Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Review: ‘The Novelist’s Film’ is another exquisite tale of cinema from Hong Sang-soo

Published

on

Review: ‘The Novelist’s Film’ is another exquisite tale of cinema from Hong Sang-soo

Shortly earlier than settling into “The Novelist’s Movie,” a tense, absorbing and eventually enchanting new film written and directed by Hong Sang-soo, I couldn’t assist however cycle by way of a flurry of acquainted questions: Will this one be in shade or black-and-white? Will the protagonist be a author, a painter, a filmmaker or an actor? Will the story (or tales) unfold in strictly linear vogue, abruptly hit the reset button midway by way of or play different gently mind-bending video games with time? And most significantly, what’s going to everybody drink: soju, as traditional, or one thing a bit much less conducive to Hong’s model of reckless, well-liquored reality telling?

To reply these questions in no explicit order: They stick with espresso till late within the sport, after they devour bottle after bottle of candy, milky makgeolli. The story flows in chronological order, which doesn’t make it any much less unusual or mysterious, in its method, than it will’ve been with a number of of the director’s signature temporal twists. The film was shot in sharp, high-contrast black-and-white, within the stationary lengthy takes and medium group pictures greatest suited to the characters’ lengthy, leisurely conversations. (Hong, as traditional, served as his personal cinematographer, editor and composer.) And the protagonist, per the title, is a novelist, albeit one with a extreme sufficient case of author’s block to contemplate attempting one thing new.

Making an attempt one thing new, in fact, is one thing that Hong’s detractors probably want he would do extra usually — or maybe not so usually, given his unceasing productiveness and unflappable consistency. (“The Novelist’s Movie,” which gained second prize at this yr’s Berlin Worldwide Movie Pageant, is the director’s twenty seventh characteristic and his third image to be launched in U.S. theaters this yr, after “Introduction” and “In Entrance of Your Face.”) However those that love and admire Hong’s work know that the pleasure of it lies exactly in that consistency. With the subtlest of variations and essentially the most quotidian of particulars, he and his actors unlock piercing insights and rivers of feeling.

Cho Yun-hee, Lee Hye-young and Kwon Hae-hyo within the film “The Novelist’s Movie.”

(Cinema Guild)

Advertisement

One of many chief pleasures of “The Novelist’s Movie” is the prospect to witness Hong’s persevering with collaboration with the veteran actor Lee Hye-young, who, after a number of years’ absence from the display screen, made a comeback of kinds in “In Entrance of Your Face.” Right here she performs the novelist, Jun-hee, who within the opening moments arrives at a bookstore, situated far exterior Seoul, that’s run by an previous, unnamed good friend (Search engine optimization Younger-hwa) who was a part of her tight-knit literary circle. The 2 haven’t seen one another since, and of their tense however not unfriendly dialog, you sense that Jun-hee isn’t simply attempting to rekindle an previous bond. She’s inquisitive about what it will imply to surrender the author’s life, one thing she’s considering doing herself.

Jun-hee bids adieu to the good friend and her variety youthful assistant (Park Mi-so) after which — as a result of a Hong film can by no means have too many awkward reunions — promptly runs into one other previous acquaintance, Hyo-jin (Kwon Hae-hyo), and his spouse (Lee Eun-mi). Extra espresso ensues, and extra brazenly barbed dialog, too: It step by step develops that Hyo-jin, a profitable director, was as soon as set to adapt considered one of Jun-hee’s novels — a venture that fell aside beneath circumstances for which she clearly assigns him a number of the blame. “You’re formidable. Extraordinarily so, I’d say,” Jun-hee says, punctuating her each sentence with a casually lacerating snicker. (Lee’s reward for sublimating and venting her character’s rage is however one ingredient of her outstanding efficiency.)

You could be inclined to think about Hyo-jin as a stand-in for his creator (he wouldn’t be the primary). However the grasping, budget-hungry filmmaker that Jun-hee holds in such barely disguised contempt doesn’t sound very similar to Hong, and because the surroundings shifts to a beautiful out of doors strolling path, the director throws in a curveball — and a 3rd sudden reunion — with the introduction of Kil-soo (Kim Min-hee, Hong’s most frequent collaborator), an actor whom Hyo-jin acknowledges. Kil-soo clearly stirs one thing in Jun-hee, who regards this smiling, leather-jacketed magnificence with a mixture of heat, protectiveness and a faintly acquisitive need.

A woman holds flowers outdoors near trees in the movie "The Novelist's Film."

Kim Min-hee within the film “The Novelist’s Movie.”

(Cinema Guild)

Advertisement

Would Kil-soo maybe take into account performing within the quick movie that Jun-hee, annoyed by her aborted venture with Hyo-jin, has been curious about writing? The reply to that query is a tantalizing possibly; Kil-soo is each intrigued and cautious. And what sort of a movie is Jun-hee attempting to make? What she describes sounds a bit like, properly, a Hong Sang-soo film. It’ll have a scripted story of kinds however not be rigidly beholden to it, and it’ll draw a lot of its inspiration from the actors and areas. Does this make Jun-hee the film’s actual stand-in for Hong? It’s uncertain. She may avail herself of a number of the director’s strategies, however her each phrase manufacturers her as very a lot her personal impartial thinker and artist.

So does the quick movie she finally ends up making, of which we finally do see a quick, beguiling snippet. The structuring theme of “The Novelist’s Movie” could also be inventive frustration, the type that may spur a author to name it quits, an actor to take a break and even a longtime director to rethink his calling. But it surely’s additionally very a lot about discovering inventive renewal in sudden locations — a bookstore, an outside path, a movie show — and studying to embrace, fairly than resist, life’s superbly meandering move. In one of many film’s greatest, most bracing scenes, Jun-hee declares, “Everybody needs to comprehend their life in their very own method.” Their artwork, too, although one of many wonders of Hong’s cinema is that we are able to scarcely inform the 2 aside.

‘The Novelist’s Movie’

In Korean dialogue with English subtitles

Advertisement

Not rated

Operating time: 1 hour, 32 minutes

Taking part in: Nov. 7-8, 8 p.m., Acropolis Cinema at 2220 Arts + Archives, Los Angeles; Nov. 11 at Lumiere Cinema on the Music Corridor, Beverly Hills

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Kinds of Kindness: Poor Things director at his most elusive

Published

on

Kinds of Kindness: Poor Things director at his most elusive

In the first, “The Death of R.M.F.”, Jesse Plemons plays Robert, a man who appears in thrall to Raymond (Willem Dafoe), who sets Robert’s agenda, from his diet to his sexual encounters.

In the second, “R.M.F. Is Flying”, Plemons plays Daniel, a cop whose wife Liz (Emma Stone) has gone missing; when she returns, he is convinced she is an imposter.

Finally, in “R.M.F. Eats a Sandwich”, Stone plays Emily, a woman who seeks out a cult leader (Dafoe) for a spiritual and sexual awakening.

Hong Chau in a still from Kinds of Kindness. Photo: Atsushi Nishijima

Inevitably, as is the case with most portmanteau films, one episode stands out – in this case “The Death of R.M.F.”, which has an unnerving quality to it.

The second instalment is the most shocking, featuring Liz and Daniel sitting around with friends (Mamoudou Athie and Margaret Qualley) watching a highly explicit sex tape the four of them made.

Advertisement

Bringing up the rear is the final short, which rather drags with its depictions of sweat lodges, bodily contamination, and Stone skidding around in her cool-looking Dodge Challenger.

With Hong Chau (The Whale) and Joe Alwyn (who featured in Lanthimos’ The Favourite) also appearing, it is undoubtedly a fine cast, one led by Plemons, who truly understands how to perform in the Lanthimos style.

Stone, now on her third movie with the Greek director, seems to relish the extremes she gets to go to.

(From left) Willem Dafoe, Jesse Plemons and Hong Chau in a still from Kinds of Kindness. Photo: Atsushi Nishijima

Quite what it all means, however, is another thing entirely. The characters seem to be in states of crisis, with miscarriage a common theme.

Looking at humanity in all its weirdness, Kinds of Kindness is a baffling film to take in, as abrasive as its musical score from Jerskin Fendrix, who performed similar tricks on Poor Things.

Certainly, compared to his more accessible films, such as The Favourite and Poor Things, this feels like Lanthimos at his most elusive and frustrating.

Want more articles like this? Follow SCMP Film on Facebook
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Elizabeth Taylor: The Lost Tapes’ Review: A Legend Opens Up in Nanette Burstein’s Engaging HBO Doc Based on Rediscovered Audio Recordings

Published

on

‘Elizabeth Taylor: The Lost Tapes’ Review: A Legend Opens Up in Nanette Burstein’s Engaging HBO Doc Based on Rediscovered Audio Recordings

A celebrity from the age of 11, Elizabeth Taylor was practiced at public relations for almost all her life, so there aren’t many personal revelations in Elizabeth Taylor: The Lost Tapes. But Nanette Burstein‘s elegantly constructed documentary, mostly in Taylor’s own words backed by illuminating archival images, works as a lively bit of film history about movie stardom in the volatile 1960s as the studio system was fading and the media exploding.

The film — which premiered at Cannes in the Cannes Classics sidebar — is based on 40 hours of recently rediscovered audiotapes, recordings Taylor made in the mid-1960s for a ghost-written memoir (long out of print). It was the most frenzied moment of her fame, when she was coming off the paparazzi-fueled scandal that was Cleopatra. Taylor, who died in 2011, recalls her many marriages — four when she made these recordings, since she was on the first of two to Richard Burton — and her career, from her start as a child in Lassie Come Home (1943) through her Oscar-winning performance in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966).

Elizabeth Taylor: The Lost Tapes

The Bottom Line

An entertaining if unsurprising time capsule.

Advertisement

Venue: Cannes Film Festival (Cannes Classics)
Cast: Elizabeth Taylor
Director: Nanette Burstein
Writers: Nanette Burstein, Tal Ben-David

1 hour 41 minutes

As she did in Hillary, about Hillary Clinton, and The Kid Stays in the Picture, based on Robert Evans’ autobiography, Burstein stays out of her celebrity subject’s way. Taylor’s voice is playful, almost girlish. Occasionally she is blunt, but more often seems cautiously aware of being recorded. Richard Meryman, the Life magazine reporter doing the interviews, is heard asking questions at times, but Taylor is firmly in control, at least on the surface.

Beneath that you can tell how beautifully Burstein and her editor and co-writer, Tal Ben-David, shaped the visuals. The archival photos and news clips offer a telling backdrop of images and sound bites, often more informative than what Taylor says — from shots of crowds filling the streets of London to see her on the day of her second wedding, to the actor Michael Wilding, to film of her in mourning black at the funeral of her beloved third husband, the producer Mike Todd, who died in a plane crash. The visual exceptions are the clichéd, recurring establishing shots of an old-fashioned reel-to-reel tape recorder, next to a martini glass.

Advertisement

Moving chronologically, Taylor begins with her desire to act even as a child. Photos from that time offer a reminder that she was always astonishingly beautiful. These early sections are fine but bland. She was too young to be married the first time, to Nicky Hilton, she says, and the second marriage just didn’t work out. George Stevens gave her subtle direction and bolstered her confidence when she made A Place in the Sun (1951). When she made Giant with him five years later, he berated her, telling her she was just a movie star and not an actress, a charge that often dogged her.

Taylor becomes sporadically more biting as the film goes on, displaying a sharp-tongued wit and personality. That is particularly true when she talks about her marriage to Eddie Fisher, the first of her marital scandals, covered endlessly in tabloids. It was public knowledge that Fisher and his wife, Debbie Reynolds, were the Todds’ best friends. Shortly after Mike Todd’s death, Fisher left his wife, whose image was always cheery and wholesome, for Taylor. “I can’t say anything against Debbie,” Taylor sweetly says on the tape, and without taking a breath goes on, “But she put on such an act, with the pigtails and the diaper pins.” She says of Fisher, “I don’t remember too much about my marriage to him except it was one big frigging awful mistake.”

Burstein includes some enlightening sidelights from that period. A news clip of the recently married couple has them surrounded by journalists on the steps of a plane, with one reporter asking Fisher about his bride, “Can she cook?” Even as a tease, who would dare say that now?

That fuss was nothing next to Cleopatra (1963), now notorious as the film so over-budget it almost bankrupted 20th Century Fox, and the set on which Taylor and Burton, each married to other people, indiscreetly sparked to each other from the start. The Vatican newspaper weighed in on the affair, disapprovingly. Taylor says her own father called her “a whore.” In one of the film’s more telling scenes, she says of their affair, “Richard and I, we tried to be what is considered ‘good,’ but it didn’t work,” a comment that at once plays into the moralistic language of her day and resists it. These signs of Taylor’s savvy awareness of herself as a public personality are the film’s most intriguing, if scattershot, moments.

The film also shows how besieged the couple was by the paparazzi, at a turning point in celebrity culture. Occasionally other voices are heard in archival audio, and in this section George Hamilton says of the press, “They were not going for glamour anymore. They were going for the destruction of glamour,” suggesting a longing for the old pre-packaged studio publicity days. But Taylor herself is never heard complaining. A realist, she made hiding from the paparazzi into a game for her children so they wouldn’t be frightened.

Advertisement

The recordings end at the point where she is assuring Meryman that she and Burton would be together for 50 years. The film then takes a quick trot through the rest of her days, including rehab at the Betty Ford Center and raising money for AIDS research. But the last word should have been Taylor’s. There is a private Elizabeth, she says. “The other Elizabeth, the famous one, really has no depth or meaning to me. It is a commodity that makes money.” The movie star Taylor is the one who most often comes through in the film, but that is engaging enough.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Is Coppola’s $120M ‘Megalopolis’ ‘bafflingly shallow’ or ‘remarkably sincere’? Critics can’t tell

Published

on

Is Coppola’s $120M ‘Megalopolis’ ‘bafflingly shallow’ or ‘remarkably sincere’? Critics can’t tell
play

Francis Ford Coppola’s 40-year passion project “Megalopolis” has finally arrived, but critics are divided on whether the science fiction epic was worth the wait.

The film, which premiered at Cannes Film Festival, has received mixed reviews from festivalgoers, with some calling the drama “staggeringly ambitious” and others dubbing the long-awaited movie “absolute madness.”

Advertisement

Deadline and The Guardian report “Megalopolis” received a seven-minute standing ovation Thursday night. Coppola, 85, first conceived the film in the 1970s and development began in 1983. After several false starts and cancellations, the “Godfather” filmmaker revived the project in 2019 and used $120 million of his own money to fund it.

The ensemble cast includes Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel, Aubrey Plaza, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Voight, Jason Schwartzman, Laurence Fishburne, Kathryn Hunter and Dustin Hoffman.

The film follows an architect who “wants to rebuild New York City as a utopia following a devastating disaster,” according to IMDb. The movie is a “Roman Epic fable set in an imagined Modern America,” according to the film synopsis on the Cannes website.

Driver plays Cesar Catilina, a “genius artist who seeks to leap into a utopian, idealistic future,” but Mayor Franklyn Cicero, played by Esposito, “remains committed to a regressive status quo, perpetuating greed, special interests, and partisan warfare.” Emmanuel plays the mayor’s socialite daughter, Julia, “whose love for Cesar has divided her loyalties, forcing her to discover what she truly believes humanity deserves.”

Advertisement

Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Megalopolis’ trailer abuzz ahead of Cannes Film Festival debut

In the caption for the movie’s trailer on YouTube, Coppola said, “Our new film MEGALOPOLIS is the best work I’ve ever had the privilege to preside over.”

‘Megalopolis’ Rotten Tomatoes score matches critics’ split

Critics are split evenly down the middle on the star-studded film. On Rotten Tomatoes, 50% of 24 critics’ reviews were positive.

Cannes 2024 to feature Donald Trump drama, Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Megalopolis’ and more

Advertisement

Esther Zuckerman of The Daily Beast wrote that the film is a “laughingstock” and “stilted, earnest, over the top, CGI ridden, and utterly a mess.” The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw wrote that the film was “megabloated and megaboring” and a “bafflingly shallow film, full of high-school-valedictorian verities about humanity’s future.”

Meanwhile, David Fear of Rolling Stone said the film is “uncompromising, uniquely intellectual, unabashedly romantic, broadly satirical yet remarkably sincere about wanting not just brave new worlds but better ones.” And Bilge Ebiri of Vulture said the movie “might be the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. And I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy every single (expletive) second of it.”

Joshua Rothkopf of the Los Angeles Times called out fans and critics with expectations of the film being a “masterpiece,” saying there is “much to enjoy” from the “weird” and “juicy” film.

Advertisement

Coppola has said his film “Apocalypse Now” suffered a similar fate, with polarizing criticisms upon its release at Cannes in 1979 before ascending to acclaim and becoming a New Hollywood classic.

Continue Reading

Trending