:: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8 - THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14 ::

📽️ CRUCIAL VIEWING

Black Harvest Film Festival

Gene Siskel Film Center – See showtimes below

Raoul Peck's ERNEST COLE: LOST AND FOUND (France/Documentary)
Saturday, 6pm
Raoul Peck has made a career out of accessible portraits of the radical. Covering wide ground with films about Marx and Baldwin and two about Patrice Lumumba, he’s become one of our leading chroniclers of the ills of the last few hundred years via the great men who’ve articulated them. Entering the fray is the comparatively lesser-known Ernest Cole, the South African photographer who, despite (or maybe because of) his status as a leading documenter of apartheid South Africa, struggled with marginalization throughout his career and had his archive of negatives lost for years before being rediscovered in a bank vault in Sweden in 2017. Peck uses a multimodal approach to document the man, drawing largely on Cole’s own photographs but supplementing them with other historical materials and a voiceover by Lakeith Stanfield acting as the man. The archival approach is a wise one by Peck, allowing Cole’s words and images mostly to speak for themselves. We see the work that formed his most popular collection, the 1967 book House of Bondage, as well as his follow-up attempts to document life in the Jim Crow south that were largely ignored by publications at the time. But there’s a sadness embedded in this approach too, in the way that we largely come to understand the man through the images of poverty and racial strife that defined much of his output. He laments this in his letter seeking refuge outside of the United States, saying that this was only one of his interests and not how he wanted to define his career. While the work presented in the film is varied, this is still a defining feature, and the portrait is one of a poet trying to break the molds made for him by a racist and xenophobic public. This may be why the film opens up a bit in the latter half, documenting his estate’s attempts and ultimate success in tracking down his archive in the present day. It’s here that the film’s political text becomes even more explicit, cataloging the more contemporary history of South Africa following the end of apartheid and the emergence of the ANC. These final moments offer some bit of triumph after the obscurity of Cole’s later life and eventual death in exile in 1990. Mixed within Peck’s encyclopedic and angry montage, Cole’s work is ultimately reclaimed as the invaluable archive it is. (2024, 105 min, DCP Digital) [Maxwell Courtright]
---
Ivan Dixon's THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR (US)
Sunday, 12:30pm
THE SPOOK WHO SAT BY THE DOOR, based on the book by native Chicagoan and committed Marxist Sam Greenlee, who also wrote the film’s screenplay, chronicles the activities of the portentously named Dan Freeman (Lawrence Cook). Freeman is one of a cohort of all-male black applicants to a CIA affirmative action program foisted upon the agency by U.S. senators who are more worried about approval ratings than equality. The cohort of hopefuls doesn’t realize that their white trainers will use every opportunity to eliminate them from contention. In the end, only Freeman has made the grade. He is appointed section chief of reproduction services, aka photocopying, and remains with the agency for five years before returning to his native Chicago. Then the real purpose of his CIA stint becomes clear—to use the skills he acquired to recruit and train guerrilla freedom fighters in all the major urban centers in the country to battle Whitey to a standstill and force the Establishment to grant black Americans freedom in exchange for safe and peaceful streets. Greenlee provides a graphic depiction of the lumpenproletariat rising up against their bourgeois oppressors. After first establishing Freeman as a charismatic leader who can win respect with his muscles as well as his brains, the film shows him recruiting his former gang, the Cobras, to be his first platoon of revolutionaries. Ivan Dixon, perhaps best known as one of the POWs on the TV series Hogan’s Heroes (1965–1971), had a full career as an actor and TV director. His only two feature film assignments, TROUBLE MAN (1972) and SPOOK, came during the short window of opportunity for independently produced “Blaxploitation” films, and both films balance intelligence and aspiration with the more common elements of sex and violence. Dixon shoots parallel scenes and dialogue of Freeman training his men as he was trained at The Farm, a still-relevant example of American forces opportunistically training people who just as opportunistically will turn on them some day. The film has no real place for women as active fighters, but Dahomey Queen (Paula Kelly), a black prostitute with whom Freeman hooks up during his CIA training, becomes an invaluable informer. In 2012, SPOOK was added to the National Film Registry as a “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant” American film. Faced with the violence against the black community that we know is absolutely real from recent events, Freeman’s desperate actions “to be free,” as he puts it, are likely to be met with a good deal of sympathy from a large portion of today’s audiences. Nomathandé Dixon and Natiki Pressley, daughters of filmmaker Dixon and writer Greenlee, respectively, in dialogue. (1973, 102 min, DCP Digital) [Marilyn Ferdinand]
---
David Fortune's COLOR BOOK (US)
Sunday, 3pm
There’s a tension you can feel when watching a narrative about disability. Given the history of even the most well-meaning attempts to portray people with intellectual disabilities often lapsing into condescension, it can feel like a breath of fresh air just to see a film treat the subject neutrally. Thankfully, moving as it is, David Fortune’s COLOR BOOK walks its fine line with grace, treating its characters’ relationship with a tenderness that never becomes maudlin. Reeling from the death of his wife Tammy, widower Lucky (William Catlett) and his 11-year-old son Mason (Jeremiah Daniels) are left to pick up the pieces. We don’t see much of Tammy outside of a brief prologue, and we get the impression that, while loving Mason unconditionally, Lucky is still learning the ins and outs of parenting that came more naturally to his late wife. Mason has Down syndrome and struggles to express himself, especially in the face of indescribable grief. When Lucky’s friend offers to get the father and son into a baseball game, Lucky takes him up on the offer only to get caught up in numerous trials on the day-long odyssey to get there. But even in the film’s most tense moments, nearly every character (a bum car seller notwithstanding) is guided by an innate goodness. It’s like a feel-good variation on the social mechanics that drive a Dardennes or Safdie brothers film, where the variable characters that could make or break the men's journey always choose grace. The tension, where it exists, comes mostly from Lucky’s difficulty with communication or assumptions that things might go wrong when they never ultimately do; the world is an ultimately safe and forgiving place for the weary duo. Beautifully framing Lucky and Mason’s relationship, DP Nikolaus Summerer’s black and white photography should share top billing in the film, employing Atlanta location shots that feel both specific and generalizable. While the father-son relationship feels true-to-life in many ways, other elements of their shared life and background are either completely generic (constant references to "the game," for instance, never elaborate further on who might be playing, though one assumes it’s the Braves) or left to the imagination, so that the film becomes a more universal series of tableaux, two men picking up the pieces in the spare architecture of their home and community. The emotion is handsomely wrung from every word and gesture, the film radiating with love in every frame. Fortune in attendance. (2024, 105 min, DCP Digital) [Maxwell Courtright]

Nathaniel Dorsky's THE ARBORETUM CYCLE (US/Experimental)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Sunday, 8pm

Nathaniel Dorsky’s reputation has deservedly grown over the past decade—going from a deeply respected but lesser-known filmmaker whose work was exceptionally hard to see to a sort-of sage/doyen/grandfather of the experimental film world. This growth in reputation is in part due to changes in film technology. Previously Dorsky’s films were direct prints of reversal film, which made for a gorgeous viewing experience, but made the prints very expensive to replace. So any rental of his films came with dire and ominous warnings from the distributor about the cost of replacement. But stocks used to make reversal prints have all but disappeared, so Dorsky had to re-learn his techniques as a master chronicler of light and shadow in urban settings on negative film, which made the films no less beautiful but maybe a little less frightening to projectionists and programmers. His reputation also grew due to the publication of his slim book Devotional Cinema, which entranced people with its reverence for the cinematic art and shared viewing experience. Perhaps it espoused some pretty commonly held views among cinephiles, but rarely had those views been written about so humbly and gratefully. It touched a chord. Since then, his films have been traveling around a lot more, and it’s a blessing for all film lovers. THE ARBORETUM CYCLE is oddly both minor and monumental. Monumental in that it runs well over 2 hours and contains 7 movements shot over the course of a year, yet minor-key in setting and tone as the films document a small area in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park Arboretum. Dorsky’s ability to mine such grace and blooming elegance from the light captured in his neighborhood park is an amazing feat and should not be missed. Screening as part of the Devotional Cinema of Nathaniel Dorsky and Jerome Hiler series. (2017-18, 137 min, 16mm) [Josh B Mabe]

Elaine May's MIKEY AND NICKY (US)

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

Letting Peter Falk (Mikey) and John Cassavetes (Nicky) run wild on film can be a dangerous proposition. Sure, Cassavetes got away with it as a director, but he financed his own movies. After shooting 1.4 million feet of film while running 3 cameras at once, Elaine May was understandably over budget and the studio was understandably disappointed. Paramount buried the film after a short run, and it would be twelve more years until she would direct again (ISHTAR). Although the film was panned by critics at the time, May's approach yielded a nuanced portrait of the male ego and of Downtown Philadelphia that has rarely been matched. The two close-ups and a master shot approach to cinematography was effective, albeit listless, in generating a claustrophobic world—a structure largely controlled during May's lengthy editing process. Although the two leads play low-level gangsters, they may as well be any of Cassavetes' standard protagonists: cornered by their jobs and social circumstances, and long past fighting to break out of them. We know the hero isn't going to win by the end of the first reel, and we know that he's not much of a hero by the end of the second. But watching May's collaboration with two great method actors in their prime is worth savoring until the credits roll. Screening as part of a Dangerous Business: Elaine May Matinees series. (1976, 119 min, DCP Digital) [Jason Halprin]

Karl Freund’s MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS (US)

Chicago Film Society at Northeastern Illinois University (The Auditorium, Building E, 3701 W. Bryn Mawr Ave.) – Wednesday, 7:30pm

The great Karl Freund was cinematographer on some of the most important German films of the 1920s: THE GOLEM, THE LAST LAUGH, VARIETY, METROPOLIS. His career in Hollywood, which began in 1929, may not be quite so illustrious, though it spans Universal Pictures’ cycle of horror films of the early ‘30s, a number of ‘40s MGM melodramas, and over 150 episodes of I Love Lucy. MOONLIGHT AND PRETZELS was one of about half a dozen features that Freund directed at Universal, coming just after THE MUMMY (1932) it shows that, in addition to his pioneering work with camera movement, he could also take credit for a fun Busby Berkeley knockoff. The first ten minutes or so are wonderful after the fashion of so many early talkies, promising one kind of movie before switching gears to deliver another one. George Dwight is the songwriter for a traveling revue who quits his job on tour when the producers reject some of his new numbers. Broke and unemployed, George finds work at a music shop in the small town where he abandoned the tour. He strikes up a flirtatious rapport with the store’s owner while selling sheet music and writing more songs with the goal of jump-starting his career. Within minutes of screen time, George realizes his goal, selling a few tunes to another Broadway revue. From there, the story moves to New York and becomes a Berkeley-style let’s-put-on-a-show musical, replete with backstage intrigue and overweening money men. The film climaxes with a musical number about hobos that’s blatantly ripped off of the “Remember the Forgotten Man” sequence of GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 but is affecting all the same. And speaking of other movies, Leo Carillo turns up as a Greek gambler who’s basically a test run for his immortal performance as Chef César, another malapropism-spouting European, in Frank Borzage’s HISTORY IS MADE AT NIGHT (1937). Preceded by Gjon Mili’s 1944 short film JAMMIN’ THE BLUES (10 min, 35mm). (1933, 80 min, 35mm) [Ben Sachs]

Percy Adlon's ZUCKERBABY (West Germany)

Film Studies Center (at the Reva and David Logan Center for the Arts, 915 E. 60th St.) - Friday, 7pm

Sometimes finding true love is a mixture of serendipity and raw work ethic. That’s the overall message of Percy Adlon’s ZUCKERBABY, a late addition to the New German Cinema canon that finds beauty in its leading woman’s determination to make her romantic fantasy come true. Marianne (Marianne Sägebrecht) is a morgue worker, biding her time as a faceless commuter with a drab life in Munich when she starts to have erotic visions of one of her train conductors, Huber (Eisi Gulp). Making it her mission to meet and woo the man, she infiltrates his office, studies the detailed conductor schedule rotation, and eventually gets her manufactured meet-cute with the married man, setting off her fairytale romance. It’s a shapeshifting film that moves from quirky stalker comedy to a more tender and languid middle section when the relationship commences, spending long stretches with the couple in the throes of ecstasy. It’s a masterclass in doing a lot with a little; Adlon uses minimal sets, the bulk of the action plays out in Marianne’s apartment and various subway locale, with all shots doused in dramatic dichromatic lighting. Johanna Heer, best known for shooting the cult cyberpunk oddity DECODER, lenses this film in a similar style, relying heavily on a simple green- and pink-heavy palette. Every room or train station becomes a cavernous place lit with finite rays of light, every object a duotone of saturated color and shadow. The camera’s bizarre movements also add drama to otherwise inert situations: during dialogue, a controlled shaky cam will nudge around the subjects, sometimes rhythmically and other times randomly; on a joyful motorcycle ride, the couple drifts in and out of the frame, the blurred street and sky getting equal space; when the couple is in bed, the camera finds objects around the room, showing the tableau in granular detail but never all at once. It creates a dreamlike undercurrent to every scene, the Kafkaesque stalking stretch and victorious romantic section playing out like two sides of a subconscious coin. While the film’s downbeat ending punctures the proceedings a bit, the viewer only roots harder for the tenacious Marianne to build another even more fabulous dream palace of romance. Screening as part of the From the Vault series. (1985, 86 min, 35mm) [Maxwell Courtright]

Tsai Ming-liang's ABIDING NOWHERE (Taiwan/US)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Saturday, 7pm and Sunday, 4pm

For the past decade, Malaysian-Taiwanese slow cinema master Tsai Ming-liang has devoted most of his cinematic output to his “Walker” series of exhibition films, which feature his longtime muse Lee Kang-sheng dressed as a Buddhist monk walking extremely slowly through the spaces of various world cities. Forgoing the already minimalist narratives of Tsai’s major theatrical works, these films invite viewers to become entrained to a body whose languor is explicitly counterposed against the speed and efficiency of globalized modern life. Commissioned by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Asian Art for the centennial of its Freer Gallery, ABIDING NOWHERE finds Tsai and Lee in Washington, D.C., where the latter, in his saffron-colored robes, is initially seen practicing his meditative walking around a stream and in some woods. The first signs of civilization emerge as the sounds of passing cars, and then Lee appears in a place we can actually locate: in front of the Washington Monument. He shows up in increasingly more populated spaces. In D.C.’s Union Station and on a city sidewalk, Lee’s sloth-like movements are contrasted, often humorously, with the bustle of passersby, many of whom pause in bemusement at his sight. Tsai keeps his camera perpetually static and in wide shot, allowing the viewer’s eye to wander around the frame in curious scrutiny; at times, this method evokes Jacques Tati, or the patient people-watching of Frederick Wiseman. ABIDING NOWHERE features a parallel thread starring Anong Houngheuangsy, from Tsai’s 2020 film DAYS, and as in that film, he spends a good portion of time here preparing and eating a meal. His inclusion is not explained, but perhaps Tsai sees in his mundane, secular modern rhythms a meditative quality comparable to the timeless religious ritual of Lee’s dislocated monk, taking his time to be nowhere but here, wherever that may be. Screening as part of the New Releases and Restorations series. (2024, 79 min, DCP Digital) [Jonathan Leithold-Patt]

Ann Hui’s VISIBLE SECRET (Hong Kong)

Alamo Drafthouse – Tuesday, 9:30pm

Although she won acclaim as a director of naturalistic, socially conscious dramas, Ann Hui got her start directing supernatural films; her first two features, THE SECRET (1979) and THE SPOOKY BUNCH (1980) are both ghost stories. VISIBLE SECRET, then, could be described as a mid-career return to her roots, a reconsideration of the sort of material she directed before she found her voice. It’s very much a Hong Kong ghost story, which is to say it isn’t a straightforward horror film but rather a playful mix of genres that includes romantic comedy and folklore as well as horror. Peter (Cantopop superstar Eason Chan) is an inept hairdresser looking for love in Hong Kong. One night at a club, he finds himself in the arms of a beautiful young woman, June (Shu Qi, appearing here the same year she starred in Hou Hsiao-hsien’s MILLENNIUM MAMBO), who’s trying to get away from a jealous ex. The two hit it off, and their relationship seems promising… until June reveals that she can see ghosts, but only out of her left eye. (Surely, this film inspired Johnnie To and Wai Ka-fai’s supernatural romcom MY LEFT EYE SEES GHOSTS, which came out the following year.) Peter’s understandably freaked out by the news—especially when ghosts start appearing all around him, bringing about some shocking changes in tone—but he decides to pursue the relationship all the same, which occasions some charming observations about contemporary romance. These passages of character-driven drama feel especially well-suited to Hui’s strengths, though she does well with the supernatural stuff too, executing lots of fun camera moves to convey the perspective of ghosts. VISIBLE SECRET is one of Hui’s most flamboyant films, not only because of the camerawork but because of Abe Kwong’s twist-filled screenplay. The film was made not long after M. Night Shyamalan’s THE SIXTH SENSE became a global sensation, and it was even marketed in some places as the Hong Kong response to that film. Some critics interpreted it as a national allegory about how Hong Kong, just a few years post-Handover back to Chinese rule, was still haunted by their past as a British colony. Hui denied any political intentions, however, insisting that VISIBLE SECRET was a work of entertainment. Screening as part of the Terror Tuesday series. (2001, 103 min, DCP Digital) [Ben Sachs]

📽️ ALSO RECOMMENDED

Hal Ashby's THE LAST DETAIL (US)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Monday, 7pm

Even though it was shot in color (by the esteemed Michael Chapman), I always remember THE LAST DETAIL in black-and-white. Maybe it’s because of the film’s wintry setting; maybe it’s because of the pronounced grimness that underlies the humor. In any case, I think of Hal Ashby’s third directorial effort as one of the starker masterpieces of the New Hollywood era, akin to Peter Bogdanovich’s THE LAST PICTURE SHOW and Martin Scorsese’s RAGING BULL (which was also shot by Chapman), and like those films, it gains much of its heft from a somber critique of machismo. Jack Nicholson (in one of his best roles) and Otis Young play pathetic, lifelong Navy veterans who speak in blustery, foul-mouthed jive to assert their masculine prowess. They’re given orders to escort a young cadet (Randy Quaid) to a naval prison, where he’s going to serve eight years for stealing $40 from a charity fund. The men approach the excursion as an excuse to goof off, but they begin to goof off with purpose when they realize that the cadet, Meadows, is a naïf who’s barely lived. They take Meadows drinking and whoring, developing empathy for him along the way. (A good deal of their affection stems from their unspoken acknowledgment that they’ve barely lived themselves.) Ashby’s laid-back direction invites viewers to share in the men’s camaraderie, while his somewhat distanced approach subtly scrutinizes their behavior. The executives at Columbia Pictures balked at all the swearing in the film, leading editor Robert C. Jones to hold the negative hostage until they relented in their orders that he recut it. Thank goodness he took charge—the film’s rancorous dialogue has a musicality that anticipates the plays of David Mamet, and THE LAST DETAIL would be a lesser work without it. Screening as part of the Columbia Pictures in the 1970s series. (1973, 104 min, DCP Digital) [Ben Sachs]

Paul Vecchiali’s FEMMES FEMMES (France)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Saturday, 9:30pm

The undersung French filmmaker Serge Bozon calls this film, made by another undersung French filmmaker—Paul Vecchiali (best known stateside for producing Chantal Akerman’s JEANNE DIELMAN)—“the best film of the best decade of French cinema (the Seventies).” He goes so far as to conclude his testimonial with the assertion that “if [my peers and I from Lettre du Cinéma are] making movies now, it’s—one way or the other—thanks to Paul Vecchiali.” Even Pier Paolo Pasolini loved FEMMES FEMMES, so much so that he asked the two lead actresses to replay a scene from it in SALÒ a year later. It was released the same year as CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING, and it suggests a more constrained version of Rivette’s film, largely taking place in the heroines’ cramped Parisian apartment—a sprawling urban game board it is not. The film begins as if a formal exercise, with aged actresses Sonia and Hélène (played by Sonia Savange and Hélène Surgèr) executing a bit. They soon fall into their “regular” behavior, after which it’s revealed that Hélène is an alcoholic shut-in and that Sonia still does a bit of acting. It’s as incidental as it sounds; the details are less important than the women’s mere presence, on the screen, on the stage, in this world. The film is a quasi-musical, with characters sporadically breaking into song, reinforcing the artificiality of its construction much like the conspicuously staged sequences. When it might begin to feel too real, concerns of art and aging (in ways that evoke SUNSET BOULEVARD by way of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?) imbuing the film with a certain gravity, the queerness of the conceit swipes at the knees of seriousness and brings it down with everything else. Vecchiali was inspired by the poetic realism of French films from the ‘30s and ‘40s, evident in his own films but with a screwier sensibility. This was the film that enabled Vecchiali to found his Diagonale et Co. production company, a collective that included such filmmakers as Adolfo Arrieta, Jean-Claude Biette, Jean-Claude Guiguet, Marie-Claude Treilhou, and Gérard Frot-Coutaz, prompting critic Serge Daney to call him the “best French producer.” Vecchiali worked frequently with composer Roland Vincent, whose score for FEMMES FEMMES is particularly memorable (think a soap opera theme from the ‘80s). Sonia and Hélène’s whimsical histrionics challenge as much as they appear to enforce notions of gender, performance, and the effect of time on us all; the film’s capriciousness renders it, like the women, indefinable by words alone. Screening as part of the Paul Vecchiali and Diagonale series. (1974, 115 min, DCP Digital) [Kat Sachs]

Hal Ashby's SHAMPOO (US)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Friday, 9:30pm

SHAMPOO is a raunchy sex farce set over 24 hours and a comedic showcase for immortal sex symbol Warren Beatty. Beverly Hills hairdresser George Roundy (Beatty) has ambitions to own his own salon while sleeping with all his female clientele. Things get complicated when he asks his mistress (Lee Grant) to invest in his dream while his ex-girlfriend (Julie Christie) betrays him with her husband (Jack Warden). There remains a debate surrounding SHAMPOO: who truly directed it, Hal Ashby or Warren Beatty? a Notorious control freak, Beatty hired the soft-spoken giant so he could walk all over his production, often leaving Ashby in the corner while he discussed the next shot with DP László Kovács. Capturing the hemorrhaging right-wing cultural hegemony, SHAMPOO remains a timeless document of gender, class, and sexual politics in revolution. The Roman Catholic Church expressed its feelings towards the film by giving it a "condemned." Robert Towne says that his script for the film was largely influenced by Jean Renoir’s THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939). As with many Beatty projects, the development process took years, with his hands on all levers. Towne and Beatty set out to create a modern Restoration comedy. As Towne recalls, “[Beatty] wanted to do a movie about a compulsive Don Juan. He asked how I would do it. I said that I’d do it somewhat like The Country Wife.” Watergate was nearing its endgame during principal photography, and Nixon would resign when it was still in the editing room in August of 1974. Beatty cast two of his real-life ex-girlfriends, Julie Christie and Goldie Hawn. A single line of dialogue delivered by Christie characterizes Beatty’s relationship to the material— “I want to suck his cock!” Despite the god complex inserted into the film's sex comedy, its sexual politics have endured. Women spend all day talking about "how men are fucking them over," observes George about his clientele. From wealthy traditionalist statesman to oversexed hairdresser, the male characters are deplorable. Even when it comes to pass that George has hooked up with the wife (Lee Grant), mistress (Christie), and daughter (the seventeen-year-old Carrie Fisher, in her first film role) of the same middle-aged Beverly Hills power broker (Jack Warden), we can’t quit him. The audience would despise any other leading man in the role. In the end, the hero gets the dream but loses the girl. Left with the inability to shake his habit, he watches his love step into a car and drive away. For a man like George, the worst part is about to come next: he’s going to get older. Screening as part of the Columbia Pictures in the 1970s series. (1975, 109 min, DCP Digital) [Ray Ebarb]

Kazik Radwanski's MATT AND MARA (Canada)

FACETS Cinema – Saturday, 1pm and 3pm

Kazik Radwanski’s MATT AND MARA is an exciting release for those who have been paying attention to the last decade of Canadian indie film. Radwanski’s fourth feature is his highest-profile to date, made with his highest budget yet following the indie success of his previous film ANNE AT 13,000 FEET (2019). The film’s stars, Matt Johnson and Deragh Campbell, are a sort of king and queen of the current Canadian indie scene, with Johnson’s DIY production ethos building in scope up to last year’s breakthrough BLACKBERRY, and Campbell appearing as actor and collaborator in a spate of recent forward-thinking works by the likes of Sofia Bohdanowicz and Blake Williams. Their casting in this film is a study in contrasts, their characterizations almost playing like a referendum on their respective performance styles and broader tendencies in their work. Where Johnson has a freewheeling, charismatic extroversion that endears him to anyone he meets, Campbell’s steely interiority traps her in her own head, friendly and communicative but constantly dissecting. Mara’s a creative writing professor who gets a visit from her old friend Matt, a fellow writer back in town following the publication of his new book. As they resume their friendship, their obvious chemistry and differing priorities provoke difficult questions about what they expect from one another. While the events of the film touch on more conventional indie drama fare (a terminally ill relative factors into the plot), Radwanski and his regular editor Ajla Odobasic push the film through time, distilling scenes to small but pointed observations. Labor, or the lack thereof, is often the driver of action in Radwanski’s work, something that quite literally gives the characters something to do but mainly provides insight to their body language, the way their presence in the world is defined by gesture. This is his first film about intellectual laborers, and thus has a more discursive mode than his previous features, even more trained on actors’ faces and speech as their professional and private tendencies start to blend together. The film seems especially interested in modern identity fragmentation, acknowledging that a person’s general, professional, and artistic senses of identity are all distinct from one another. Radwanski gives us character exposition via author bios, a sort-of officially presented version of the self that gets attached to creative work and which is both intentionally and unintentionally revealing; Mara has passport photos taken in several scenes, an act where one must present their most "true" and identifiable self as one without any expression beyond a flat, forward-looking neutrality. In ways particular to each character, Matt and Mara mutually fail to read information that’s supposed to be apparent—they rely on friendship cues of time gone by, only to realize their basic interpersonal problems are still the same, and that these might not be specific to them, but rather a fundamental illegibility of all people. Radwanski cleanly fits these ideas into the shell of a Rohmer riff partly thanks to impressive work by DP Nikolay Michaylov, which allows the film’s Bressonian visual language to provide an analogue to the analytical but limited focus of the characters. It puts the film in conversation with recent indies like GOOD ONE, AFTERSUN, or the work of Eliza Hittman in how its reduced drama highlights the more affective qualities of memory and communication. It’s an impressive balancing act, and one that reaffirms Radwanski as one of the most compelling dramatic filmmakers working now, in Canada or anywhere. (2024, 80 min, DCP Digital) [Maxwell Courtright]

Barry Sonnenfeld's MEN IN BLACK (US)

Music Box Theatre – Friday and Saturday, Midnight

A secret government agency, concealed from public view, employs advanced surveillance technology to control the population, while individuals go to great lengths to blend in. Immigrants arriving in the country face intense scrutiny, struggling to attain citizenship. Facts become malleable, memories are erased, and much of the news is dismissed as fake. Strangely, today’s headlines aren’t far from the logline of Barry Sonnenfeld’s MEN IN BLACK. This sci-fi comedy may appear lighthearted, but it subtly critiques government surveillance, immigration policies, and media manipulation. The film draws inspiration from real-life legends of the “Men in Black,” who allegedly monitored UFO sightings and suppressed witnesses' testimonies. Reports of these mysterious agents date back to the 1940s and '50s, with eyewitnesses claiming they were warned to stay silent. This lore feeds directly into the film’s narrative about a covert agency managing alien activity and "erasing" memories to maintain public ignorance. Sonnenfeld uses this premise to satirize hidden government controls, immigration scrutiny, and media distrust—all within a buddy-cop framework. Sonnenfeld’s first film THE ADDAMS FAMILY (1991) and its sequel ADDAMS FAMILY VALUES (1993) balance absurdity with social critique. Due to Sonnenfeld’s use of dark humor and spotlight on outcast characters, he's often compared to Tim Burton; however, Sonnenfeld’s style removes sentimentality in favor of a punchline, which strengthens the kinetic pace. His visual energy, honed during his cinematography days on the Coen Brothers films BLOOD SIMPLE (1984) and RAISING ARIZONA (1987), features wide-angle lenses, dead-center framing, and inventive camerawork that give MEN IN BLACK its distinct look and feel. The story opens with Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) and his partner apprehending a disguised alien near the US-Mexico border, setting the stage for a "passing of the torch." Veteran Agent K soon recruits NYPD cop James Edwards (Will Smith), who becomes Agent J. Smith’s lively, humorous “fish-out-of-water” performance pairs perfectly with Jones’s deadpan delivery, creating a buddy-cop dynamic that nods to Shane Black’s blueprint LETHAL WEAPON (1987). As agents, K and J confront Edgar the Bug (Vincent D'Onofrio), an illegal alien bent on stealing a powerful miniature galaxy. The film’s world comes alive through Rick Baker’s inventive mix of practical effects, puppetry, and CGI, grounding fantastical elements in realism. The MIB headquarters’ sleek, sterile silver-and-blue aesthetic sharply contrasts with the gritty, vibrant city streets, creating a distinctive visual juxtaposition. Edgar’s illegal entry and quest for power subtly echo US immigration policies and concealed state operations. The neuralyzer—a device that erases memories—becomes a symbol of media manipulation, blurring the line between “truth” and fabrication. Sonnenfeld manages these themes with a light touch, ensuring the film remains accessible and entertaining while probing deeper social issues. MEN IN BLACK succeeds with its blend of imaginative special effects, sharp satire, and standout performances, creating a world where even a galaxy-wearing cat feels plausible. Its unique style, humor, and layered themes launched a successful franchise, and its relevance endures. Just remember, wear your dark sunglasses—you never know when the neuralyzer might flash.(1997, 98 min, 35mm) [Shaun Huhn]

Michael Crichton's COMA (US)

Doc Films (at the University of Chicago) – Friday, 7pm

Dr. Susan Wheeler is a 4th-year resident at Boston Medical. When a close friend inexplicably goes brain dead after getting routine surgery, she becomes fixated on what’s really going on inside the hospital. In COMA, Michael Crichton’s technological know-how and no-nonsense editing provide a lively ride of paranoia and suspense, employing old-school Hitchcockian intrigue with medical authenticity that keeps you captivated from beginning to end. It’s at first satisfying to watch Wheeler, played by Geneviève Bujold, using her bold rationality and wit to extract the information she needs out of members of her facility, but her efforts quickly evolve into a dangerous gambit with treacherous consequences. All of Dr. Wheeler’s male colleagues seem to have a nefarious aura of contempt for her, but it’s not clear if they are a part of a conspiracy or if they’re just misogynistic. Even her boyfriend, a surgeon played by Michael Douglas, merely placates her anxieties, blaming them on the distress of her recent loss. Every male actor in this film is first-rate. Rip Torn plays the dour head of Anesthesiology (I was hoping would have had more screen time), while a young Ed Harris brings a touch of levity in his film debut as one of the more helpful guys from Pathology. Bujold’s Wheeler remains headstrong in her pursuit of the truth and follows her instincts to the sci-fi inspired Jefferson Institute, where comatose patients are being transferred in droves. It’s rare to see a suspense film vying with institutional sexism or medical elitism, especially one as sophisticated and aesthetically chic as this. Screening as part of the Women's Paranoia: Cassandras and Conspiracies series. (1978, 113 min, Digital Projection) [Nic Denelle]

Make It A Double: THE SEARCHERS Restored

FACETS Cinema – See below for showtimes

John Ford's THE SEARCHERS (US)
Friday, 7pm
The greatest western ever made is also arguably the greatest American movie ever made. Before filming began, director John Ford described THE SEARCHERS as "a kind of psychological epic" and indeed his complex take on the settling of the West, with its head-on—and daringly ahead-of-the-time—examination of racism, finds an appropriately complex and tragic anti-hero in the character of the mysterious Ethan Edwards (John Wayne in his best and most nuanced performance). Spurred on by an unrequited love for his deceased sister-in-law (Dorothy Jordan), the maniacal, Indian-hating Edwards will stop at nothing to recapture his nieces who have been kidnapped by Comanche Indians. "We'll find 'em," Ethan says in one of many memorable lines of dialogue written by Frank S. Nugent but worthy of Herman Melville, "just as sure as the turning of the earth." The dialectic between civilization and barbarism posited by Ford, with Ethan standing in a metaphorical doorway between them, would have an incalculable effect on subsequent generations of filmmakers—from Martin Scorsese to misguided Ford-hater Quentin Tarantino. If you've never seen THE SEARCHERS, or if you've only seen it on home video, you owe it to yourself to catch it projected on 35mm: both the breathtaking Monument Valley vistas and the minute details of the film's production design (e.g., the "Confederate States of America" logo on Ethan's belt buckle), gloriously captured by Winton Hoch's splendiferous VistaVision cinematography, only really come through on the biggest of big screens. (1956, 119 min, DCP Digital) [Michael Glover Smith]
---
Paul Schrader's HARDCORE (US)
Friday, 9:30pm
Paul Schrader’s sophomore film as director, following his debut BLUE COLLAR, sets the tone for the director’s own personal output of films to follow. Made only two years after Schrader’s screenwriting credit for TAXI DRIVER, HARDCORE follows Jake Van Dorn (George C. Scott), a devoutly Calvinist father in search of his missing daughter, who happens to have found her way into the underground world of porn. Jake hires a private detective (Peter Boyle) to track his down his daughter, and finds himself completely un-ready for what information the detective might turn up. Much like the plot of TAXI DRIVER, Scott takes it upon himself to venture into this seedy world and reclaim his daughter on his own, to “save her” from a reality he feels she can’t understand or endure. His search takes him to Los Angeles, where Jake finds himself at odds with a changing world, far from his Grand Rapids hometown where the more communal, small-town ways of life still reside; the journey he takes to find his daughter becomes more of a black-comedic nightmare than anything, as Jake prowls the corridors of neon-lit porn stores and brothels, pointing towards the removed sexual-atmospheres of his surprise hit AMERICAN GIGOLO and the deeply-underrated LIGHT SLEEPER. The film was made at the end of the so-called New Hollywood-generation, with Schrader being late to the directing chair; it bears many of the bitter, raw attitudes that awaited a film-world about to be consumed by the likes of STAR WARS (which receives an ominous and hilarious jab at a strip club, an in-joke of the likes we’ll probably never be able to see again). Humor looms large in a film that, on the surface, appears bleak and unforgiving. HARDCORE retains a very curious position that tries to align with and pity Jake, but also can’t help giggle at his discomfort, as in the scene where he nervously paces around a sex shop, looking at dildos while Neil Young’s “Helpless” plays on the store’s hi-fi; or where, in an attempt to locate one of his daughter’s male “co-stars,” he holds a casting call in his hotel room, confronting a group of young men so eager to be a part of something, they casually revert to exposing themselves in an effort to be wanted. It's despite these satirical barbs that the film rests itself upon a bed of real, naked emotion, as in the scene where Jake is shown the porno his daughter has been found performing in. Scott’s father figure breaks painfully and earnestly, in a stellar series of cuts and camera positions, reinforcing the power of film to show us the disquieting howls of an unforgiving world, through the complicated mechanics of artifice. This is a film about discomfort and loneliness (something that would become trademark for Schrader) in which its characters just simply want to belong, to be a part of something, anything, resembling any notion of a comforting reality; what HARDCORE comes to depict, ultimately, is a reality where moral conviction itself is not enough to change a world at odds with certain notions of decency, it is instead a world where all one can do is stop the projector and look away. (1979, 109 min, DCP Digital) [John Dickson]

🎞️ ALSO SCREENING

‘Also Screening’ listings will resume next week. In the meantime please visit venue websites for this week’s additional screenings.

CINE-LIST: November 8 - November 14, 2024

MANAGING EDITORS // Ben and Kat Sachs

CONTRIBUTORS // Maxwell Courtright, Nic Denelle, John Dickson, Ray Ebarb, Marilyn Ferdinand, Jason Halprin, Shaun Huhn, Jonathan Leithold-Patt, Josh B Mabe, Michael Glover Smith