"Damsels in Distress", a hipster comedy?

Damsels in Distress

Here's a good film to start a debate about the "meaning" of making films, about the purpose of cinema. After watching a film like "Damsels in Distress" the question came to my mind again: should a director think on the audience when filming? or exclusively on what he/she wants to say?

Because this film is an attempt of making a really original comedy, but it doesn't work (I would add at all), or I guess it just works for director Whit Stillman and his legion of fans. I ask myself: what's the purpose of a comedy? making you laugh and/or have a good time, and if the film is very good, do that while making you think. "Damsels in Distress" doesn't make you laugh and sorry, I don't think it really wants to say anything. But what puzzles me more is that I don't believe Stillman cares about that.

Deadpan, off-beat comedies I have seen a few, is not that surprising, but I can guarantee you watching this film is an odd experience, at least for a (long) while.The dialogues on which the characters are involved are unique. But they are not just surreal or crazy, which could lead to a very suggestive film (like Spanish masterpiece "Amanece Que No es Poco", the recent "Submarine" or the craziest moments on Woody Allen's or Wes Anderson's filmography). Dialogues and characters attitudes are pretentiously ironic (I concede the qualification of pretentious, for sure) off-putting, deliberately bizarre and to me, frequently irritating. It really takes a while and a considerable effort to go on for the viewer.

If you do, you'll find yourself more or less involved in its college story, one where guys are desperately stupids (some fun here) and girls completely insufferable. But in my case at least, I went on just for the sake of figuring out whether or not there was a goal, an end, a conclusion where all these strange kids could reveal something, not because I was going to find something satisfying. And although by the middle of it you get used to this sort of awkward humour and occasionally you will laugh, once the credits end, there's nothing to talk about or worth remembering. Just a very eccentric film, just for the sake of being eccentric. Right now I'm thinking of a dozen of ultra-cool indie bands, with enjoy quite a successful position on alternative industry who, of course in my opinion, "sell" that sort of eccentricity... while lacking songs. Yes, know I get why Stillman and hipster are words commonly used in the same sentence. Unfortunately, is that meaning of hipster that means: "Look how I wear! Check my instagram! Read my very important tweet in the middle of a concert! and How I scream the only song I know about the NEXT BIG THING Pitchfork magazine has written about!"... Sorry about the rant.

Then again, I'm pretty sure Stillman must be satisfied with his work, achieving what he was aiming for or how he directed the cast (I have read fantastic comments on Greta Gerwig's performance, is true she's convincing on her role... but unfortunately is also part of this film). But sorry, is that enough? That makes Stillman an author? I doubt it, because I can only qualify "Damsels in Distress" as a seriously failed film. Or at the very least, a film that wasn't for me.

SCORE: 4,25/10

"Willard & His Bowling Trophies", tragic surrealism

Willard and His Bowling Trophies: A Perverse Mistery
Richard Brautigan

Two couples. Three brothers. A bird sculpture surrounded by bowling trophies. Sex. Depression. Sadomasochism. Greek tragedies. Violence. A fated destiny. Who else other than Richard Brautigan could create a novel with that material?

"Willard and His Bowling Trophies" is surreal again, a trademark than everyone who has read any of the works from Brautigan should expect. But this time surrealism is not in the stories per se, as they are (even it is oddity) credible, but in their connection. Willard and the trophies are the elements, the objects that links the stories. A bird and trophies that seem to be alive, that can be the symbol of many things, or nothing else than (silly) objects.

It is also pure Brautigan in what refers to style. Odd poetic prose, a disarmingly simple yet affecting writing, with bombastic turns of phrase. You'll find yourself saying what?, or laughing, or feeling completely appalled.

And that's what makes "Willard" different from other Brautigan's books I have read. I found this novel really sad, even depressing, very close to "An Unfortunate Woman" in that sense, or like "In Watermelon Sugar", but without any utopia. The forthcoming tragedy, even if surreal, is almost evident from the very first page, and its focused on the masochistic couple. The husband is a pathetic character, and his suffering (also literally) wife, a silent mourning, frustrated one. Sex, that should pleasant and the best expression of love between the two, is not enjoyable anymore. The Logan brothers turn their stupidity, but also innocence, that at first might be hilarious into a violent seek that reveals an evil side, some sort of anger against humanity developed by such a trivial fact (getting their trophies stolen). It's a novel about fate, in which circumstances, and people, are weird, and tragedy is the end of the road.

To me, and this is the fifth book I read from him, Brautigan's work is always fascinating, because he is a unique writer, a counterculture icon, with an unparalleled view for literature, and an extraordinary braveness in the stories he penned. But despite much more linear and less confusing than “In Watermelon Sugar”, "Willard" is, again, not a book for everyone. Being such a straightforward novel, I personally think the lack of humour harms it. Everything is quite absurd indeed, but its depressingly absurd this time.

SCORE: 6/10

"To Rome with Love", Allen's postcards from Italy

To Rome with Love

I owe too much to Woody Allen in terms of "cultural education". The way I understand cinema, my interest in some literature, and even more important, a sense of humour and in certain aspects, a certain view of life, that we more or less share or says a lot to me.  So it will take a major landslide for me to miss a new film of him. It almost came in the form of the awful "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", but last year's "Midnight in Paris" brought us back my old great master and buddy.

Honestly, wasn't expecting a lot, so I can't say I'm disappointed after watching it. On the contrary, for quite a while, the film is enjoyable, and despite its extremely lightweight scope, it works. As it is almost mandatory with Woody, laughs are awaiting the viewer (many reserved for his own, eternal paranoid character).

"To Rome with Love" also benefits from the "touches" of surrealism, something he explored with brilliance on "Midnight in Paris" and a recurring element of his filmography. All four stories have an element of surrealism on it: being the impossible situations (the Benigni story, his own, the one about opera and death, and Alec' Baldwin, where past meets present) or the interaction between unlikely characters (the young couple arriving to Rome). Topics as fame (and its incomprehensible, ridiculous logic) and the pass of time are present, along with sex and of course, love, all through the perspective of a surreal comedy.

But the problem is that Allen has dealt with these topics throughout his extraordinary career, so there's little to be surprised about, aside from the surreal situations itself. After the "shock" of the odd moment happening in the film, there's not a lot to highlight going on. So at the end, I had the feeling the four episodes have all their great moments but are somewhat underachievements, and the overall result, although pleasant, is forgettable.

Another negative factor is the length of the film, something that has never been an issue with Allen. The two hours are unnecessary and weakens the whole affair. Several scenes, quite a collection of postcards from the "eternal city" are just there for the sake of make a tribute of the gorgeous landscape of Rome (a view that looks completely taken from old movies from 50 years ago by the way). I'm pretty sure that without them (and the annoying music) the film would have been much more dynamic and better closed.

This is an "operetta" film, sort of homage to Italian Cinema, and as the genre allows, there's space for going a bit "loose" and "crazy". But there's no balance between characters. On the ones that light up the scenes in which they take part are Penelope Cruz, (she steals the show, it's almost her episode) Alec Baldwin, Roberto Benigni (perfect as Mr.Pisano), Ellen Page and Allen itself (Judy Davis and Jesse Eisenberg are ok too). But they are not enough to balance the amount of roles that are underused. Some characters, like the ones played by Greta Gerwig, Flavio Parenti, Alison Pill are looking even a bit silly. And the situations are also uneven. Quite a few are over extended (the opera moments, for instance), the most "serious" (Baldwin's) one would benefit from some more depth. They work as jokes but loose part of his potential as the joke keeps going.

So, there's a lot of fun and enjoyable moments/situations on "To Rome with Love". But they don't mix together as they should. Come on Woody! You have been capable of doing so much more dozens of times before with such stuff!

SCORE: 5,5/10

"In Watermelon Sugar", Richard Brautigan's utopia

In Watermelon Sugar- Richard Brautigan

Some novels are very easy to review. Some others are quite hard. And then, you have Richard Brautigan’s books. “In Watermelon Sugar” might be his hardest work to rate. But I will try.

Brautigan, one of our favourite nuts, said he based the book, published in 1968, on his life in Bolinas during the 60s, a place known for their semi-communal, isolated lifestyle. But I’ll bet you anything Bolinas has nothing to do with the unique landscape where “In Watermelon Sugar” takes place. Let me “welcome” you to iDEATH.

iDEATH seems to the main house/meeting point of some sort of commune where things are made of watermelon sugar, pine wood and stone, each day has a different colored sun and some disturbing things happens. The worst of them, explained by the narrator, being the tension with inBOIL, a man who rebelled against iDEATH, living on the Forgotten Works, a close and forbidden area, where they make whiskey and keep the remnants of a former civilization. Confused? We haven’t finished yet. There are also “The Tigers”, who were (maybe not) real tigers, that were annihilated by people, violence and many deaths, and two love stories, one that ended due to the dramatic turn of events between iDEATH and inBOIL, and another ongoing while the narrator digs deep in the account of the story he is making (he is trying to write). Oh, I forgot to mention the last tiger was killed on a spot that later evolved into a trout farm.

How to interpret “In Watermelon Sugar”? I don’t really know, but the truth is that I keep thinking from time to time, almost two weeks after having finished the book. So at least one thing can be said for sure: its and addictive (admittedly, strangely addictive) work. iDEATH’s environment and origin (the battle against “The Tigers”) could be seen as a post-apocalyptic new beginning for the world. This sort of paradise, where things are made thanks to the interaction with nature, where there’s no money and no possessions, is threatened by inBOIL, “keepers” of the memory (the stuff) of the past civilization. Margaret, the narrator's previous “lover” looks like a very important character to me, representing the person that, raised within iDEATH idiosyncrasy, is tempted by inBOIL’s forgotten stuff. A revision of Eve’s myth betraying the garden Eden? I’m very eager to read your interpretation.

With its brutal end and confusing development, “In Watermelon Sugar” is not a book for anyone. I personally think the absence of humour, one of Brautigan’s trademarks, makes it less enjoyable. The feeling of absurdity and surrealism, ever-present in his books, is still there, but this time, with the metaphorical/allegorical resource, adopts a much “altered” voice. It’s still Brautigan’s deformed mirror, and his braveness and ability to at least try to reinvent literature. But I miss his ability for making me laugh while he shows how stupid we, humans, have become.

SCORE: 6,25/10

"A Confederate General from Big Sur", a tale of the pre-hippie America

A Confederate General from Big Sur- Richard Brautigan

Reading Richard Brautigan is such an experience. He is not your average writer, in terms of writing style, structure, storytelling or novel conception. You might have the feeling you don't have any clue where is the novel driving you to, but the ride is so unique and surreal the final destination is completely secondary. Maybe "A Confederate General from Big Sur" is not as explosive as "Trout Fishing in America", but the result is also pure Brautigan, therefore, a joy to read.

Don't get its title confuse you. This is not a novel on the Civil War. But it deals with a more recent period of the USA history: the 60s. With being young and trying to achieve freedom while confronting society and oneself. Brautigan wrote, in his messy and hilarious way, about the pre-hippy era.

But Brautigan never preach, or pontificates. His weapons are surrealism, humour and chaos. No one uses metaphors and similes like he did, and the scenes, while maybe disjointed one from the other, are powerful and enchanting in their own. "A Confederate"'s premise and is simple. Jesse tells us his story/adventure with his pal Lee Mellon, searching for information about Mellon's grandfather, supposedly a general in the Civil War...  But that idea is quickly forgotten, replaced by a tale of the 60s in the Californian landscape. Being Brautigan, the plot and structure is still quite linear. But that doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to subvert the boundaries of literature. So if you were looking for a canonical book, with a defined plot and a satisfying end, this is not for you. Here you will have, more than 100.000 ends. Literally.

It was his first novel, so you can see some confusion, some struggle between his striking lyricism and experimental treatment of fiction and a more traditional prose. But despite its shortcomings, "A Confederate"  offers a rewarding dose of Brautigan's freedom, of Brautigan's reinvention. The reinvention of literature. The reinvention of history, thanks to his "crazy saint" characters, experimenting with free love, drinking, drugs and a sense of rebellion, living and writing their own past and present. The reinvention of humour, used, like Valle-Inclán did, as a factor to deform and question the absurdities of reality. At the end, Brautigan's vision wasn't a happy one, but a very sceptical, even scared look of a world that was becoming more hostile for humanity, thanks to the behaviour of humans. But his books were capable of exposing that contradiction while making us smile.

SCORE: 6,75/10