Armond White just wrote a great, enthusiastic review of this one.
I wondered if anyone has seen this yet--or, for that matter, Hernandez's previous film, A Thousand Clouds of Peace. With a concentration of formal and aesthetic innovations, he sounds like a particularly fascinating director to watch, even in the already crowded field of new Mexican cinema.
Broken Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2006)
-
tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:18 pm
Then be wary of its quality...John Cope wrote:Armond White just wrote a great, enthusiastic review of this one.
-
Don Lope de Aguirre
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:39 pm
- Location: London
I'm going to see this on Tuesday 3rd October at NFT...It sounds very intriguing. The majority of reviews I have found (and they have been very hard to come by) have been pretty negative. The general gist is that Senor Hernandez has a lot of technical ability but makes 'boring' films... I have a feeling it'll either be absolutely awful or brilliant, nothing in between. If it is crap there's supposed to be a lot of nudity as consolation...
I found some promo pics here
I found some promo pics here
-
Don Lope de Aguirre
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:39 pm
- Location: London
I am not familiar with Armond White's criticism but having just read his review I am left wondering if we watched the same film... 
Chosen at random:
Having just seen the film, I think that Hernandez (like Reygadas) is a very talented young film maker but he is also his own worst enemy. So here are some ramblings:
1) I will be the first to admit that I have a real weakness for the extended take (I adore Angelopoulos, Jancso, Tarr and so on). So when I start getting irritated because Hernandez used 'clever' shot after 'clever' shot you know there must be a problem! It is not enough to show intelligence for its own sake, it must be part of what you are actually doing. This is what those great directors get right and Hernandez misses...
2) It is commendable to see a film of this length using so little dialogue but why undermine this by adding a cheesy voiceover which often only articulates what you've just seen??
3) At best he has 90 minutes worth of material (if that!), why he stretches this to 140 odd minutes is beyond me.
4) Hernandez's depiction of homosexuals is truly puzzling. His film talks of love (and its associated traits) and yet the only way the characters show their emotions is either by trying to swallow each others heads or by having sex. #-o
I really wanted to like this film and I really hope that Hernandez goes on to bigger and better things but ultimately this film will be put on the 'Gay Interest' shelf and that, in my book, is what all films with homosexual characters should be striving to avoid.
I'd be interested to see what this forum's Michael makes of this film and my comments...
Chosen at random:
What rubbish! That was one of the really crass moments!Gerardo's boldest venture takes place in a sex club, scored to Dvorak's opera Rusalka. It's so powerfully emotive that even Wong Kar Wai might envy its grandeur and irony.
Having just seen the film, I think that Hernandez (like Reygadas) is a very talented young film maker but he is also his own worst enemy. So here are some ramblings:
1) I will be the first to admit that I have a real weakness for the extended take (I adore Angelopoulos, Jancso, Tarr and so on). So when I start getting irritated because Hernandez used 'clever' shot after 'clever' shot you know there must be a problem! It is not enough to show intelligence for its own sake, it must be part of what you are actually doing. This is what those great directors get right and Hernandez misses...
2) It is commendable to see a film of this length using so little dialogue but why undermine this by adding a cheesy voiceover which often only articulates what you've just seen??
3) At best he has 90 minutes worth of material (if that!), why he stretches this to 140 odd minutes is beyond me.
4) Hernandez's depiction of homosexuals is truly puzzling. His film talks of love (and its associated traits) and yet the only way the characters show their emotions is either by trying to swallow each others heads or by having sex. #-o
I really wanted to like this film and I really hope that Hernandez goes on to bigger and better things but ultimately this film will be put on the 'Gay Interest' shelf and that, in my book, is what all films with homosexual characters should be striving to avoid.
I'd be interested to see what this forum's Michael makes of this film and my comments...
-
tavernier
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 11:18 pm
Welcome to the wild and wacky world of Armond White!Don Lope de Aguirre wrote:I am not familiar with Armond White's criticism but having just read his review I am left wondering if we watched the same film...
Chosen at random:
What rubbish! That was one of the really crass moments!Gerardo's boldest venture takes place in a sex club, scored to Dvorak's opera Rusalka. It's so powerfully emotive that even Wong Kar Wai might envy its grandeur and irony.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Finally got around to seeing this today and was really pretty awestruck by it. It's not perfect, it might be a tad unwieldy, but it is certainly one of the finest films of this year.
As mentioned above, this is not a particulalrly difficult or complicated narrative; the complications are nuanced and emerge from Hernandez's glorious formal rigor, his adherence to a visionary aesthetic. This aesthetic, of course, is not completely without precedent and viewers will recognize elements of Antonioni's supreme attentiveness to line and the prominent emotional dynamic of architecture. There is also more than a hint of Wong induced euphoria (Happy Together can't help but come to mind). Still, the fusion of these elements and their deployment is Hernandez's own and he stakes out unique turf.
The principle virtue of this filmmaking is the aforementioned attention to form. Those familiar with my tastes know I live for the integration of content and presentation, an accomplishment which is rarely the foregrounded focal point of intent as it is here. Hernandez's complete aesthetic is breathtakingly vivid and unified. There is coherence and wholeness to the camera movement, framing, cutting, et al. These choices, and the fixation on other aesthetic elements such as music and color, never came across to me once as gimmicky or self-conscious. But I guess that's a line you draw for yourself as a viewer. What are you willing to accept? I, for one, felt as though I was witness to an intuitive technique drawn directly from an uninhibited source. Hernandez displays complete mastery of his chosen style. The light and tactile textures enhance and emphasize physicality to an almost unbearable degree. Everything is set in relief against and unseen background.
As to Aguirre's other points: the film is long and sometimes does feel that way but I suspect that the longueurs are very intentional and point to a precise structural methodology. That's why those who write this off as pure sentimental emotivism are wrong; Hernandez is well aware of the intellectual demands of good cinema and does not deprive us. The structure is one of rhythmic repetition, and I don't mean just in the standard sense of scenes getting replayed. There is clearly an effort being made here to give this small story wider resonance and implication--that's why it shouldn't be shelved under "Gay Interest", though I'm sure it will be. The impact of all we see and absorb is palpable, and palpably human.
I will admit that I do find the voice over somewhat problematic. I just can't get a handle on what was meant. It wouldn't be so troubling if it weren't so inconsistent in tone. At first, I assumed it was being used as an ironic counterpoint as what is conveyed is so banal and so obvious. It felt like a social anthropologist's idea of poetry, in which metaphor is reduced to drive and response. Later, however, the voice over becomes quite affecting and does act as a viable complement to the proceedings, an additional layer of surface textuality if you will. The interplay between the images on screen and the words enrich one another as they should. For the first half, though, the whole device only conveys the limits of active description.
BTW, for those interested, there is a ten minute promo reel version of the film included on the DVD which will give you an idea as to how this material would have played in shorter form as opposed to the nearly two and a half hours we get here. I think the short is solid enough, though clearly rough around the edges in ways the film never is, but I certainly prefer the long version. Despite, or because of, its seemingly protracted nature it has the ability to expand the canvas and illustrate how small personal dramas of little cosmic consequence have corollaries everywhere; how micro cycles reflect each other's essence and compose the fabric or totality of our entire existence.
As mentioned above, this is not a particulalrly difficult or complicated narrative; the complications are nuanced and emerge from Hernandez's glorious formal rigor, his adherence to a visionary aesthetic. This aesthetic, of course, is not completely without precedent and viewers will recognize elements of Antonioni's supreme attentiveness to line and the prominent emotional dynamic of architecture. There is also more than a hint of Wong induced euphoria (Happy Together can't help but come to mind). Still, the fusion of these elements and their deployment is Hernandez's own and he stakes out unique turf.
The principle virtue of this filmmaking is the aforementioned attention to form. Those familiar with my tastes know I live for the integration of content and presentation, an accomplishment which is rarely the foregrounded focal point of intent as it is here. Hernandez's complete aesthetic is breathtakingly vivid and unified. There is coherence and wholeness to the camera movement, framing, cutting, et al. These choices, and the fixation on other aesthetic elements such as music and color, never came across to me once as gimmicky or self-conscious. But I guess that's a line you draw for yourself as a viewer. What are you willing to accept? I, for one, felt as though I was witness to an intuitive technique drawn directly from an uninhibited source. Hernandez displays complete mastery of his chosen style. The light and tactile textures enhance and emphasize physicality to an almost unbearable degree. Everything is set in relief against and unseen background.
As to Aguirre's other points: the film is long and sometimes does feel that way but I suspect that the longueurs are very intentional and point to a precise structural methodology. That's why those who write this off as pure sentimental emotivism are wrong; Hernandez is well aware of the intellectual demands of good cinema and does not deprive us. The structure is one of rhythmic repetition, and I don't mean just in the standard sense of scenes getting replayed. There is clearly an effort being made here to give this small story wider resonance and implication--that's why it shouldn't be shelved under "Gay Interest", though I'm sure it will be. The impact of all we see and absorb is palpable, and palpably human.
I will admit that I do find the voice over somewhat problematic. I just can't get a handle on what was meant. It wouldn't be so troubling if it weren't so inconsistent in tone. At first, I assumed it was being used as an ironic counterpoint as what is conveyed is so banal and so obvious. It felt like a social anthropologist's idea of poetry, in which metaphor is reduced to drive and response. Later, however, the voice over becomes quite affecting and does act as a viable complement to the proceedings, an additional layer of surface textuality if you will. The interplay between the images on screen and the words enrich one another as they should. For the first half, though, the whole device only conveys the limits of active description.
BTW, for those interested, there is a ten minute promo reel version of the film included on the DVD which will give you an idea as to how this material would have played in shorter form as opposed to the nearly two and a half hours we get here. I think the short is solid enough, though clearly rough around the edges in ways the film never is, but I certainly prefer the long version. Despite, or because of, its seemingly protracted nature it has the ability to expand the canvas and illustrate how small personal dramas of little cosmic consequence have corollaries everywhere; how micro cycles reflect each other's essence and compose the fabric or totality of our entire existence.
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:30 am
"Trying to swallow each others heads or by having sex" is an associated trait.Hernandez's depiction of homosexuals is truly puzzling. His film talks of love (and its associated traits) and yet the only way the characters show their emotions is either by trying to swallow each others heads or by having sex
Lovely film.
-
Don Lope de Aguirre
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:39 pm
- Location: London
David Ehrenstein, I never said it wasn't an associated trait...
Look, I'm being hard on Hernandez simply because I think he is massively talented. (Funding allowing) I expect and hope for big things to come from him (no pun intended given the context).
I look forward to seeing the DVD which, I believe, is out today!
Look, I'm being hard on Hernandez simply because I think he is massively talented. (Funding allowing) I expect and hope for big things to come from him (no pun intended given the context).
I look forward to seeing the DVD which, I believe, is out today!
-
David Ehrenstein
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:30 am