I think I'd like to see The Hunger, (I thought it was a different movie--The Hidden (1987), but when I realized it wasn't, I was able to discover the correct name of that second movie, which I'd seen), and a couple of others as well.
I enjoyed everything I saw at this marathon with the possible exception of Trouble Every Day and even then I didn't hate it, I didn't want my money or my hour and a half back, I just have trouble seeing what it's doing beyond the obvious because the obvious does not seem very illuminating of the setup.
What's The Hidden?
With Trouble Every Day, what about the possibility that it's just not a very well-conceived film?
It's always possible! I've certainly seen well-produced, well-acted movies fall apart thematically. This one just doesn't feel like that, which is why I think it keeps itching at me: it feels like the writer-director had an idea of how it all went together and what it meant to itself, it just wasn't readily accessible to me. I don't know if it would have been easier to parse if I had ever seen anything else by Claire Denis. I don't tend to wonder that about movies that visibly had no clue.
(I considered whether I am giving the film too much benefit of the doubt just because someone at the archive liked it enough to program it for a marathon, but I don't think so. There was that year the entire marathon was late-career Joan Crawford. They program a lot of things I am fine with not liking.)
I like the idea of an actor named "Galaxy Craze," and the high-contrast tending-to-pixilation cinematography in Nadja sounds visual intriguing.
Galaxy Craze, whoever she is, was great. That whole cast was solid: it could have fallen to bits if any of the actors broke the tone and none of them did. I could have dialed back the Pixelvision a little—there were a few scenes it obscured rather than enhanced for me—but on the whole it worked for me. Najda was the film I had heard least about going in and possibly the film I came out having enjoyed the most. It was a strong lineup; it's a tough call.
no subject
I enjoyed everything I saw at this marathon with the possible exception of Trouble Every Day and even then I didn't hate it, I didn't want my money or my hour and a half back, I just have trouble seeing what it's doing beyond the obvious because the obvious does not seem very illuminating of the setup.
What's The Hidden?
With Trouble Every Day, what about the possibility that it's just not a very well-conceived film?
It's always possible! I've certainly seen well-produced, well-acted movies fall apart thematically. This one just doesn't feel like that, which is why I think it keeps itching at me: it feels like the writer-director had an idea of how it all went together and what it meant to itself, it just wasn't readily accessible to me. I don't know if it would have been easier to parse if I had ever seen anything else by Claire Denis. I don't tend to wonder that about movies that visibly had no clue.
(I considered whether I am giving the film too much benefit of the doubt just because someone at the archive liked it enough to program it for a marathon, but I don't think so. There was that year the entire marathon was late-career Joan Crawford. They program a lot of things I am fine with not liking.)
I like the idea of an actor named "Galaxy Craze," and the high-contrast tending-to-pixilation cinematography in Nadja sounds visual intriguing.
Galaxy Craze, whoever she is, was great. That whole cast was solid: it could have fallen to bits if any of the actors broke the tone and none of them did. I could have dialed back the Pixelvision a little—there were a few scenes it obscured rather than enhanced for me—but on the whole it worked for me. Najda was the film I had heard least about going in and possibly the film I came out having enjoyed the most. It was a strong lineup; it's a tough call.
All in all, sounds like it was a good marathon!
It was!