TO SAVE AND PROJECT AT MOMA 

To Save and Project was a retrospective for the 12th MoMa International Festival of Film Preservation. October 24–November 22, 2014

The retrospective presented a diverse selection of newly restored films from across the world. The films ranged from early silent movies to films from the 1980s, and depicted a multitude of genres from comedy, documentary, drama, and thriller. Here are two reviews of films I went to see. 

Chaplin Restored, Essanay and Mutual Classics

The screenings were hosted by Serge Broomberg (Founder of Lobster Films in Paris), who not only presented the pictures, but also played the piano during the films. It didn’t take long for this event to become much more than just an ordinary screening.

At first, Serge Broomberg introduced elements of Charlie Chaplin’s early life: He was born in London in 1889 from a very poor family. His parents had been in the performance industry, both music hall entertainers. Charlie and his bother Sydney performed at an early age. At age seventeen, Charlie did comedy sketch, and developed popular burlesque pieces for Casey’s Circus. Meanwhile, his brother had joined Fred Karno’s prestigious comedy company in 1906. He managed to introduce Charlie to the company, and the latter became an immediate hit. Consequently, in 1908, Charlie Chaplin was selected to join the company that toured North America’s vaudeville circuit through Karno. This lead to his introduction to the world of film in America. He was hired by Keystone Studios where he learnt the process of filmmaking. Broomberg showed us an extract from Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) where Chaplin made his first appearance on screen as the iconic “tramp.”

Later that year, Charlie joined the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company (captured in the title of the event) in which Chaplin made 65 short films from 1914-18. We were able to see three of those: The Bank (1915), A Night in the Show (1915), and Easy Streets (1917). Chaplin formed his own stock company of regular players within Essanay, and was able to take control over his films. Before showing us The Bank (1915), Broomberg exposed us to several rushes of footage restored and found throughout the world. We were able to contemplate the difference between the graininess of the film found in Russia and the scratches on the film found in Italy. This almost became an educational exercise, teaching us to watch films actively and to treat such films as historical rare gems.

Furthermore, Broomberg also mentioned Max Linder as a key influence figure on Charlie Chaplin. The difference between Linder and Chaplin was that Linder was famous for impersonating a wealthy neat man, instead of Charlie’s “tramp.” However, their comedic body gestures were very similar. This was proved to us when Broomberg screened: Rencontre Max Linder/Chaplin (1917), in which both actors appear in a Jules and Jim fashion, overly courteous while greeting one another, and then humorously climbing into a taxi. Linder introduced the mumming birds concept (a representation of the music hall performance, as viewed by a “stage audience”) which was then carried through by Chaplin in A Night in the Show (1915). In fact, Broomberg informs us that the film was censured by Pathé (for whom Linder worked) when it was first made, because it was the exact replica of a film also called A Night in the Show from 1908 starring Max Linder. Chaplin changed some aspects and was able to re-release the film. We were not only fortunate to watch the 1915 version but the original Linder 1908 version as a surprise screening.

Events like To Save and Project are not only exceptional for the quality of the film that we see, but also to bear witness to a dialogue that goes beyond the film. Where else would one discover the similarities between Max Linder and Chaplin, or be exposed to the hard work it takes to re-constitute a film that we are so comfortably sitting down watching? This was a unique experience, largely due to Serge Broomberg, who not only demonstrated his dedication to his work, but also shared his most extended knowledge of what we were about to see. 

Miles of Smiles, and The Family Secret

I went to the second screenings of Miles of Smiles (Alfred J.Gouldings, 1923) and The Family Secret (William A.Seiter, 1924), therefore I unfortunately missed out on the introduction by Ted Griffin, William A. Seiter’s grandson in the previous screening.

Miles of Smiles (Alfred J.Gouldings, 1923) is a short film starring “Baby Peggy” (Diana Serra Cary), one of the three major American child stars of the Hollywood silent movie era (including Jacquie Coogan, and Baby Marie). She is also the star of The Family Secret which was screened in addition to the former. Both deal with the difference of youth representation in the high class versus the working-class of the mid-twenties. Baby Peggy is cast in both the roles of the upper class little girl as well as the working-class girl, who finds refuge and comfort in alleyways and streets, reminding us of Jacquie Coogan in The Kid. Both films were screened with live piano accompaniment beautifully played by Ben Model (one of the nation’s leading silent film accompanists).

Miles of Smiles is the story of twins (both played by Baby Peggy) who are separated as they were still toddlers. The separation scene is humorous however dramatic this may sound, as the twins are first seen in a play pen in a garden, and one of them manages to escape by stepping over one of the bars. She crawls all the way to a miniature railroad (that once ringed Venice, California) where she is saved by the train driver. He takes her under his wing, feeds and dresses her (once more, very much like Chaplin who becomes the adoptive father of the “kid”).

The scene fades out and Baby Peggy is now a five years old little girl who takes command of the train and bosses her adoptive father around. We can’t help but feel amused at the confidence and maturity of such a young little girl. As many silent movies often do, the film takes many unexpected comedic turns, in a Parent Trap (David Swift, 1961) sort of structure. The twins find themselves reunited by accident. The denouement is a parade of chases, and confusions. The title card specifies that one of the twins thinks the other is a ghost, “Is that me or a ghost?” Once more, an unusually witty way for a little girl to be thinking. The final scene celebrates their reuniting at last! Both giggle with their mom and dad; a happy ending considering the childhood separation that the twins had to endure. 

The Family Secret (William A.Seiter, 1924) is an adaptation of the children’s book by Burnett (The Little Princess, The Secret Garden). It has a similar melodramatic undertone as well as a similar class segregation from Miles of Smiles. However the overall sense is a lot more traumatic, and suspenseful (a common way of life in Burnett’s tales).

The feature presents an upper-class woman, Margaret Selfridges, who secretly marries the love of her life – Gary, an accountant. Her parents discover her secret relationship and are appalled by the news. They forbid her from seeing him, and chase Margaret away to the countryside with one of the servants, where she can rest and hopefully forget about Gary.

During this time, Margaret gives birth to a little girl (no other than Baby Peggy, well not yet, it takes another time lapse to get to her), and returns to her parent’s home. She was expecting her parents to be thrilled at the sight of their grandchild, but once more they are horrified. They send Margaret off to her room. The tragic sight of the unwanted infant it heartbreaking. However, this is only the beginning of this heartbreaking tale. Gary breaks in to her bedroom to attempt to meet the infant. The father overhears the break-in, and reports him to the police. He is chased away and sentenced to prison. However, Margaret’s father hides the truth from his daughter. He disguises the situation by telling her that her long lost husband is too much of a coward to return to her.

Baby Peggy is now six years old, a year older than in Miles of Smiles. She is brought up mostly by her strict nanny, reminding us of an orphan-like childhood. Like “Annie,” She often speaks of her father coming back to live with them. This causes her mother a great deal of grief, and she lingers in a deep depression. She stays in most days with a nurse at her bedside, who forbids her to see her daughter for fear of upsetting her.

No matter how disobedient Baby Peggy sets out out to be, her cheekiness is difficult to resist, and even her grandparents develop a liking in her, as well as their servants who are very much fond of her. Her mother adores Peggy, but she doesn’t seem to have the strength to take care of her.

 
This tragedy takes an unexpected turn when Margaret pushes her father away after he attempts to hug her goodnight, “I can’t believe in your love after you drove Gary away.” He begins to feel guilty and realizes how much he has hurt his daughter who is still desperately in-love.

Nevertheless, the story is far from being resolved. Baby Peggy manages to escape to play with some children on the streets. They decide to exchange clothing and innocently help themselves to fruit stalls. They get caught by a merchant who takes them in for a good beating. However, Peggy manages to escape. The Selfridges find out she’s gone missing and they inform the police.

Gary (who has recently been released from prison) happens to find her and brings her to the police station. He doesn’t recognize her since he’s only met her as an infant. She falls asleep on him in the waiting room, and the police chases him away thinking he might be a pervert. The tension rises as we are expecting to see Margaret coming in at any moment, finding not only her daughter but also beloved husband. We have reached our most climatic tragic peak: he leaves just as Margaret enters the police station. It isn’t for another few scenes that we they will finally once more reunite, and the family lives happily ever after – to our great relief. 

The films were not only a nurturing experience for the heart and sole, but it’s always with great interest and pleasure that one (re)discovers early films made by cult directors during retrospectives as such. The Family Secret was an early feature made by William A.Seiter, who then went on to master the art of character comedy on screen. He was best known for his features such as Sons of the Desert (1933), and the musical Roberta(1935), with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Additionally, Miles of Smiles was an early short by Alfred J.Gouldings, former vaudevillian, who made mostly comedy shorts. He got involved with Harold Lloyd and Hal Roach, directing most of their films.

In addition to this, one can’t help but reflect on the positive effect that Comedy has during these tragic silent movies. The absence of synchronized sound encourages a more exaggerated acting technique which is very efficient while staging children. For example, In Miles of Smiles and The Family Secret, the innocence of little Peggy is what keeps us going. Although we are aware of her miming being somewhat hyperbolic, she still remains a six year old child who incarnates a pure and fragile Youth. Charlie Chaplin’s burlesque performance has a similar effect: his films would be incredibly depressing if it weren’t for his tricks, and comical body language. Moreover, his performance balances out the satire and emphasizes the tragedy of his fate.

TOP 5 FILMS OF 2014 (SO FAR)

Boyhood is an ingenious celebration of life. The concept is innovative (shooting over a period of twelve years, to capture the genuine growth of the actors), and the close portrayal of the family truly authentic. The script felt real, almost borderline documentary, and it was impossible not to identify with the characters as well as the events in their lives.

In fact, I’m not the best physiognomist when it comes to recognizing actors, and I found myself wondering where I had previously seen Mason (Ella Coltrane) for example. It so happened that I had never seen him in a movie, but he reminded me of a friend who like Mason, goes to art school. There is no doubt here that Linklater’s challenging casting plans were a great success! 

The truth is, Mason’s character isn’t the one that stood out for me the most, but the overall chemistry of the family and the talented performances: Patricia Arquette plays the mother, Ethan Hawk plays the free-spirited father, and Lorelei Linklater is the daughter. The movie should really be called Motherhood. 

Lastly, the film is particularly effective because it establishes an honest portrayal of life -- without omitting the negative impact it may have on us, thus resulting in a faithful ode to life.

Chef, Jon Favreau

It is so refreshing to list an independent comedy as one of my favorite movies of the year. In 2013, we had nothing but sequels: Grown Ups 2 (dreadful), Despicable Me 2 (not bad, although the first one was better), Anchorman 2 (disgraceful)…

In Chef, Jon Favreau (writer, director and main actor of Chef) skilfully adapts chef Roy Choi’s story (the latter oversaw all of the menus and food prepared for the film – could the food look any more delicious?). The result was a delightful modern coming of age road movie about a chef who is desperately trying to fulfill his passion: cooking for others, without having to worry about the pressure of working from someone else’s menu. He drives a food truck cross-country (with his son and sous-chef), and becomes famous due to his excellent cooking skills as well as social networking (with the help of his son, who introduces him to the world of Twitter and Facebook). 

Having worked in the service industry for years, one can’t help but chuckle in recognition at the realistic crude language in the kitchens and, the playful yet serious cooking teamwork. Most importantly, Favreau’s exceptional performance successfully portrays the life of  a chef who tries his absolute hardest to please his customers, as well as his family life while remaining fully dedicated to his work. For people who don’t appreciate food as much as I do, the film is worth watching for Robert Downey Jr’s hilarious appearance. He plays Favreau’s wife’s wacky ex-boyfriend, who donates an old food truck to Favreau. And let us not forget the parade of friendly faces: Dustin Hoffman, Scarlet Johansson, John Leguizamo, Sofia Vergara… 

Chef is a true gem with a bittersweet Little Miss Sunshine (2006, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris) touch – but let’s replace the KFC bucket with gourmet appetizing images of El Jefe’s rediscovered love for Cuban Cuisine – the thought of it makes my mouth water again!

Birdman, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

It would be near impossible for me not to include Birdman for its cinematic jazziness as well as it’s phenomenal script. The film is shot in one take, simulated by time lapse and clever editing technique, giving a whole new dimension to single location films. I have never seen anything like it (Russian Ark perhaps, in a Broadway theatre rather than the epic Russian State Hermitage Museum). 

The plot is flawless: Hollywood actor (Michael Keaton’s comeback!), known for his superhero role “Birdman,” attempts to prove to the critics and fans that he can also perform on stage, by performing a play on Broadway. His family gives him grief, as well as the press. Birdman  is a true actor’s midlife crisis, struggling for pride and post-peak career recognition. Keaton is surrounded by outstanding cast: Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, and many more. 

The film (a drama at first sight) becomes a dark-humoured clever satire where even the stars make fun of themselves. The Broadway theatre is a No Exit playground, where all performances excels themselves: Naomi Watts, “Why don’t I have any self respect!?” Andrea Riseborough, “You’re an actress hunny.” The end was particularly striking, as it was divided into two major components: the death of Keaton on stage as well as the death of Birdman at the hospital. Inarritu could of ended on a tragic note, by having Keaton die on stage, but this would have been cliché of a Greek tragedy. Although Keaton was at the peak of his performance on stage, Inarritu doesn’t let him go that easily. Instead, he uses an extra layer of poetry (which had already been resonating throughout the film) in his grand finale at the hospital (I won’t spoil the end for those of you who haven’t seen it yet).

Nightcrawler, Dan Gilroy

A groundbreaking performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, creepy as ever, and disturbing to say the least. The film progresses through the power of suspense keeping us going and leading us to play devil’s advocate. This is all due to Gyllenhaal’s character but also the finely written script: a tormented genius, who quotes marketing strategies day and night, trying his hardest to break into the TV news industry. The term “nightcrawler” is a great find, unsettling as ever. 

The film also convincingly portrays the corrupt backstage world of TV Production, always looking for the next alarming crude images to provoke and shock a hungry audience. Nightcrawler is difficult to praise without sounding a tad bit psychotic, but worth every second for it’s real-time car chases, it’s everlasting gradual suspense, and a heavy critic of the TV industry. The film is timeless, and looks like it could have been shot ten years ago due to the grain on the obscure pictures.

Gone Girl, David Fincher

Gone Girl has by far been one of the films I discussed the most with friends as well as Fincher fans due to the spot-on job of cast as well as the incredible twists of the plot. Even now, I still remain haunted by Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck’s performances. Gone Girls is unique as it is really two films in one. Fincher’s characters have no set boundaries. We are drawn to them in such a way that the movie deviates slightly from a Film Noir to a psychological drama: it’s no longer cinematographically driven but character driven. Fincher provokes his audience by giving an extensive emphasis on the twist of the plot rather than taking us through a traditional linear narrative. I still hold my breath as I reminisce certain parts of the film. When the film ended, there were no sudden moves or shouts to be heard in the theatre; only gasps and sighs of disbelief. We remained awe stricken, haunted with intrigue and fascination – a similar emotion to what I felt during Nightcrawler.

My overall impression of my top five so far is a positive one. 2014 has proven to be a year where comedies, dramas and crime movies can all be received successfully together. I could have easily continued the list which is something that I would have been far from doing in 2013 (The Wolf of Wall Street, Captain Phillips, 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity were all “big names” but all too commercial to earn my outermost respect. I found potential in Her, which sadly didn’t do as well).

The 2014 films mostly deal with outstanding performances, and in depth character retrospectives. There is an large emphasis on male protagonists: Michael Keaton in Birdman, Jake Gyllenhal in Nightcrawler, Ben Affleck in Gone Girl, John Favreau in Chef, Ella Coltrane in Boyhood. However all remain very different. This could indeed lead to a misogynistic reflection on the part of modern male directors. However, let us not forget the role Patricia Arquette played in Boyhood: a crucial role which founded the others, and the iconic femme fatale, Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl. I am curious to see who will win the Oscars for Best Actor Award, and I have no doubt that it will be one of the actors listed above. The films I chose, also deal mostly with functional and dysfunctional family portraits, which I found touching in a “coming of age” form as well as realistic modern portrayal of life and the impact of the bad economy. Last year, the films were more provocative like American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street, or concerned about events in the past Captain Phillips, 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club or fiction, Her and Gravity… 

It’s relieving to have finally come to our senses and deal with the day to day issues, critic and satire of the modern world.

DAVID FINCHER: LA VIE EN NOIR

Gone Girl is without a doubt an innovative modern Film Noir with a unique David Fincher touch.

I couldn’t remember the last time I had been to a mainstream movie theatre, where the carpeting is coated with sticky soda and the odor of stale popcorn permeates the air. The line for the tickets was never-ending. Gone Girl was sold out twice, I went to the 10:30 pm screening instead of the one I was aiming for at 8:30 pm. I (wisely) chose to return half an hour before the show, hoping to find a seat. Three escalators and several corridors later I arrived at the “balcony” area of Theatre number four. I stood in a line once more. People grew impatient. I noticed someone trying to get his friends to cut in line with him, but there was zero tolerance among the angry mob. A fight almost broke out, “Your friends should wait at the back like everyone else,” a tall college guy said, holding his large coke in one hand and girlfriend in the other, to which the other guys replied, “You can go ahead of me if you don’t want them to cut in front of you.” The discussion went on endlessly for a few minutes, until the line started moving, and everyone headed towards the theatre in a rapid military fashion. There were at least one hundred of us up there (I looked down and saw twice as many seats in the main theatre space). Coats, hats, and scarves were placed to save seats for those yet to come. I settled for one seat left, settled between two couples.  The couple on my left had a great big bucket of popcorn, the young man would plunge his mouth into the bucket instead of reaching in with his hand. This was a lot more entertaining to watch than the endless previews for TV shows, Iphone Apps, M&Ms… We were blessed with three movie trailers, and then Gone Girl with no introduction, suddenly began just after a faint fade out.

The room grew silent instantly. Not a peep was heard, even from the popcorn munchers. David Fincher was casting his dark spell. I remember how I felt after watching Fight Club, and Se7en for the first time. I was a teenager then, and never felt quite the same again after. His mystery twists remained with me forever. Little did I know that Gone Girl would be his lengthiest and darkest twist yet.

Paul Schrader defines Film Noir as “subtle qualities of tone and mood” in his Notes on Film Noir. For this, Schrader reminds us of Film Noir as a means of representing darkness through highly stylized visual esthetics. This is flagrant in Gone Girl through the multiple usages of crane shots, or slow travelling camera-movements. The shaky handheld filmic look is never once used. Schrader writes, “we move cinematographically,” as opposed to with the characters. Indeed, the film progresses with a constant fluid rhythm, also due to the atmospheric music byTrent Reznor (loyal Fincher composer for Se7en, The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and Atticus Ross (also composed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Social Network) as opposed to a spoken soundtrack. There is a muted color palate, no excessive bright colors are to be seen. This is emblematic in the first kissing scene, when Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) kisses his wife to be in the alleyway. They are surrounded by floating powdered sugar. Amy’s (Rosamund Pike) face becomes pale from the sugar, and Nick prints two fingers on her lips, before kissing them. At first sight, the powdered sugar creates a poetic and enchanting vision. However, there is a serious tone behind everything in Film Noir. The paleness of the powered sugar brings out a corpse-like expression. In fact, the tone is similar to her corpse which we see floating in the water. Once more, an allusion to Film Noir and the Freudian fascination for water. 

Film Noir was highly used in the 1940s and 50s to portray a world of “dark, slick, city streets crime and corruption.” Most of these actions took place at night. David Fincher redefines the noir tone by spreading it across the whole film, day and night. He respects Schrader’s noir hero, who “survives by the day,” by skillfully playing with the “complex chronological order.” The film indicates precise date and time from the very beginning. We are informed right away of Amy and Nick’s fifth wedding anniversary. Titles throughout the film divide and explain the exact chronology of past, present and future.

Fincher provokes his audience by giving an extensive emphasis on the twist of the plot rather than taking us through a traditional linear narrative. Gone Girls is really two films in one. Fincher masters his audience by forcing us to explore two sides of the story through his character’s point of views. I was never convinced by Ben Affleck’s performance, although I did appreciate the effort he put into Argo. I felt the same with the casting choice of Neil Patrick Harris, for the stereotypes associated with his usual comical roles in How I Met Your Mother, and Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. Fincher knew better. He knew Ben Affleck’s character couldn’t make the “murderer” cut, and indeed he was perfect for the role of the generic, constant, yet vulnerable hero. His character mentions it himself when being interviewed by the media, “I am not a murderer, but I am far from being perfect.” The choice of Neil Patrick Harris turns out to be more than effective as we can’t help but feel a hint of pity for his character. In a way, his character is Barney Stinson (from How I met your Mother) with a twist, as if he were hopelessly in love and punished for being so – nothing close to being a laughing matter. Rosamund Pike is convincing as ever, with or without makeup, psychopath or lucid.  

David Fincher strikes again, with a spot-on job of cast. His characters have no set boundaries. We are drawn to the characters in such a way that the movie deviates slightly from the noir theory to a psychological drama: it’s no longer cinematographically driven but character driven. Yet the noir is undeniably omnipresent in other ways until the very end of the film. For instance, the looped first and last scenes with Ben Affleck’s voice over, “I wish I could break my wife’s skull,” embodies the everlasting noir mood: What is she really thinking? She could strike at any time, but we will never know when and how.  By repeating that scene David Fincher leads us to a false interpretation of the characters. Initially the scene suggests that Ben Affls intentions are dangerous. However the second time around, at the end of the film, we are aware of the context of the plot, and know who the real psycho killer is out among the two.

The film ends abruptly. No sudden moves or shouts are to be heard; only gasps and sighs of disbelief.  The viewer remains awe stricken, haunted with intrigue and fascination.