Helen + Joy (Christine Molloy & Joe Lawlor, 2008)

[Guido]

In the midst of a rather dull line-up of films presented to us Symposium kids at the Telluride Film Festival, I can safely say that this one left the best impression on me (rivaled only by McQueen's Hunger and Sikl's A Private Century). I was dismayed to find (now that I have internet access) that there is practically no information on the duo of filmmakers that have made this quiet, beautiful feature. Has anyone seen any of the short films that make up their Civic Life series?

EDIT: Just to clarify, Helen is the feature, and Joy is the short which precedes it.

[portnoy]

Helen was the best thing I saw at Telluride.

To be honest, their Civic Life stuff is a bit of a mixed bag - Who Killed Brown Owl is fantastic, but a few of the films they showed at the 'Civic Life' program two years ago were a bit of a slog, not nearly as precisely executed as Brown Owl or Joy, which I thought was pretty stunning, too.

[lord patchogue]

I keep hearing good words about this film since it made its Telluride screening. Here is their official website for those interested.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I saw Helen this afternoon. The UK critics have been divided over the film; the likes of Jonathan Romney and Philip French have reviewed it with effusive praise, whilst many other critics have been much more scathing. There's no doubting the premise is strong and that the themes that develop; self-reinvention etc are important although not always subtle. Whilst it moves at a slow pace, that's fine, and aesthetically, Helen defies its modest budget. There seems to be the influence of Antonioni hanging over the film too; one extended shot of an architectural evening skyline looks like it could have been lifted from L'Eclisse. The non-professional cast are mostly fine but what's difficult to excuse is the utterly banal dialogue that threatens to destroy the credibility of the entire film. I assume the directors went into the film without a working script, improvising as they went along. I was seriously screwing my face at certain conversations - it would have worked far more if they'd kept dialogue to the essentials - it's more of a mood piece anyway. There were a couple of walkouts and my girlfriend really hated the film; it's not going to be a film for everyone or much of an easy viewing. A mixed bag, could have been better if it had played to its strengths more. The glaring problems with the film threaten to sink it; it's a mess but an intriguing one.

[franco]

I really like this movie, but it's ruined by that artless and redundant voice-over in the second half. I bet someone else was tampering with the final product. Maybe the same person who contributed to the banal dialog.

[Nothing]

Oh COME ON this was absolutely diabolical. The essential premise has potential, albeit pretty much lifted from L'Avventura. Formally, the film is almost persuasive, albeit lifted from The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael and Elephant. The script and the execution, however... Wretched scripts like this are churned out by UK 'development' schemes every week. And, beyond that, every aspect of the direction other than the placement of the camera could politely be described as incompetent - in particular the dreadful casting that mixes deeply self-conscious non-professionals, hammy semi-pros and clueless extras who have obviously been given no idea what they are supposed to be doing. Perhaps the most amateurish film ever to receive a UK release - Sight & Sound and co. are praising it for the usual croneyistic reasons (see also Romney's ridiculous review of Better Things, the other worst film of the year). I mean, I find Hunger somewhat objectionable also, and highly overrated, but it looks like Citizen Kane next to these two.

[Guido]

Perhaps the fact that I'd been seeing one disappointing film after another at Telluride last year lead to my appreciation of this quiet little film; it was really like nothing else I was being subjected to. Here were two filmmakers who, despite some faults here and there, managed to craft a film who's methodology proved interesting to me at the time. As I understand it, Molloy and Lawlor have a very architectural bent: their narrative comes out of expertly designed camera shots. I can see how that becomes an obvious liability to many, but I find that the work they produce in coordination with the community they immerse themselves in yields a very watchable (albeit rough) film. Everyone who shows up at the auditions gets a part, creating a group around which the film can be built. It ain't perfect, but it's ok with me.

And I have to say that, after seeing McQueen prove time after time just how full of himself he was, Molloy and Lawlor were nice, humble alternatives.

[Nothing]

> Everyone who shows up at the auditions gets a part

That honestly explains a lot - and I must return to the word 'rigour'. Romney and co. have made claims of 'Dumont-esque' casting / acting methods in this film, but the fact is Dumont takes YEARS to cast his films, you can't just stick any old non-pro / semi-pro bumpf in front of the camera and tell them not to emote.

At the same time, I can imagine that there wasn't anything better at Telluride (US festival programmers have the discerning taste of a billy goat).

[Guido]

I haven't been following the film's reception overseas, but I'll be interested in reading into it. Of course, I think a second viewing will be necessary, for me anyways, but what I remember from the first screening was the interesting relation between the casting method and the theme of the film, which, in essence, is the process of audition itself. The result can be hit and miss, but I find the community-based approach behind the film quite interesting.

[Nothing]

help your community, miscast crap wannabe actors in a feature film... Yep, I guess the UK arts administrators fell for that one hook, line and sinker. Unfortunately, cinema is an artform and, in art, one must be ruthless.

[Guido]

I haven't stated that Helen is perfect film - far from it. But, in all honesty, I'd take this over Dumont's recent effort. If his 'rigorous' casting process gives us another Flandres, put me in the camp that doesn't care. And I think we need to discern between "working with" and "helping" a community...I don't see Helen as an inept, pathetically altruistic venture that sets out to put the citizens of wherever to "good" use.

[Nothing]

Flandres is my least favourite Dumont film (I'd still like to see the original ending one day) however it is LIGHTYEARS, LIGHTYEARS ahead of this amateurish dreck. Anyway.

[Guido]

I stand corrected.