers portrayed by Daniel Brühl and Rosamund Pike. It is obvious that the director tried to evoke sympathy of the viewers towards the terrorists and to somehow explain their actions.

Daniel Brühl with his kind smile and positive charisma seemed out of place in the film. At the press conference Daniel said that it was important for him that his protagonist did not kill the passengers. However the fact that man did not kill the hostages does not alleviate the criminality of his deed. The terrorists hijacked the plane and only by miracle the airplane did not suffer a catastrophe which would have killed all the passengers aboard. These actions of the terrorists are the gravest crime which cannot be justified in any way. Any attempt to explain and to humanize the criminals are in my point of view are disgusting. The director tried to compare the actions of the Israeli army and the actions of terrorists. However terrorism concerning peaceful citizens, as with the hijacking, no matter which country is involved, is not justifiable.

The film is made in an ordinary, pseudo-documentary fashion, with some shaky-cam footage. However that such charismatic actors such as Daniel Brühl and Rosamund Pike played the terrorists made the film unbelievable and stupid. The dance sequences were non-organically integrated into the film.

At the press-conference the director said that he did not want to depicted the terrorists as zombies, he wanted to show their humanity. Nevertheless, it is a dangerous statement — many terrorists are in fact zombified, they are brainwashed and make horrible deeds against innocent people, under the influence of completely absurd ideas. With this they do lose their humanity, and there is nothing wrong in depicting them as brainwashed.

Last year the film Hostages by Rezo Gigineishvili was screened at the Berlinale, which was also about a real plane hijacking. It was set in the Soviet Union. The main actor Irakli Kvirikadze said that he admired the actions of his character, what is also terrible.

In modern times terrorism only continues to become more widespread, and in this situation any hint of compassion towards those who kill innocent people or hijack planes is a moral crime. The best response to 7 Days in Entebbe would be to ignore it completely, since it also does not have any artistic value.

The post 7 Days in Entebbe – Berlinale 2018 Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Dovlatov film by Alexei German Jr.

One of the highlights of the 68th Berlin International Film Festival was the film Dovlatov, directed by Alexei German Jr. It was screened in the main competition program.  A. German Jr. is not a Berlinale newcomer — his film Under the Electric Clouds won the Silver Bear for Outstanding Artistic Contribution for Cinematography.

Sergei Dovlatov is a rather well-known writer in Russia, but not so famous in the West, and is mostly associated with the circle of friends of Joseph Brodsky. Alexei German chose to depict only four days of Sergei Dovlatov’s life in 1971. The film was a co-production between Russia, Poland and Serbia. The cinematographer was Łukasz Żal, known for his work on Oscar winner Ida.

The film is made in a non-hurried pace. What is depicted is the everyday life of a writer who unsuccessfully  tries to get published, while working as a journalist. The first impression after watching this film is that the director intentionally exaggerated the misery of Soviet-era life. The scenery is too bleak and life is too poor, for example, later in his life Sergei Dovlatov wrote in a letter that his flat in St. Petersburg was better than his American flat. Also the depiction is not historically accurate. This concerns the small details such as styles of cars and important events described in the film. In particular, the episode with the officers of OBKhSS (Department Against Misappropriation of Socialist Property) chasing the poor artist, portrayed by Danila Kozlovsky, with red IDs is completely fantasy. First of all, OBKhSS was an organization which only investigated large-scale economical crimes and it was out of their jurisdiction to chase after petty criminals. Another segment with the suicide of an office worker does not have any factual basis concerning Dovlatov’s real life or have anything to do with his writings. Also, neither Sergei Dovlatov’s heavy drinking nor womanizing is shown in the film, as everyone else imbibes except him.  Dovlatov tries to impose the point of view that the artists who were not union members were nothing. However, this is not true.

German obviously wanted to present Sergei Dovlatov as a victim of the Soviet regime. However, he was not a rebel or a non-conformist as for example Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. Dovlatov lived in Russia by it’s rules and legally emigrated.. He worked as a journalist and wrote commissioned articles. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn was physically thrown out of the Soviet Union and stayed a non-conformist till the end of his life.

Dovlatov film by Alexei German Jr.

A person who did not live in the Soviet time and is not too familiar with the life there, after watching the film can receive a false impression of that period. At the press conference German defended modern Russia. Somehow his film illustrates the contrast between 1970s Soviet era and Putin’s Russia, where, as German said there is no antisemitism, no censorship. However in Soviet times Russia was more rich with talents than today. I told Alexei German Jr. about this when we met in Berlin on the 18th of February 2018.  There is no plot or dramatic conflict in the film and it is too long to hold the viewers attention. It is quite natural that a writer wants to get published, but 99% of the time it does not happen very quickly and does not have anything to do with Soviet reality. The question rises about the intentions of the film; perhaps for some people it is beneficial to represent Soviet Russia as a miserable and scary place with no creative freedom. At the press conference German spoke that spoke that some people and forces try to demonize Russia. While it is partially true, with this film he himself demonizes the Soviet Union and with it, inadvertently, modern Russia, because present-day Russia inherited a lot from the Soviet times.

Some of the positive aspects of the picture include the acting of Milan Marić, who is charismatic and creates an interesting character, however according to the testimonies of his many friends, the real Dovlatov was much more brutal and humoristic. The most vivid supporting role was by Danila Kozlovsky, who played the tragic role of an artist who earned money by selling goods on the black market. He did the best he could with his part, although the events happening to him are  pure fantasy.

However, it is surprising that so much attention is devoted to a writer who is not particularly special and his life was quite mediocre. The suddenly renewed interest towards him can be explained with the dumbening down of the general population as the simple and unsophisticated style is more approachable for the modern audience of readers.

A.German tries to convince the audience that Dovlatov was not published because of that particular time of stagnation when talents were not appreciated and the arts were controlled by people who did not understand anything in it. It is interesting to compare the film with modern Russia, where there are a lot less of great writers and directors then in the period of stagnation, despite German saying that there is no censorship today. That Dovlatov considered himself to be a better poet than Yevtushenko is his own very personal opinion, which is very far removed from reality. Only time can prove if Dovlatov will continue to be a popular writer alongside the great writers of Russia. The fate of an artist or a poet is a difficult one in all countries, and many writers superior to Dovlatov experienced hardships with publishing their works.

The Soviet time is shown as shabby, hopeless and wretched, which is also blown out of proportion in the picture. At the press conference, German said that there is no censorship or anti-Semitism today in Russia. But in reality, the time of the 1960-1970s bore the peaks of Russian creativity in all fields of art. All the best writers, poets, ballet dancers, directors, all of them worked in the 1960-1970s, including Alexei German Sr., without whom there would be no Alexei Alexeevich German. Lack of open censorship does not equal the flourishing of arts.

Alexei German Jr.

During the festival, I saw Alexei German Jr. and expressed some of my criticism, but he was not prepared for this and took it too personally.

In my interview with him, German became very offended and defensive when I criticized Dovlatov and German’s depiction of Soviet Russia. He said that this was how he saw it, despite only being born in 1976. He did not like that I compared Dovlatov with Nureyev, who truly risked his head when he defected.

He did not wish to discuss my comparisons over who suffered more in that time. However another film does automatically spring to mind, The End of a Great Era by Stanislav Govorukhin, which in my view is more close to reality and more artistic. It depicts how the 1960s freedom of speech started to end. The film also reflected the romanticism of that time, and not only it’s problems. The was based on Dovlatov’s writings, however it is not a biographical film. 1960s Russia is not shown as a miserable time in that picture and probably it is the reason that it did not get into he international film festival circuit. Govorukhin is significantly older than German Jr. and is able to remember that time. The film Dovlatov on the other hand paints a bleak picture of that time and tries to convince the audience that times in Russia have changed to the better.

Because of how we were discussing the matter of free speech, we also discussed the case of Kirill Serebrennikov. In this matter we agreed completely; Alexei German Jr. is also sure that his arrest was revenge for the film The Student. He said that he asked president Putin to free Serebrennikov and was also one of the people who have their word for him. The question arises, is it really possible to praise modern Russia’s freedom of speech when a famous film director receives jail time for obviously false accusations as revenge for a movie he made? I think that a film like Dovlatov is beneficial for both Russia and abroad because of how it shows how bad Soviet Union was for a creative person. It would be more interesting to make such a movie with a contemporary setting of either Russia or Western country. Dovlatov had the opportunity to write, but people who work full-time every day simply do not have this possibility. But of course, this does not affect the creative elite, to which Alexei German Jr. belongs.

I was surprised that he tried to make a hero out of Sergei Dovlatov for his immigration. He immigrated legally and nothing threatened him. I compared the emigration of Nureyev, who was given a seven year sentence for betrayal of homeland. On the other hand, Dovlatov peacefully followed his wife and child. If he had not become an alcoholic, he would have been alive during the Perestroika and could have returned to Russia as Edouard Limonov did. Because of this the film lacks drama, despite German’s attempts of creating tragedy with fictional characters where there is none.

Alexei German Jr., has a great cast in the film, which includes newcomer Milan Marić, and also well-known actors Danila Kozlovsky, Svetlana Khodchenkova and Elena Lyadova. However, their parts are quite weak, in spite of the big potential of their actors. Kozlovsky, is especially unlucky lately with his roles – in the film Matilda he played the villain who was kept in an aquarium and later burned alive, the role was completely senseless and stupid. In the film Dovlatov, Danila Kozlovsky did his best, but his role was also absurd. Elena Lyadova had a completely insignificant part despite her great acting talent.

Overall Dovlatov is a mediocre film about a mediocre writer for a mediocre audience.

The post Dovlatov – Berlinale 2018 Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

The film Eva by Benoît Jacquot was shown at the 68th Berlin International Film Festival. The film stars Gaspard Ulliel and Isabelle Huppert.

The point of this film was to show the relations between a young man and a dangerously seductive woman. The choice of the lead actress made the film unsuccessful and doomed it to failure. Isabelle Huppert was picked because of her name, but for this role she was not suitable. The aging music teacher from Haneke’s The Piano Teacher does not have what it takes to be femme fatale anymore. She plays a prostitute with whom a young and attractive man falls in love and ends up following her. Huppert does not look like a prostitute — she is too old and lacks sex appeal. Her bony figure is always hidden under a bathrobe, her ashen face is unsuccessfully covered up with bright makeup. There is no chemistry between the actors.

That this young and attractive man falls in love with this woman is implausible and stupid. Gaspard Ulliel’s character seems self-confident and does not look like the kind of person who would pursue an old prostitute — it would seem more natural of the situation was reversed.

The novel Eve by James Hadley Chase was previously adapted by Joseph Losey in 1962 with  young and attractive Jeanne Moreau in the lead, who was in her early thirties. Isabelle Huppert is 60 years old and does not look young. She also looks intelligent and not vulgar. An bright woman of her age can always find a better way to earn an income than to work as a prostitute. Also her exorbitantly high fee is completely unrealistic — only a very small percentage of very young and sexy women have such a salary.

The film is made in a dull manner, it is neither mysterious nor realistic enough. None of the characters are compelling, the motivations are lacking.

Losey’s film was not perfect but it was still much better than this new version, but it was beautifully filmed and it is strange that the director decided to make a new adaptation which ended up being hugely inferior.

It is unclear what genre does this picture belong to, it does not work either as a crime, drama or romance film.

The post Eva – Berlinale 2018 Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Robert Pattinson is one of the most important film stars who visited Berlinale 2018. He presented the film Damsel, directed by the Zellner brothers. Unfortunately the film was a great disappointment. It was an attempt to create a modern comedic Western. In it Robert Pattinson played one of the strangest roles in his career, he played a kind of idiot, who is in love with a girl. Everything in this film is inane, including the strange script, where the motivations of the characters are unclear. It is poorly shot, with constant symmetrical framing which very quickly becomes tedious to watch.

The film is shot in a beautiful location which adds to the artistic quality of the film, however the monotonous lighting, central composition diminishes the beauty of the landscape. Although the film is a comedy, the viewers barely chuckled during the screening.

All of the characters are underdeveloped and paper thin, the dialogues are uninteresting and stupid. At the press conference the directors said that they enjoy classic westerns, but it is unclear why did they make such a film which lacks all qualities of those great westerns which supposedly inspired them.

It is a pity that Robert Pattinson keeps playing roles which are not suitable for him — the role of Samuel Alabaster does not add anything to his acting portfolio.
There is no doubt that the film would fail to interest any serious festivals if Robert Pattinson would not come there personally. The film is silly and pointless. The role of Penelope was played by Mia Wasikowska, her character was one dimensional and boring.

It is not clear what directors wanted to produce, drama, comedy, grotesque or western, but whatever were their intentions they failed.

The post Damsel – Berlinale 2018 Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

The Shape of Water

The Shape of Plagiarism of director Guillermo del Toro

American film The Shape of Water was awarded several prestigious prizes including the Golden Lion at Venice Film Festival, received thirteen Oscar nominations and got mostly positive reviews from film critics.

Recently the film The Shape of Water came into the center of attention due to allegation of plagiarism from the Dutch student film The Space Between Us which was released in 2015.

The film The Space Between Us has exactly the same plot as The Shape of Water, the same visuals and the same color palette. The similarity is so obvious that there is no doubt that director del Toro stole from the independent student film. It is especially shameful because del Toro, with his advantages of having a big budget, had a chance to hire the best screenwriters. However he chose to steal and take credit for the stolen plot. del Toro is the only credited screenwriter of The Shape of Water.

The Space Between Us (2015)

Avoiding the scandal before Oscars, del Toro contacted the young filmmakers from Netherlands and somehow convinced them not to make a claim. The Netherlands Academy immediately came with a statement where they wrote that the stories are different and that no plagiarism has occurred. However, it is not for them to decide if it happened or not; it is up to the audience to see the film and to compare the two. It is not the first time when the rich steal from poor and the poor are very happy about it.

Amphibian Man (1962)

However, most of the critics ignore obvious plagiarism from yet another source — the Soviet classical film Amphibian Man. Probably the critics are not too familiar with Russian cinema. The film Amphibian Man was made in 1962, the same year which is depicted in The Shape of Water. Amphibian Man was based on the famous 1928 novel by Alexander Belyaev. The book was highly innovative at that time, and tells the story of a person who lives mostly under the water and his relationship with humans, in particular his love to a young girl. He was captured and kept in a barrel in order to exploit his unique possibilities.

Amphibian Man – 1962

When we think about the similarities between the plots, it is obvious that the director was aware of the book, although he claimed not to have watched the film Amphibian Man. Nevertheless, the Soviet picture is a beautiful romantic story about two humans in a cruel world while The Shape of Water is a story of zoophilia and perversity which is supposed to be a story of true love. The main character of Belyaev’s novel was a human with gills; different from others, maybe a bit naive, but an intellectual human being, not a monster nor animal.

The sea monster in The Shape of Water eats a cat, his communication with the girl is reduced to her feeding eggs to him, like to an animal. There is no intelligent connection between them, Eliza’s love for the creature is similar to love for a pet, which one can feed and touch. But her sexual intercourse with this monster is perversion, which should not be romanticized and shown as an example of romantic love. In a way the film of del Toro is inspired by pornographic fiction about women’s relationships with monsters.

Zoophilia is in fact a crime, according to the existing laws, and people get in jail for this act.

Amphibian Man – 1962

This film looks like a parody on the Amphibian Man by Belyaev. The film also took a lot from The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which is a horror story, but when transformed into a romantic tale, it becomes ridiculous.

The positive side of the film is the acting of Sally Hawkins, who created a convincing image of a shy and miserable mute cleaning lady. However all the other characters are grotesque and unbelievable.

Director who plagiarized the Russian novel did not think about the Russian audience at all. The Russian language spoken by the characters is unbearable to listen to people who know Russian language. Which is strange, since there are many good Russian-speaking actors in Hollywood who do not get cast enough in films.

The director described the masturbation scenes as critical, as he wanted to show how little time Elisa has before work. It shows his lack of understanding of the female sexuality, it is unrealistic, stupid and vulgar.

The film consists of nonsense and clichés, the plot is uninteresting and and unbelievable.

It is a sugar-sweet stupid melodrama which pretends to be arthouse cinema, but in fact it is only plagiarism and perversion.

The post The Shape of Water – Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.

Loving Vincent

Loving Vincent is a masterfully created tribute to Vincent van Gogh.

Loving Vincent gives the audience an unique chance to get into the mysterious world of Van Gogh’s art. Creators of the film had a very complicated task; to paint in oil more than 65.000 frames, reproducing the style of a genius. Some of the scenes reminding of van Gogh’s paintings are so convincing that the audience was left stunned. 125 painters from Poland worked on the film, and in spite the large amount of artists, it did not prevent them from creating in the same style.

3D technology prevails in modern animation films which causes them to lack artistic individuality, and Loving Vincent shows that a hand-painted animated picture can be both successful as a work of art, at the box-office, and that the public still is interested in art.

The film’s plot is not so intriguing for those who know the biography of Vincent van Gogh. It investigates his death and what preceded it. Perhaps the dialogues could be more interesting, and the figure of Vincent could be more multi-faceted; for example his early life as a priest was not shown in the film at all, however it could have contributed to the film’s narrative.

Directors of the film deserve respect because to undertake a project which would last for seven years takes a lot of courage and hard work.
The title of the film refers to the way van Gogh signed his letters to his brother and also the love one can find in each painting of the great Dutch master. And the film itself is full of love to the artist which the audience can feel from watching the picture.

The post Loving Vincent – Review appeared first on Indie Cinema Magazine.