Tag: movies

Mostra 2025 – Day 8: “Duse” (Pietro Marcello) and “The Voice of Hind Rajab” (Kaouther Ben Hania)

Yesterday’s first film was one of the (as usual, too many) Italian movies in the official selection (just for the record, 5 out of 21 films are Italian productions). With all due respect to my many Italian friends, I do not think that it is representative of Italian cinema’s actual quality (and again, no particular grudge about Italy, I would say the same about France).

Given the fact that we had already seen a jewel in this ocean of Italian movies (Sorrentino’s “La Grazia”), the odds that another jewel would swim out of it were quite low. Low they were, low they remained. They were even smashed to pieces for me after two minutes, when I understood that I would be spending the next two hours with Valeria Bruni Tedeschi. As I am a sadly partial human being, this fact killed all the potential for me to enjoy the projection. I just can’t.

Now, to try and provide you at least with some useful information without dwelling too much on my VBT allergy, “Duse” tells us the story of a renowned Italian theatre diva from the end of the 19th/beginning of 20th century, Eleonora Duse. She seems to be quite a myth in here and used to be called the “divina”. My fellow watchers who do not suffer from the same VBT allergy as me, would tell you that it’s quite watchable (though my VBT allergy made me sleep through part of it as a coping mechanism) and that Bruni Tedeschi is quite a fit for such a diva role (my VBT allergy makes me see hysteria everywhere). So I would leave it to this as, let’s face it, I’m really not the right person to comment on this one.

The second movie, “The Voice of Hind Rajab” had been flagged by Alberto Barbera (the festival’s Director), at the official selection announcement press conference, as extremely powerful. This had triggered my curiosity as Barbera usually barely gives any opinion on the selection, or at least not in such an “engaged” manner. Reading a bit about it ahead of the festival, I understood what could have sparked such an unexpected attitude: the movie uses the real red crescent’s recordings of their calls with a 5 year old little girl who has remained as the only one alive in a car in Northern Gaza. The four other members of her family who were in the car with her are dead. The night is falling (the child is scared of the dark), the Israeli tank that shot at the car is approaching and the little girl is calling for help – desperately begging the rescuers on the phone to come and get her.

The recordings are dreadful and speak for themselves. The screening lead to a 23min standing ovation in the Sala Grande (in the presence of some of its very renowned producers: Joaquin Phoenix and Ronney Mara). Some say it’s the most important movie of the year.

What do I personally make of it? It is actually really hard for me to tell as I am still debating with myself and with my movie buddies. To give you a hint, I will present some of the questions that we are still debating and for which I might not have an answer: aren’t the real life recordings sufficient to speak for this tragedy? Would a documentary format have been better? Does the acting (sometimes overly dramatic) around these real recordings strengthen or weaken the message? Was it the movie that “deserved” the 23min standing ovation or the dreadful context behind it? But isn’t it good if such a movie can at least generate a shock wave, maybe that, as such, justifies for its existence?

As said, I have no answer yet and will leave it for you to see. We can chat about it once it is out and distributed around the globe. I can at least say that the silence that followed the end of the screening (prior to unusually long applauses in the Palabiennale screening hall) confirms the movie’s efficiency. I had to wait for 5mins before I could say a word. The voice of Hind Rajab kept on resonating in my head. It deserved a moment of meditation for all the lost lives in the past years.

Mostra 2025 – Day 7 (following a break on Day 6): “A House of Dynamite” (Kathryn Bigelow) and “L’étranger” (François Ozon)

One could not imagine a more contrasted evening than yesterday’s one: on one side an American thriller about a missile attack on the US and, on the other side, a French adaptation of Camus’s famous “L’étranger”. As both movies were pretty decent, it somehow ended up working well for us. I am however not sure that it would have been the same if the screenings were inverted (meaning first the French, than the American one). Indeed, Bigelow’s film is a tensed, nervous and very rythmic film, that might have been slightly too “agressive” if it had been screened after the slow paced “L’étranger”.

Anyhow, things turned out well and our evening started with Bigelow’s race against time. A missile launch is detected by the US intelligence services. The movie retraces the 20mins following the first alert – the moment what seems to be a nuclear missile is detected – until it is about to erase the city of Chicago from the surface of the earth. It follows the same 20mins but from three different places: a military command, the office of the Secretary of State for Defence and the office of the President of the USA.

The persons in these three places follow a similar mental path: first disbelief (all are convinced that it is a false alert), then realization, finally followed by dread and panic. 

It is extremely well constructed, efficient and breathless. The pace of the movie never slows down and holds you alert on the edge of your chair until the end.

Now. Does this mean that I would have given it 5 stars as The Guardian did? Definitely not. Why? Because, for me construction and efficiency are not enough. I also need a sense, a meaning, a purpose. When the lights turned back on, I however could not come up with such a meaning for my own self. I mean, we all know that the world is not doing great and that politicians have to take tough decisions (and might have to take even harder ones in a – potentially near – future). Do I need a movie to remind me of this and add additional anxiety to my life? Not really.

The second movie was a risky adaptation of Camus’s “Létranger” by François Ozon. To be honest, I had my doubts. Not an easy one to adapt as a movie. 

However, against all odds, it ended up being a pretty good surprise: Ozon’s black and white picture (that did not work for me at all in “Frantz” back in 2016) beautifully renders the city of Alger, its heat, its sea, its atmosphere. 

Add to it a wonderful young French actor (Benjamin Voisin, whom I had already spotted in “Illusions perdues” a few years ago) who really surpasses himself in a tricky role, and what you get is a quite faithful to the book and pretty enjoyable film.

I have difficulties explaining why I am not more enthusiastic than this. Maybe because I did have a feeling that, unlike the first movie, this one looses a bit of its rythm in its second part..

Conclusion: still, it was overall a surprisingly enjoyable evening!

Mostra 2025 – Day 5: “Father, Mother, Sister, Brother” (Jim Jarmusch)

Since the Mostra’s selection has been released at the official press conference in July, this particular screening has been marked in all my agendas with a big exclamation mark. All possible reminders have been set and friends have been instructed to aim first at the tickets for this specific film, preferably at the Sala Grande. Four computers have been mobilized to try and enter the vivaticket booking system on time to reach the target. 

This seems to be the right moment to have a loving thought for my booking buddy, Evghenka, and to express my eternal gratitude for helping me out fulfilling one of my dreams: attending a Jim Jarmusch film projection with Jim Jarmusch in the room.

This also seems to be the right moment to have a loving thought for my mom who dragged me to see “Dead Man” when I was a 15 year old grumpy teenager and who forever changed my perspective on cinema (it was definitely not only my papa’s deed).

As it is repeatedly recited in the already mentioned “Dead Man”: “Some are born to endless nights, some are born to sweet delights” (or the other way around, I don’t exactly remember). Well, yesterday, we all agreed that we were definitely more on the sweet delights side of things. If I have to be honest, I would say that I was even on the total euphoria side of things (and this stayed as is before, during and after the screening).

Prior to the screening, my movie buddies seemed pretty excited as well, but mostly due to Cate Blanchett’s presence on the red carpet. Hence we all got our childish/back to adolescence groupie moment – them with Cate, me with Jim. Everyone happy.

Now, “what about the movie?” will you ask. Well, would I have been selected as a jury member, I would tell you that I have found my 2025 Golden Lion. Looking at the previous jury decisions, I however doubt it will be the case: it is a too discrete, too delicate and too apolitical movie to attract the attention of jury members. But what a delight it still was. 

As Jarmusch has already done several times, it is a movie divided in three parts, each of them giving us a short insight into different family relationships (one in the USA, one in Ireland and one in France). It is a movie made of hints. Characters are caught at a particular moment (without any information given on the wider context) and the spectator is granted only a few clues (short sentences, looks, silences) to put together the puzzle of these (sometimes extremely tensed or weird) relationships. It is funny, it is chilling, it is moving. And it is supported by great actors (Adam Driver, Cate Blanchett, Tom Waits, Charlotte Rampling – you basically name them) with all of them performing at the same level of excellency. I do however have a personal soft spot for Tom waits’ eccentric father character, which is absolutely delicious.

Conclusion: it was worth coming to Venice just for that one!

Allow me to end this one with a special pic because aaaaaaaaaaaaah I saw Jiiiiiim Jaaaaaarmusch!!! :)))

Mostra 2025 – Day 4 “Frankenstein” (Guillermo Del Toro)

This one is an interesting case study on how depending on the watcher’s mindset, his/her perception of a movie can vary dramatically. For the context: Guillermo Del Toro won the Golden Lion with “The Shape of Water” in 2017. Another monster story. Back then, I was very much in disagreement with the jury’s choice, although, if I remember well, I did express some appreciation of the movie’s visual quality.

The same visual quality appreciation can be granted to “Frankenstein”, that, we all agreed on. But what each of us took away from the movie as a main impression is very different. I believe that somehow, we all have a point. And if you put all these points together, you end up with a pretty good overall assessment of the picture:

Point 1: what is the added value of another “Frankenstein” adaptation? Especially as this must have been a very costly one – expensive actors (such as Oscar Isaac), impressive visual effects that must have taken loads of working hours on top notch machines, a lengthy movie (2.5 hours)… How many other movies, including first projects by young directors, could have been funded from that huge amount? That is why spectator 1 came out sad and disheartened by this quite obvious money making machine. As a big lover of independent cinema, I cannot disagree with her.

Point 2: my spectator 2 is one who likes when stories are well thought through and make perfect sense up to the smallest detail. Spectator 2 could not help but notice some inconsistencies that made her disconnect from the story. Some concerns were also raised about the need for so many not so pleasant visual details (especially when Frankenstein is assembling his creature by putting together – and cutting and sawing – pieces of dead bodies). Here again, I cannot disagree with these comments.

Spectator 3 had only one main regret (and again, I agree that it is perfectly valid). The fact that Guillermo Del Toro could not help but repeat the pattern of “The Shape of Water” with a monster/human belle love story component that, let’s face it, was a bit cheesy.

And what about my spectator self? Well, to my defence, I would never have gone to watch this picture in standard Brussels circumstances. It is not the kind of movies I am generally attracted to and, as spectator 1, I do have a philosophical problem with these massive productions. But this is also why, as it is unusual for me, I have a tendency to approach them with a kind of curiosity/innocence. Hence my spectator self got swallowed by the visual (and also musical) beauty of the picture – amazing soundtrack, I have to say. I am not sure that I could give you a proper summary of the film’s plot as I approached it as one would approach a painting: absorbing the colours, the decor, the costumes and just enjoying the beauty of what I was seeing. Given the millions that were invested in order to make this film a visual delight, I did enjoy every single second of its aesthetic. Nothing less, nothing more.

Mostra 2025 – Day 2: “Bugonia” (Yorgos Lanthimos) and “Jay Kelly” (Noah Baumbach)

This was a much awaited day that started well: in the morning we got the final authorization to spread my papa’s ashes at the San Michele cemetery. A Venetian acquaintance told me that this was quite an achievement in itself: it seems that the Venetian municipality is a demanding one in that sense. I have to say that the amount of papers I had to provide and the amount of administrative bodies I have been in touch with in the past months has indeed been impressive. But I have as well been in contact with many civil servants that spent a lot of time explaining the process to me and supporting me through it with great patience and empathy. So, on my side, quite a positive experience.

It seems that, following this key milestone, Venice decided to mourn my papa with us – a rainy day it was, with quite a massive thunderstorm at night. I love Venetian Summer thunderstorm, they tend to be quite dramatic.

We arrived at the Palabiennale first screening under the rain. I was looking forward to that one. My relationship to Yorgos Lanthimos is an ambivalent one: it started with very big scepticism and switched to surprised appreciation when “Poor Things” was screened here two years ago. It actually won the Mostra back then. It also won me over, without me being really able to explain why.

I needed two years to process “Poor Things” and therefore skipped Lanthimos’ last year “Kind of Kindness” – this guy is quite prolific. Maybe a bit too prolific.

So, let’s talk about “Bugonia”. Emma Stone and Jesse Plemmons  again. Both at the peak of their art. A young American (Jesse Plemmons), wounded by his childhood, his mom’s addictions and tragic destiny and obsessed with conspiracy theories. Convinced also that a successful CEO (Emma Stone) is an alien and that aliens have invaded the earth in order to destroy it as well as all the humans on it. The CEO’s kidnapping is therefore organized in order to try and put pressure on the alien invaders. Nothing however works out as planned. 

One should not share more about the plot (with many surprising twists) in order not to spoil it for you. But I can at least personally say that I very much enjoyed this one, though some of us were more sceptical than others. Coming myself from the sceptical side, I can fully understand how it can be difficult for a rational/down to earth person to surrender to Lanthimos’ madness. Totally mad he indeed is. But his madness is smart, powerful and very often hiding a strong message.

In this case, at the end of the screening, I could not help but thinking how we, humans, are wreckless destroyers and how we are all actively working together on killing all the beauty of the world for the sake of our own instant satisfaction. And I’m pretty sure that that’s exactly what Lanthimos wanted me to think. Brilliant.

Now regarding movie 2 (“Jay Kelly”). Remember how I was telling you yesterday about my strongly active 2025 “no bullshit” filter? Well this one was put to the test quite intensely yesterday. All the alarms in my head started ringing pretty soon into the screening. By minute 30, I was repeatingly saying to my movie buddy: “this is bad… this is pretty bad”. By minute 40, I had switched to “this is terrible… quite extremely terrible”. 

Remember also how I told you about Tony Servillo’s face saying it all without saying anything? Well. Throughout the entire Baumbach movie, George Clooney’s face (and, trust me, there’s an immense amount of it) says absolutely nothing. 

And remember how I was telling you that the dialogues were great in the Sorrentino movie? Well the Baumbach movie has definitely won the price of the stupidest sentence of the festival. I quote: “do you know how I knew you did not want to spend time with me? Because you did not spend any time with me”. I’m not kidding.

Conclusion: a movie about nothing with bad acting.

Mostra Day 1: “La Grazia” (Paolo Sorrentino)

To be perfectly honest, I was afraid of this one as an opening movie for several reasons: 

a) the simple one: I did not like many of Sorrentino’s movies that I have seen. And to be even more perfectly honest, when “Partenope”’s (his latest film) trailer caught me in the Brussels cinema, it made me want to run in the opposite direction. To the point that I refused to see the movie (don’t take me wrong, maybe it’s great and only the trailer is a big mistake – at least in my humble opinion – … however it is not really what the reviews I have read about it said). Anyhow, reason A, big doubt about Sorrentino. 

Reason B is a bit of a more complex (and personal) one. It’s the context around which we attend this year’s Mostra, which made (and still makes) me fear that my tolerance levels for a potentially pretentious and/or too aesthetically focused movie are pretty low. And let’s face it, in my understanding of things, Sorrentino does have a tendency to both: pretentiousness and aesthetics. 

Tomorrow we will be spreading my papa’s ashes into the Venetian laguna. Hence I really am not in the mood for bullshit. This year, I just want emotions, sensitivity, truth, humour and heartwarming/moving moments. 

(I take this opportunity for a little spoiler alert: I might therefore be blunter than ever in my opinions, exactly for this reason).

So how did Sorrentino survive my 2025 “no bullshit” filter? Well, believe it or not, surprisingly well! I had loads of fun!

Of course the movie is too long, but this is a trend for Sorrentino. And this is also a trend in this year’s Mostra, where barely no movie of the official selection lasts for less than two hours. With 20mins less, I would have absolutely fallen for it.

BUT (and there are many BUTs that play in its favour) 1) it’s extremely funny 2) the dialogues are absolutely great and 3) Tony Servillo. 

Tony Servillo plays an Italian president, very well respected by the population, a man of law and a strong believer facing the last weeks of his presidential mandate. Facing as well his ultimate (and extremely key) presidential decisions: signing (or not) the law on euthanasia and potentially pardoning two murderers. These choices to make and the upcoming end of his career trigger in him quite some thinking – about his recently passed wife and the lover (whose identity is still unknown) she once had 40 years ago, about “who owns our days” and generally about what is right.

This sounds quite serious, I know. But add to it a sudden presidential passion for an italian rap song (encompassing many inappropriate words that Tony Servillo enjoys reciting loudly in the presidential palace). Add to it his daughter who puts him on a quinoa and fish diet that makes Coco, the president’s quite exuberant oldest friend, tell him that “he is not having a dinner but an hypothesis”. Add to it many other such unexpected twists and an absolutely fantastic Tony Servillo, whose face says it all without saying anything. And you actually end up spending a really nice evening.

Conclusion: a really enjoyable opening of the 2025 Mostra!