Interview with THE GOAT’s Andrew Neel

September 24th, 2016 by Patrick

Interview with THE GOAT’s Andrew Neel

by Kyle Cubr


Kyle Cubr: Where did the idea to make Goat come from?

Andrew Neel: The memoir (Goat) was written in the early 2000’s and then David Gordon Green wrote the first draft of the script. Christine Vachon and David Hinojosa actually brought me the script in the summer of 2014. I read it, and it felt like an opportunity to me to make a version of Lord of the Flies in a frat house. It seemed very interesting to me.

KC: What filmmakers have influenced your work?

AN: Werner Herzog, Lars Von Trier, Fritz Lang. I’m drawing a blank right now but there are many.

KC: Were you in a fraternity in college?

AN: No, I wasn’t. I went to boarding school though. I was in a house with forty men, well, forty teenagers which is even worse. I’d seen hazing before. I don’t think there’s a man alive in the world that grew up around other men that hasn’t seen some kind of hazing of one sort or another. I also played hockey and lacrosse. Organized athletics have a lot of the same kind of behavior that goes on.

KC: How do you feel about hazing in college fraternities?

AN: I think it’s horrible. I don’t think that people should be tortured. I think that’s what’s portaryed in the film is a very extreme version of the process, but it’s not one that I would say is uncommon, if I had to guess. I think when people are regularly breaking the Geneva Convention on college campuses, someone should do something about it. Some people may be able to just brush that experience off and move on with their life. There’s some people, like the main character (Brad) in our film, that can be really damaged by hazing. If people are dying, it goes without saying that it shouldn’t be happening.

KC: Brotherhood is a strong theme in GOAT, both literally and figuratively, what makes Brad and Brett’s relationship so central to the overall movie?

AN: I think there’s literal brotherhood and then there’s constructed brotherhood which is the frat. Eventually their relationship as brothers allows both of them to understand that what they’re going through is destructive and unhealthy.

KC: What was it like working with Chewie (the actual goat) on set?

AN: He was a really easy going goat. He was pretty chill when all the stuff was going on around him. He didn’t really react. He didn’t seem to get freaked out that easily even when there was a lot of noise and commotion going on around him. He took it pretty well.

KC: Did he have a stand in?

AN: No. It was just Chewie by himself. Basically all he wanted to do was eat the grain that his animal wrangler had. They put him in a harness that you see in the movie to move him around. He was just easy to work with.

KC: If you were trapped on a desert island and could only watch three movies for the rest of your life, what would they be and why?

AN: Whoa, that’s tough. I guess I would need a variety of experiences to watch. Okay, I would go with THE GRAND ILLUSION, FITZCARRALDO, and AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD. Wait, I don’t want to do Herzog’s. Let’s say ALIEN. No, fuck it, BLADE RUNNER. So, THE GRAND ILLUSION, FITZCARRALDO, and BLADE RUNNER. One’s uplifting, one’s insane, and one’s a cool sci-fi.

KC: What’s next for you, Andrew?

AN: I’m working on a couple things. I got a pilot with FX based on a previous film I made called KING KELLY. I’m developing a fictional remake of a documentary I made called DARKON which is the first film I ever made and was what I was known for before I made GOAT. I also have a couple other TV shows that I’m pitching in addition to writing a script called ZOLA for James Franco to direct too.

Interview with DON’T THINK TWICE Director Mike Birbiglia

July 29th, 2016 by Patrick

Interview with DON’T THINK TWICE Director Mike Birbiglia

By Cine-File’s Kyle Cubr and‘s Pat McDonald

Pat McDonald: You showed the spectrum of show business ambition within the comedy group dynamic in the film. From where you stand now, which level of ambition intrigues you the most?

Mike Birbiglia: When I watch the film I’m most drawn to Sam’s character, who wants to have integrity and wants it to be about the group. But I also clearly have the ambition of Jack, because making a feature film is a pretty ambitious undertaking. [laughs] I will say what I aspire to is a consistency in making films, to direct something every couple of years.

PM: Would you then say that each of the improv group characters contain a bit of your personality at different levels?

MB: Yes. I always think in terms of I write about my experiences or what I’ve observed or heard about. Not all of it is me, but there are definite parts in all of the characters.

Kyle Cubr: Given the nature of your stand-up act, how do your prioritize drama over comedy in your film?

MB: I was a screenwriting major in college, and really wanted to do that after I graduated, but there are no job listings for that, as we all know. I had many classmates that made it in the business, but stand-up comedy was my way in, and my first film ‘Sleepwalk with Me’ was based on those autobiographical experiences. I thought if I could do stand-up comedy well enough, I could parlay it back into films – like Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen did. They merged principles of comedy and drama together, and that’s what my first film really was, a stab at that kind of comedy. When I made ‘Sleepwalk with Me,’ many people asked me if was a novelty thing, a one-off. But this is the goal, I’m just hitting it 12 years after I thought I would.

PM: Creating the alternate universe ‘Saturday Night Live’ seemed like a lot of fun. What did you want to say about this 40 year old dynamic that had been percolating for a lot of years?

MB: Interesting that you ask that question. I actually love ‘Saturday Night Live,’ like a sports fan watches their favorite team to see how they’re doing. I know the players and the writers, I’ve known several people on that show for a number of years. In the film, the fictional ‘SNL’ is the brass ring for the comedy group. It symbolizes a singular sort of success. In our culture right now, I want to take on this notion of what a singular success means. We think success is one thing, but it’s actually a spectrum of where our life takes us. I’ve experienced that in my life. In my twenties, I thought it was getting a sitcom. Then I got a sitcom pilot in my early thirties, and realized I didn’t want it. It was a rude awakening. When it wasn’t picked up, I was crushed, but then in retrospect I’ve made two films and produced three one-man shows since then. It’s the luckiest thing that happened in my life.

KC: What do you think the film has to say about getting what you want, success-wise, or just making it?

MB: Similar to my previous answer, I think our culture views success as visibility, being seen as being successful. Whereas I’ve learned that success is rooted in helping and connecting to other people, and knowing where you can contribute. I’ve kind of spent my thirties doing that, because in my twenties I was seeking any kind of success. I figured out in my thirties it was about ‘what can I contribute’? And what I figured out about that is creating something from scratch, and connecting it to people. What I write is emotionally honest and truthful as the human experience can be, to make people feel less alone, or at least that’s the hope. At a certain point I realized that all I have to give is myself, and it took me awhile to realize that.

PM: What do you believe was the funniest moment that came out of improvisation in the final result of the picture?

MB: When Gillian Jacobs said the ‘last drop of blood is the sweetest nectar,’ which was just one of the weirdest and most perverse moment in context, and it was completely improvised. I thought, she hadn’t even trained in improvisation and she was as good as anyone. Gillian is brilliant, and it was Lena Dunham that recommended her. I didn’t see her in the part, but Lena told me that Gillian can do anything. It turned out to be true. With this film, I believe we’re going to witness the beginnings of movie stardom for Gillian.

KC: One of the major themes of the film is the comedy “team” versus the individual. Do you have to be selfish to be successful in such a dynamic?

MB: You got me! [laughs] Sure. I wrote on my desk wall when I was writing the film…’Art is socialism, but life is capitalism.’ That’s the hard thing in all of it if you expect to make a living. Where art and business intersect is a challenging hurdle for a lot of people, reconciling the fact that not everyone is going to make it in the same way. Yeah, you have to be a little selfish, probably. I’ve been selfish over the years, and other people who have made it have too, but I can only speak for myself.

PM: When you were stuck on something having to do with this film, and thinking like having a ‘What would Jesus do’? type bracelet, what would be your go-to, as in ‘What would _______ do?’

MB: Elia Kazan. He wrote my favorite book about filmmaking, ‘Elia Kazan: On Directing.’ There is a thing in the book that I do every time, it’s part of my production structure. He said when you’re hiring an actor, ask them what draws them to the project, and don’t lead them to the answer. I have this habit of asking ‘why do you want to do it?’ and then interrupting them to say, ‘here’s why you want to do it.’ [laughs] Because it’s in the ‘yes…and’ spirit [rule of improvisation]. You want them to want to do it for the reasons you want them to do it. But you can’t lead them to it. It goes for everyone on the set…cinematographers up to editors.

KC: You showcased the improvisation method of stage comedy in the film. What do you think of that type of work versus writing sketch comedy?

MB: All techniques of comedy are valid and interesting to me. When I was in college my improvisation troupe and I did a road trip to Chicago, and went to The Second City to see the classic ‘Paradigm Lost’ revue – with Tina Fey, Rachel Dratch, Scott Adsit and Kevin Dorff. It blew my mind, and proved to me you can do sketch comedy like you’re doing ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night.’ We could treat it like theater. I also saw Steven Wright do stand-up comedy when I was 16 years old. It flipped my brain upside down. With improv, Uptight Citizen’s Brigade in New York City is doing amazing things. It’s so hard for me to answer your question without saying, all of these things are great…when they are great. Inversely, they are terrible when they’re terrible. [laughs]

PM: What do you think the disconnect is between what is funny to you, and what is funny to the audience, and how does a working comedian close that gap?

MB: I struggled with that notion early in my career. ‘I know this is funny but nobody is laughing.’ This thought occurred for years. [laughs] I have a bit in my show ‘My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend’ about the amusement park ride called The Scrambler. It was when I was in seventh grade, and I was at the fair with a girl, I thought maybe I would have my first kiss while on that ride. We were ‘scrambling’ but I knew I was going to throw up. I kept saying ‘please stop the ride,’ and we went around again, ‘please stop the ride.’ I told a friend that story when I was 24 years old. He told me I had to tell it on stage. At that time, I wasn’t the comedian that I became. I couldn’t pull it off on stage at the time, but it became the centerpiece theme of ‘My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend’ nine years later. I think sometimes you don’t understand how to convey an idea, depending on the moment you’re living in.

KC: You told a Q&A audience that there is a difference in being clever, versus speaking from heart. How much of ‘Don’t Think Twice’ do you think is both clever and speaking from the heart?

MB: I think it’s all heart, and I think the cleverness is inadvertent. It is six clever people who I booked, that have opened up their hearts. You get the cleverness by default, I think.

PM: You are having a dinner party with four other comedians or even comic actor/directors, living or dead. Who are they and why do you want to have dinner with them?

MB: Okay, first would be [stand-up comedian] Maria Bamford, because she is entirely unique, hilarious and creative, empathetic and sweet. Mitch Hedberg, because I think he is one of the great comedians of the past 20 years. Also Lenny Bruce, so he could explain to me what happened. [laughs] And finally Richard Pryor, for similar reasons, to explain what he spawned.

KC: What do you hope the film says to aspiring filmmakers and comedians?

MB: Stop. You can’t do any better. [laughs] Seriously, it is similar to what I said in the Q&A last night, which was it’s all you have to give of yourself. It takes so long to figure that out, and you can’t teach it, because it’s something that everyone has to learn individually. There are so many people who are clever. There are 8000 people at Princeton who are more clever than the three of us at this table. BUT, we have the ability to give something that they don’t have…which is us.

PM: You mentioned ‘yes…and’ as one of the famous rules of improvisation. What are some of the other rules?

MB: Why I still do it, even though I’ve never made a dime doing it, [laughs] is that I get out of my head. You get out of your head. I love that.

[Charna Halpern, co-founder of iO Chicago, walks into the interview]

MB: Charna, what do you think is the most important thing about improvisation other than ‘yes…and’?

Charna Halpern: The way it makes better people.

Birbiglia: YES!

CH: We get people to take care of each other. Del [Close, co-founder] and I created ‘theater of the hurt,’ where we get people to take care of each other on stage. When you do that, it comes off the stage, you’re just better to everyone in the community.

MB: That’s exactly right, Charna. I’m stealing that answer.


Interview with TICKLED Co-Director David Farrier

June 24th, 2016 by Patrick

Interview with TICKLED Co-Director David Farrier

by Kyle Cubr


Kyle Cubr – Last Saturday, you guys had a screening out in LA. [Co-director] Dylan Reeve was accosted out in the lobby and one of the film’s subjects showed up during the Q&A. What did you think about all of that?

David Farrier – We wondered whether something like this would happen but not to this scale. We had a situation were two of the central characters in the film turned up to our screening very publicly in the middle of the audience. They confronted us. At the very end of the Q&A session, one of the central figures in the story essentially said that the legal action wasn’t over and to expect more. It was full on. I was in New York and watching the live stream of the whole thing. I was talking with Dylan on the phone as the film was on because he knew that they were there. We discussed how to approach it, what was going to happen, and what to expect. I was very far removed but also there.

KC – You guys use some guerrilla filmmaking techniques to try to make it not so obvious that you’re recording people. Did these cause any other unforeseen consequences?

DF – No, not really. We’re being super careful about what we put in this film. Obviously this company is incredibly litigious. So as far as what we release to the public, we’re going to be incredibly careful that everything is legal and fine. I’m incredibly satisfied with what’s in the film and that we went about things in the correct way. I was very paranoid about this whole thing because the last thing I want to do is slip up. I’m happy, but they’re not very happy about being in the film at all. We kind of expected some pushback there.

KC – How did you stumble upon the competitive tickling videos in the first place?

DF – I was a light entertainment reporter and I’ve been doing that for years. Friends of mine would often just try to out-weird me with things they’d find when they’d send me story ideas. My friend a link to Jane O’Brien Media and I opened it. It was this tickling competition. It sounded wild because there was a lot of money behind it and it was happening in L.A. New Zealanders were being flown to take part in these tickling contests. It’s a twelve hour flight; it’s expensive. They were all being paid for, $1500 cash minimum for tickling. I thought it was crazy, so in the film, I reached out to them for an interview. Immediately I got this homophobic response which is weird because the videos were homoerotic. I think anyone watching them would agree. My mum would watch them and say, “Oh, yeah. That is a bit gay.” All of that was very weird to me, so I started publishing a blog for my news organization with all these emails that were coming back and forth just showing I said this then this happened, etc… Then I heard from this attorney in New York saying to stop or face the consequences. That’s were I thought there’s more going on than just tickling. This happened very quickly from finding it to shooting it was less than a month. It was pretty uncanny.

KC – How long was the whole filming process?

DF – From finding it to finishing the film and then having it at Sundance was around two years. We funded it with a Kickstarter and that let us go to America to get a lot of our research and initial shooting done. We came back to New Zealand and we got some more money from the New Zealand government. We went back to the U.S. and shot a lot more.

KC – What was your relationship with Dylan like prior to the project?

DF – It was pretty loose. We weren’t good friends. We knew each other but had only met one time before. We were just friends on Facebook and Twitter. I don’t know if it’s like that in America. In New Zealand, you’ll meet someone once then friend them online and then get to know them from a distance. I had taken a screen grab of that first strange reply from Jane O’Brien Media and put it on my Facebook. He thought this is weird. He has a great curious brain. Immediately he started asking, “Who is Jane O’Brien? What is this website?” Pretty quickly he found out that there was this link between Jane O’Brien and a shitload of other websites that all had to do with tickling. Obviously, they were a tickle obsessed company. He got legal letters as well, so we bonded over that attack on us. I invited him out for pizza at my house and said that we should do a Kickstarter to make a film about this thing because it seems to be a bigger story. People have enjoyed reading our blogs and we’re curious about it, so why not try to make a documentary about it?

KC – How many legal notices were sent to you during the process?

DF – I don’t have a number and I’m not going to even guess because there’s ongoing legal action. There were enough to make us concerned at the time. They were coming from lots of different parties. For instance, it’s not in the film, but we we dealt with a DCMA claim when we posted a video for the Kickstarter. We countered that saying that it was fine. Once you do that, it’s a legal contract that they can take against you, and that was a threat. It wasn’t like it was one   source. We were getting letters, e-mails, and YouTube stuff. There were a lot of notices.

KC – How do you think your journalism background prepared you to make TICKLED?

DF – I think it was helpful. I had a plan going, and Dylan did too, on we could achieve the results we got. Back in New Zealand, I work with the current affairs journalists, and we get along really well. From a distance, I’ll be doing my silly story about Justin Bieber and they’d be doing a story on trying to get someone freed from prison or doing secret filming of a meeting. I was really inspired by all that. I had a good idea in my head of what to achieve and how I could achieve it.

KC – I noticed during the credits that you selected a lot of songs by Shane Carruth for the score. Why did you decide to go with that aesthetic?

DF – I’m a huge fan of his films. I saw PRIMER and got obsessed with it like anyone that knows Shane. UPSTREAM COLOR is one of my favorite films, and I have loved the soundtrack which is his music. When Simon Coldrick was cutting this thing, he selected some music that he liked, and I selected some music that I liked. I thought, tonally, that it was bang on because it was slightly playful but also very sinister which fitted in with certain bits of the film. We used that music and then we approached Shane when it came to that time to license music. We showed him the film and he said you can use it.

KC – I found there to be a little bit of a parallel with UPSTREAM COLOR were everyone has their identity stripped from them and then thrust back into reality.

DF – It’s funny you say that because I’m probably like you. I’m obsessed with that film. I don’t know why but I get very emotional watching it. I find it deeply resonating. It’s like watching a bit of art. You can’t explain why it’s doing the things to you that it is. It’s about taking over power and control which is exactly what TICKLED is about. I think I naturally associated the two. Maybe Shane saw some of those parallels as well. I’m really proud of that music being in there. It makes me happy. If these leads people to UPSTREAM COLOR then that’s great.

KC – What do you think TICKLED has to say about online anonymity and even bullying to a larger extent?

DF – I think it has a lot to say. It’s called TICKLED, but it’s not about tickling. Tickling becomes very secondary to the whole thing, but it could be about any fetish. It is about someone who has a lot of money, power, and control. Tickling as a visual metaphor is great because you have someone who has complete power over someone else; you physically have someone tied down without power and someone tickling them. That theme built right out into the online bullying aspect and the area that this film ends up going to. I hope that people will walk away being more cautious about the internet because some people act like they’ve seen it all and that they’re not going to be tricked by anything. I think that it’s still very possible to be tricked by the internet. Hopefully people will think about the larger power structure as it is in the Western world and especially in America. If you’re Donald Trump and you have a lot of money, you can just sue people and it will shut them up.

KC – Building from that topic, how does the film sound off about economic disparity?

DF – Dylan and I saw something that we thought was not right. A film seemed to be a way that we could put it right or at least expose something that was happening. The way that people without a lot of resources were being treated by a company that had seemingly endless resources was really disturbing to us. I’m glad you bring that up because if we don’t highlight this stuff, then it’s just going to keep happening. I’m not saying our film is going to change the world, but it’s another example of how messed up things are at the moment.

KC – Did you learn anything about yourself during filming that surprised you?

DF – I never imagined that I would make a documentary that seems to resonate with people. I think that everyone identifies with certain aspects of it: we’re all on the internet, we’re all part of that world now. I think that this is a story that’s such an extreme version of what can go wrong that everyone takes it to heart. I’m really proud of that. You learn more about yourself everyday. Dylan and I are pleased that we both proceeded with it because there were times where we both wanted to walk away from it. I’m glad we didn’t. I learned that it does really help, when you’re making a film and you’re under threat of any kind, if you’ve got someone that you’re in it with. Solidarity is so important. It was valuable to have Dylan with me.

KC – Do you think the owner of Jane O’Brien Media (and his previous company) will face any kind of ramifications for his involvement in these groups besides the two previous misdemeanor charges?

DF – I don’t know, and I can’t talk on it too much. Dylan and I saw a situation that didn’t seem right and we just wanted to put that out there. Where that goes from there is up to the world to sort out.

KC – Is there anything you’d like to say to him if you saw him again, or can you not really comment on it at this time?

DF – I can’t comment. There are things I’d like to say, but I cannot given the current situation.

KC – Have there been any other legal actions taken since the film’s completion?

DF – There were two lawsuits filed, one in Utah and one in Missouri, for defamation. Those have been dismissed and the owner of Jane O’Brien talks about them in the video during what happened in L.A. last Saturday. If you watch the last ten minutes it’s interesting because he talks on that stuff a bit.

KC – Are you ticklish?

DF – I am. I got tickled by Richard (the good tickler) in that tickling chair from the film. Richard’s awesome. He’s been with us in New York, and he turns up to Q&A’s. People like seeing Dylan and I because they want to talk about the film, but then Richard will come in, people lose it. I was tickled just to experience it and as a bit of a joke on his behalf. He said if it’s going to be in our film then he would have to tickle me first. I agreed. Ten minutes and it’s full on. I’m very ticklish and it was awful. I would not rush back. It’s bad man. When you can’t get away from it, it’s nightmarish.

KC – Kinda like when police officers have to be maced or tazed themselves before they’re allowed to carry mace or a taser?

DF – They do don’t they. That gives me the creeps especially the idea of being tazed as well. I’m just a massive wimp basically.

KC – What’s next for you?

DF – I don’t know. I thought that this story was over, but after last Saturday, it seems like it’s going to keep going. We’ll be hearing from Jane O’Brien Media in the future. I’m working on some other documentary ideas that are in the early stages. In my spare time when I’m not thinking about tickling, i’m working on these other ideas. I like to think that my life isn’t going to be completely consumed by tickling until I die. I’m just happy the film is out there. The whole intent of the film was to expose something and now it’s been exposed.

KC – Anything else to add?

DF – I’m pretty happy. I never thought this film would reach as far as the United States. New Zealand is a very small country. We’ve got just over 4 million people and then you get to American cities and there’s one’s that are well over that number. I’m excited to have this reach such a large audience. I would encourage people to see the film before googling about it. After they’ve seen it, try to do their own deep dive, especially into everything that’s happened since because I think that it makes it an interactive, fun experience.


THE INVITATION: Interview with Karyn Kusama and Phil Hay

April 16th, 2016 by Patrick

THE INVITATION: Interview with Karyn Kusama and Phil Hay

By Kyle Cubr

The Invitation is currently playing at the Music Box Theatre. Below is our interview with Director Karyn Kusama and Co-writer Phil Hay.



Kyle Cubr – So you guys worked together about a decade ago on AEON FLUX. How has your previous collaboration contributed to this film?

Karyn Kusama –  Wow that’s a great question. We haven’t been asked that. I think we always clicked creatively. It was always very clear that we listened to one another. Phil has a writing partner who can’t be here with us right now, Matt Manfredi. We all as a team really worked really cohesively together, and I think, if anything, that just reminded us, year after year, when we weren’t working together that we had to get back to that. And so, I feel like it’s a return for us.

Phil Hay – Yeah. I think in that experience too built a lot of trust between the three of us, and felt a real strong sense of artistic connection and then also personal connection. It really did lay a groundwork for a lot of other stuff.

KC – Where did the idea for THE INVITATION come from?

PH – My partner Matt and I were spending a lot of time talking, and this is many years ago. This script, at least the ideas, are at least ten years in the making. We started talking about just the idea of being alienated from someone you love and know deeply and the idea that kind of came from, the first idea we had about it was the idea what if you were married to someone or you loved that person and they disappeared kind of out of nowhere and when they came back, they were a completely different person. How horrifying that would be on an emotional level so we always approached this movie as an emotional thriller, emotional horror story and then we started talking a lot about our own experiences with grief and about what a potent emotion that is and how anyone that comes at you with a supposed answer for that is perhaps suspect because it’s so personal and individual. So we started then developing this idea of a group that was about trying to erase people’s pain and how that might sound great on the surface and how that would be really destructive below it. It was more ideas and then later story came, the vehicle to tell that.

KC – In the opening scene, Will hits a coyote with his car and he puts it out of its misery with a tire iron. The theme of showing mercy to those in pain persists throughout. What would you say the film’s message on mercy and letting go is?

KK – I think mercy and its definition sort of differs from person to person obviously and in the world of the film. But the notion of letting go is a really interesting, thorny issue in the film. Because I think everyone too has different definitions of what letting go means. For some of us, when we’re grieving and in pain, letting go means letting go of the pushing back against that pain. It means integrating that pain into our daily life and accepting that it’s part of daily life. For other people, letting go of the pain might mean imagining a world where you don’t have anymore pain. I have opinions about what’s possible there and which one is the more realistic, workable solution or definition, but that’s sort of the conflict that the movie is exploring. Cause people have very different ideas about what letting go really means.

PH – I think that it’s a good question because though both of those concepts are very gray, very difficult to tell where on the spectrum of letting go or on the spectrum of mercy, different actions are. So that was part of our discussion in making this movie or this story is about, the one thing we can say, that we hope the movie says is that when you start letting other people define those things for you, not yourself, that’s when real bad things can start to happen.

KC – During the first half, Will is constantly framed in soft focus and shot in many closeups. This created a sense of isolation. Was the isolation intentional?

KK – Oh yes, absolutely. I had always imagined a visual scheme that made us feel very close to Will, but also expressed the limitations of his point of view and the sense that perhaps over time as we’re watching him perceive the evening we might wonder if he’s a very reliable interpreter of the night.

KC – Following up on that, there’s scenes were they’re all together and everyone is shot in hard focus. Do you feel that contributes to the paranoia he’s feeling at first as an outsider to some of the new people he’s never met?

KK – What you bring up is something we had to deal with in the making of the film. When do we see the group in a big group shot, all in focus for the most part? When do we see a more neutral depiction of the evening and where is Will in that? We often put Will at the edges of frame as a way to hint to the audience, even on an unconscious level, maybe what’s really happening is he’s just at the edge of this night, not really ever allowing himself to engage, and that’s why his particular point of view feels so limited and maybe paranoid.

PH – In story terms, to add to that, he’s constantly trying to get away, not out of the house but just in the corner where he can be by himself and people are always coming to try to pull him back in wherever he goes. That was also part of both the filmmaking and the storytelling. It was very important.

KC – Will walks around the house constantly. He wants to revisit old rooms and he’s reminded of his son and other incidents that happened. Would you view the house as an analogy for his mind? Where he’s walking from room to room and flooded with the memories of the horrible things that happened in a stream of conscious kind of way.

KK – That’s an interesting idea that the house is like this brainscape for the main character. I like that. I think we also imagined that it’s almost a haunted house. Haunted with a lot bad memories  and paradoxically, haunted with a lot of good memories. Part of the story is watching this character attempt to make peace with both of those things.

PH – The house is such an important entity in the movie, and indeed, I like thinking of it as part of Will’s mind because it is the conduit for him. That’s where he lives. Will is a very interior character. He’s trapped in his own mind and he’s trapped in his own way of seeing things. The house and his mind are both traps for him.

KC – Some parallels can be drawn between the Manson Family and Heaven’s Gate when examining The Invitation group within the film. Were there any other cult’s that you referenced or drew inspiration from when you designed The Invitation?

KK – Sadly there’s so many to choose from. Ultimately, The Invitation stands as its own spiritual system. It’s a combination of legitimate Eastern thought, legitimate New-Age thought, and far more nefarious belief systems out there.

PH – We tried to create something that wasn’t really a reference to any one specific thing, but that kind of pulls different ways that groups pull stuff from a lot of other groups to found exactly there own thing. It’s a lot of different things.

KC – The color red plays predominately at times and often reminded me of SUSPIRIA and THE SHINING, THE SIXTH SENSE more towards the end. What would you say is the most significant factor of red in this movie?

KK – Red is danger, red is alarm, red is bodily harm, red is passion. All of those things figure in to it. I knew, in thinking about the film, that I wanted it to have a pretty distinct color palette so that when and if red makes an appearance, we really feel its impact. It’s interesting that you bring up SUSPIRIA because a lot of the more traditional horror framing that I was interested in came from Dario Argento. That was a real inspiration to me, that artful approach to genre techniques.

KC – What did the freedom control shooting this film as an indie allow for you guys to do?

KK – I think the film speaks for itself. It is what it is. It’s sort of not everyone’s cup of tea, but it exists on its own terms. I embrace its successes, I embrace its failures, but I feel like it belongs to us. I don’t know if I could claim that of certainly every movie. I know I can’t claim that of every movie I’ve made, and I’m certain you agree, Phil. It’s a special privilege and one worth fighting for to keep making movies on your own terms.

PH – That’s been the experience for me too. To have the ability to do what we think is right as a collective and stand behind that no matter what. That’s been fun. The fact that it seems to be reaching people and communicating with people is very gratifying because we consider this a direct communication between us and any one person sitting there watching the movie. This whole thing feels very personal. That’s been really exciting to feel that when you go to a screening and when you talk to people afterwards, I feel so connected with everyone that’s talking to me about this movie which is a great experience.

KC – What’s next for you guys?

PH – Together, Matt and I are writing a script for Karyn right now that we’re almost done with that we want to make together. It’s another independent on a larger scale, but very resolutely an independent. It’s a cop thriller with a twist and female protagonist. We’re really excited about it. We’re trying to get that done soon and look forward to getting that made as soon as we can.

 – Friday, April 8 – Thursday, April 14, 2016

April 8th, 2016 by Patrick


Friday, April 8 - Thursday, April 14, 2016



Deborah Stratman’s THE ILLINOIS PARABLES (New Documentary)
Conversations at the Edge Series at the Gene Siskel Film Center – Thursday, 6pm

When I was in the second semester of my senior year of high school, drenched with that special hyperactive glee that can only come from being a teenager about to change the world through the power of having read very serious books by very dead people, I came across an unhinged and hyperbolic profile in the New York Times of a young writer of prodigious passion, voluminous productivity, and dangerous proclivities. He had embarked, the author of the article said, on a multi-novel project that set out to do nothing less than reconstitute the history of the European conquests in the North American continent, from the Viking settlements to the present day, through myth, autobiographical recreation, vividly poetic deconstruction, and obsessive archival research. The man being discussed was William T. Vollmann, arguably the greatest novelist in America today, and his cycle of books about America, ‘Seven Dreams,’ had its fifth volume published just last summer. As I was watching, and obsessively rewatching, Deborah Stratman’s beautiful new film, THE ILLINOIS PARABLES, I was unavoidably reminded of the gargantuan ambition and microhistorical approach that Vollmann has taken in his series. Stratman’s lyrical documentary takes the form, not of dreams, but of parables, eleven of them, each a loving, sometimes poignant and often terrible, frozen moment from Illinois’ past. A parable, in contrast to a dream, is a tale that encapsulates a spiritual truth, a way through story to teach a difficult lesson about a higher, better way of life, a grander, more virtuous kind of world, and how we might find a way to deserve those. THE ILLINOIS PARABLES is about the land of Illinois as much as it’s about the people who live here. Stratman shows it as a grand, expansive place, a landscape of fecundity and cruelty and catastrophe. Each of the parable-sections of the film offers a miniature meditation on an event from Illinois history, lushly photographed in gorgeous, complex shots combined in mesmerizing patterns. We see a wilderness, a pre-Columbian ruin, a snow-drowned dirt road, a crime scene recreation, a close-up of a painting, of a monument. The lives that once inhabited and once brought life to these images have been expelled: by the force of nature, by the force of racism, by the force of religious bigotry, by the force of greed, by the force of police assassination. Over the dense soundtrack, the sounds of nature form a peculiar and funereal music, punctuated only by the recitations, in voice-over, of unforgiving and blunt first-person narratives culled from our state’s past. The heart of the film for me is parable 9, an exploration of the Macomb Poltergeist, one of the most notorious poltergeist hauntings in American history. In the film, a young girl sits alone in a room. Slowly, a small spot appears on the wallpaper opposite her. It darkens, spreads, begins to glow hot. Small tongues of flame start to lick up out of the growing hole. Stratman cuts to found footage of a house mid-conflagration, moments away from collapsing entirely. The incomprehensible has become the palpable. The ineffable has descended to flesh. But the mystery has only deepened, and the state of emergency, the state of Illinois, is always just about to burst into fire. Stratman, like Vollmann, gives us each moment as a vision of how a place, how a person might have been, and what that possibility can mean to us now as we glacially awaken from our long nightmares into an incandescent present. Stratman in person. (2016, 60 min, 16mm) KB

More info at


Yasujiro Ozu’s THERE WAS A FATHER (Japanese Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Wednesday, 7 and 9pm

“The film is uncompromisingly didactic in its fidelity to Japan’s wartime ethos,” writes Tony Rayns for the Criterion Collection about THERE WAS A FATHER, one of just two films that Yasujiro Ozu directed during WWII. “Besides promoting the cardinal virtues of loyalty and obedience, it teaches that every man should be content with his role in society, however modest, and should find fulfillment in doing his best.” FATHER tells the story of a humble widower (Chishu Ryu at his most heart-rending) who denies his son the affection he longs for in the process of working to the bone to put him through school. There is much speechifying about the importance of hard work and self-sacrifice, but because Ozu presents them with such sincerity and restraint (and because the film makes no overt reference to the war), the calls to duty feel less like propaganda and more like (very moving) proclamations of spiritual fortitude. And then there are the scenes concerning one of Ozu’s perennial themes, the sense of disappointment that’s integral to coming of age and to adult life in general. Shuhei, Ryu’s character, puts his son Ryohei in boarding school in small-town Ueda, paying for it by working in Tokyo. The film is as observant of Ryohei’s disappointment at living away from his father as it is of Shuhei’s nobility, resulting in an emotional complexity that’s typical of the director’s work. Rayns writes: “Ozu’s possible ambivalence [about FATHER’s overt messages] is felt most keenly in the way he dramatizes Ryohei’s emotional longings for his father, expressed not only in the protracted scene of the boy’s tears when he first learns that they are to live apart, but also in one of Ozu’s highly characteristic pieces of dramatic patterning. There are two scenes in which father and son go fishing together, the first when Ryohei is a boy, the second when he is a young man. On both occasions, they cast their lines in perfect sync with each other, a ‘replicated motion’ shot of the kind Ozu found so amusing and used in many of his films. But the boyhood version of the scene shows first father and son casting their lines in unison and then the boy standing stock-still as his father casts again. The effect of that momentary refusal to act in sync is indescribably poignant, and it reflects Ozu’s mastery of the poetic film language he had developed.” (1942, 87 min, 35mm) BS

More info at


Jean Cocteau’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (French Revival)
Gene Siskel Film Center – Check Venue website for showtimes

One of the most widely known fairy tales thanks to its plethora of adaptations, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a timeless story about inner beauty. Jean Cocteau’s 1946 film version is visually lustrous and richly marked by stunning costumes, elaborate set design, and imaginative use of practical effects. Jean Marais’ duel roles as the unsightly Beast and the blonde, pretty boy Avenant, both of whom are determined to win Belle’s (Josette Day) hand in marriage, are juxtaposed against one another to represent France versus Germany during World War II. Cocteau possesses a fascination for eyes in this film with the implication that they are the windows to the soul. Repeated images of doors, windows, and mirrors all lend themselves to a metaphorical sense of discovery about the inner workings of a person’s mind. When mirrors are present, a self-reflection occurs, the introspection frequently taking on negative connotations. When an observer peers through a window or an enchanted door magically opens, extrospection is often employed, leading to a hidden trait being revealed about a character. The film’s romantic yet semi-tragic tone draws influence from the works of Shakespeare and Greek tragedies: Romeo and Juliet and hubris leading to a downfall serve as signifiers. For a film about surface appearance, two production asides seem appropriate: various film stocks used due to a post-war shortage produces textures in the image can be noticeably different from one scene to another, and a debilitating skin disease that Cocteau developed during the shoot is an ironic mimicking of the repulsiveness of the Beast. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, showing in a newly restored 35mm print, is ultimately one of the most haunting and dreamlike films ever to grace the silver screen. (1946, 94 min, 35mm; New Restoration) KC

More info at


Chantal Akerman’s NO HOME MOVIE (New Belgian/Documentary)

Gene Siskel Film Center – Check Venue website for showtimes

Chantal Akerman’s NO HOME MOVIE—her last before her untimely death this past October—is a synthesis of the Belgian artist’s most personal work, more specifically the seminal JEANNE DIELMAN, 23 QUAY DU COMMERCE, 1080 BRUXELLES and the less ambitious but more intimate NEWS FROM HOME. It’s a quasi-documentary about Akerman’s mother in the months leading up to her death—they talk, they laugh, they suppress. It’s formally reminiscent of JEANNE DIELMAN, which Akerman said was “a love film for [her] mother,” as it “gives recognition to that kind of woman.” The likeness is perhaps most obvious in the scenes that take place in the green-tiled kitchen, bringing to mind Delphine Seyrig as she cooked, cleaned, and silently contemplated. At one point, Akerman’s mother says to her other daughter, “She’s never really talked to me,” referring to the filmmaker and recalling her gently pleading letters in NEWS FROM HOME. And finally, near the end, Akerman explains to a housekeeper how her mother fled Poland only to be captured by the Nazis and sent to a concentration camp. Examining topics from the mundane to the meaningful, Akerman uses her avant-garde sensibility to meditate on both a relationship and a lifetime in less than two hours. Much of her work imitated life in all its glorious banality, but NO HOME MOVIE considers life at its most honest and sublime. (2015, 115 min, DCP Digital) KS

More info at


Michael Curtiz’s THE UNDESIRABLE (Silent Hungarian)

Music Box Theatre – Thursday, 7:30pm

Hollywood stalwart Michael Curtiz (whose career there stretched from the mid-1920s to the early 60s) is something of a minor conflict in cinephile circles: some (a minority, but still…) claim him as a clear auteur; others find him a solid, creative director whose films exhibit stylistic flair but not a consistent signature style that would push him into the auteurist camp. (I’m in the second group, though I like Curtiz immensely). Either way, it’s hard to argue against DOCTOR X, MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM, THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, MILDRED PIERCE, and WHITE CHRISTMAS (among others). This screening, though, moves back, past his prolific U.S. career, to the near-beginnings of his also prolific Hungarian, and then more general European, career. Curtiz’s first film dates from 1912; THE UNDESIRABLE [A TOLONC] was shot just two years later, and released in 1915. Long thought lost, a complete print was found in the basement of the Hungarian House in New York City in 2008 and was repatriated to Hungary, where it underwent recently-completed restoration. Based on a folk play by Ede Tóth, and featuring Mari Jászai, one of the leading Hungarian stage actresses of the day, as the protagonist’s mother, the film is an important record of these two celebrated national figures. The narrative is a bittersweet drama of a young woman who ventures to the city for work after her country uncle (whom she was raised believing was her father) dies. Parallel are scenes of the girl’s mother, who has just been released from prison for killing her abusive husband. There’s romance, sentimentality, a bit of comedy, wrongful accusations, a converging of the two storylines, discovery, tragedy, redemption, more romance, and resolution (all in an hour!). It’s a fine film, sensitive in its subject, mostly restrained and naturalistic in its performances, but it does not exhibit the flair of Curtiz’s later work; rather than the considered use of lighting, camera angles, and camera movement he’d be known for, Curtiz relies on mostly static long-shots that prioritize the photogenic rural landscape and small village settings and the regionally-authentic costuming. Mise-en-scene wins out here. THE UNDESIRABLE is not a rediscovered masterpiece, but, still, it is a fascinating and important document in Hungarian cinema history, in Curtiz’s career, and as an effective and emotionally engaging example of early feature filmmaking outside of Hollywood and Western Europe. Live musical accompaniment by Dennis Scott. (1915, 66 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) PF

More info at




John M. Stahl’s BACK STREET (American Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Sunday, 7pm
Between 1932 and 1935, director John M. Stahl filmed three enormously prestigious melodramas that would later be eclipsed in film history by their remakes: BACK STREET, IMITATION OF LIFE, and MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION. Stahl’s current reputation as a Douglas Sirk prototype is primarily the result of their each filming versions of the latter two films, although as storytellers the two had quite different preoccupations. Sirk’s narratives were driven by the heft of accumulated words and gestures, whereas Stahl’s characters often pass through their narratives episodically, obsessed with rebuilding instead of preserving an emotional momentum. BACK STREET involves a three decades long love affair in which the romance is rarely seen as pleasurable, but instead as a series of false starts and small heartbreaks. Irene Dunne plays the kept woman (or “back street” woman) of John Boles, whose obsession with the man keeps her from pursuing her passions elsewhere. John Flaus’ article on the film for Sight & Sound argued that the film marked a retreat from expressionism, but it is actually among the most attractive and expressionistic of pre-Code melodramas. Shot by Karl Freund with Charles D. Hall serving as art director, it bridges the gap between the early-1930s Universal horror films and melodramas, encouraging high contrast visuals, deep stagings, and an evocative use of off screen space. For a melodrama, very few close-ups are used, and tellingly the most memorable of which is a still image of a telephone as pained voices inform the drama off screen. Stahl and Freund occasionally indulge camera movements not motivated by the action—a memorable establishing shot introduces a turn-of-the-century Cincinnati beer garden—and, in one of the stronger scenes, Stahl makes the wistful choice of filming a highly charged reunion with the lovers facing away from the camera. If Stahl’s method of dramatizing this masochistic affair does not offer the visceral pleasures expected of its genre, it sustains an indelibly melancholic atmosphere. (1932, 93 min, DCP Digital) EF

More info at


Abbas Kiarostami’s REPORT (Iranian Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Monday, 7pm (Free Admission)
One of the rarest films in Doc’s Abbas Kiarostami series is the early, pre-Revolution feature REPORT, about which little has been written in English. In the 2003 book-length study of the director she wrote with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Mehrnaz Saeed-Vafa describes it as “a stark, realistic film that reflects the bleak, mundane life of a government employee alienated from his job, from the social life around him, and from his wife. Mr. Firuzkhui, the main character of the film, gets fired from his job, and following a few domestic disputes with his wife that culminate in her suicide attempt, leaves her behind in the hospital.” Rosenbaum describes it as Kiarostami’s “most unpleasant film as well as the only one in which his project of ethical self-inquiry comes up short: it’s a provocative yet unsuccessful work informed and no doubt confused by its autobiographical elements. Specifically, its depiction of a disintegrating marriage—made around the same time that Kiarostami’s marriage was disintegrating and after both of his sons were born—seems to be a mainly unconvincing effort to make this rift register as a reflection of contemporary society.” Even if REPORT is a failure (which would make it one of very few in Kiarostami’s filmography), the insights it may provide into the director’s life and work make it a must-see for fans of this master filmmaker. (1977, 112 min, DVD Projection) BS

Note: This film replaces the previously scheduled EXPERIENCE, also by Kiarostami.

More info at


Composites: Short Films by Gina Telaroli (New Experimental)

Beguiled Cinema and Comfort Film at Comfort Station Logan Square (2579 N. Milwaukee Ave.) – Wednesday, 8pm (Free Admission)

Gina Telaroli’s work falls into two distinct groupings: found footage videos that appropriate material from, primarily, Golden Age Hollywood films (1930s-60s) and live-shot loose “narratives” that rely heavily on improvisation. Two feature films and the 2015 short COMPOSITES (which shows in this program) fall into the later category. The majority of the works in this show are found footage videos, and two stand out. AMUSE-GUEULE #2: MR. ROGERS’ NEIGHBORHOOD (2012) is structurally very simple: Telaroli plays the same excerpted sequence from King Vidor’s 1940 film NORTHWEST PASSAGE forward and backward, superimposed on top of each other. Our ability to make sense of the narrative is disrupted, until about half way through when the bulk of the forward-running dialogue comes in. Lacking an initial narrative anchor, we’re forced to focus on the rich visual and aural textures that are created, which become increasingly mesmerizing as the fourteen-minute running time rolls on. 4’8 1/2” (2011) takes a completely different approach to its appropriated footage. Here, Telaroli combines clips of train scenes from dozens of films, creating if not a meta-narrative at least a video with a definite narrative propulsion. Various similar content is grouped together—sleeping, passing landscape shots, dining car scenes, fight scenes—creating a catalog of “train movie tropes” and allowing for a progression of tonal and emotional registers. Also showing are STARTING SKETCHES #1-12 (2013-14), a series of short (ranging from fifteen seconds to four minutes) run-throughs of composited film images made for the 2015 video SILK TATTERS but not included in the final work. As stand-alone pieces showing separate from the finished film, they’re perhaps too fleeting and insubstantial (they would play better immediate before or after SILK TATTERS, which was likely omitted from the show as it played in the Onion City festival last month; unfortunate, as it is also my favorite of Telaroli’s work that I’ve seen). PHYSICAL INSTINCTS: DEAD RINGERS (2012) includes, among other material, footage from the David Cronenberg film referenced in the title. I found it too scattered, lacking the focus of the two above videos. And, though I quite liked Telaroli’s semi-improvised, quasi-narrative/documentary/essay train feature film TRAVELING LIGHT (2011), I really couldn’t make any headway with COMPOSITES (2015), which riffs on themes and narrative strategies in Jacques Rivette. Despite these closing reservations, the first two works are more than worth attending for. (2011-15, approx. 63 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) PF

More info at





Roots & Culture (1034 N. Milwaukee Ave.) presents 10th Anniversary Film/Video Screening Celebration with screenings at 5:30 and 8pm on Sunday, and a reception in between. The two approximately one-hour screenings will feature work screened at R&C from the past ten years. Some of the artists included are: Steve Reinke, Paul Nudd, Jim Trainor, Gwyneth Anderson, Jared Larson, Scott Wolniak, Deborah Stratman, Melika Bass, Lilli Carré, Robert Chase Heishman, Chris Sullivan, Soheila Azadi, Andy Roche, Pizza Dog, Latham Zearfoss, Lyra Hill, Eric Patrick, Mike Lopez, and Kent Lambert.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago continues performances of Teatrocinema: Historia de amor (Love Story), a live theater event incorporating 2D and 3D video projection, Friday-Sunday. 

The Chicago Latino Film Festival opens on Friday and runs through April 21. Complete schedule at

The Chicago International Movies and Music Festival (CIMMFest) opens on Wednesday and continues through Sunday, April 17. Complete schedule at

The Sci-Fi Spectacular takes place on Saturday at the Patio Theater (6008 W. Irving Park Rd.). Screening are: A TRIP TO JUPITER (Segundo de Chomón, 1909; Noon), THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS (Eugène Lourié, 1953; 12:10pm), GALAXY QUEST (Dean Parisot, 1999; 1:45pm), WEST WORLD (Michael Crichton, 1973; 3:45pm), short film block and 1-minute fake ’50s Trailer Competition (5:30pm), FOOD OF THE GODS (Bert I. Gordon, 1976; 6:20pm, with Gordon in person), BLADE RUNNER (Ridley Scott, 1982; 8:20pm), BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA (John Carpenter, 1986; 10:30pm), THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (Nicolas Roeg, 1976; 12:15am). All Digital Projection.

Black Cinema House (7200 S. Kimbark Ave.) screens John M. Stahl’s 1934 film IMITATION OF LIFE (116 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Friday at 7pm; and Self + Otherness: Student Screenings, a program of works from the BCH’s film production workshop, is on Sunday at 4pm. Both events free admission.

Block Cinema (Northwestern University) screens Jonas Carpignano’s 2015 film MEDITERRANEA (107 min, DCP Digital) on Wednesday at 6pm. Free admission.

Chicago Filmmakers (5243 N. Clark St.) screens Benoît Jacquot’s 2012 French film FAREWELL, MY QUEEN (100 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Saturday at 8pm as part of the monthly Dyke Delicious series. Social hour at 7pm. The program repeats on Tuesday at 6:30pm (no social hour) at Columbia College (Hokin Hall, 623 S. Wabash).

Also at the Gene Siskel Film Center this week: Naomi Kawasi’s 2015 Japanese film SWEET BEAN (113 min, DCP Digital) plays for a week; Marianne Lambert’s 2015 documentary I DON’T BELONG ANYWHERE: THE CINEMA OF CHANTAL AKERMAN (67 min, DCP Digital) is on Friday and Monday at 8:15pm, Saturday at 5:15pm, and Wednesday at 6:30pm;

Robert Mulligan’s 1972 film THE OTHER (98 min, 35mm Archival Print) is on Saturday at 5:15pm and Tuesday at 6pm, with a lecture by Pamela Robertson Wojcik at the Tuesday screening; and screening in the Asian American Showcase are SONS OF HALAWA (with the short MELE MURALS), PEOPLE ARE THE SKY, CHANGING SEASON: ON THE MASUMOTO FAMILY FARM, and GOOD OL’ BOY. Check the Siskel’s website for details and showtimes.

Also at Doc Films (University of Chicago) this week: Jared Hess’ 2004 film NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (96 min, 35mm) is on Friday at 7 and 9pm and Sunday at 1:30pm; Adam McKay’s 2015 fllm THE BIG SHORT (130 min, DCP Digital) is on Saturday at 7 and 9:30pm and Sunday at 3:30pm; Fernando de Fuentes’ 1936 film VÁMONOS CON PANCHO VILLA (92 min, 35mm) is on Tuesday at 7pm; Philippe Garrel’s 2013 film JEALOUSY (77 min, DCP Digital) is on Thursday at 7pm; and Danny Boyle’s 1996 film TRAINSPOTTING (94 min, Blu-Ray Projection) is on Thursday at 9pm

Also at the Music Box Theatre this week: Atom Egoyan’s 2015 film REMEMBER (94 min, DCP Digital) opens; Ciro Guerra’s 2015 film EMBRACE OF THE SERPENT (125 min) continues; Dan Savage’s HUMP! Film Festival (Digital Projection) is on Friday and Saturday at 7 and 9:30pm; The Juggernaut Sci-Fi & Fantasy Short Film Festival (Digital Projection) is on Saturday at Noon; Matthew Barney’s 2014 film RIVER OF FUNDAMENT (350 min—showing in 3 parts, DCP Digital) screens Sunday-Thursday; Ron Underwood’s 1990 film TREMORS (96 min, DCP Digital) is on Sunday at Noon, with an introduction by University of Chicago/Field Museum PhD student Tim Sosa; and John Landis’ 1978 film NATIONAL LAMPOON’S ANIMAL HOUSE (109 min, DCP Digital) is on Tuesday at 7pm, as par of the “Is It Still Funny?” series, with critic Mark Caro.

Facets Cinémathèque plays Guillaume Nicloux’s 2015 French/Belgian film VALLEY OF LOVE (92 min, Unconfirmed Format) and Tim K. Smith’s 2014 documentary SEX AND BROADCASTING: A FILM ABOUT WFMU (78 min, Unconfirmed Format) for week-long runs; and Travis Mills’ 2016 film DURANT’S NEVER CLOSES (80 min, Unconfirmed Format) screens once on Monday at 7:30pm, with Mills in person.

The Northbrook Public Library (1201 Cedar Lane, Northbrook) screens Alejandro González Iñárritu’s 2015 film THE REVENANT (156 min, DCP Digital) on Saturday at 2 and 7:30pm. Introduced by local filmmaker Reid Schultz; Jazz Forum is on Tuesday at 1 and 7:30pm, with short films featuring the Modern Jazz Quartet, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, and the Paul Bryant Quintet; and Henry King’s 1956 musical CAROUSEL (128 min, DCP Digital) is on Wednesday at 1 and 7:30pm. Free admission for all screenings.

The Park Ridge Classic Film Series at the Park Ridge Public Library (20 S. Prospect Ave., Park Ridge) screens Hal Roach and Charles Barton’s 1947 Abbott and Costello comedy BUCK PRIVATES COME HOME (77 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Thursday at 7pm. Free admission.

The Goethe-Institut Chicago (150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 200) screens Yasemin Samdereli’s 2011 film ALMANYA – WELCOME TO GERMANY (95 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Tuesday at 6pm. Free admission, but RSVP required: (312) 263-0472 or




Deadly Prey Gallery (1433 W. Chicago Ave.) continues Lady Deadly: Women of the Ghanian Mobile Cinema, a show of Ghanaian movie posters that “portray ‘strong’ female characters,” through April 14.

The Art Institute of Chicago presents Dennis Oppenheim: Projections through May 30. On view are three slide-projection works: 2000’ SHADOW PROJECTION (1972), GROUND GEL #2 (1972), and POLARITIES (1972).




Chicago Public Library screenings: Due to the frequency of late-additions (past our deadlines) and to their frequent inability (due to licensing restrictions) of publicly listing the titles of films they are screening, we will no longer be listing specific CPL screenings. Check their website for any films that may be showing.

The Patio Theater and the Portage Theater calendars have been confusing and constantly shifting—adding and removing events with little notice—and reportedly have been unexpectedly closed for scheduled events. We will no longer attempt to list any screenings there.



- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

CINE-LIST: April 8 - April 14, 2016


CONTRIBUTORS / Kian Bergstrom, Kyle Cubr, Max Frank, Patrick Friel, Eric Fuerst, Ben Sachs, Kathleen Sachs, Darnell Witt


An Interview with Gaspar Noé on Love (2015)

November 13th, 2015 by Patrick


By Kyle Cubr


KC – What movies inspired you to make this film?

GN – The lack of a movie like this inspired me. Life inspired me. It’s an addictive love story. Things like falling in love when you’re a teenager. You become blind to the world while going through the process. Your brain secretes dopamine, serotonin. It’s hard when your object of desire disappears. You lose control of the relationship. It’s a story of carnal addiction. Blue is the Warmest Color was similar but not a heterosexual relationship. I wept while watching it.

KC – Are any of Murphy’s experiences reflective of your own?

GN – It represents life that I’ve seen it. It’s not biographical. Some of the things I’ve seen or experienced. Friends losing girls they love, friends having accidental babies, etc.

KC – What made you decide to shoot Love in 3D?

GN – The fact that I used 3D at home. It creates an additional layer of intimacy. More real and more surreal. 2D does not change the story. It’s like listening to music in mono vs. stereo. It feels better in 3D.

KC – How did the actors respond to having to perform in graphic sex scenes?

GN – I proposed the idea to real couple but never found one. I met Karl and Aomi and we talked about desires and limits. It was done in a joyful way. Very sentimental.

KC – Was there any choreography involved in shooting these scenes?

GN – No. The actors just did what came naturally.

KC – This movie is very personal, what would you say its message about love is?

GN – Love is not only [a] state of ecstasy, it is [a] state of [the] world. There is a lot of joy and suffering unless you become an official couple. When you’re madly in love, it’s a big part of your brain. Some people are more addicted to love than others—genes, nature affect that. Having passionate love is a very shaky thing.

KC – What was the casting process like?

GN – I did not work with a casting director. I asked friends and friends of friends. In the restaurant, party or park, I found people. If they had a good look and seemed nice, I’d film them. Sometimes an assistant helped. I never filmed them naked, just shot close-ups to see how they looked and if they had charisma.

KC – Were there any other scenes that you shot and really liked but didn’t make the final cut?

GN – I did not have full script. Just a seven or eight page treatment. The scenes cut were not needed because it was long at 2 hours and 15 minutes. We were very lucky to find people that were charismatic.

KC – How do you respond to people’s controversy over some of the films posters?

GN – The official posters were females kissing or close-ups of a couple hugging. The additional posters were visuals that had been put in a file to convince distributors that the film had graphic elements. A hand is a hand, penis is penis, belly is a belly. I wanted to show the film was true to life. I didn’t want people to ask if I’d shoot a second version.

KC – Recent films like Nymphomaniac and Blue is The Warmest Color have enjoyed success, do you feel that Love will inspire people to create more erotic cinema?

GN – I don’t think it’s erotic. It’s sentimental, it’s carnal. Many films shot erotically aren’t like this. It’s just the act of sex, no kissing, just the act. Each person comes from one act from their parents. Genetic code is a force that replicates the species.

KC – What are your three favorite films?

GN – Murphy is like a cinematic brother. Many of the posters and films he mentions in Love are reflective of me, so 2001, hard to pick more. Maybe the old King Kong, Cinema Paradiso? There are too many good ones to choose.


“Mise-en-scène As Installation/Installation As Mise-en-scène”

November 1st, 2015 by Patrick

While discussing Agnès Varda’s installation, pithily titled Photographs Get Moving (potatoes and shells, too) and currently on display at the Logan Center Gallery (915 E. 60th St.), a fellow cinephile remarked that they “don’t know much about art.”

This cinephile is mistaken, as is any film lover who assumes these worlds are separate. To know Varda as a filmmaker is to know her as a photographer and a visual artist as well. These are the three lives that University of Chicago lecturer Dominique Bluher worked with Varda to depict in the exhibit; three self-portraits concisely represent her artistic endeavors, and they are mirrored by the exhibit centerpiece, a three-screen video installation combining footage of her beloved spuds with haunting sound design and a carpet of potatoes that cleverly juxtaposes the literal flatness of the imagery.

This is where Dominique and I began our conversation last Thursday. She was kind enough to speak with me at length about Varda’s work, though it’s clear that she genuinely enjoys discussing the artist and her many iterations. Because most who read this will likely already be familiar with Varda’s films, we instead focused on the exhibit. “I think what’s interesting in retrospect is that Agnès Varda’s film work presents already a lot of features that would lead naturally to installation,” Bluher said. “I’m personally very surprised that it was only when Hans Ulrich Obrist invited her to the Venice Biennale [in 2003] to participate in the show that she really took up this invitation and then started to be really interested in doing this installation work.

“I wanted to create a show around the topic of the still and moving image, because that is something that is running through her whole career.”

Self-Portrait, 1949
Agnès Varda In Venice in front of a Bellini Painting, 1962
Fractured Self-Portrait, 2009

Agnès Varda In Venice in front of a Bellini Painting, 1962

“These are the three lives, and more importantly, they are always interconnected. Three self-portraits, each time a self-portrait of an early stage in her life. First official self-portrait [titled Self-Portrait], and it’s a mosaic. The mosaic, the puzzle, has become a very important thing to her. It’s also already a reference. She was studying art. The mosaic is a reference to her love of art. Second self-portrait is of her when she was a young filmmaker. It’s in front of this Bellini painting. For me, this is a wonderful example of her way of doing visual commentary, because she places herself in front of a fraternity of wise men. So she, the woman, instead of putting herself in a group of women, she puts herself in front among a group of wise men. In the last one, it echoes in a certain way the first one. It’s her as a young visual artist at 81. We have again this puzzled, fragmented aspect that is in the first one. But I also think it’s interesting, if you compare the first and last, it’s reflecting on her trajectory, because in her very early films, it was very structured and you could identify very clearly the structure. But in the later films, the structure is very clear, but is not as visible as in the very early works. The structure is always there, but it loosens up into something that is more open in a certain way.”

, 2003

Pautatutopia at the CAFA Art Museum in China

“There are many levels to it. As she says, it is to free herself from the screen format in the movie theater that is one flat screen. This is a triptych, and a triptych is closely associated with Christian veneration, and so this is an homage to, as she says, ‘the most modest vegetable.’ Then you have this immersive aspect to it. And then another thing is that she also thought from the very start when she started working on installation work is that they’re relatively short. This is a kind of double. On the one hand, it is a time-based visual. They take time. So it really calls to your attention and you have to spend time with it. On the other hand, it’s not too long to be something that would be better shown in the movie theater where you have to sit down and watch something that lasts half an hour or longer. I think every piece is shorter than five minutes. It’s this immersive thing, too, that you have to invest yourself in. Also, this sound environment…as she said, this is the best installation of this piece because it’s really pulling you in, so that you’re drawn to these. She also wants these benches to give you the possibility to sit down and really contemplate, and not to be forced to stand. In terms of content, the beauty is already clear, but then it’s also this cycle of life. You have the possibility of showing that the rotten potatoes are not useless, that they have purity. And that what comes out of these potatoes, these sprouts, etc…, create a new form of life. She attempts to do the same with sound, to enhance the quality of something that seems to be dead, or useless, to show that it has qualities that can be emphasized once you pay attention to it. This is parallel to THE GLEANERS AND I. This is also something she uses quite a lot in her installations, to use organic material. Here we have this carpet of potatoes, so you have the contrast between the potatoes that are in the regular format, because we bought them in the food store, so they have no defects, they have the right form and shape and caliber, so the contrast are these heart-shaped monstrous beauties. On the other hand, they, too, start to rot. Luckily, we have some that have started to rot, and hopefully they will sprout before the end of the show. So again, there is this bringing again to life. You also have life in the sense of the editing in your mind of the different images that you’re watching, because even if you can embrace the whole thing, it’s the connection that you will draw between the three frames that is another form of activity that is taking place in this installation.”

Heart Potatoes Series,


“I consider them as portraits. Portraits of beautiful rotten potatoes. To make a portrait of a human is not surprising, but when you consider these as portraits, you are surprised by the individuality of each potato. It’s really an arrangement in order to bring out the potato idea. If you pay attention, each potato has a way to be cast and photographed in order to bring out its individuality. It’s always the same question about where lies the life and the movement. It’s the active gaze of the spectator that is crucial to it. If you don’t spend time with the still image, it doesn’t do anything. It’s only if you spend time, invest yourself in exploring the whole picture, that it becomes more and more meaningful. It calls your attention only if they encounter your attention and don’t appear as just spuds on the wall.”

Zgougou’s tomb, 2006

Zgougou’s tomb on display at Galerie Nathalie Obadia

“The cat was very present in many of her films. It’s in the opening credit for her film production company, Cine-Tamaris. In LE LION VOLATIL, she replaced the lion close to where she lives with the cat. There are many layers to it. In terms of still image and moving image, it is traditional animation. It is not digital animation, but it is image by image. So one shell, then another shell, and then another shell, and they were filmed one after the other, and the movement is created through the connection to the camera. And everything’s visible because of this filtration and the light and the shadows. Again, you have two projections. In the other one there are three, and here again there are two to get rid of the constraints of the movie theater, with these two possibilities to project on the floor and on the wall, and to have them overlapping. Here they have organic material, the sand, that is an ideal projection surface, especially the kind of sand that she has chosen. It’s shaped in a way to create this tomb that she created for her cat. At one moment, you see the actual grave on the island. So she made this grave, then she went away from the grave, and as she explains, this cat in a certain way becomes a little dot in a universe, like us all. Again, like the potatoes, because she pays attention to it, it gives us the opportunity to share this attention to the cat and connect emotionally, very strongly. As long as you have memories and share memories with other people, the memory will still be alive and shared. She doesn’t mention it, but for me, there’s also another connotation because of Jacques Demy.”

Walking Pictures, 1956-58

Photo of Maria do Alívio, a laundrywoman in the North of Portugal, and Sophia Loren

“How do we capture movement? How do we render movement? This one [above] in particular is probably the most clear example of what Henri Cartier-Bresson called ‘the decisive moment.’ But they’re all walking. They’re walking together, they’re walking away. They encounter each other. Also, the selection was meant to have a kind of similar composition, with the figure being relatively big, also with different variations in correspondence to the background. If you have seen VAGABOND, you have realized how important traveling shots are and the material she is walking on. Every travelling shot is of a different material. It goes from right to left and ends on construction that will be taken up in the next one. This is why I said her last self-portrait is also fragmented and structured. It has this looseness. It doesn’t spring at your eyes. Here we have different kinds of grounds on which these people are walking. Different kinds of backgrounds, different kinds of activities, and then also something that has a sculptural quality. Even if it is still, the way it is shot leaves another stillness, like a sculpture. To capture something, a particular moment of the movement, it gives another stillness because it is so expressive. And so paradoxically, it’s the stillness that brings out the strength of the movement.”

“Agnès Varda is not theoretical. We can theorize as much as we want, but I think that most important thing for me is the complexity of thought that she brings into composition, the lighting, the materiality. I think there is so much depth to it, but it is not something that I like to render in conception or jargon. I think it is not the way her intelligence works. I’d rather make an effort to be able to echo her intelligence, not in jargon, but in order to try to find a language to this, an artistic language in simple terms.”

“That is maybe also a reason why her art didn’t have the critical or scholarly attention that it deserves, because it seems so facile and straightforward, evident, but it’s only when you pay more attention and spend more time with it that you really get the complexity and the composition, the contradiction, the transformation, and the political, the sociological, the feminist, the societal…the implication of her work.”

The People on the Terrace
, 2007
Corbusier’s Terrace, 1956

Photo and video on display at the Centro Andaluz de Arte Contemporáneo

“[Corbusier’s Terrace, left, is] a bit earlier than the [Walking Pictures].  Here we have a snapshot. She didn’t know anything about these people. She wondered what were the possible relationships between people whom she never talked to, whom she never met. And then she wrote this script [for THE PEOPLE ON THE TERRACE, right], which could possibly be the story. What I think is very important is that it includes the procedure of filming, so it’s not a simple confrontation. It includes dialogues and things that could come before but also beyond. It emphasizes that it is only a proposition. Again, it’s a way of stimulating the imagination of the spectator, because even if she gives a proposition, could we imagine what happens before they enter into the frame of the still photograph? In still photography, everything is contained in the frame. In cinema, you have the off-screen, and you can have the off-screen enter when you move the camera or when you have characters come in and leave. This can’t happen in still photography. We have also her voiceover, the commentary. This is another way of having another off-screen, so we don’t just have the off-screen that is the fictional story, but we have also the off-screen that is usually excluded in the representation of what is the ‘making of.’”

Marie in the Wind, 2014

Still photo of Marie in the Wind from Galerie Nathalia Obadia

“This is part of another series she started last year. It’s called Portraits à volets vidéo. It’s like the triptychs on the altar in a church. You have these two panels, like window shutters. It’s a series, and there’s still image in the middle and then the video, and it’s single video projection, and it’s a very complex work because you blank out the middle, you put in the still photography, and then you have video projection on both sides. Still image, moving image. I love this piece in particular because Marie, in the wind…there’s two ways the wind is captured. In her hair and in the pinwheel. So it’s very expressive and echoes in a certain way the still photography of the early 50s. Here the photograph was created already in thinking of the total piece. It’s not a photograph that preexisted the piece. It was made for this piece. You can only see the effect of the movement. It’s only when I stand in front of the piece can I wonder this contrast and opposition between the two media.”


10/9/15 – 10/15/15

October 12th, 2015 by Patrick
Chicago Guide to Alternative Cinema

Friday, October 9 - Thursday, October 15, 2015



Agnès Varda’s CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7 (French Revival)
- With Varda in Person

Music Box Theatre – Wednesday, 7:30pm

Cléo, a stupid and prodigiously influenced rising pop singer, believes she is dying of stomach cancer, a fear that overwhelms her for the majority of the film’s real-time running time and which functions as the movie’s primary organizing device. The opening scene features Cléo at a tarot reading (the only scene in color), setting up a kind of aesthetic thesis statement on Varda’s part: all of existence, in this work, is intimately orchestrated, choreographed, and meaningful, but, crucially, only for this one moment. The fortune-teller is no mere character but a marker for a structural division that cleaves the entirety of the film. The first two-thirds of it are intensely kinetic—mirrors everywhere, setting up bizarre pseudo-split screens, jump cuts unmotivated by plot or psychological concerns, self-reflexive insertions within the narrative (a song performance, a silent film)—and an effect of this is to make the film’s constructed nature unmistakable. As Cléo leaves the tarot reader’s apartment, for instance, her footsteps are in perfect synchrony with the nondiegetic music we hear, and in a remarkable move Varda repeats the same shot of her descending stairs multiple times in a row, drawing her film into the orbits of such hyper-controlled avant-garde artworks as Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase and Murphy and Léger’s 1924 film BALLET MÉCHANIQUE. But after a puzzling encounter with a friend who works as a nude model for sculpture students, Cléo enters a wooded park for the first time and meets a soldier on leave about to return to Algeria. Up until now, the film has been a city-bound labyrinth, filled with confusing and grotesque people, buildings, and images. But in the park and in the company of Antoine (the two share an almost instant connection) the film veers into romance. In a series of lyrical long takes and graceful, unobtrusive stagings, Antoine accompanies her to the hospital where test results await her, findings that she knows may well condemn her to death. And here Varda pulls her most brilliant structural play, for just as Cléo begins to contemplate what the doctor’s words mean to her future, the film ends, half an hour early. CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7 thus turns its protagonist’s melodramas into the stuff of deepest power, for the ending is not conclusion but a demand that each of us in the audience supply the missing minutes of Cléo’s life. Indeed, the final five minutes reveal the formal virtuosity of the preceding scenes to have actually been ruminations on the roles of fate, love, and death, and turn Cléo’s silly up-and-coming singer into a chanteuse of modernist melancholy. The ideal screening of this masterpiece would keep the lights low and theatre doors shut two quarter hours after the projectors were silenced, forcing the viewers to dwell in the same tenuous uncertainties that Cléo, freed now from her celluloid prison, no longer needs concern herself with. (1961, 89 min, DCP Digital) KB

Showing as part of CinéVardaExpo, see More Screenings below.

More info at


J.L. Anderson’s SPRING NIGHT, SUMMER NIGHT (American Revival)
Gene Siskel Film Center – Sunday, 5pm and Monday, 6pm
“It just ain’t right.” This simple logic, uttered by a man confronting the realities of an unwed pregnancy, is challenged throughout J.L. Anderson’s SPRING NIGHT, SUMMER NIGHT. Set in rural southeastern Ohio, it’s about a teenage girl who becomes impregnated by her maybe-half-brother. (The plot centers around the aforementioned man going around town trying to figure out who “did this” to his ex-wife’s daughter.) This inherently “hillbilly,” and thus “unsophisticated,” premise is paralleled by stunningly beautiful cinematography that evokes silent cinema, expressionism, and neo-realism: silent cinema in its occasional reliance on physical action to move the story; expressionism in its ashen depiction used to impart tone; and neo-realism in both how it looks and how it was made. Anderson had been hired to establish the film production department at Ohio University in Athens, and though he wasn’t from the Appalachian region he depicted in his film, he spent years exploring the area and becoming familiar with its idiosyncrasies. The three cinematographers responsible for the ghostly aesthetic were students of his, and most of the cast and crew were locals who had volunteered their time. Ross Lipman, Senior Film Restorationist at the UCLA Film & Television Archive, wrote that he’d “gradually been realising the existence of an unknown and completely accidental—but surprisingly coherent—body of American neorealism,” placing SPRING NIGHT, SUMMER NIGHT alongside such films as Charles Burnett’s KILLER OF SHEEP, Kent MacKenzie’s THE EXILES, Barbara Loden’s WANDA, Billy Woodberry’s BLESS THEIR LITTLE HEARTS, and Floyd Mutrux’s DUSTY AND SWEETS MCGEE. The subheader of Lipman’s Sight & Sound article refers to it as being part of “1960s indie neorealism,” a label that concisely—and perhaps arguably—conveys its distinction. Anderson’s first and only feature, it was supposed to screen at the 1968 New York Film Festival but was replaced at the last minute with John Cassavetes’ FACES. It was later acquired by exploitation distributor Joseph Brenner, who hired a young Martin Scorsese to consult on the re-edit. Lipman writes that, “according to legend, Scorsese told him the film was perfect as it was and should remain unchanged.” Despite this  recommendation, Brenner proceeded to have Anderson add a few nude scenes and changed its title to MISS JESSICA IS PREGNANT. Though it likely made for an artful soft-porn film, such additions could only reinforce the id rather than explicate it, as is accomplished by the original cut. In the Sight & Sound piece from a few years back, Lipman wrote that “as yet we have no funding to restore it.” Thankfully, the Packard Humanities Institute has since provided the funds, so we can all revel in the morally complex hillbilly classic (or, as Anderson referred to it, the “New Appalachian Cinema”) that is SPRING NIGHT, SUMMER NIGHT. (1967, 82 min, Newly Preserved 35mm Print) KS

More info at


Anthony Mann’s MEN IN WAR (American Revival)

Gene Siskel Film Center – Friday, 6pm and Sunday, 3pm

When asked which of his films he liked best, Anthony Mann reportedly listed MEN IN WAR along with WINCHESTER ‘73, EL CID, and GOD’S LITTLE ACRE. It’s similar to the latter film in that both are one-offs within the scope of his career; GOD’S LITTLE ACRE is a bona fide literary adaptation, and MEN IN WAR was Mann’s only foray into a genre that would have seemed a natural fit for the director whom Andrew Sarris said directed action movies with a “tough-guy authority.” Set during the Korean War (on September 6, 1950, to be exact), the film is about a platoon that’s trying to reconnect with American forces after being cut off during battle. Robert Ryan plays Lieutenant Benson, who acts as a father figure to his troops, trying to protect them while likewise validating their importance as human beings in the face of mindless warfare. (He carries a little black book that he uses to keep track of his boys—alive and dead.) Benson and his men commandeer a jeep driven by a wayward sergeant (“Montana,” played by Aldo Ray) whose only desire is to get his shell-shocked colonel to safety. Benson is a born leader who thinks before he acts, while Montana reveals himself to be a natural soldier compelled solely by instinct. As in many of his films, Mann explores the relationship between these two characters within an overarching group dynamic. This is just one way in which he effortlessly merged aspects of art cinema with the audience’s relentless demand for entertaining stories; as critic and director Dan Sallitt once said, “Filming two people sitting in a room talking is the ultimate in cinema,” and this is what Mann touches on when he pulls out any two people from the group to emphasize their complex rapport. It’s further demonstrated through his masterful compositions. In her book on the director, film historian Jeanine Basinger writes that he “evolved the concept of the total image, one which contained story (content) and presentation of story with the tools of cinema (form) as a unified event.” That’s Mann in a nutshell, and it applies to MEN IN WAR no less than to his other more well-known films. One might argue that when specifically applied to the topic of war, such artfulness is the perfect visual representation of it. Close-ups and medium shots reflect both the foot soldier’s sense of impending doom and the nature of the relationships that feeling creates, while the occasional long shot conveys the natural isolation of combat. (Mann also utilizes nature to expert effect. The landscape doesn’t become a character so much as a monster that hides out in the open.) It’s based on the novel Combat by Van Van Praag, about which little information exists past its connection to the film. Legend has it that the credited screenwriter, Chicago-born Philip Yordan, may have been providing a front for the work of blacklisted screenwriter Ben Maddow. Regardless, it’s a Mann film through and through, even if it’s one of his most underrated. (1957, 102 min, Newly Restored 35mm Print) KS

More info at


Buster Keaton’s BATTLING BUTLER (Silent Revival)

Music Box Theatre – Saturday, Noon

What influence could Buster Keaton’s BATTLING BUTLER possibly have had on Martin Scorsese’s RAGING BULL? Scorsese explains: “When I’d seen boxing matches between double features on Saturday afternoons as a kid, it was always from the same angle, and that’s why I became so bored. The only person who had the right attitude about boxing in the movies for me was Buster Keaton.” Though RAGING BULL is notably exhibitive of Scorsese’s cinephilia, it’s nonetheless ironic that a silent comedy should inform such an intense drama. But in much the same way that Scorsese and various other directors of boxing films utilize the ring’s potential as a metaphor for the harsh world, Keaton uses it to highlight the travails of a shiftless aristocrat. In BATTLING BUTLER, the Great Stone Face plays Alfred Butler, a complacent rich kid whose father sends him to the mountains on a hunting and fishing trip so that he may learn self-sufficiency. Naturally, he takes along his butler to arrange everything. There he meets a girl and becomes enveloped in a lie after her family allows her to marry him thinking he’s tough-guy boxer Alfred “Battling” Butler. He’s later caught flirting with the fighter’s wife, and the big lug decides to let the seemingly diminutive charlatan defend the championship for real—or so said charlatan is led to believe. BATTLING BUTLER was a box-office success, grossing nearly three-quarters of a million dollars, and Keaton often cited it as his favorite film. Sadly, it’s not much revered by critics; its position in Keaton’s filmography right before THE GENERAL probably doesn’t help much. But it’s well worth watching, if not for the laughs or its influence on other great cinema, then at least for Keaton’s striking physique. Live accompaniment by Dennis Scott. (1926, 77 min, 35mm) KS

More info at


Luis Buñuel’s LOS OLVIDADOS (Mexican Revival)
Gene Siskel Film Center – Saturday, 6:15pm and Tuesday, 6pm
It is said that after Vittorio De Sica saw LOS OLVIDADOS for the first time he asked Buñuel, “Has society done something to you? Has it mistreated you? Have you suffered a lot?” De Sica, perhaps, could not see beyond the dirt-poor misery of the street kids in the film, so vividly rendered by Buñuel. He might have even foolishly taken the opening title card at face value: “This film is based on true facts. No character is fictional.” But in a 1953 essay Buñuel wrote, “Neorealist reality is incomplete, conventional, and above all rational. The poetry, the mystery, all that completes and enlarges tangible reality is utterly lacking.” In other words, realism is not sufficient to capture reality. That’s why, just as in his earlier “documentary” masterpiece LAS HURDES, he has no qualms about reshuffling real events and even inserting flashes of surreal fantasy to heighten the truth of the moment. And yet the film is the antithesis of the SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE approach, because his portrait of “the forgotten ones” fuses reality and mystery, but fastidiously avoids sentimentality. It’s one reason why, even 65 years later, his depiction of how poverty dehumanizes the poor is still so unnerving (and underseen). The Tuesday night screening will be preceded by Larry Jordan’s VISIONS OF A CITY (1978, 8 min, 16mm) which has been described by Gary Morris in Bright Lights Film Journal as “[A] gorgeously evocative record of [...] a city (San Francisco) seemingly made entirely of reflective surfaces.” The Tuesday screening also includes an introduction by critic and artist Fred Camper. (1950, 80 min, 35mm) RC

More info at

Luis Buñuel’s ILLUSION TRAVELS BY STREETCAR (Mexican Revival)
Northwest Chicago Film Society (Northeastern Illinois University, Building E, 3701 W. Bryn Mawr Ave.) – Tuesday, 7pm
In his autobiography, Buñuel mentions this film only in passing; elsewhere he told critics Jose de la Colina and Tomas Perez Turrent, “I don’t like the title and didn’t choose it.” But even if the filmmaker himself didn’t seem to have much fondness for it, even minor Buñuel is worth seeing. The plotline, about two inebriated transit workers who commandeer the title conveyance for a late-night joyride, sounds almost like a Preston Sturges movie. And it certainly is one of the great surrealist’s most carefree works. Like many of Buñuel’s Mexican films, it was shot quickly and cheaply. Yet several critics have praised its mise-en-scene, particularly the way the characters interact within the crowded frame, which serves as proof of the director’s instinctual economy. When you’re working fast, every shot counts. Introduced by Paul A Schroeder Rodriguez, Professor of Spanish, NEIU. (1954, 82 min, 35mm) RC

More info at


Gordon Parks’ SHAFT (American Revival)

Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Thursday, 7pm

“Who’s the black private dick / who’s a sex machine to all the chicks? / Shaft! / Who is the man / who would risk his neck for his brother man? / Shaft! / Who’s the cat that won’t cop out / when there’s danger all about? / Shaft! / They say this cat Shaft is one bad mother— / SHUT YOUR MOUTH / I’m only talking about Shaft / THEN WE CAN DIG IT.” (Isaac Hayes) (1971, 100 min, 35mm)

More info at



Lars von Trier’s THE BOSS OF IT ALL (Experimental Revival)
Block Cinema (Northwestern University) – Thursday, 7pm
At a 1967 symposium on the New American Cinema at the University of Cincinnati, John Cage, composer of 4’33″, delivered an extended riff on his art and its relationship to contemporary cinema: “To me, the essential meaning of silence is the giving up of intention. As we might expect, few films follow silence in renouncing intention: when one looks at films (and I here lump together art films and Hollywood films) one sees that intention is almost never renounced. I think that the closest to the renunciation of intention … would, in my experience, be through the films of Stan VanDerbeek, a renunciation of intention which is effected through the multiplication of images. In this multiplicity, intention becomes lost and becomes silent, as it were, in the eyes of the observer.” VanDerbeek was hardly the only avant-garde filmmaker to renounce intention. Barbara Rubin implored the projectionist to find a rockin’ local radio station to serve as the soundtrack for CHRISTMAS ON EARTH. Fred Camper leaves the selection of one of the reels of his multi-reel Super 8 work SN to a random number generator before each screening. Who’d ever think to put self-styled enfant terrible Lars von Trier in their company? Personally speaking, I get off the von Trier bus as it cruises the portentous path to MELANCHOLIA—is it wrong to prefer von Trier at his most self-effacing? The script for THE BOSS OF IT ALL is a good one, an incisive satire of corporate skullduggery that, but for its utter, deadpan absurdity, could court that fashionable Nordic Noir label. But von Trier righteously fucks it up with a sui generis cinematographic conceit: Automavision, a system of von Trier’s invention that produces a cacophony of random, computer-selected camera angles and movements. Von Trier described his new toy as “a principle for shooting film developed with the intention of limiting human influence by inviting chance in from the cold and thus giving the work an idea-less surface free of the force of habit and aesthetics.” As far as I can tell, Lars hasn’t sold any other filmmakers on his Automavision, but the process is uniquely suited to THE BOSS OF IT ALL—a work conceived in the crucible of an utterly irrational universe where even self-interest is never properly understood. Two years after the BOSS OF IT ALL shoot (and the bout of severe depression that followed), von Trier mused, “If you want bad framing, Automavision is the perfect way to do it. It was rather pleasant to lose control. In this case, I wanted to lose control 100 per cent.” When a filmmaker has nothing to say, but speaks anyway, that’s a bad film. When a filmmaker conceives and elaborates a system for negating himself, that’s a work of art. (2006, 99 min, 35mm) KAW
More info at


Eric Rohmer’s PAULINE AT THE BEACH (French Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Monday, 7pm
The 15-year-old Pauline (Amanda Langlet) drifts through the background of countless shots in PAULINE AT THE BEACH, bearing witness to the romantic schemes played by the adults who occupy a seaside resort in Normandy. She, as it turns out, will not be impervious to these entanglements, later chastising her new boyfriend for his willingness to participate in what she calls, “their [adult] games.” This third entry of Eric Rohmer’s “Comedies and Proverbs” series invents six distinct characters who all play a part in what turns out to be a traditional sex farce. The irony is that they each delude themselves into either fervently playing into or actively betraying the role that they identify themselves with. Despite the way that the film foregrounds the incongruities in a character’s spoken philosophies vs. their actions, Rohmer isn’t so much interested in parading their naïveté as he is in finding the small tragedies and ironies that occur in their various romantic involvements. A comedy that plays like particularly tantalizing gossip, PAULINE AT THE BEACH exhibits Rohmer at his most amusing. (1983, 94 min, 35mm) EF
More info at


Archie Mayo’s THE PETRIFIED FOREST (American Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Sunday, 7pm
THE PETRIFIED FOREST did for Bogie what OF HUMAN BONDAGE did for Bette. After several years of bit parts on Broadway and in various films, and just before almost giving up on showbiz entirely, Humphrey Bogart received his big break playing against type…as a gangster. (He’d done a few such roles on film before, though nothing as substantial or impressive.) This is in large part due to his friend and co-star Leslie Howard, who appeared with him in the Broadway production of Robert E. Sherwood’s eponymous play. According to one biography, some theatergoers were so shocked that they audibly gasped upon seeing Bogart in such a brusque role as opposed to the lighter characters he’d played onstage before. But the show was a hit, and Warner Bros. soon acquired the film rights. However, the studio was reluctant to let Bogart reprise his role as the villain Duke Mantee, and it took Howard threatening to walk for them to allow it. But all’s well that ends well, as this role can undoubtedly be credited with relaunching Bogart’s stagnant film career. Unfortunately, his performance as the quietly complicated gangster is the most subtle thing about Archie Mayo’s stagy adaptation. Howard and Davis give it their all, but Bogart is more prophetic in his brevity than Howard is enlightened in his protracted monologues. The strength of Davis’ performance rests somewhere in between; sometimes a single look conveys a thousand words, while at other times it feels like she’s actually saying a thousand words. Both of the leads’ shortcomings are likely due to the too-faithful retelling and Mayo’s stodgy direction, though Bogart stands out more in light of these failings. Still, the lamentable histrionics and isolated setting lend a haphazard surrealism to an otherwise rote adaptation. It’s not great, but it’s good, and Bogart’s turn as a John Dillinger-esque gangster portends an illustrious career that was both singular and sweeping. (1936, 82 min, 35mm) KS

More info at


Ingmar Bergman’s SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT (Swedish Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Wednesday, 7 and 9:15pm
Falling on the lighter side of Ingmar Bergman’s oeuvre, SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT is atypical of his darker, religiously symbolic films that followed. Deeply personal with latent sexually frustrated undertones, it alternates between comedy and romance. Lawyer Fredrick Egerman (Gunnar Björnstrand) lives with his much younger virginal second wife, Anne (Ulla Jacobsson), his seminary school enrolled adult son, Henrick (Björn Bjelvenstam), and their promiscuous maid, Petra (Harriet Andersson). Fredrick’s former mistress, Desiree (Eva Dahlbeck), comes back into his life, and the two quickly rekindle their old flame. It is found that she is currently the mistress to another married man, Count Carl-Magnus Malcolm (Jarl Kulle). All of the aforementioned characters come together at Desiree’s mother’s house for a dinner party where a tangled web is woven. SUMMER NIGHT calls to mind Renoir’s THE RULES OF THE GAME wherein their respective high society aristocrats frequently cheat on one another and everyone wants to be with someone else. They are the antithesis of what is expected of them. Fredrick and Malcolm’s terse rivalry pits the two against one another for Desiree’s affections. Both men’s virility is compared to an animal—Fredrick, an old wolf and Malcolm, a tiger. Their prey are any of the nubile women around them, and both men are ravenous. The crescendo occurs at the film’s climax when a game of Russian Roulette is decided upon as the only way to solve their quarrels. Bergman brilliantly likens sexual release to the gun firing, as one man lands the object of his affections and the other is left emasculated. SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT is a masterwork on sexuality, interpersonal relationships, and virtues versus vice; it is the personification of summer turning to fall.
(1955, 108 min, 35mm) KC

More info at


Wim Wenders’ KINGS OF THE ROAD (West German Revival)

Gene Siskel Film Center – Saturday, 3pm and Wednesday, 6:30pm

The quintessential Wim Wenders movie—an epic fusion of cinephilia, chic existentialism, hanging out, observations about the Americanization of Europe, boredom, and bad-ass rock and roll. It is a road movie without a destination—another Wenders specialty—but one with deep feeling for transience: Robbie Müller’s claim to have taken inspiration from Walker Evans’s photographs of Depression-era America is in no way pretentious. (The slightly grainy, though rich-in-depth black-and-white photography is so masterful that KINGS can be described as the quintessential Müller film, too.) The movie concerns a traveling projectionist and the bourgeois dropout who decides, on a whim, to join him on his tour of servicing rural cinemas. Their journey lopes from one poignantly observed ghost town to another, a perfect landscape on which to depict the men’s alienation with contemporary life. (Appropriate for a work about aimlessness, Wenders wrote much of the film during shooting, a method that anticipates the films of Wong-kar Wai.) The film’s outlook is very much in keeping with the political defeatism of the New German Cinema, yet it would be inaccurate to describe KINGS OF THE ROAD as a pessimistic work. Wenders achieves a universal melancholy here, which makes the moments of humor and innocence that much more cathartic. Especially impressive is a scene in which the protagonists perform a shadow play on a blank movie screen for a group of schoolchildren in a town where they’re working. It is a sweet, impassioned reminder of why movies exist and it alone is worth the cost of admission. (1976, 175 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) BS

More info at


Martha Coolidge’s REAL GENIUS (American Revival)

Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Thursday, 9:15pm

Martha Coolidge’s fastidious reproduction of the fraternal patriarchy of Caltech high-energy physics research in REAL GENIUS may as well be the pinnacle of naturalism. Usually (and understandably) thought of as a comedy, REAL GENIUS in retrospect is one of the most fully realized cinematic critiques of both the military sponsorship of the physical sciences and the nerd zeitgeist that provides its unreflexive labor pool. From the obnoxious celebrity R1 professor to the sycophantic and cutthroat Ph.D. students; the naïve teen prodigies and basement-dwelling wingnut dropouts; and finally the titular legitimate thinkers who can no longer accept the fundamentally amoral terms of their profession, the film presents a synchronic snapshot of a completely self-reproducing social order. For the young Mitch Taylor, the supersenior Chris Knight, and the enterprising recluse (and ultimate millionaire) Lazlo Hollyfeld are, in fact, all manifestations of the same man. (1985, 108 min, 35mm) MC

More info at


Leo McCarey’s AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER (American Revival)

Northbrook Public Library (1201 Cedar Lane, Northbrook) – Wednesday, 1 and 7:30pm

Leo McCarey’s superb AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER is the perfect reminder that still waters run deep. Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr are as cool a romantic couple as you can have—for much of the film they are awkwardly trying to ignore their feelings for one another. Their careful and reserved manner is complimented by McCarey’s subtlety and formal restraint. He realizes that a quick glance or tiny gesture can be more emotionally devastating than tear-jerking bombast. It is through this simplicity of style and performance that McCarey builds a raw, palpable tension between Grant and Kerr that becomes near-anxiety for the audience—the waiting game for some kind of resolution is almost unbearable. Finally, when emotions are allowed to break free, it is cathartic and achingly right. (1957, 119 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) PF

More info at


Miroslav Slaboshpitsky’s THE TRIBE (New Ukrainian)

Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Saturday, 7 and 9:30pm and Sunday, 3:45pm

Don’t look now but Miroslav Slaboshpitsky’s THE TRIBE might be the most ambitious and original film to be released this century. What makes Slaboshpitsky’s film so unique is that it is entirely silent except for ambient noise and performed entirely in sign language. No music, no dialogue–just background sounds and unsubtitled signing. It is truly remarkable the effect silence has here. Emphatic signing, facial gestures, and body language say more than any words ever could in this tour de force. The story centers on Serhiy (Grygoriy Fesenko) as he joins a boarding school for the deaf and assimilates into the gang that seemingly runs everything. Serhiy is initiated slowly into the nefarious group with simple cons and robberies, but things take a much darker turn when violence and prostitution are introduced. TRIBE’s dark and nihilistic tones are further heightened by Slaboshpitsky’s use of the long take. Lingering on a man being beaten or teenage girls being pimped out to truckers at a rest stop, these lengthy takes unflinching depict the sinister side of humanity. The film’s bleak, muted color scheme instills the viewer with unsavory memories of an endless Chicago winter. These dreary images serve as a reminder of how cruel life can be. Slaboshpitsky’s scenes are constantly open to multiple interpretations due to the nature of their content. Short of knowing Ukrainian sign language, each viewer will surely have a slightly differing opinion on what is being communicated between characters, rewarding multiple viewings. THE TRIBE is filmmaking in its purest and emotionally resonant form. (2014, 132 min, DCP Digital) KC

More info at


Geeta and Ravi Patel’s MEET THE PATELS (New Documentary)

Music Box Theatre – Check Venue website for showtimes

Meet Ravi, a twenty-nine year old Indian-American actor who has just broken up with Amanda, his girlfriend of two years (a relationship that’s been kept secret from his parents). Shortly after, he goes on a trip to India with his father Vasant, mother Champa, and sister Geeta (co-director of the film). Ravi agrees to have his family help arrange a woman to marry for him and has his biodata (essentially a dating resume, filled with facts such as caste, education, hobbies, known acquaintances, etc.) sent out to the entire extended Patel clan. As the matchmaking starts, he is soon set up on numerous dates that don’t go anywhere beyond the initial meetings. Ravi tries a myriad of other methods to meet women, from online dating sites to weddings to attending the annual Patel convention in Philadelphia. The narrative crafted by Patel is lighthearted and humorous as Ravi is stuck in the middle between his parents’ traditional arranged-marriage Indian culture and his own American culture of dating in order to find the one. The talking-head sequences are all done as animations, which is in keeping with the playful tone of the film and also allows for flashbacks and previous conversations to be visualized. MEET THE PATELS strongly challenges the traditions of one’s heritage and how they evolve from one generation to the next. What worked for his elders doesn’t necessarily work for him. The four principal Patels are portrayed as a loving and supportive family who all want the best for one another. Ultimately, this documentary shows that there is no secret recipe to finding love and that sometimes all you can do is be open and wait for it to come to you. (2014, 88 min, DCP Digital) KC

More info at




The Film Studies Center (University of Chicago) at the Logan Center for the Arts presents CinéVardaExpo, a series of events celebrating acclaimed French filmmaker Agnès Varda, who will be in person at several of the events. Note that many of the programs are SOLD OUT (some have waiting lists available). Checkévardaexpo-chicago for the most up to date ticket availability information and for complete details. All events at the Logan Center and Black Cinema House are free admission (but ticketed); the screening at the Music Box Theatre is $12. All films at the Logan Center and the Music Box are showing from DCP Digital, except for THE BEACHES OF AGNES, which is 35mm. The format for THE GLEANERS AND I is not confirmed, but likely a digital format.


At the Logan Center: My Three Lives: An Artist Talk by Agnès Varda (In Person) (Friday); Playing Colors (Shorts Program; Saturday); Women Reply (Shorts Program; Saturday); VAGABOND (1985, 105 min; Saturday); Jessica Stockholder and Agnès Varda in Conversation (In Person) (Sunday); Still Photography and Moving Pictures (Shorts Program; Sunday); Installation As Mise-en-scène (Shorts Program; Saturday); and THE BEACHES OF AGNES (In Person) (2008, 110 min, 35mm; Thursday).

Plus off-site: THE GLEANERS AND I (2000, 82 min) is at the Black Cinema House (7200 S. Kimbark Ave.) on Monday at 7pm, with Varda in person. Advance reservations for this event are now FULL. A waiting list will be available at the door beginning at 6:30pm; and CLÉO FROM 5 TO 7 (1961, 90 min) is at the Music Box Theater on Wednesday at 7:30pm, with Varda in person.

Plus, an exhibition of Varda’s still photography, Photographs Get Moving (potatoes and shells, too), is on view through November 8 at the Logan Center Gallery. A reception is on Friday from 5-9pm.

Also at Block Cinema (Northwestern University) this week: Joan Jonas: Myths, Mirrors & Monitors is on Friday at 7pm. The screening features four of Jonas’ video works: ORGANIC HONEY’S VISUAL TELEPATHY (1972, 17 min), DUET (1972, 4 min), DOUBLE LUNAR DOGS (1984, 24 min), and VOLCANO SAGA (1989, 28 min). Jonas also gives a Talk on Saturday at 2pm at the Norris University Center (McCormick Auditorium, 1999 Campus Dr.). Free admission for both.

The Conversations at the Edge series at the Gene Siskel Film Center presents The Animated Films of Suzan Pitt on Thursday at 6pm (Suzan Pitt is unable to attend, as originally scheduled; she will be introducing and doing a Q&A via Skype). Screening are three films showing in newly restored prints from the Academy Film Archive, WHITNEY COMMERCIAL (1973, 16mm), ASPARAGUS (1979, 35mm), and JOY STREET (1995, 35mm), and two recent digital works, VISITATION (2011) and PINBALL (2013).

At and presented by Chicago Filmmakers (5243 N. Clark St.) this week: Pistols and Stamen: Ellen Nielsen & Leslie Rogers, a program of work by local artists and videomakers Nielsen and Rogers, is on Saturday at 8pm, with the artists in person. The program repeats on Tuesday at 6:30pm at Columbia College (Hokin Hall, 623 South Wabash Ave.); local filmmakers Mary Fishman’s 2012 documentary BAND OF SISTERS (88 min) is on Sunday at 2:30pm at Loyola University (Damen Student Center, First Floor,
6511 N. Sheridan Rd.), with Fishman in person; and A New Black Cinematic Vernacular: Kinfolk Collective is on Thursday at 7pm at Columbia College (Film Row Cinema, 1104 S. Wabash Ave.).

Comfort Film at Comfort Station Logan Square (2579 N. Milwaukee Ave.) presents a double feature of Arn McConnell and Todd Rutt’s 1987 film SHOCK! SHOCK! SHOCK! (60 min, Digital Projection) and Christopher C. Frieri’s 1990 film THE ORBITRONS (60 min, Digital Projection) on Wednesday at 8pm. Free admission.

Screening at (but not presented by) Chicago Filmmakers (5243 N. Clark St.) this week: On Friday at 8pm is a double feature of Cosmotropia de Xam’s 2015 film INFERNO VENEZIANO (67 min) and Jason Bognacki’s 2014 film ANOTHER (78 min), with Bryan Martinez’s short GELATO GIALLO screening in between; and on Sunday at 6pm is a screening of Amir George’s 2015 short documentary EL STORIES: ART ON TRACK (33 min) and another short titled THE GAZE (no information available), followed by a panel discussion.

The Chicago International Film Festival opens on Thursday with Nanni Moretti’s 2015 French/Italian film MIA MADRE (106 min, Digital Projection). Details and full schedule at

Filmfront (1740 W. 18th St.) screens a film by Chantal Akerman (title not announced) on Sunday at 7pm. Digital Projection.

Also at the Northbrook Public Library (1201 Cedar Lane, Northbrook) this week: Woody Allen’s 2015 film IRRATIONAL MAN (95 min, DCP Digital) is on Saturday at 2 and 7:30pm. Free admission.

Also a the Gene Siskel Film Center this week: Kate Geis’ 2014 documentary PAUL TAYLOR CREATIVE DOMAIN (86 min, DCP Digital; Geis in person at the Friday screenings) and Yury Bykov’s 2014 Russian film THE FOOL (121 min, DCP Digital) play for a week; and Takashi Miike’s 2015 film YAKUZA APOCALYPSE (115 min, DCP Digital) screens on Friday and Thursday at 8:15pm, Saturday at 8pm, and Monday at 7:45pm.

Also at Doc Films (University of Chicago) this week: George Roy Hill’s 1969 film BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (110 min, 35mm) is on Friday at 7 and 9:15pm and Sunday at 1:30pm; and Ekachai Uekrongtham’s 2007 Singaporean film PLEASURE FACTORY (88 min, DVD Projection) is on Tuesday at 7pm.

Also at the Music Box Theatre this week: Douglas Tirola’s 2015 documentary DRUNK STONED BRILLIANT DEAD: THE STORY OF THE NATIONAL LAMPOON (98 min, DCP Digital) opens; Severin Fiala and Veronika Franz’s 2014 Austrian horror film GOODNIGHT MOMMY (99 min) continues; Hiroyuki Yamashita’s 2015 Japanese animated film BORUTO: NARUTO THE MOVIE (100 min, DCP Digital) is on Saturday and Sunday at Noon, Saturday at Midnight, and Monday at 7:20pm; Maria Matteoli’s 2013 film THE WINE OF SUMMER (90 min) is on Sunday at 9:45pm; Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi’s 2014 film WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS (86 min), along with the short film AFRONAUTS, is on Thursday at 7pm; Zackary Canepari and Drea Cooper’s 2015 documentary T-REX (91 min), along with the short films WORLD OF TOMORROW and SUBMARINE SANDWICH, is on Thursday at 9:20pm; and Jason Lei Howden’s 2015 film DEATHGASM (86 min) is on Friday at Saturday at Midnight. Unconfirmed Formats except where noted.

At Facets Cinémathèque this week: Arne Birkenstock’s 2014 German documentary BELTRACCHI: THE ART OF FORGERY (93 min, Unconfirmed Format) and Colin Healey’s 2014 film HOMEMAKERS (85 min, Unconfirmed Format; Healey in person at the Friday 7:30pm and Saturday 5:45 and 7:45pm screenings) both play for a week.




Julius Cæsar (3311 W. Carroll Ave.) continues a show of work by video maker and artist Shana Moulton. The show features Moulton’s video installation MY LIFE AS AN INFJ (2015) and the single channel video MINDPLACE THOUGHTSTREAM (2014).

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents Im Reich der Sonnenfinsternis (In the empire of the solar eclipse), an installation by Belgian artists Jos de Gruyter and Harald Thys, which is comprised of paintings, sculpture, photography, drawings and a 25 minute video entitled DAS LOCH (THE HOLE). On view through January 17.



Chicago Public Library screenings: Due to the frequency of late-additions (past our deadlines) and to their frequent inability (due to licensing restrictions) of publicly listing the titles of films they are screening, we will no longer be listing specific CPL screenings. Check their website for any films that may be showing.

The Patio Theater and the Portage Theater calendars have been confusing and constantly shifting—adding and removing events with little notice—and reportedly have been unexpectedly closed for scheduled events. We will no longer attempt to list any screenings there.


- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

CINE-LIST: October 9 – October 15, 2015


CONTRIBUTORS / Kian Bergstrom, Michael Castelle, Rob Christopher, Kyle Cubr, Eric Fuerst, Ben Sachs,  Kathleen Sachs, Kyle A. Westphal, Darnell Witt

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -


CINE-LIST: Friday, JULY 17 – Thursday, JULY 23

July 17th, 2015 by Patrick

:: Friday, JULY 17 – Thursday, JULY 23 ::


Warner Brothers’ Looney Tunes (Animated Revival)
Music Box Theatre – Saturday and Sunday, 11am (Free Admission)
The Music Box rolls out a generous (and free!) nearly three-hour selection of 24 Warner Bros. cartoons, 16 featuring Bugs Bunny (they’re calling the screening “Bugs Bunny and Friends”), and most directed by the legendary Chuck Jones—and all in 35mm! Here are a few noteworthy entries (all by Chuck Jones except BUGSY & MUGSY). In THE RABBIT OF SEVILLE (1950), Bugs Bunny is chased by Elmer Fudd onto the stage where an opera is being performed. Their antics are accompanied by the music from The Barber of Seville. Mel Blanc’s staccato singing voice blends well with the furiously fast-paced animation of Bugs acting as Elmer’s barber. Daffy Duck’s greedy personality is on full display in ALI BABA BUNNY (1957) as he and Bugs stumble upon a cave of treasures. A common theme of these cartoons is explored as the duo must go up against an oaf. Another frequent theme touched on is Daffy’s karmic punishment for his overzealousness. DUCK AMUCK (1953), a surrealist Daffy Duck vehicle, toys with the typical rules of animation, with Daffy expecting one scene to act in front of, only to have it quickly change to something else. A dizzying, dreamlike effect is achieved. As Daffy finds both himself and the background constantly erased and redrawn, the unexpected and bizarre occur. In BUGSY & MUGSY (1957, Friz Freleng) Bugs finds himself living under the floorboards of two crooks on the lam from the law, Mugsy and Rocky. An homage to the early days of gangster cinema, Mugsy clearly parodies Edward G. Robinson in LITTLE CAESAR. Short in stature and big on talk, he intimidates his doltish partner through threats and mild violence. The final shot harkens back to the neon sign from the original SCARFACE, replacing “The World is Yours” with “Rocky’s Hideaway”. The more famous of the two operatic films showing, WHAT’S OPERA, DOC? (1957), also includes the most memorable songs in Looney Tunes history, “Kill the Wabbit,” which is sung to the tune of “Flight of the Valkyries”. What makes this short so special is the way it flips the typical Bugs/Elmer dynamic on its head with Elmer finally getting the upper hand. Subtly riffing on FANTASIA, this is Chuck Jones’ magnum opus. Many of the other shorts not mentioned above are classics in their own right; all of which are worth seeing (which should go without saying). Also screening are the following (all directed by Chuck Jones, except where noted): BEDEVILLED RABBIT (1957, Robert McKimson), DEVIL MAY HARE (1954, Robert McKimson), DUCK RABBIT DUCK (1953), OPERATION: RABBIT (1952), RABBIT HOOD (1949), BILL OF HARE (1962, Robert McKimson), FOR SCENT-I-MENTAL REASONS (1949), RABBIT FIRE (1951), THE FOGHORN LEGHORN (1948, Robert McKimson), DUCK DODGERS IN THE 24 1/2TH CENTURY (1953), FORWARD MARCH HARE (1953), HARE LIFT (1952, Friz Freleng), MY BUNNY LIES OVER THE SEA (1948), REALLY SCENT (1959, Abe Levitow), LITTLE BEAU PEPE (1952), NO BARKING (1954), ONE FROGGY EVENING (1955), RABBIT SEASONING (1952), and THERE THEY GO GO GO (1956). (1948-62, approx. 170 min total, 35mm) KC

More info at



THE ISLAND OF ST. MATTHEWS and Other Recent Work by Kevin Jerome Everson (Experimental Documentary)

The Nightingale and Constellation (3111 N. Western Ave.) – Monday, 7pm

For almost twenty years, Kevin Everson has been documenting personal and neglected aspects of the black experience in America, primarily in the South and Midwest (he was born in Ohio and live and teaches in Virginia). The dedication and sheer quantity of his films and videos transforms this project into a political act—even if the works themselves are not overtly so. Everson focuses on issues of labor—of work—and the ways in which place shapes people. The two films in this program are telling examples of both these issues. The longer of the two, THE ISLAND OF ST. MATTHEWS (2013, 64 min, Digital Projection), is about the citizens and environs of the small community of Westport, Mississippi. Specifically, about the region’s relationship with the Tombigbee River and a major 1973 flood.  Everson combines long takes of the river and the locks, scenes of work and activity involving the river (a locks operator, river baptisms, water skiing), other scenes of work (a cosmetology school, an insurance agent, a preacher), and reminiscences of locals about the 1973 flood. It’s a quiet, measured film that allows the river its time and the people to speak at their own pace. Work, leisure, faith, and environment are inseparably entwined. Also showing is FE26 (2014, 7 min, Digital Projection), a short that moves the exploration of labor and place to the urban setting of Cleveland. Two men make their living off of the blight of abandoned houses and the streets themselves, as they strip buildings of copper and sidewalks of manhole covers. Even the depressed inner city can provide work, albeit illegal, and physical labor provides a relationship with place. Attendees will receive a printing of A Girl’s Youngtown by Jacqueline Marino courtesy of Belt Magazine. Post-screening discussion moderated by Belt Magazine Editor, Martha Bayne. PF

More info at



Ingmar Bergman’s SUMMER WITH MONIKA (Swedish Revival)

Northwest Chicago Film Society at Northeastern Illinois University (The Auditorium, Building E. 3701 W. Bryn Mawr Ave.) – Wednesday 7pm
That the story of a willful teenager and her summer romance was picked up by Kroger Babb (the man behind such titles as SHE SHOULDA SAID NO) and distributed in the U.S. as an exploitation film should come as no surprise. The film was recut, with emphasis on Harriet Andersson’s scandalous nudity, and retitled MONIKA: THE STORY OF A BAD GIRL. “Naughty and Nineteen” promotional posters declared. Monika is a rebellious, sexually experienced teenager who winds up pregnant. We even see her ass. It’s not a tough sell. But this is Bergman. Andersson’s Monika isn’t offered up to the audience as an object for its salivation and sanctimony. She is never really punished for her “sins”—not cowed into domesticity or subjected to whatever horrors typically await “bad girls.” She is triumphant to the end. It is she who chooses Harry Lund, as if at random, to provide her with a light and a date to the cinema that first night. “I’m crazy about you,” she says, addressing Harry but gazing at her own reflection. She is a fervent consumer of love on screen and in print, and she has decided to embark on a summer romance of her own. Harry Lund, a shop clerk from a petit bourgeois home, is not exactly the stuff of dreams. Next to Monika, he is about as charismatic as a pat of butter. But he has a nice face and a kind demeanor, and, most importantly, he’s game. Monika has enough life for the both of them. She commands the screen. Yes, we see her ass, but she also holds our gaze in a radically drawn out extreme close-up. At about 30 seconds, it’s long enough that we can’t help but feel her mind churning, blood pumping, and life bursting just below the surface. What are we to think of Monika? Is she really so bad? So she chooses to spend a summer on a boat cruising along the Swedish coast, bathing naked in tide pools and dancing on piers. Given the opportunity, what sort of soulless monster would do otherwise? And what’s her alternative? To work in some cold cellar, selling dry goods to leering customers. What we see of her life in working class Stockholm puts into sharp relief the couple’s idyllic summer days (captured in all their sun-dappled glory by Gunnar Fischer). Her romanticism won’t allow her to accept the everyday drudgery that’s her lot. She is, at times, vulgar and petulant, self-absorbed and needlessly cruel—a typical teenager. But even at her worst, she’s captivating. Monika is as much Andersson’s creation as she is Bergman’s. For the director no other actress could have played the part. No other girl “could be more Monika-sh.” Andersson imbues the role with an energy that is both preternatural and wholly organic. When Harry jumps and shouts and acts wild, it’s a performance. He is playacting rebellion. Monika seems at home in that wildness. Freedom suits her. However we might judge her final act, it’s impossible to spend an hour and a half watching her live, so naturally and irresistibly, and wish to see that freedom tempered.
(1953, 97 min, 35mm) EJC

More info at





Dudley Murphy’s THE EMPEROR JONES (American Revival)

Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Wednesday, 7pm

Eugene O’Neill’s one-act from 1920 was instrumental in making his career, and Paul Robeson, plucked from relative obscurity to star in a revival of it four years later, rapidly because a stage superstar. In eight scenes, the play follows the titular Brutus Jones as he tries to escape through a moonlit jungle from a mob of Caribbean islanders out to kill him. Six of these scenes comprise a massive monologue by Jones interspersed with hallucinated dumbshows illustrating an unreliable version of his life’s story. Through equal parts cunning and cruelty, Jones has managed to set himself up as dictator of a small, impoverished nation, after having killed at least two people in the United States and escaped from prison. Now, having amassed a fortune safely stored offshore, Jones tries to slip out of the country before his subjects murder him. It’s a great play: astonishingly intense, emotionally complex, boldly experimental in form. It’s also a work of truly repulsive bigotry. Its lines written in a nauseating, dehumanizing dialect and its central character shown as only barely human in intellect, urge, and appetite, O’Neill’s play is as flatly indefensible today as a blackface routine. The movie is a different thing altogether. Radically expanded in scope, the movie dramatizes much of what is implied or suggested in the play, invents new characters, scenes, and a decade’s worth of backstory for Jones that simply doesn’t exist in the O’Neill. Paul Robeson, brought into the production to reprise his role as Brutus Jones, was quite simply the best American actor alive at the time, and he captivates the eye and dominates the frame like a typhoon conquers a beachhead. The way Robeson plays Jones, every muscle, every tendon is stretched as though his body knows what his mind does not–that every coming second could mean either flight or death. The film is built around Robeson’s amazing talent, building a mesmerizing, shifting chiaroscuro that surrounds and imprisons him, showing all the world as a dizzying labyrinth of power and betrayal and hubris. Dudley Murphy, a truly great and undersung director (THE SOUL OF THE CYPRESS, BALLET MÉCHANIQUE, BLACK AND TAN, ONE THIRD OF A NATION) stages each scene as a tragedy, each shot as a secret. He has the supporting characters move through space as though they’re haunting it, rightfully focusing his incredible kinetic gifts on Robeson, who, under Murphy’s direction, creates a Brutus Jones who isn’t just tragic but also pitiable, not a caricature or stereotype but an Everyman. Shortly after it was completed, a variety of censorship boards demanded severe cuts, and despite a restoration effort by the Library of Congress, several key sequences have been lost, perhaps permanently. This adds a choppy confusion to quite a few scenes, particularly toward the end, but in no way diminishes the power of Murphy and Robeson’s collaboration. (1933, 105 min, Archival 35mm Print) KB

More info at


Orson Welles’ THE TRIAL (International Revival)

Gene Siskel Film Center – Saturday, 5:30pm and Thursday, 6pm

Casting a glib and voluble Anthony Perkins in the role of Josef K., a man compelled to court by a nebulous governmental authority who is ignorant of any crime, provides for a decidedly strange and personal adaptation of Kafka’s unfinished story. At times a confounding film, Orson Welles’ loose adaptation offers an unsettling and haunting expression of the modern experience. By putting K—and by extension the audience—into byzantine governmental systems, nightmarish and anonymous spaces, and contact with people sometimes better described as moving bodies, Welles “confronts the corruptions and self-deceptions of the contemporary world.” Iconic images abound through Welles’ aesthetic mastery, using sets and later (when the money ran out) abandoned locales in Paris, Zagreb, and Rome; the scale of an office floor the size of an airplane hangar is astonishing. Welles himself—also appearing as K’s lawyer—is monumental in scale as well, looming over the picture in all his anxiety and discontent. (1962, 118 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) BW

More info at




The Nightingale (1084 N. Milwaukee Ave.) and The Chicago 8 Small Gauge Film Festival present Life Without Buildings: Super 8mm Films by Steve Polta on Sunday at 7pm, with San Francisco-based experimental filmmaker Polta in person. Screening are a selection of Polta’s Super-8mm films (and one 16mm) from 1996-2011. Unconfirmed running time.

South Side Projections presents Everything Must Come to Light: The Films of Mpumi Njinge on Saturday at 7pm at the Hyde Park Free Theater (1448 E. 57th St.). This screening of two short documentaries by the late South African clothing designer, actor, and filmmaker Mpumi Njing features MY SON THE BRIDE (2002, 24 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format), about the first same-sex marriage between black men in South Africa, and EVERYTHING MUST COME TO LIGHT (2002, 25 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format), about three lesbian sangomas (traditional healers) in Soweto. Followed by a discussion led by Andrew Brown, who is finishing a PhD in performance studies at Northwestern University. Free Admission.

Also at The Nightingale (1084 N. Milwaukee Ave.) this week: Basement Media #5: Lo Fi-Lo Def-Lo Tech Moving Image Works (approx. 79 min, Various Formats) is on Saturday at 7pm, with curator LJ Frezza in person. With work by Yates, Jarrett Hayman, John Wilson, Amelia Johannes, Eric Stewart, Paul Turano, Jared Hutchinson, Hannah Piper Burns, Henning Frederik Malz, and Felipe Steinberg.

Chicago Filmmakers (5243 N. Clark St.) presents 2014 CDMPF Award Winners Exhibition on Saturday at 8pm, with select filmmakers in person. Screening are excerpts of the awarded projects by Logan Jaffe and Zachary Sigelko, Leon Kelsick, Laura Stewart, Anuradha Rana and Doris C. Rusch, Benjamin Jaffe, Kyle Henry, Robert Carnilius, Fahima Mohamood, Tirtza Even, Bob Hercules and Gordon Quinn, JoAnne Smith, and Manual Cinema and Ben Kauffman. The screening repeats, with select filmmakers in person, on Wednesday at 6:30pm at Columbia College (Ferguson Theater, 600 S. Michigan Ave.). Free admission for both screenings.

Transistor Chicago (3441 N. Broadway St.) screens Abel Ferrara’s 2005 film MARY (83 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Saturday at 8pm. Introduced by local film writer and instructor Michael Glover Smith. Free admission.

Also at the Gene Siskel Film Center this week: Alexander Hall’s 1934 film LITTLE MISS MARKER (80 min, Restored 35mm Print) is on Saturday at 3pm and Monday at 6pm; Philippe De Broca’s 1961 French film FIVE DAY LOVER (95 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) is on Friday and Tuesday at 6pm; Kim Farrant’s 2015 film STRANGERLAND (112 min, DCP Digital), Shawn Rech and Brandon Kimber’s 2015 documentary A MURDER IN THE PARK (93 min, DCP Digital; check the Siskel website for in person appearance details), and Lucie Borleteau’s 2014 French film FIDELIO: ALICE’S ODYSSEY (97 min, DCP Digital) all play for a week; and Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s 1951 film TALES OF HOFFMANN (135 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) is on Sunday at 3pm and Wednesday at 6pm.

Also at Doc Films (University of Chicago) this week: Gerald Cargl’s 1983 film ANGST (83 min, DCP Digital) is on Friday at 7 and 9pm; Hal Needham’s 1977 film SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT (96 min, 35mm) is on Saturday at 7 and 9pm; and Enzo G. Castellari’s 1967 film ANY GUN CAN PLAY (105 min, 35mm) is on Thursday at 7pm.

Also at the Music Box Theatre this week: Sean Baker’s 2015 film TANGERINE (88 min) opens; Matthew Heineman’s 2015 documentary CARTEL LAND (98 min, DCP Digital), Crystal Moselle’s 2015 documentary THE WOLFPACK (80 min), and Carol Reed’s 1949 film THE THIRD MAN (104 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) all continue; Penelope Spheeris’ 1998 documentary THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION PART III (86 min) is on Friday and Saturday at Midnight; Tommy Wiseau’s 2003 film THE ROOM (99 min, 35mm) is on Friday at Midnight; and Jim Sharman’s 1975 film THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (100 min, 35mm) is on Saturday at Midnight. Unconfirmed Formats except where noted.

Facets Cinémathèque plays Pablo Fendrik’s 2014 film ARDOR (101 min, Unconfirmed Format) for a week’s run.

The Northbrook Public Library (1201 Cedar Lane, Northbrook) screens Brad Bird’s 2004 animated film THE INCREDIBLES (115 min, DCP Digital) on Wednesday, 1 and 7:30pm. Free admission.

The Goethe-Institut Chicago (150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 200) screens Andreas Dresen’s 2010 film CLOUD NINE (100 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Tuesday at 6pm. Free admission.

The Chicago Cultural Center presents a screening of Chicago youth-made and other work selected by Cultural Center Artist in Residence Cheryl Pope on Sunday at 3pm; and hosts the Cinema/Chicago screening of Sudabeh Mortezai’s 2013 Austrian film MACONDO (98 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Wednesday at 6:30pm. Free admission for both.

Comfort Film at Comfort Station Logan Square (2579 N. Milwaukee Ave.) presents an outdoor screening of George Chesebro and Bruce Mitchell’s 1925 silent film WOLF BLOOD: A TALE OF THE FOREST (approx. 68 min, Digital Projection) is on Wednesday at sundown (approx. 8:30pm), with live music by The Gothsicles. Free admission.




The Zhou B Art Center (1029 W 35th St.) is presents the exhibition -scape, curated by Mo Chen and Snow Yunxue Fu, from July 17 to August 28. Opening Reception Friday from 7-10pm. The mixed-media show includes several moving image works. The exhibiting artists are Jon Cates, Mo Chen, Snow Yunxue Fu, Philip Hanson, Max Hattler, Alan Kwan, and Philip Vanderhyden.

Roman Susan (1224 W. Loyola Ave.) continues the exhibition Kera MacKenzie and Andrew Mausert-Mooney: havoc and tumbled from through 25. The show features video, 16mm film, sound, and painting by the collaborative local artists.

Deadly Prey Gallery (1433 W. Chicago Ave.) presents the exhibition Action-Packed & Horrible, featuring contemporary (1990s-present) hand-painted movie posters from Ghana. The show runs through July 24.

The exhibition Frances Stark: Intimism is on view at the Art Institute of Chicago through August 30. The show is a comprehensive survey of Stark’s video and digital production.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents an exhibition of nine video works by artist Keren Cytter. On view through October 4.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents German artist Clemens von Wedemeyer’s HD video installation Muster (Rushes) (2012). On view through July 26.




Chicago Public Library screenings: Due to the frequency of late-additions (past our deadlines) and to their frequent inability (due to licensing restrictions) of publicly listing the titles of films they are screening, we will no longer be listing specific CPL screenings. Check their website for any films that may be showing.

The Patio Theater and the Portage Theater calendars have been confusing and constantly shifting—adding and removing events with little notice—and reportedly have been unexpectedly closed for scheduled events. We will no longer attempt to list any screenings there.



CINE-LIST: July 17 – July 23, 2015


CONTRIBUTORS / Kian Bergstrom, Elspeth J. Carroll, Kyle Cubr, Kathleen Sachs, Brian Welesko


CINE-LIST: Friday, JULY 3 – Thursday, JULY 9

July 3rd, 2015 by Patrick

:: Friday, JUNE 12 – Thursday, JUNE 18 ::



Anthony Mann’s MEN IN WAR (American Revival)
Doc Films (University of Chicago) – Wednesday, 7pm
When asked which of his own films he liked best, Anthony Mann reportedly listed MEN IN WAR along with WINCHESTER ‘73, EL CID and GOD’S LITTLE ACRE. It’s similar to the latter film in that both are one-offs within the scope of his career; GOD’S LITTLE ACRE is a bona fide literary adaptation, while MEN IN WAR was Mann’s only foray into a genre that would have seemed a natural fit for the director whom Andrew Sarris deemed a “tough-guy authority.” Set during the Korean War (on September 6, 1950, to be exact), the film is about a platoon that’s trying to reconnect with American forces after being cut off during battle. Robert Ryan plays Lieutenant Benson, who acts as a father figure to his troops, trying to protect them while likewise validating their importance as human beings in the face of mindless warfare. (He carries a little black book that he uses to keep track of his boys—alive and dead.) Benson and his men commandeer a jeep driven by a wayward sergeant (“Montana,” played by Aldo Ray) whose only desire is to get his shell-shocked colonel to safety. Benson and Montana come to represent opposite ends of the spectrum; Benson is a born leader who thinks before he acts, while Montana is a natural soldier compelled solely by instinct. As in many of his films, Mann explores the dynamic between these two characters within the overarching group dynamic. This is just one way in which he effortlessly merged aspects of art cinema with the audience’s relentless demand for entertaining stories; as critic and director Dan Sallitt once said, “Filming two people sitting in a room talking is the ultimate in cinema,” and this is what Mann touches on when he pulls out any two people from the group dynamic to emphasize their complex relationship. This is further demonstrated through his masterful compositions. In her book on the director, film historian Jeanine Basinger writes that he “evolved the concept of the total image, one which contained story (content) and presentation of story with the tools of cinema (form) as a unified event.” This is Mann in a nutshell, and it applies to MEN IN WAR no less than to his other more well-known films. One might argue that when specifically applied to the topic of war, such artfulness is the perfect visual representation of it. Close-ups and medium shots reflect both the isolation of combat and the nature of the relationships it creates, while the occasional long shot conveys the foot soldier’s sense of impending doom. (Mann also utilizes nature to expert effect. The landscape doesn’t become a character so much as a monster that hides out in the open.) It’s based on the novel Combat by Van Van Praag, about which little information exists past its connection to the film. Legend has it that the credited screenwriter, Chicago-born Philip Yordan, may have been providing a front for the work of blacklisted screenwriter Ben Maddow on both this film and GOD’S LITTLE ACRE. Regardless, it’s a Mann film through and through, even if it’s one of his most underrated. (1957, 102 min, 16mm) KS

More info at

Eric Rohmer’s FULL MOON IN PARIS (French Revival)

Gene Siskel Film Center – Sunday, 5pm and Thursday, 6pm

The final film in Eric Rohmer’s Comedies & Proverbs series, FULL MOON IN PARIS begins with a quote: “With two women, a man loses his soul. Two houses, a man loses his mind.” However, the main character of this film is not a man, but a woman, played by Pascale Ogier who, at 25, would die a year later from a drug overdose on the eve of her 26th birthday. She only appeared in a handful of films, but this one, along with LE PONT DU NORD by another New Waver, Jacques Rivette (which she co-wrote along with her mother, Bulle), would solidify her position in the canon of young French actresses (the filmic mainstream talks of Binoche and Huppert, but what of Bonnaire, Berto, and Ogier?). Ogier plays a young woman (Louise), living in the suburbs with her boyfriend, who yearns for the freedom to stay up late, come home when she wants, and be alone when she wants, all the while maintaining the stability of her relationship. After a moment of strife, the couple reaches an agreement; she will maintain her small apartment in Paris, and he will maintain his house in the French suburbs, and their relationship will blossom. As the months pass by and the young woman comes back into contact with the life she knew before she met her boyfriend, she becomes steeped in her new existence, and this is when the film makes a subtle shift in tone, turning into an almost-“detective story,” similar to Rohmer’s previous film, THE AVIATOR’S WIFE. The young woman starts to suspect her boyfriend may have taken a lover, now that her newfound freedom extends to him as well. The film not only wraps itself in Louise’s behavior, but also in the mysterious ambience of Paris in the wee-hours, haunted by the affective glow of the full moon, anticipating the solar energy of his next film, THE GREEN RAY. The men in Louise’s life try to trap her, keep her within an arm’s reach, but the film goes beyond the usual stale-trappings a male filmmaker often treads trying to harness the “unknowable force” that propels a young woman, often encased in the husk of half-baked Flaubert, and instead renders the character completely human, as her moral fabric starts to loosen its thread and she comes to see the reality of her choices; and just as the movie opens with a quote, another line is uttered towards the end: “One has to choose. It’s painful.” (1984, 102 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) JD

More info at

Tim Burton’s BATMAN RETURNS & Joseph Zito’s INVASION U.S.A. (American Revivals)
Northbrook Public Library (
1201 Cedar Lane, Northbrook) – Wednesday, 1 and 7:30pm (Free Admission) (Batman)

Music Box Theatre – Friday and Saturday, Midnight (Invasion)
There are genres that depend on a kind of implicitly moral worldbuilding. It’s often been said that the detective genre is inherently conservative in form. A crime is committed, a violation to the status quo, and it is the job or duty of the detective to return society to proper working order, usually by uncovering the identity of the killer or thief and arranging for that miscreant’s proper punishment. When the detective film values law and order it does so because in the world of that film, law and order are right, good, just. The superhero film, however, does not value law and order, does not find resolution in the wheels of justice. The superhero film finds civilization an encumbrance, a deep-seated problem that a grand hero must transform, and these two great Reagan/Bush I era movies embody two divergent ways to respond to that problem. Tim Burton’s BATMAN RETURNS (1992, 126 min, 35mm) is a vision of sexual expansiveness, one of the dirtiest PG-13 films ever made. Easily the best Batman movie, BATMAN RETURNS follows a secretary, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), who stumbles on to her boss’s plot to rob Gotham City of its electricity.  He promptly murders her, but, possessed by a feline spirit of some sort, she returns to seek vengeance on him and all men who exploit women. Her violent, erotically charged vigilante spree through the city brings her to the attention of a brutal, thuggish man in a rubber bat costume with a savior complex and a deformed aquatic bird fetishist intent on mass murder. Burton’s oiled, diseased, leather-clad architecture, Weimar-derived style, and grisly sense of humor are at their height here: the sets sweat, the costumes are some nightmarish combination of S&M magazine and Barnum & Bailey dumpster, and the unctuous, evil little plots the villains set threaten equal parts bloodlust and wicked comeuppance. It’s the perfect atmosphere to stage a vicious feminist assault on the patronizing Good Guys vs. Bad Guys for the sake of Our Women bullshit that still haunts our movies today like a fart in an elevator. Kyle in her new guise as Catwoman is neither hero nor crook but a woman hell-bent on playing by a different set of rules. BATMAN RETURNS is an anarchic, transgressive morality tale in which the conventional crime fighter and his conventional foe are equally in the wrong, in which the city is saved by the destruction of the order it tried so hard to enshrine. In contrast, Joseph Zito’s INVASION U.S.A. (1985, 107 min, 35mm) is its political opposite, a reactionary, elegiac murder-fest in which an army of terrorists invades the United States and begins an all-out offensive within our national borders. They blow up suburban homes, shoot out Miami street corners, plant bombs on school buses and in shopping malls. The government, weakened by the need to police minorities and harass photojournalists, is powerless. Only one man can stop them: Matt Hunter, played with Affleck-like subtlety by Chuck Norris, a former CIA operative now hunting alligators in the Everglades. Hunter’s response? Blow every terrorist on U.S. soil to smithereens, preferably with automatic machine guns. INVASION U.S.A. was the second collaboration between Norris and director Zito, following the previous year’s MISSING IN ACTION. Zito, given a very free hand, imbues the film with a melancholic, despairing air that is deeply at odds with the fascistic horrors enacted on screen. His shots of Florida’s swamps are richly beautiful, a natural world soon to be incinerated in a hail of rocket propelled grenades, knives through hands, and car chases. Zito takes pains in every shot to ground the absurd action in a fully living, breathing environment of life, life that must be defended against the terrorists and from which the hero, Hunter, emerges. Throughout, Hunter is made explicitly a force of nature, a man who comes from outside the bounds of society to save us, but who can have no true place within it. BATMAN RETURNS sees a rotting darkness at the heart of the city and metaphorically burns the city to the ground in response, setting the darkness free. INVASION U.S.A. sees that same darkness, and leaps in after it, pouring hot lead and fire after itself to seal the darkness in. KB

More info at and



Carol Reed’s THE THIRD MAN (British Revival)

Music Box Theatre – Check Venue website for showtimes

Carol Reed and Graham Greene’s THE THIRD MAN stars Joseph Cotton as Holly Martins, an American writer of “cheap novelettes” such as Oklahoma Kid and The Lone Rider of Santa Fe. In 1949, Martins goes to Vienna to visit his old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) and soon finds out that he is dead. In an international zone designated for police at the center of the city, the British Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) and his officers investigate Lime’s recent death and his role in selling diluted penicillin on the black market. Martins also begins to look into whether the death was an accident or murder only to inadvertently discover that Lime is alive and hiding out in the Russian sector. (Although Welles spends very little time onscreen, Harry Lime is his most celebrated performance after Charles Foster Kane; in fact, Andre Bazin said that the role made Welles into a myth.) Similar to Vittorio De Sica’s THE BICYCLE THIEF (1948) and Jean Cocteau’s ORPHEUS (1950) in its semi-documentary quality, THE THIRD MAN captures Europe in ruins after the second war to end all wars. Following the February 1948 coup that brought the Communists to power in Czechoslovakia, the film’s producer Alexander Korda asked Greene to go to Vienna and write a screenplay on the city’s occupation by the Americans, Russians, British, and French. According to Lime’s associate “Baron” Kurtz (a reference to the corrupt ivory trader in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness), all of the Viennese are now at the mercy of the black market. Robert Krasker’s camera often catches their faces in close-up as they watch what happens on the city’s streets; they rarely, if ever, make the mistake of speaking about it. Toward the end of the film, Martins meets Lime at an empty carnival in Prater Park. While going around on the Ferris wheel, Lime reveals to his friend, “You’re just a little mixed up about things in general. Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t. Why should we? They talk about the people and the proletariat. I talk about the suckers and the mugs. It’s the same thing.  They have their five-year plans, so have I.” THE THIRD MAN is one of the great works of British film noir that considers what, if anything, is left of morality for those who were spared by the Second World War. (1949, 104 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) CW

More info at


Mia Hansen-Løve’s EDEN (New French)

Music Box Theatre – Saturday and Sunday, 11:30am

It is a remarkable (albeit Francophilic) fact that one of the world’s greatest living filmmakers–Claire Denis–and one of the world’s greatest up-and-coming filmmakers–Mia Hansen-Løve–are, more-or-less, serious aficionados of club music, a relentless, ecstatic, and sometimes melancholic variety of genres which, to be honest, is poorly matched to many other emotions conventionally provoked by cinema. But like her protagonists in EDEN, Hansen-Løve has thrown caution to the wind and built an epic 21-year audiovisual mixtape around the prolonged young-adulthood of her brother, Sven Løve, a Parisian DJ whose social circle was obsessed with the soulful, vocals-heavy style of the 1980s-era Paradise Garage nightclub in New York (located around the corner from Film Forum). Her staging thrives in the events’ thresholds–in those tunnels and stairways of echoing (and frequently Chicago-manufactured) basslines, spaces sometimes more memorable than the parties themselves–for those were the corporeal and mundane passages through which an apolitical generation in Europe and England found a temporary transcendence. But radically, EDEN’s story is told less through plot and dialogue than in the gospel-influenced lyrics of the wall-to-wall soundtrack, stylistically constrained to express love, heartbreak, isolation, and communion. The addresser and addressee of these songs, once representing a choir speaking to god, comes to represent the voice of a lover to another; or from dancer to anonymous dancer; or from the DJ to the dance floor. “Follow me, where we can be free”; “Let’s get close, closer than close”; “I’m trying to hold on to your love”; “One more time, one more time, one more time, one more time.”  (2014, 131 min, DCP Digital) MC

More info at



The Northwest Chicago Film Society, in their new home at Northeastern Illinois University (Auditorium, Building E, 3701 W. Bryn Mawr Ave.), presents Michael Ritchie’s 1975 film SMILE (113 min, 35mm) on Wednesday at 7pm.

The Sulzer Regional Library (4455 N. Lincoln Ave.) presents a screening of soundies, TV ads, and movie trailers from the collection of artist and filmmaker Heather McAdams on Thursday at 7pm. The screening is in conjunction with an exhibition of McAdams’ cartoons, drawings, needlepoint, and other art, which runs through July 31. All 16mm. Free admission.

The Nightingale (1084 N. Milwaukee Ave.) presents Radius GRIDS: GRIDS Book Release and FLEETING COMPONENTS Screening on Tuesday at 7pm. The book release of GRIDS, which documents the activities of the experimental radio broadcast platform Radius, will be accompanied by a new film by Stephanie Acosta, FLEETING COMPONENTS.

Also at the Gene Siskel Film Center this week: Peter H. Hunt’s 1972 musical 1776 (166 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) is on Friday at 3pm and Monday at 6pm; Richard Lester’s 1964 musical A HARD DAY’S NIGHT (87 min, DCP Digital; New Restoration) is on Friday at 6:15pm, Saturday at 3pm, and Tuesday at 6pm; Hiromasa Yonebayashi’s 2010 Japanese animation THE SECRET WORLD OF ARRIETTY (94 min, DCP Digital) is on Friday at 3pm (subtitled), Saturday at 5pm (English dubbed), and Wednesday at 6pm (subtitled); Hiromasa Yonebayashi’s 2014 Japanese animation WHEN MARNIE WAS THERE (103 min, DCP Digital; check website for subtitled vs. dubbed screenings), Eran Riklis’ 2014 Israeli/German/French film A BORROWED IDENTITY (104 min, DCP Digital), and Josh Lawson’s 2014 Australian film THE LITTLE DEATH (96 min, DCP Digital) all play for a week.

Also at Doc Films (University of Chicago) this week: Neena Nejad and Xoel Pamos’ 2014 documentary PRICE OF HONOR (118 min, DVD Projection) is on Thursday at 7pm, with Pamos in person for a post-screening panel discussion. Free admission.

Also at the Music Box Theatre this week: Crystal Moselle’s 2015 documentary THE WOLFPACK (80 min) continues; Julie Taymor’s 2014 film A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM (148 min) is on Sunday at 11:30am and Tuesday at 7pm; Michael Curtiz’s 1942 musical biography YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (126 min, 35mm) is on Saturday at 11:30am, preceded by a holiday sing-along; Dito Montiel’s 2014 film BOULEVARD (88 min) screens on Wednesday at 7pm as part of the occasional New York Film Critics series; and Joseph Zito’s 1985 film INVASION U.S.A. (107 min, 35mm) is on Friday and Saturday at Midnight. Unconfirmed Formats except where noted.

Facets Cinémathèque plays Kenny Riches 2014 film THE STRONGEST MAN (99 min, Unconfirmed Format) and Billy Senese’s 2014 film CLOSER TO GOD (82 min, Unconfirmed Format) for week long runs.

Comfort Film at Comfort Station Logan Square (2579 N. Milwaukee Ave.) presents John Woo’s 1997 film FACE/OFF (139 min, Digital File) on Friday at 8pm. The screening features live commentary by local comedians; Ernest J. Ramon’s 2015 compilation film CRITICAL PARANOIA 2: DARK NIGHT RISING (87 min, Digital Projection) is on Tuesday at 8:30pm, screening outdoors; and an outdoor screening of Marshall Neilan’s 1918 silent film STELLA MARIS (80 min, Digital Projection) is on Wednesday at sundown (approx. 8:30pm), with live music by The Passerines. Free admission for all three events.

The Chicago Cultural Center hosts the Cinema/Chicago screening of Chi-Jan Hou, Ko-Shang Shen, and Yu-Hsun Chen’s 2010 Taiwanese film JULIETS (106 min, Video Projection – Unconfirmed Format) on Wednesday at 6:30pm. Free admission.




Deadly Prey Gallery (1433 W. Chicago Ave.) presents the exhibition Action-Packed & Horrible, featuring contemporary (1990s-present) hand-painted movie posters from Ghana. The opening is Friday from 7 to 11pm and the show runs through July 24.

The exhibition Frances Stark: Intimism is on view at the Art Institute of Chicago through August 30. The show is a comprehensive survey of Stark’s video and digital production.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents an exhibition of nine video works by artist Keren Cytter. On view through October 4.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents German artist Clemens von Wedemeyer’s HD video installation Muster (Rushes) (2012). On view through July 26.




Chicago Public Library screenings: Due to the frequency of late-additions (past our deadlines) and to their frequent inability (due to licensing restrictions) of publicly listing the titles of films they are screening, we will no longer be listing specific CPL screenings. Check their website for any films that may be showing.

The Patio Theater and the Portage Theater calendars have been confusing and constantly shifting—adding and removing events with little notice—and reportedly have been unexpectedly closed for scheduled events. We will no longer attempt to list any screenings there.


CINE-LIST: July 3 – July 9, 2015


CONTRIBUTORS / Kian Bergstrom, Michael Castelle, John Dickson, Kathleen Sachs, Candace Wirt, Darnell Witt