Saturday Matinee: Snowy Bing Bongs Across the North Star Combat Zone

Posted on by
Reply

By Nico Chapin 

Source: The Knockturnal

“Snowy Bing Bongs Across the North Star Combat Zone” is the kind of film words cannot possibly describe.

Not because it’s bad, or because there’s nothing to say, but doing so feels inadequate. It’s a film that is simultaneously overflowing with ingenuity and talent that is constantly teetering dangerously close to the maligned qualities of what we might call twee, and yet that is only half of it.

But, you should also know, none of this is a surprise. Or at least it shouldn’t be. After all, Snowy Bing Bongs was produced by duo the Daniels, whose 2016 film Swiss Army Man suffered under a similar weight. As it turns out, most people have the same reaction when faced with a film where a (possibly) deranged Paul Dano befriends the flatulent corpse of Daniel Radcliffe and proceeds to stalk Mary Elizabeth Winstead. That reaction is somewhere between visceral disgust, complete bewilderment, and utter joy, both that a film would so willingly forego what we might call “narrative coherence” and that it would so lovingly embrace the entire scope of what movies can do.

Here, directors Alex Huston Fischer and Rachel Walter, along with collaborators Cocoon Central Dance Team (Tallie Medel, Sunita Mani, and Eleanore Pienta), similarly drop the audience into a bizarre and wondrous world. Like Swiss Army Man, which opens with the Dano’s character on track to hang himself, the first scenes of Snowy Bing Bongs are marked by their sheer confidence. The three women, dressed in rugs, like some sort of Paleolithic sheep, face off against a squad of beach balls, dancing slowly. Suddenly they’re sunbathing, before farting in unison.

Fischer and Walter leap from style to style with reckless abandon, and yet the film never spirals out of control. The interludes return us to the attack of the Beach Balls and the three women’s carefully bizarre dance. In between, we see Mani attend an audition in which she spends the whole time trying to pronounce her own name. (The casting director? Keith Poulson, marking his second acting credit this summer.) Pienta is pulled into a potential romance with an old man who informs her she’s the kindest person in the world, so kind in fact that she has two hearts. Medel delivers a backstage monologue that puts anything Iñárritu did in Birdman to shame.

There’s also a stop motion sequence, a montage through an asteroid belt, and a fourth wall breaking denouement in which the lights come up and the Bing Bongs hold a Q&A with an audience, and even Spice Girls-esque dance musical performance.

Yet even if this rapid description of the films plot doesn’t make narrative or logical sense, they make an aesthetic, emotional sense onscreen. Each of the women’s vignettes feels ripped from a real experience. Like Swiss Army Man, which used its over the top style to dig into the complex emotional realities of how we deal with our inner selves and with the rest of the world, here we have a constellation of stories all of which expose Medel, Mani, and Pienta (literally and figuratively) to the audience, three actresses and improv vets whose experiences are given voice in the most absurd way possible. Snowy Bing Bongs says it’s ok to fart, and to stage interpretive dance battles against beach balls. But it also touches on the embarrassment of messing up your own name, or having a weird interaction with a neighbor, or struggling to understand why you want to be an actor. It takes the smallest moments in day to day life and blows them up into immersive tableaus, warts and all. 

So yes, Snowy Bing Bongs is “weird,” or “immature,” in quotation marks, like stumbling on a stranger’s sketchbook brought to life. Yes, many people will probably not like it, and its cuteness and kitchen sink style make easy targets for criticism. And yet.

Snowy Bing Bongs is also upsettingly funny and weirdly stirring. At the very least, it’s a bravado experiment in how two directors, with total control over tone, can set genres against each other and revel in the inevitable sparks. The result is the rare film with an unabashedly, uncynical wonder for the possibilities of cinema, something that needs to be seen to be believed.

Watch Snowy Bing Bongs Across the North Star Combat Zone on Kanopy here: https://www.kanopy.com/en/kcls/video/16712261

Saturday Matinee: Sherlock Jr.

Posted on by
Reply

By André Crous

Source: Cinemuse Film Society

Sherlock Jr. is a film that uses every trick in the book to produce electrifying moments of comedy that can still thrill audiences today. It is also a shrewd representation of the place of film in our lives.

The poster shows Buster Keaton as a detective and as a beloved (projectionist). The credits merely list him in his parenthetical capacity, and in fact this occupation embraces the central part of the film, which takes the audience on a journey full of twists and turns that is very clearly related to the first part of the story.

Keaton, the man with the expressionless face who manages to find himself in extraordinary situations, stars as a guy who wants to be a detective as much as he wants to marry the Girl, but when he is framed by another suitor in the matter of a lost pocket watch, and his detective skills fail him, he dreams up a scenario in which he is the ultimate sleuth. This part of the film is presented in a way that excites by means of its presentation and its content.

This medium-length film is interesting on many levels, and while the action transcends mere slapstick (it is not repetitive and does not have any condescension for the film’s characters), Keaton’s conception of the film’s biggest stunts makes for remarkable commentary on the perspective of the viewer. Consider the following movements:

1) During a film screening in a big theatre, with a large audience watching, Keaton approaches the big screen and walks into the film. He subsequently appears in different scenes as the film cuts from one location to the next, and Keaton has to keep up with objects that appear out of nowhere.

2) In this film-within-a-film, Keaton follows some undesirables to their hide-out. He puts a rounded suitcase with a costume inside on the outside of the window, and when he escapes from the house by jumping through the window, he is instantly covered by this costume, and the criminals don’t recognise him. This particular scene is further enhanced by a cut-away image (produced by means of a kind of double exposure, a gimmick Keaton also uses to great effect in his 1928 film, The Cameraman) when the inside of the house can be seen “through the walls”. Technically, it must have been quite a job, but the final effect is breathtaking.

There are many other instances of such trickery, and in spite of (occasionally) less than perfect editing to disguise the manner in which they were done, the products are unexpected and work very well. Two other moments specifically target the perspective of the viewer:

1) When Keaton has already “entered” the screen, the camera dollies closer and closer, until the screen fills the frame, so that any subsequent scenes or cuts would appear like any other film and we forget that we are watching a film that is also being watched by the film’s audience. In this way, the second-level film becomes just as real or just as fake as the first-level film.

2) When Keaton wakes up from his dream and looks through the window of his projectionist’s booth towards the screen, his face is framed by a very clear border, similar to the image he himself is looking at: the framed image of the film in the theatre.

While Keaton doesn’t approach his subject with the same complexity as Woody Allen in The Purple Rose of Cairo, it remains a very entertaining film that touches on some important aspects of film reception. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton does not behave at all like a child, but rather like a very lucky average Joe, and since his technical skills enable a very entertaining telling of his story, he is by far the more serious director. In Sherlock Jr. he manages to craft a film that, while clearly not meant to be a feature-length idea, has enormous potential to entertain.

—

Country USA

Released 1924

Director(s) Buster Keaton

Screenwriter(s) Jean Havez, Joseph A. Mitchell

Directors of Photography Clyde Bruckman, Elgin Lessley, Byron Houck

Running Time 44 minutes

Saturday Matinee: Persona

Posted on by
Reply

By Roger Ebert

Source: RogerEbert.com

At first the screen is black. Then, very slowly, an area of dark gray transforms itself into blinding white. This is light projected through film onto the screen, the first basic principle of the movies. The light flickers and jumps around, finally resolving itself into a crude cartoon of a fat lady.

Then the pace picks up. There are shots of cops in old cars, maybe the Keystone Kops. There is a flicker of a tramp; maybe it was Chaplin. There is some footage from an old horror movie, and now there is a sound track too. We hear creepy music. Then some other shots, harder to place.

All this takes several minutes, before the titles for Ingmar Bergman’s “Persona” finally appear on the screen. Apparently Bergman intends his film to begin with the invention of the “moving picture” and then to work its way forward in time to the present moment. He is establishing “Persona” as a definite episode in the history of the movies.

Most movies try to seduce us into forgetting we’re “only” watching a movie. But Bergman keeps reminding us his story isn’t “real.” At a crucial moment in his plot the film seemingly breaks, and after it rips for a dozen frames it seems to catch fire within the projector. We see it melting on the screen. Then blackness, then light and then the old silent comedies again, as “Persona” starts again at the beginning.

Near the end of the film, there is even a transition made by cutting from one of the actresses to a shot of the camera crew. Light men, camera operators, script girls and Bergman himself look at us dispassionately. Then the on-screen camera turns, and in its view finder we see what will be the next scene. We have been brutally reminded that the story is being filtered through technical equipment.

Bergman’s preoccupation with illusion and reality seems to be tied into the plot of “Persona,” which involves a neurotic actress (Liv Ullmann) and her nurse (Bibi Andersson). The actress stopped speaking one night in the middle of a performance and hasn’t said a word since. The nurse’s duty is to try to win her confidence during a summer of seclusion in the country.

As the two women grow intimate, a strange exchange of personalities seems to occur. “No, no I’m not you,” the nurse cries, “I’m myself.” The actress doesn’t reply to this or anything else, and the nurse is driven to desperate means in an attempt to get through to her. Who is she? Who is anybody? What is real?

This is a difficult, frustrating film, seeming at times to have more in common with the “personal cinema” of Jean-Luc Godard than with Bergman’s usual cool control. The director keeps reminding us that he’s right there, creating his film before our eyes. And the distance between his presence and the story he tells is like the distance between what the actress is and what she reveals. The nurse is maddened by the unspeaking actress in the same sense that the audience is frustrated by the movie: Both stubbornly refuse to be conventional and to respond as we expect.

Saturday Matinee: Sane Man

Posted on by
3

Dangerous

By Jeffrey M. Anderson

Source: Combustible Celluloid

Bill Hicks (1961-1994) was the original punk stand-up comic. Other comics were poets or performance artists — or, in the case of Hicks’ pal Sam Kinison, heavy metal rock stars — but Hicks took the stage with a pointed wrath that made him unique and worth remembering. Infuriated by pop culture, politics and the industrial age in particular, as well as people’s indifference to same, Hicks raged with a brutally potent humor. His routine about Jimi Hendrix and Debbie Gibson could easily be updated to Britney Spears or the “American Idol” crew, and his beef with President Bush I (1988-1992) could easily be applied to Bush II. Even a story about taking drugs turns into a discourse about legalization. Unfortunately, Hicks’ career never rose much above a small cult following and he died of cancer in his prime. But like James Dean and Sid Vicious, he continues to fascinate fans, and his star continues to rise. Maybe someday, people will listen.