This year’s St. Louis International Film Festival was a relatively even experience in the final analysis. Most of the films I saw were noteworthy in some way. True, some were forgettable, and a handful were truly extraordinary, but for the most part the programming was modestly enjoyable and absorbing. My sense for relative quality has been sort of overwhelmed by the sheer volume of films I screened, so I’m not sure I’m even capable of ranking the best films of the Festival. That said, I’m just going to skim off the top third of the thirty-six films I managed to catch and offer this list of the works that turned my head or stuck with me. So take these as my personal recommendations when and if these films receive wider U.S. distribution or find their way on to DVD:
“Li dives into the topic of rural sex slavery in China–’bride purchasing’ is the polite euphemism–with an unblinking need to show every sadistic, ugly jot.”
“Ferocious and yet fragile, The Class is an astonishing work of social realism, one that caught my breath time and again.”
“There’s really no faulting Kurt Kuenne’s intentions or zeal in Dear Zachary, a remembrance of his friend Andrew Bagby that is as unabashedly canonizing in its treatment of the man as it is scathing in its assessment of his death.”
“Conveying the tribulations of reform and forgiveness with a knowing appreciation for its complexities, Vuletic captures the conflicting demands of law, peace, greed, and duty that overwhelm societies emerging from war’s shadow.”
“This fable of challenging, unlikely love in a contemporary Macedonia of slate skies and festering wounds ambles along with a soulful awareness of human misery.”
“Gently simmering, almost minimalist, Rodrigo Moreno’s quietly absorbing The Minder is a film that demands profound patience.”
“Proceeding much like the wandering thoughts of a reflective old man (which I suppose it is), Of Time and the City takes its sweet time getting nowhere.”
“The survivors recall the details of their trial with stunning clarity, and Arijón delicately frames their meticulous remembrances and their sobering meditations on life and death.”
“Bashir’s primary fascination is memory’s role in tallying guilt and digesting the seemingly unfathomable, and in this it attains a rattled, grief-stained vividness.”
“Earning every spasm of heartache with her genuine depiction of life’s casual cruelties, Reichardt captures a wrenching picture of the sacrifices we all make for those we love.”
“Assarat positively revels in the sheer process of a tentative romance, the ballad of looks, words, and gestures that thrill something deep within the human spirit.”
“For better or for worse, there’s no cleverness to Aronofsky’s grim gaze in The Wrestler. The film delivers a naked portrait of human endurance, fragility, and entropy, in both their physical and emotional aspects.”
“The Wrestler” was amazing, “Slumdog Millionaire” was a beautiful piece of truly masterful storytelling, and “Humboldt County” was eh. That’s my assessment, anyway.
CvV
Nice report here, Andrew, on a number of films I haven’t heard of.
I enjoyed “The Wrestler,” and thought it spoke more to Aronofsky’s immense and flexible talent as a director than anything else. I was a bit underwhelmed by it, although I would chalk that up to all the hype surrounding it.
I saw “Wendy and Lucy” last night. Pure misery. I understand what Reichardt is attempting to do; but framing it within a film that lacks any kind of narrative pulse is counter-productive. How can I care about the social subtext, how can I care about the casual disenfranchisement of American youth, when I can’t be made to care for anything or anyone in the film? There is a grand amount of appreciation from the critical establishment for this film, but I cannot share that enthusiasm. Perhaps it can be boiled down to “it just ain’t my cup ‘o tea.” Regardless, one of the most (for me) unpleasant films of the year.
Evan:
“The Wrestler” was satisfying enough in the moment, but the more that I ruminate on it, the more I’m impressed with the thematic depth that lies within its otherwise routine sports film package.
I guess all I can say is that it’s a shame you didn’t respond to “Wendy & Lucy” the way I did. If it seems as though I’m jumping on a gushing bandwagon for the film, I can only attest that this isn’t the case. I had heard barely anything about it before a friend asked to attend the Festival screening with me, and I’ve never seen any of Reichardt’s other films. My response, therefore, is my own, or so I hope. You call out the film’s lack of a narrative pulse, and yet I was amazed a Reichardt’s ability to sculpt such an enveloping and soulful narrative with such a naturalistic style. Moreover, I empathized intensely with Wendy, partly due to Williams’ bold portrayal, partly due to Reichardt’s deft wielding of her social and economic sensitivity, and partly because I am a lover of animal companions (”pets” seems a understatement).
I suspect we’ll have to suss out our strongly divergent reactions to this film sometime, in print or otherwise. :)