THE TRUTH opens -- and a super-starry French film directed by Kore-Eda Hirokazu arrives

Kore-Eda Hirokazu's first film not in his own Japanese language (so far as I know), THE TRUTH -- not to be confused with the old Henri-Georges Clouzot film with Brigitte Bardot -- is spoken in mostly French with some English by actors as diverse as Catherine Deneuve, Juliette Binoche and Ethan Hawke, all of whom are fine and dandy -- as is this lovely film itself.

One of the "family reunion" variety, as have been a number of Kore-Eda's movies -- granted, sometimes in rather unusual ways -- The Truth involves a grand dame of French cinema named Fabienne (Ms Deneuve), now at what may be the end of her career, and a visit from her daughter Lumir (Ms Binoche) who is a screenwriter working in the USA, from whom she has long been at least slightly estranged; her son-in-law Hank, a somewhat successful Hollywood actor played by Mr. Hawke; and her delightful little granddaughter, Charlotte (the young actress Clémentine Grenier, making her film debut, whom I hope we'll be seeing soon again).

While many of the family-inspired themes here are familiar from Kore-Eda's other work (the filmmaker is shown at left, with his young co-star, Ms Grenier) as well as from other "family" pix, his main theme most likely is that age-old question, "What is the truth?", particularly where families are concerned. His answer, which takes several twists and turns during the course of the movie, is a cautious, malleable and not particularly easy one. And this -- along with a group of performances that could hardly be bettered in terms of each one finding the "truth" at the heart of his or her character -- makes for the kind of movie-going experience that charms and entertains, even as it raises questions about family (and extended family) that are always worth considering.

There are a couple of delicious sub-plots here, too: One involves a movie currently being shot that stars Fabienne, along with a young actress who looks and acts remarkably like another long-dead actress from Fabienne's past; the other is the publication of Fabienne's memoirs, a book chock full of what daughter Lumir sees as either outright lies or those occasioned simply via omission. All this is gracefully woven together with the filmmaker's expected consummate skill. Look for some very special actors -- Ludivine Sagnier and Roger Van Hool among them -- popping up in nice supporting roles, too.
.

What seems especially impressive is how well Kore-Eda adjusts to both French culture and the (sort-of) intrusion of America -- via Hawke and Hollywood -- into his mix. You will probably leave The Truth feeling pleasantly sufficed without any sense of having been over-awed or knocked for a loop. Yet the ideas and characters here may linger awhile, as you think about your own family -- blood and extended -- along with the notion of what movies (even the sad, possibly quite moving little sci-fi flick within this movie) are capable of achieving. Kore-Eda's usual lesson-- consider every viewpoint --  is brought home beautifully once again.

From IFC Films, in French with English subtitles and running 106 minutes, the film opens in select theaters and via digital streaming and cable VOD this Friday, July 3. Click here for more information on how and where to find (and see) The Truth.

Looking for a genuinely different zombie film? Try Shinichiro Ueda's ONE CUT OF THE DEAD

Yeah, yeah: You keep hearing about "really different zombie films," particularly zombie comedies -- of which we've already seen plenty, from Shaun of the Dead through Stalled and way beyond (in fact, Jim Jarmusch's try at this subgenre arrives on DVD/VOD this very week). And while it's true that the new film under consideration here -- ONE CUT OF THE DEAD -- is indeed a zombie comedy, it is so different in so many ways from the usual pack that TrustMovies believes it merits the attention of film buffs and maybe even that of zombie-movie lovers.

As you may know if you follow this blog, I am no fan of zombies -- the most boring "monsters" movie-land has so far created. In the old days they looked a little spooky and walked so slowly you could tiptoe away from them with no problem whatsoever. These days they either move slowly (as in the grand-daddy of the modern zombie flick, Night of the Living Dead) or fast, and they, yes, "feast on the flesh of the living." Big deal. Werewolves can change their whole appearance while scaring us silly, and vampires make a great metaphor for forbidden sex. But zombies? Real Johnny-One-Notes, they bore us to distraction.

All of the which makes this 2017 film -- written, directed and edited by Shinichiro Ueda (shown two photos above) a nice, if rather long gestating, surprise. And so I must beg you, should you take a chance on this movie, please last out through the longueurs of the first third, which will seem like a rather standard, if silly zombie film, and through the second section, which more or less explains how that first section will soon come into being, and to hold out until the final third -- which is truly unusual: genuinely funny, sweet and charming as all hell. (My spouse gave up midway through the movie, and so missed what I now know he would, given his taste and humor, have really loved.)

More than this, plot-wise, I ought not say. Spoilers, you know. But the more we learn about the characters in the movie-within-the-movie, and about the actors who play them and about all the folk laboring behind the scenes, One Cut of the Dead just grows better and better.

The whole cast is delightful -- by the finale appearing, oh, so different from what you initially perceived -- and Mr. Ueda is to be congratulated on his moxie for coming up with an idea this bizarre and then bringing it to decent fruition. Given what that idea is, I don't really see how he could have avoided those aforementioned longueurs. And his final section proves so much fun that I think you'll easily forgive him. I sure did.

Released via Shudder, in association with Variance Films, One Cut of the Dead -- running 96 minutes, in Japanese with English subtitles -- opens in New York City (at IFC Center) and Los Angeles (at the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown) today, Friday, September 13, after which it will play at over 60 one-night screenings across the US and Canada, slated for Tuesday, September 17 (click here to see all currently scheduled screenings), with additional ones to follow and more being added daily. Eventually, I would imagine, you'll be able to see the film on the Shudder streaming service.

Noah Baumbach's WHILE WE'RE YOUNG: Brooklyn's hipsters and oldsters mix it up

The generation gap looms over Noah Baumbach's new film, WHILE WE'RE YOUNG, and this provides an opportunity for quite a few laughs, as well as the chance to look at attitudes -- moral and otherwise -- that would seem to reflect those generations. But, as usual in the work of Mr. Baumbach, there is even more going on. The surface is shiny and bright, underneath is not so, and all of it is intelli-gent and entertaining. His latest film is also his most completely successful since Greenberg and/or The Squid and the Whale. Even if this writer /director's hand is still a tad too heavy at times.

Mr. Baumbach, pictured at right, is generally considered, pace Armond White, to be one of the brightest of our intellectual filmmakers, and so it is again. His film offers a lot of what they used to call "sparkling dialog," even if -- in this case, the sparkle is a little different -- rough and naughty -- from what it might have sounded like when that phrase was first born.

The story here is of  two couples -- one in its 40s, the other in its 20s -- and how they meet and become close in present-day Brooklyn. Their connection is the documentary format: the older man is a filmmaker; the younger one wants to be. The wives (or "significant other" for the younger) are, as is so often the case, more accessories than anything else.

Within this set-up and follow-through, we learn a lot about who these people really are and why. We also explore documentary filmmaking (the older wife's dad is a leading exponent of this form -- think Wiseman or the late Mr. Maysles -- and he is played quietly and magnificently by Charles Grodin (above, right).

The older couple are brought fine life by Naomi Watts (above, right) and Ben Stiller (above and further above, left), both of whom shine in their roles -- she by once again demonstrating that there is little she cannot do regarding character change as an actress, while still looking as lovely and appealing as ever; he by using his gift for uncertainty, repressed anger and a kind of all-over sorrow that combine into something quite funny.

The younger couple is played by the ubiquitous and versatile Adam Driver (above, left) and a somewhat wasted Amanda Seyfried (above, right: either the filmmaker did not warm to the actress, or he simply didn't know how best to create an interesting character for her). Though the elder couple has its own share of "entitlement" going, it is definitely the younger pair that brings this idea to new -- and ironically low -- heights.

Rather than spoil the one terrific plot twist, TrustMovies will just say that this "event" opens up the film to all sorts of interesting ideas on the documentary form: what it means, how it works and what it should do or not do. And especially what, where and how "truth" figures into things. It also allows for one of those dearly loved last-minute arrival scenes favored by filmmakers of the thriller and rom-com varieties, of which While We're Young is neither, though it steals from both now and again. I just wish that, in driving home his points about what constitutes truth and good filmmaking, he'd held back a bit more with the sledge-hammer.

While also tackling the idea of "forced parenting" (below) and fear-of-nepotism, Baumbach has a couple of endings to his film, too. I'd prefer that he'd used only the first of these -- which has a magnificent "last line" and would have been near-perfect.  Instead, he continues past this and into the more feel-good realm, supplying us with another joke or two, visual and verbal, which are, I must admit, fun. As is most of this movie.

The film -- from A24 and running 97 smart minutes -- opens this Friday, March 27, in New York City at the AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13, and the Regal Union Square Stadium 14 and in the Los Angeles area at The Landmark and the Arclight Hollywood.

In LOITERING WITH INTENT, Michael Godere, Ivan Martin and Adam Rapp create a funny, boisterous world of movies, love and life

A sweet little goof of a film -- filled with all the details of screenwriting, romance, PTSD, family, friends, pets and a weekend in the country -- LOITERING WITH INTENT also sports one of the best titles in a long while, the appropriateness of which becomes all the clearer by movie's end. The product of its writing duo (who co-star), Michael Godere and Ivan Martin, and its director Adam Rapp, LWI (as we'll now call it) also makes room for some very popular and better known inde-pendent actors like Marisa Tomei, Sam Rockwell, Brian Geraghty and Natasha Lyonne. Though these last four alone would make the movie a must-see, LWI turns out to be smart, short, fast-moving fun all on its own.

When two actors (Martin and Godere, above, left and right) whose careers are on "stall" run into to an old friend (Lyonne, below) who knows a producer who has some money to spend on a new independent film, the pair tell her about their screenplay (as yet non-existent) which she says sounds so good that's it's a shoo-in to get that production money. So can you give it to me, please?

Suddenly our boys have to come up with the real screenplay and so they run off to a friend's country house to actually write the thing. (The "writing process," for this pair, is pretty hilarious.) There, they're confronted with everything from lack of creativity to unexpected guests.

The first of these includes Gigi (played by Ms Tomei, above), an old flame of Martin's, and her friend, Ava (played by Isabelle McNally, below), both of whom arouse our boys' libidos while seeming to want to engage in more than mere chat.

Soon another pair arrives -- brothers Wayne and Devon (played by Rockwell, below, and Geraghty), the former of whom has his own vital agenda to conclude. Mr. Rockwell, a past master of low-key, often off-key humor, here plays it mostly serious. Ex-military and suffering from that PTSD, he is, as ever, terrific and keeps us and the movie on our toes, while still becoming part of the excellent ensemble at work here.

Mr. Geraghty (below), on the other hand, is pure goofy joy. What a nimble and versatile young actor this guy is! He imbues Devon -- who has just been given his own "reality" show via Jerry Bruckheimer -- with such a nutty blend of blond, surf-boy machismo coupled to comically fearful homophobia that his every outburst is a high-energy, low-IQ delight.

The fine cast dances around (and often into) each other with skill and smarts. It's a constant pleasure to see them interact, and director Rapp, shown below, has the good sense to simply get out of the way and let his actors loose to frolic.

The whole movie has the look and feel of terrific improvisation, though the script is too often too good to have relied only on that.

How it all turns out has the feel of a nice rom-com, in which the right people do finally connect. In terms of our heroes' goal of screenwriting, even this comes to something a bit different than we might have expected, while remaining every bit as appropriate and entertaining.

Loitering With Intent -- from The Orchard and running a mere 76 minutes  -- opens this Friday, January 16, in New York City at the AMC Empire 25, and in Los Angeles at Laemmle's Music Hall 3.  Elsewhere?  Yes, and the theaters, cities and dates are listed below.

January 16 - Sundance Cinema (Seattle, WA) 

January 16 - Sundance Cinema (Houston, TX) 

January 16 - Cinema Detroit (Detroit, MI) 

January 16 - Shaker Square Cinemas (Cleveland, OH) 

January 16 - Carmike Sundial (St. Petersburg, FL) 

January 23 - Roxie Theater (San Francisco, CA) 

January 30 - Plaza Theatre (Atlanta, GA) 

February 6 - Harkins Shea (Phoenix, AZ)

You can also watch the film digitally 

via iTunes or Amazon Instant Video.  

With THE FATHER OF MY CHILDREN , Mia Hansen-Løve joins first-rank French filmmakers; Q&A w/the director

In March of 2007, the FSLC's annual Rendez-vous With French Cinema presented an unusual and riveting documentary about the late French film producer Humbert Balsan.  Covering that festival for GreenCine, I saw the film -- HUMBERT BALSAN: Rebel Producer by Anne Andreu-- and reviewed it at that time (the review is here). Now, young French filmmaker Mia Hansen-Løve,  who, two years back, gave us the interesting but to my mind not entirely successful All Is Forgiven, returns with a narrative feature inspired by and based in some part on the story of M. Balsan's final days and how his family copes with the aftermath of the central event of both films.

TrustMovies is pleased to report that Hansen-Løve's new film THE FATHER OF MY CHILDREN (Le père de mes enfants) is an unqualified success on every front -- as narrative, as filmmaking based-on-life, and as a film about family, coming-of-age, cinema itself -- and the very difficult job of being a producer. In fact, the behind-the-scenes explorations of how films come about and problems are resolved (or not, see below) is as good as I have ever seen. The filmmaker, shown at right, does not take the easy, satirical view of this (no need, really, as moviemaking/moviemakers so often provide instant satire of their own accord), nor does she subscribe to any dark/tragic view of "art undone" by commerce or hubris. No. The filmmaker's strengths appear to be her equanimity, her ability to see clearly the big picture and the small and to weight nothing down unduly via her own prejudices. (I am sure she must have these but she either holds them back or keeps them well out of our view.)

We've seen plenty over the years about how put-upon are our poor directors -- so creative and abused!  What a treat and pleasant surprise it is to see all this from the perspective of a producer who genuinely cares about art and the making of it, but must come up against constant and thorny financial problems in order to get that art made.  The producer (here called Grégoire Canvel) and his loyal, frustrated, loving staff are captured here with such reality and detail that when, midway or less, the bottom falls out, you might expect the movie to lose steam.  Hardly.  For this is when Hansen-Løve's primary concerns surface.

These are the children of the Canvel family, as well as the wife (played with strength and reserve by Chiara Caselli, above), who must come to terms with what has happened and continue with their life.  How all this is accomplished, which intertwines with other stories (a young screenwriter and his screenplay, what will happen to Canvel's movie projects in various stages of completion) is brought to fruition without any rushing or undue "happy endings."  Hansen-Løve never loses her sense of reality -- and the constant change and stasis, disappointment and growth that accompany it.

The actor chosen for the role of Canvel -- Louis-Do de Lencquesaing, shown above -- I have seen in smaller roles (Les destinées, À vendre). Here he comes into his own, and I cannot imagine that Humbert Balsan, himself an actor in his early career, would not be pleased with this terrific performance.

At the close of the press screening I attended, the immediate talk centered around the seemingly amazing work of the children in the film -- there are three of them: Alice de Lencquesaing (good in Summer Hours, here she simply shines), Alice Gautier and Manelle Driss -- who range from late adolescence to quite young. It is rare to see such accomplished, honest performances from child actors of any age. (I am guessing that Alice de Lencquesaing -- below, right -- must be the real-life daughter of star Louis-do, and that both are now part of the Olivier Assayas stable of actors, from which Ms Hansen-Løve, as M. Assayas' life-partner, can conveniently draw.)

As good as the film is in all other ways, this terrific use of children may be its crowning achievement. (Ms Hansen-Løve tells us how this came about in the Q&A that follows.) It's a little early in the game to be heralding a film as classic. But so far as are concerned movies about film-making and family -- as well as the "film-making family" -- I believe this one may someday be held in the same re-
gard as those of another fine French filmmaker: François Truffaut. 

The Father of My Children, from IFC Films begins its theatrical run on Friday, May 28, and in also avialable via IFC On-Demand starting today, May 26.  In New York City, you can see it NYC at Lincoln Plaza Cinema and the IFC Center (it opened in Los Angeles last week!), and for the "if", "how" and "when" of On-Demand, click here and follow directions....

***********

We meet with Mia Hansen-Løve in the offices of one of our favorite PR agencies -- Susan Norget Film Promotion -- where the filmmaker, among the sweetest, softest and most "womanly" of any I've so far met, greets us with her translator.  Below, TrustMovies is in bold and Hansen-Løve in standard typeface.

I really loved this movie, and though I enjoyed your earlier film, All Is Forgiven, to some extent, it didn’t particularly move me. So I wasn’t sure what to expect from The Father of My Children. But it seems to me that in terms of filmmaking, this one is a big step up for you. One of the most striking things about your movie is the amazing performances you got from the children in the film. They were all very real, life-like, believable -- but also quite specific. Maybe this comes from both your casting choices and in the way you worked with them. Can you talk a little about this?

Thank you for this… (Mia gives a modest little laugh).

After the screening, by the way, all the people around me were also saying the same thing.

Oh… my English is so poor I can not express everything I want to say. (So, from here on in, she says what she can and the translator handles the rest.) When I wrote this film, I knew the key – the children -- would have a very important part in this. From my first experience on the first film, it was the great pleasure I had to work with children. Especially when they have the possibility to be very free and to invent things. I don’t like improvisation. I don’t really trust it in general. When I see it too much in films, I don’t like this because I feel that the actors -- it is like they are treading water.

I feel the same way! I am not a fan of improvisation, either.

Me, too.  For that reason I don’t really like it as an obvious method. But at the same time, I have the feel that when it I use in certain situation, it can really lead to extraordinarily good results!

I used to write plays, way back when, and I didn't really like it when actors improvised. But occasionally, by accident, a line would come out that was absolutely brilliant, and you can’t say “No” to that.  So I guess improvisation does have its uses.

The thing that I experienced with the children in this film, was a certain... not exactly a method, but it is really can be an interesting way to work.  I don’t have a specific method for working in improvisation, but it must be a limited and structured improvisation that, in a way, leads the children back to their characters. The most important thing to me, when working with children, is to give them the time they need to work. You may find this very banal and obvious, but I think that not so many filmmaker work like this – to give children TIME! To have the time to give to things that need to be done. This is what I made clear with my producer from the start: The most important thing, the luxury of the film, will be the time. I can have no limits to the time I spend with them. To make, for instance, very long, ten-minutes shots. To do this again and again, if I think it is interesting.

It is not like the children were not good; they were good from the start. The thing that is important first, is the choice of the children. I just chose children who had nothing to do with cinema They had a kind of viriginity and real innocence in terms of cinema. They were very grave -- they had some kind of maturity -- but innocence at the same time. The most important thing was that we were able to work a lot on each scene and reinvent that scene. To reinvent the film progressively. I feel I found the way into their “interiority,” you know? When I work with children, I find the real meaning of making films! Because they bring freedom, disorder, fantasy -- real life -- to the film. This is why I make films -- I make them in the quest of life and truth. And I find I can do this best by working with children.

Well, this certainly came through! The way the children interact with the man and woman who played their mom and dad was so interesting, as well. Both actors seemed so right and real with the kids.

When you use children there is something very active between us and them. You can not just take them from the outside and put them in and control them. You have to let them hold the reins from time to time, too, so there is this interaction between adults and children. For example in the scene when the child learns that the father is dead and the child begins to cry, people ask me how did you get the child to cry? I didn’t: The tears just came. They came from that child’s own concentration. It’s the choice of the actor, the casting, that is important. The child had an emotional interior that she was able to draw on to do this scene.

My grandkids are 5 and 2, and while they have no interest in acting that I know of, I would certainly trust them with a filmmaker like you. I think they would learn about life and cinema -- at the same time as they were acting.  And they would also be protected.

Thank you so much! I want to talk about a scene I really like – the next to last scene where the children go to their father’s office for the first time. In effect we had no specific script for the children, but we didn’t really need it to bring the scene alive. The children were asked to just discover that place. It came together by following them, seeing how they observed and what they did. A lot of the dialog spoken just came from them, as they discovered this new place. Then, in the very last scene with they are leaving and they discover their father’s cards, and the one little girl says, can I take one? And then another and another! Those comments also came from the children. (Ed's note: Just talking about this scene brings back to film to mind – and tears to my eyes -- all over again.)

Has the family of Humbert Balsan seen your film?

I don’t know if everyone in the family has seen it. When I wrote the script, I avoided to contact them because I want to be able to write the script freely, without being influenced one way or another. When I finished, I contacted the wife, because I had already seen her twice, at the funeral and in the office. And I thought she had a very moving presence. I am not sure I would have made the film if she was very against it. But when she read the script, she understood and respected what I wanted to do. Anyway, it was very consoling to see that, in reality, this person was just as generous as I had hoped she would be.

You must have seen the documentary that was made a few years ago by Anne Andreu…?

Yes, I saw it.

I saw it too, because it was shown here a few years ago at Rendez-vous. And I really loved it. Before I saw it, Humbert was just a name. But afterward, he became important in my mind. And now, with your film, he seems even more so. I don’t know if it is like this in France, but here in America, if you are interested in film, the word producer... well, you don’t pay much attention to that. Everything is about the director. And maybe just a little bit about the writer. But the producer? No, no, no. When I saw the film documentary, I realized more than ever how important the producer can be. And I got this same feeling even more from your film. How important it is to have someone in that position who is creative in his own way.

To me, the producer, when he is a very good one, is like some kind of father. When I met Humbert Balsan, I felt like he was a kind of spiritual father for me. So the title of my film -- Le père de mes enfants -- has really two meanings.

Yes -- and his children are also his movies!

The film has this ambiguity: both meanings. I know that this particular type of producer is the reason this project was so relevant for me. Because this producer is not the habitual cigar-smoking, driving-the-big-car kind of cliché producer you are used to seeing. In fact, he is someone who is himself almost an artist. What is interesting to see here is the real suffering involved. He is at the service of art, and he wants to be at the service of art: But then at other times he must deal with the question of money.

Exactly! One more thing I want to ask you, having now seen both your films. I don’t know how true this, is but this is my “take” on your films. The first seemed more reticent, with characters who seemed to hang back and not move forward as much. Whereas in this film, for all the bad stuff that happens -- suicide, even -- it seems much more positive, forward-thrusting - -even for Balsan himself. People are working! Maybe – this is why I prefer the first film to the second. Does this make any sense?

On the one hand, in the first film you have a character who is feeling very melancholy, reticent. On the second you have someone consumed by his work, very forward moving, very energetic. .For me, what happen is, ultimately at the end, this is like a mirror, the reflections come together at the same time.. The films reflect each other.  Here at the end of this film, you have the adolescent who becomes the main focus, so it is a question of transmission from one generation to another. For me this really ties the films together. Both films deal about the passage of time, about losing your father and trying to survive. About love. Both films have characters who are not into bad feelings. And both films have characters who are almost the same – though in two different bodies -- who have interior beauty, and I try to capture this secret beauty, the interiority of both. The way they will survive the death of their father – in a sense they also grow morally within themselves because of the death of their father. Basically, I think both films have a very common problematic – but expressed in different ways.

Your comments really make me want to see All Is Forgiven again. Thank you so much, Mia. This was really a treat to meet and speak with you.

All photos (except that of Ms. Hansen-Løve)

are from the film itself.