News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Sunday, February 28, 2010

FrightFest report

10:10 AM / Cinema / 2 Comments

This is going to be a rather incomplete report, because although eight films were shown at the Glasgow FrightFest, I only went along for two: A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN and AMER. I met up with Nick and Sandy from Dark Dreams, and from what they told me it didn't sound as if I'd missed much the previous night (barring a fight which broke out at the front of the auditorium and required police intervention). Still, there was a great atmosphere there, and the whole thing seemed to go down a treat if the packed auditorium was anything to go by.

So, the films. A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN was up first, and I'm sorry to report that the experience was mostly a disappointing one. We were led to believe that we were going to see a fully uncut, restored version, but before the film began, the project's supervisor from Optimum (whose name I'm afraid I can't remember) came on to the stage to apologise, saying that the restoration wasn't yet finished and that what we were going to see would be cobbled together from various sources. What ended up playing was just a DVD that bore a striking resemblance to the most recent Media Blasters release, with the exception of the opening and closing credits (which, while of very poor quality, appeared to be the original English credits rather than the reset ones that appeared on the Media Blasters DVD) and no more than two shots which seemed to have been culled from a VHS source. (One of these was the shot of Julia kneeling before Carol in the second dream sequence, only present in a much-shortened version in the previous DVD release; the other was a brief reaction shot from Carol as she discovers the room of vivisected dogs.) Oh, and some (but not all) of the dialogue that was presented in Italian on the previous DVD has been restored into English here, namely the tense dinner scene and Carol's subsequent telephone conversation with Mrs. Gordon.

A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN is a great giallo, but this was definitely not the way to experience it. The quality was what you'd expect from a DVD projected on to a cinema screen, the sound levels fluctuated wildly throughout, going from too quiet to overpoweringly loud, and I'm ultimately not sure I'd have bothered if I'd known in advance that it would be like this. Fair enough if Optimum couldn't get the project finished in time, but all the same I can't help feeling that I was lured to the cinema under false pretences. I would like to think that, when the DVD release finally materialises this summer, it will be pristine and put the previous releases to shame, but the manner in which this film has been treated in the past, plus the state of the materials shown to us yesterday, does give me pause for concern. At least those who own the Media Blasters remaster can be reasonably confident that they're not missing any significant material.

AMER, on the other hand, was a different experience entirely. We were treated to an actual print of the film, and before it began Alan Jones introduced us to the two writer/directors, Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani. What we saw was an absolutely stunning-looking film that was clearly a love letter to 70s Italian genre cinema. From the multi-coloured, SUSPIRIA-inspired opening sequence to the sun-drenched middle section (which we were told was inspired by the look of Sergio Martino's THE STRANGE VICE OF MRS. WARDH and Umberto Lenzi's SEVEN BLOOD-STAINED ORCHIDS - although to my mind it looked a hundred times better than either of these) to the murky, blue-tinted final stretch, AMER looked like a million bucks - or more precisely a million Euros, which was its entire budget. Although we disagreed as to the merits of the film itself, Sandy, Nick and I all agreed that the first act was how we wished Argento's MOTHER OF TEARS had looked. (Actually, with its scary old house, sinister mother figure and wonderful dream logic, this first segment would actually have made for a highly satisfying entry in the Three Mothers canon in its own right, and certainly better than MOTHER OF TEARS itself.) I was continually amazed by how successfully Cattet, Forzani and cinematographer Manu Dacosse had managed to replicate the 70s look. They certainly put Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, who frittered away more than $50 million trying to achieve something similar with American "trash" cinema in GRINDHOUSE, to shame. After all, surely spending that much money on something deliberately cheap-looking defeats the purpose, no?

That said, while AMER was clearly heavily inspired by gialli in terms of its appearance and overall mood, narrative-wise it had little in common with these films... and that's assuming you actually believe it HAD a narrative. Cattet and Forzani had previously made short films, and AMER is very much a short subject stretched to feature length. It's entirely a mood piece, and those looking for a compelling plot, or indeed a plot of any kind, would be advised to look elsewhere. As beautiful as the film was, it certainly dragged in places, particularly towards the end, as it became clear that the various striking yet dissonant images were not going to be pulled together to create a meaningful whole. I'd be tempted to called it a beautiful nothing, were it not for the fact that I do believe there was something going on beneath the surface - something which eluded me on this first viewing but which will hopefully become clear to me the next time I see it. It opens theatrically in France on Wednesday, and I sincerely hope a BD release isn't too far off. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most striking-looking film of 2009. It does succumb to the law of diminishing returns, though: while the first segment is the strongest, the third and final is definitely the weakest.

Following the film, directors Cattet and Forzani were joined on the stage by their producer, François Cognard, to answer questions from the audience. Cattet didn't say much (I think she was worried her English wasn't up to scratch), with Forzani and Cognard fielding most of the answers. Questions ranged from the straightforward ("Which films inspired the middle section?") to the esoteric (the importance of the sense of touch in the film) to the downright hilarious ("Why were there so many close-ups of lady-parts?" "Because that's the subject of the movie. And besides, it's a French film."), and everyone who asked a question got either an AMER T-shirt or a poster.

And to the dickhead in the Batman T-shirt near the back who tittered through half the film making comments along the lines of "What is this shit?", I've got news for you: if you dislike a film, you can do so quietly, and if you're incapable of that, you can always leave. You ESPECIALLY don't have to stay for the Q&A and giggle uncontrollably while people are asking serious questions. That sort of behaviour would be inappropriate enough at the best of times, but when the directors themselves are in attendance, it becomes downright obnoxious. At least this joker appeared to be in the minority, if the rapturous applause at the end of the Q&A was anything to go by.

2 Comments

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at whiggles[at]ntlworld[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.