9-10-2004
Dear filmmakers attending TIFF,
If you'd like to irritate and almost enrage festival audiences while in
Toronto, you should do what French director Lucile Hadzihalilovic did
at the conclusion of her long, confusing, meandering, overly symbolic
and entirely unclear film, Innocence, today. When someone at the
Q&A after your film casually stands up and asks you to please explain
the numerous weird and seemingly unrelated images (my wording, not his)
in your self-perceived masterpiece (again, my words), just respond
defensively and say that you're not going to explain anything. That
people should come up with their own interpretations. And do so in a
kind of condescending way that suggests the subtext of what you're
saying is, "Insolent imbecile! If you're too stupid to understand my
meaningful symbolism and visual metaphors, then too bad for you!"
Innocence was my first film today, and it's all of the above
things. The story is about a super-bizarre "school" for young girls
(they seemed to range from about five years old to maybe twelve)
somewhere in a remote French forest where they always dress all in
white, learn ballet and make sure to take good care of their legs. Why?
Who knows. It's not explained. The girls all arrive, semi-naked, when
they're very young and they are carried into the premises in coffins
(I'm not kidding). Why? Who knows. It's not explained. The girls are
divided into groups and live in five houses, where they are tended to
by an elderly house warden. Why? Who knows. It's not explained. The
newly arrived girls are told (by the older, content and quite happy
girls) that their families will never come for them. Why? Who knows.
It's not explained.
And then things get really strange.
The girls are taught about nature and how every living thing has
evolved from the same organism. They take more ballet classes. They swim
and play dressed in only their underwear. The two teachers at the
school both seem very sad and almost fearful of the headmistress, who
arrives once a year to "choose" a girl. For what? And why? Who knows.
It's never explained.
Other things that aren't explained: who's the guy with the syringe in
the one scene? What about the old man (woman?) who watches the girls
play in another scene? Why do the girls leave notes in the ivy of the
mammoth wall that surrounds their wooded enclave? Who reads the notes?
Anybody? What does the school really do? How did the girls get there?
Where are their families? Who are the people who run the school? Why do
the girls perform ballet recitals for an audience filled with people
wearing bags on their heads? Where do they go once they leave???
And it just goes on and on and on. Truly, if any film ever SCREAMED OUT
for some kind of explanation or context, it's this one. Maybe I'm not
sophisticated enough to get it. Maybe I missed the point of the film
entirely. I have no idea, but I do know that the guy who stood
up and asked the director to offer her thoughts was mightily peeved
that she blew him off. And, based on the number of frustrated filmgoers
exiting the theater, I can safely say he's not alone. (People were
IRATE, I tell you!) I haven't seen an audience this dissatisfied since
the folks who booed Abel Ferrara several years ago.
PINK POODLES ON PARADE!!! I interrupt this diary entry to say that
MAGGIE CHEUNG IS BEING INTERVIEWED ON MY TELEVISION RIGHT NOW!!!! (I
have placed that bulletin in caps and added an excessive number of
exclamation points so as to demonstrate just how important it is. To
Moviepie's Linda, I mean. So there you have it. ;-)) Mayhaps Maggie
will show up at the screening of Clean, which I'm seeing
tomorrow afternoon. I will try to hug her for you, Linda. If I am
subsequently detained by security, know that I will point the finger of
blame your way.
Back to my report.
Thankfully, due to the late hour and my increasingly heavy eyelids, my
second (and final) film of the day was fairly unremarkable, so I don't
have a whole lot to say about it. The film was Cool, a drama
from the Netherlands about five disaffected teen criminals who are sent
to reform school after they rob a bank. The movie was meh. The seat I
was in was uncomfortable and the tall guy sitting in front of me (in
the low-rake ROM theater) kept shifting back and forth, forcing me to
constantly adjust my view. And I was getting really sleepy. I was glad
when it was over.
GOOD GOLLY ON A POPSICLE STICK!!!! I interrupt this diary entry AGAIN
to say that the delightful Zooey Deschanel is on my television right
now!!! She's in town with her boyfriend, Jason Schwartzman, who's
co-starring in I ♥ Huckabees. (OMG, look how cute that heart
is!)
Anyway, and that was day two.
Tomorrow I'm seeing Crash, the much-hyped Paul Haggis movie
starring Sandra Bullock. Do you know what that means? That means I
might actually SEE Sandra Bullock tomorrow. We might be in the same
theater together. There might even be a Q&A afterwards. Eeep!
I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep tonight.
Hee!
Roger Ebert Sightings: Zip.
Celebrity Sightings: E! News Live reporter Jodi Moss (sp?) filing a
report from outside the Four Seasons Hotel. Roswell alum Shiri
Appleby looking like she just got out of the shower or the pool (damp
hair).
Line Buzz: Yikes. Person after person crapping all over a film called
Tropical Malady, which (obviously) many people had the misfortune
of seeing this morning.
