Atmen (Austria 2011)

Since German is my native language, reviews to German language films are in German.

Hat jeder gute Schauspieler auch das Zeug zu einem guten Regisseur?

Wohl kaum. In der Filmgeschichte gibt es zahlreiche Beispiele von Regie-Versuchen anerkannter Schauspieler aus denen lediglich Akte der Selbstbeweihräucherung wurden. Auch wenn die Stars ihr übergroßes Ego zurücknahmen und auf ihren Auftritt vor der Kamera verzichteten, entstanden bei diesen Ausflügen ins Regiefach nur selten eigenständige künstlerische Werke. Meisterwerke wie „Die Nacht des Jägers“, der einzige Film bei dem Schauspiellegende Charles Laughton Regie führte, sind ohnehin Ausnahmeerscheinungen.

Nun, Karl Markovics ist zwar nicht Charles Laughton aber er liefert mit seinem unaufdringlichen Film „Atmen“ dennoch ein sehr überzeugendes Regiedebüt ab. Auch wenn die Einflüsse der jüngeren österreichischen Filmgeschichte und auch des britischen „social realism“ Genres deutlich spürbar sind, so muss er sich mit seinem Film vor den etablierten Regisseuren definitiv nicht verstecken. Und im Gegensatz zu den Vorbildern gibt es auch eine (wenn auch  wohldosierte) Portion morbiden Humors. An ein Debütfilm erinnert der souverän inszenierte Film in keinster Weise. Maßgeblichen Anteil daran hat Kamermann Martin Gschlacht, der wie schon zuvor bei „Revanche“ und „Women without Men“ dem Film seinen Stempel aufdrückt und seinen weniger erfahrenen Regisseur unterstützt. Seine großartigen Kompositionen tragen viel zur Atmosphäre des Films bei der ohnehin mehr in Bildern als in Worten erzählt wird. Dennoch sind diese oft symbolträchtigen Einstellungen nie Selbstzweck, sondern stets der Geschichte untergeordnet.

Das von Markovics selbst verfasste Drehbuch kann aber ebenfalls überzeugen. Ein jugendlicher, im Waisenhaus aufgewachsener Straftäter nimmt nach seiner Haftentlassung eine Stelle bei einem Bestattungsunternehmen an. In seiner Lethargie ist er zunächst nicht viel mehr als ein Toter unter den Toten bis er bei seiner Arbeit eine Entdeckung macht die ihn dazu bringt, nach seiner Mutter zu suchen. Doch es scheint niemand zu geben der sich ernsthaft für ihn interessiert. Dass wieder einmal die äußeren Umstände als Begründung für eine Gewalttat herhalten müssen mag zwar dem gängigen Klischeebild entsprechen, dennoch bleibt die Geschichte – nicht zuletzt aufgrund der Aussparung gewalttätiger oder allzu emotionaler Szenen - stets glaubhaft.

Auch bei der Besetzung beweist Markovics Gespür, wohl vor allem aufgrund seiner eigenen Erfahrung als Schauspieler. Der 17jährige Laiendarsteller Thomas Schubert ist großartig und vermittelt überzeugend eine latente Gewaltbereitschaft unter den untedrückten Gefühlen seiner Figur. Man hat Mitleid mit ihm und zugleich fürchtet man sich vor einem möglichen erneuten Ausbruch seiner aufgestauten Aggressionen. Auch die Nebenrollen sind gut besetzt, Georg Friedrich etwa überzeugt auch in der x-ten Variation seiner gewohnten Rolle.

Der in Cannes und Sarajevo ausgezeichnete Film ist vor allem deshalb so gelungen weil sein Regisseur nicht tut was Schauspieler (und auch so manche Regiekollegen) normalerweise machen: sich in den Mittelpunkt stellen.

8/10

Im Angesicht des Todes: Thomas Schubert als Roman

The Tree of Life (USA 2011)

The American filmmaker Terrence Malick is an almost mythical figure in the international film scene. Often referred to as a poet, the director, screenwriter and producer rarely makes films but if he does, the resulting works are almost always extraordinary. His new epic "The Tree of Life" received the Palme d'Or in Cannes this year despite strong competition. The somehow abashed justification from Jury President Robert de Niro was: "it had the size, the importance, the intention, whatever you want to call it, that seemed to fit the prize." To be sure, the size, the importance and Malick's intention can't be denied. But this raises the question whether the will alone to make a big and important film is enough to win the most highly regarded international film prize.
 
Certainly "The Tree of Life" is filmmaking at the highest stage. Yet there is the feeling that it is the effort of an aging great director eagerly wanting to make his definitive masterpiece. Malick mostly does not follow a classic narrative structure, but the film is overloaded with topics spanning from the patriarchy still prevailing at the time the film is set (the 50s) to the current economic crisis. Likewise, there are a multitude of religious symbols and allusions. The relationships do not always reveal themselves - at least for that part of the audience that does not have the acquired wisdom of the director who has studied philosophy at Harvard and Oxford. It therefore depends on your point of view whether you think Malick is a genius or just pretentious.

The visuals of the film are as ambitious as the content. But as breathtaking as the images are, they also seem artificial sometimes which may be due to digital effects. This is quite a paradox for a film that - like all the films of Terrence Malick - celebrates natural beauty. The soundtrack is very emotional and seems to compensate for the suppressed feelings of the protagonists. The actors are quite convincing, especially Brad Pritt as the strict father and Jessica Chastain as his more emotional wife.

One must be grateful that there are still filmmakers like Terrence Malick and films like "The Tree of Life." Films that deliberately break the rules and refuse to use well-tried narrative patterns. Films that have the potential to elevate the viewer to another level of consciousness. One such film was Stanley Kubrick's "2001" which was then equally misunderstood by many critics. Not least because of the metaphysical level and the expressionistic animated sequences (which are, as in "2001", by Douglas Trumbull) a comparison is inevitable. But there is one significant difference between the two films: Kubrick's film is directed with confident ease while Malick's direction seems forced.

Open-minded moviegoers will still be able to find a lot in the film, which is essentially an elegiac farewell to the American dream. People exepecting the new Brad Pitt film will most likely be disappointed. Without a doubt, "The Tree of Life" is a must-see film. If only for being capable of going back to somewhat less weighty films with a good conscience...

7/10

The quintessential "Terrence Malick shot"

Stand by Me (USA 1986)

"I never had better friends than the friends I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"

When I saw "Stand by Me" for the first time in the 90s, I was a young kid myself, not much older than the characters in the film but still growing up, discovering the world and my passion for cinema. Growing up in a rural area, my life was very similar to the ones of the boys back then. The film is set in 1959 but it is actually much closer to my experiences than to the ones of the Internet generation. Together with my friends, we often went to the woods to smoke secretly or just to have fun and talks about the things we couldn't or didn't want to share with the adults. The woods were a perfect place for that, a fascinating world within the world. We even had built a tree house which at least partially survived to this day. I didn't realize back then of course but I do now how very true the above quote from the film is. The film is my lost innocence captured on celluloid. And judging from the comments and reviews on various blogs and Internet sites, I am not the only one who sees it that way...

The universal nature of the film is also the main reason why it works so well. Not only for the male audience - it rates higher among females on IMDb - does it touch something in every one of us and makes brilliant use of one thing that movies do so well: connecting us with others and the world and giving us the feeling that we are not alone. The fact that the movie is superbly told (based on a great short story by Stephen King, a hero of my adolescence) as well as beautifully shot and acted only enforces that. The disappearance of River Phoenix at the end of the film is especially heartbraking given the circumstances he later left our world. Watching his great performance painfully reminds you what an extraordinary actor he would have become.

Looking at "Stand by Me" now 25 years later the film is also a portrait of an innocent generation. In a world without constant without Internet and video games, you still had to be actively looking in order to find something remotely exciting instead of having the kicks delivered comfortably to your living room. Kids were still in contact with nature back than and playing outside. New experiences were made in a frequency that still gave you time to process them. I seriously doubt that today's kids would be that excited about finding a body - they have seen too many of them on TV already. 

But even they will sooner or later be able to enjoy "Stand by Me". It is a film that transcends generations and a film that will never come of age. Many bigger and seemingly more important movies from the 80s are now forgotten but "Stand by Me" - in all its authentic simplicity - will never be.

8/10

The life-changing moment in "Stand by Me"

Caro Diario (Italy 1993)

Suppose you're a director with no money and no ideas for a new film? Why not make a film about your own life with you as the protagonist? It can't possibly be that boring, right?

This situation has led to some painful exercises in ego boosting and the mini genre of the autobiographical diary film only occasionally resulted in a cinematic landmark like "David Holzman's Diary". More often than not, these films turned out to be nothing more than just vanity projects.

Nanni Moretti, however, is not vain. Instead he is authentic and has a sincere interest in people and the world around him. He notices things that other people don't see which is a major quality for a director to have. His 1993 film "Caro Diario" for which he won the award for best director in Cannes, is straightforward and deceptively simple. By showing himself in various situations of his life he gradually reveals some universal truths. Nothing at all is stylized and even though the film is certainly scripted, everything feels real.

The film consists of three episodes. The first (and best) one starts off rather light and becomes the saddest and most moving of the three. The third one reverses this dramaturgy by casually introducing a serious subject only to become increasingly comic. It ends with a wonderfully ironic twist that - like the whole film - celebrates the simple things in life. The middle episode may be the least sophisticated one but is nevertheless quite entertaining and equally genuine.

"Caro Diario" was Nanni Moretti's breakthrough film. He is now undoubtly one of the most important European directors but despite him being a regular at the major film festivals, his popularity outside of his home country is still limited. Maybe because he doesn't provoke with nazi statements at press conferences, maybe because of the nature of his cinema.

An unpretentious cinema that carries humanism in its heart and is all the more precious for it.

8/10

On the road of life: Nanni Moretti

Midnight in Paris (USA 2011)

"His talent was as natural as the pattern that was made by the dust on a butterfly's wings."

This quote from Ernest Hemingway's Paris memoirs "A Moveable Feast" refers to another great American author, F. Scott Fitzgerald. But it could just as well be applied to the comedic talent of one of the great film authors of our time, Woody Allen. Hemingway's book is also the main reference point for his latest film "Midnight in Paris", in particular the scenes set in the 1920s. The butterfly comparison could also be used for the film itself. It is just as light, beautiful and bursting with life and its main character has the same urge for freedom and self-actualization.

The film starts with a picture postcard montage of Paris images - set to his trademark jazzy score - that will already put off the more cynical viewers who can't bear such an idealized portrait of a city that has gang riots going on in its suburbs. But unless you're willing to indulge in such fantasies, you won't be able to enjoy "Midnight in Paris". Pretty soon the main character, a dreamy Hollywood screenwriter on vacation with his snobby fiancée, will travel back in time to the era of his dreams, the 1920s, where he will meet such legendary artists as - besides Hemingway and the Fitzgeralds - Cole Porter, T.S. Eliot, Pablo Picasso and Luis Bunuel. To the latter one, in one of many delightful references, he even suggests the idea for a film Bunuel would eventually make in 1962. Such moments of exuberant imagination may be too much for some viewers. But maybe those people should consider stop going to the movies then because movies are, after all, made both by and for dreamers...

At least for people like myself  "Midnight in Paris" is a wish-fulfillment-fantasy which is why I can't hardly be objective about the film and its apparent lack of a "deeper meaning" that some critics in Cannes complained about. I certainly know how Owen Wilson's character feels like when he is walking the streets of Paris at night. One of the best moments of my life happened in the fall of 2002 in a city that rivals Paris in beauty: Rome. We were out with some friends from my student exchange program having a great time after a delicious dinner in a wonderful trattoria when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, heavy rainfall was setting in. Did that do any harm to our joyful mood? Absolutely not. We sought shelter in an old alley where we watched the raindrops falling on the centuries-old cobblestones. We even stopped talking. It was great. So yes, I believe that magic exists - especially in cities like Paris or Rome. We only have to be open enough to find it...

The other thought in the film that is not entirely unfamiliar to me is the nostalgic feeling of being born in the wrong time. The only difference to Woody Allen is that - would it be my screenplay - I would not travel back to the 20s but to the Paris of the early 60s to meet Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut and the other legends of the then flourishing Nouvelle Vague. I would probably sitting in a sidewalk café on the Left Bank right now smoking a cigarette and - wait a second? - writing a review to a film I have seen recently at the Cinémathèque...

Woody Allen has not been taken seriously anymore recently but anyone who - at that age - has such a consistent output of charming, entertaining and intelligent films deserves nothing but the utmost respect. Not without any reason does Roger Ebert call him a treasure. As soon as he will stop making films (let's hope not that soon), the loss will be deeply felt. His films are the most beautiful celebrations of life, love and art - and "Midnight in Paris" is another prime example.

8/10

Night and the City: Marion Cotillard, Owen Wilson

Michael (Austria 2011)

Since German is my native language, reviews to German language films are in German.

"Michael" ist ein stinknormaler, unauffälliger Mann mittleren Alters. Er lebt zusammen mit dem 10jährigen Wolfgang in einem biederen Reihenhaus am Rande von Wien. Sie sehen sich "Herr der Ringe" im Fernsehen an, bauen Puzzles zusammen und schmücken gemeinsam den Weihnachtsbaum. Alles wenig aufregend - wäre da nicht die Tatsache dass Michael nicht der Vater von Wolfgang ist...

Michael könnte natürlich auch Wolfgang heissen und Wolfgang auch Natascha. Doch nicht nur aufgrund der Anspielungen auf den Fall Kampusch ist "Michael" ein typisch österreichischer Film. Einer aus jenem "Genre" welches hierzulande gerne als Sozialporno beschimpft wird während es im Ausland aufgrund der realistischen, reduzierten Schilderung von Alltagsmomenten und der Bereitschaft, kontroverse Themen anzugehen, hohe Wertschätzung erhält. Das Regiedebüt von Casting-Director Markus Schleinzer hat es gar auf Anhieb in den prestigeträchtigen Wettbewerb von Cannes geschafft. Niemand geringerer als Michael Haneke hat seinen ehemaligen Mitarbeiter zum Schreiben des Drehbuchs ermuntert. Die Parallelen zum Mentor sind auch nicht von der Hand zu weisen, zu dessen Meisterschaft fehlt aber dann doch noch einiges.

Dies trifft vor allem auf die Inszenierung und die psychologische Tiefe zu. Auch die Dialoge und Situationen im Film sind nicht immer glaubwürdig - etwa wenn die Kellnerin im Skiurlaub ausgerechnet am schüchternen und wenig attraktiven Michael Gefallen findet. Dennoch ist "Michael" ein beachtenswerter Film. Vor allem da der Täter nicht lediglich als Psychopath dargestellt wird sondern als pädophil veranlagter Durchschnittsbürger. Michael Fuith ist dabei die Idealbesetzung - seine mutige Darstellung trägt den Film. Trotz der mangelnden Sympathie wird sich der eine oder andere Kinobesucher in der quälenden Einsamkeit seiner Figur wieder finden und sich mit seinen eigenen unerfüllten Sehnsüchten konfrontiert sehen. In der Beziehung zwischen Opfer und Täter wird das Alltägliche betont. Wie es zu der Entführung gekommen ist, erfahren wir nicht und auch der sexuelle Missbrauch wird nur angedeutet. Überhaupt spielt sich vieles im Kopf des Zusehers was den Film aber nur noch beklemmender macht. Die langen Einstellungen, die monotonen Situationen, die statische Kamera und die harten Schnitte tragen ihren Teil dazu bei dass der Film für einen alles andere als unterhaltsamen Kinoabend sorgt.

"Michael" ist ein verstörender Film, der unbequeme Fragen stellt und mehr ist als nur das Porträt eines Pädophilen. Der Täter wird - sieht man von seinen Neigungen ab - als Mensch wie du und ich entlarvt. Seine aufgestaute Frustration macht deutlich dass wir alle zwar eine Zeit lang mit Lügen und verdrängten Gefühlen leben können. Früher oder später aber müssen wir uns ihnen stellen...

7/10

Familienausflug: David Rauchenberger, Michael Fuith   

Deliverance (USA 1972)

During the opening credits of John Boorman's "Deliverance", the film's main characters, four middle-aged businessmen from the city, talk about the rafting trip they are planning on a river that is soon to be turned into a lake. Even though only their voices are heard, their anticipation of breaking out from the restraints of their ordinary lives can already be felt. But much like the politicians responsible for the destruction of the natural environment, they don't come in peace. They see the river as their natural opponent and the group's unofficial leader, outdoor fanatic Lewis - Burt Reynolds in his best role - even talks about his intention of "raping" it.

As it turns out, someone else gets raped in the picture in the now infamous scene that inspired a similar one in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". But even for the characters that don't get physically abused, the adventure trip has traumatic consequences. First it is the masculine Lewis who (with his bow and arrow, appropriately) kills one of the attackers, the kind of creepy hillbillies that by now have become a cliché in hundreds of horror films. But soon even his more sensible friends are forced to kill too in order to survive. What is remarkable is that there is no clear line between victims and perpetrators. And while the survivors get away with their crime, they pay for it with their conscience. The fatalistic ending is typical for the New Hollywood era, that unique period in American cinema when directors were allowed to break rules.

In a film not short of spectacular scenes, the most memorable one is rather simple. The banjo duel at the beginning of the film between Ronny Cox's character and a weird looking local kid who happens to be a gifted musician. This scene has deservedly entered film history and the young actor who plays the mentally challenged kid gives you the chills every time he reappears in the film. But the real best supporting actor here is mother nature. Several stunning locations in Georgia and South Carolina served as the perfect backdrop for the film. Like the characters, nature is presented in a rather complex way: beautiful yet at the same time rugged and potentially threatening. The conflict between civilization and nature and between the urban and rural population has been the subject of many other films but "Deliverance", despite all its sensationalism, remains one of the best and most disturbing ones.

8/10

Human Nature: Burt Reynolds in "Deliverance"

Les émotifs anonymes (France 2010)

Most film lovers are anonymous romantics. They are usually not the most extroverted people so they go to the cinema to experience the emotions they are missing in real life because they are too afraid of getting in contact with other people. Often those film lovers are also nostalgic people who crave for the good old times when everything was a little simpler (and when cinema had its boom time). 

Hence many audience members will be able to relate to the two main characters in "Les émotifs anonymes". Both of them are shy and suppress the feelings they discover for each other. Both of them live in the past and are unwilling to adapt to modern life. Their mutual passion is chocolate, the kind of hand-made chocolate you don't find in modern supermarkets. The predictable story of the film is an old-fashioned fairy tale but as so often with these kind of films it remains very watchable because of its charm. The retro decors and costumes are nicely done and the chocolates make one's mouth watery. The emotions are mostly lacking though. The two lead actors don't have a lot of chemistry and the beginning of their love affair is aptly awkward. For a film that wants to advocate a more tender approach to love than the one we have become accustomed to, they also end up in bed very quickly.
 
Nevertheless "Les émotifs anonymes" is a harmless film. Quite ordinary and in a way representative of the current Euro arthouse mediocrity but one that - for the reasons mentioned above - I find difficult not to like.

7/10

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach