.David Ehrenstein wrote:I have a review that will be appearing in the new issue of Film Comment
Good to hear - I look forward to it.
So that's the approach I'm overlooking...I'm a sucker for any movie with pretty boys in them.
I'd be interested to know how this is being projected in the US. In the UK, Tartan have for some reason gone to a lot of trouble to make sure that nobody is able to see it in academy - they've instructed projectionists to screen it exclusively in 1.85 and only created digital masters fixed in that ratio. I desperately tried to convince one cinema to project their 35mm print in full-frame, but was eventually overridden by Tartan's incorrect mandate. Such a ridiculous and unnecessary situation (unsurprisingly, they have not responded to any complaints).miless wrote:If it wasn't academy ratio, it wasn't correct.
This was very interesting - initially I assumed Doyle was playing Alex's father, then forgot about it when he was revealed later on in the toolshed. The relationship between the two only sunk in on the second viewing.David Ehrenstein wrote:Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
This "reading" requires that even the jilted wife has agreed to call her ex's supposed lover "your Uncle Tommy" when talking to her son. Not impossible, I guess, but it certainly wasn't for me the most obvious way to take it. I just understood the father was temporarily living with his brother (Doyle, aka your Uncle Tommy) while the father looked for a place of his own. No?foggy eyes wrote:This was very interesting - initially I assumed Doyle was playing Alex's father, then forgot about it when he was revealed later on in the toolshed. The relationship between the two only sunk in on the second viewing.David Ehrenstein wrote:Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
Certainly I don't want to suggest the film is all on the surface, and you are right, it is very subtle and intense, but what surprised me most is how accessible the film was. There is an odd magnetism in this film, that I think is owed in large part to the editing and pacing, that keeps the audience right in the palm of Van Sant's hands.David Ehrenstein wrote:Wow that's quite a reaction, Antoine. I never would expect the film to produce such a response. It's very subtle and intense. Did you get, for example, that the father is living with another man (who is played by Chris Doyle?)
Indeed. The other factor is sheer laziness - to reach this wider "youth" audience they have pushed for broader distribution and sent a number of prints to multiplexes that can't accomodate academy ratio (fair enough). The problem is that they couldn't be bothered instructing rep cinemas to project 35mm prints in academy ratio when they clearly were able to - this being made worse by the fact that City Screen (owners of the Picturehouse chain) opted for digital projection across the board from masters already fixed in 1.85. Optimum managed to get all this right with Elephant and Last Days (both of which I remember seeing in academy), so Tartan have just cut corners, sat back and hoped that no-one will notice.Nothing wrote:My guess is that Tartan have decided an Academy ratio would 'put off' the general / youth audience they are seeking.
I'm curious why you think Jared isn't a "friend at all" you're obviously right about Jennifer but I see nothing wrong with his relationship with Jared.David Ehrenstein wrote:Gus frames the film entirely in terms of Alex (Gabe Nevins), consequently we never see his mother in close-up or full-face, nor any of the other adults outside of a police detective. He has a "best friend" who's not really a friend at all and a girlfriend who uses him as a sex toy and status object and nothing more. When he breaks up with her we see her lips moving in astonishment but what we hear on the soundtrack is a blast of Rota's score for Amarcord. Elsewhere Juliet of the Spirits (particularly the finale) pops up, but not for the skating. Rapturously shot by Chris Doyle this is a film I'm going to be looking at several times before saying any more.
where you see suspicion, I see an almost creepy attraction. The way Jared is looking at Alex reminds me of how frat-guys look at the drunk chick who's passed out on their bed.David Ehrenstein wrote:There are key slow-motion shots from Alex's POV of Jared driving his car that clearly indicate a sense of suspicion about Jared.
Yeah, the 1.85 cropping is pretty brutal on this film. It seems to me Van Sant and Chris Doyle shot it without really 'protecting' for a masked projection. So far it's the only way I've seen PP and I feel like when I watch it on DVD it'll be close to a new film.chaddoli wrote:Saw this again yesterday and all I can say is shame on the Angelika (or would it be IFC?) for projecting this at 1.85 . The frames are far too tight around the top and bottom. I remember the sublime 1.33 image from the NYFF screening. The sound too (now this I know is the theater's fault) was terrible, considering the rapturous, nuanced sound design. It was turned into a muddy mess by the theater's shitty speakers.
Do yourself a favor and watch this on DVD in its OAR of 1.33.
No, there's nothing from Casanova here. Just a few cues from Juliet of the Spirits and one from Amarcord (used only in the final girlfriend scene).Lino wrote:Mostly Juliet of the Spirits and later on one small piece from Amarcord, though I could swear I heard another one from Casanova but if there is, it's not listed in the end credits.David Ehrenstein wrote:What Nino Rota does Gus use? Is it by any chance Fellini Casanova? That score has becoem a real fetish lately turning up in both I'm Not There and My Kid Could Paint That.