Tuesday, 23 October 7:26PM

I just watched Quiet City, and though I admit that I didn't hate it as much as I thought I was going to when the film started, I feel really cold about it.

I'll have to think about Quiet City over the next day or so...but I'm wondering if I have anything new to say on this account as well. Why do Michael Tully and Joe Swanberg come off soooooo creepy in Quiet City? Is it just that they can't act, or is it that they stare soooo hard at the other actors?

Nick

Tuesday, 23 October 7:51PM

I know! Jeez o' Pete with Swanberg especially, but it's not so unexpected, you know, after KOTM, LOL and Hohokam. I'm starting to just get the impression that no joke, that's Joe. That's the real honest-to-goodness Joe that, were he a superhero, would be his Mr. Hyde side. And, it's scary!!! And, he does stare hard!!!

Here's the funny thing about Tully. He sounds really adult in Quiet City, but when I talked to him on the phone, he's got this oddly sweet nasal voice. Maybe it was just the phone. I love Tully though, and I really love that performance in Quiet City. But, I think more or less, his performance is an inside joke--because he's actually a really sweet and nice guy, and so the fact that he's kind of a prick in Quiet City is nice irony. But, again, it's sort of an inside nod and gets lost and maybe doesn't work for that reason.

Quiet City I loved—because of its score, because of its simplicity and because of its trustworthy thematic directionality. I will watch anything Aaron Katz makes because I get the impression that he genuinely likes people, loves people, strangers and sees their lives as beautiful, fragile and a little sad. The nostaglia of Quiet City is particularly heartening for me.

At the same time, I've decided, as you pointed out in mentioning Swanberg's performance, that naturalism is now a form of stylism. It's just a form that right now I no longer like.

Nora

Tuesday, 23 October 9:25PM

I totally agree with you that Katz's likeability made me enjoy this film more than KOTM or Orphans, but the nostalgic quality of the film didn't feel earned...It felt like the music did a lot of the work. It felt like the sort of quiet yearning of the characters was the big headline, but the performances were not nearly there...or the writing wasn't nearly there. What do these people have against writing?

And I agree that their form of naturalism is an aesthetic choice, and dare I say it's the only choice they make. They refuse to take responsibility for the content (sharing it with the actors), and they refuse to make thematic choices. But I did find the characters in this film likeable on a higher level than before....though I do feel like Bujalski's still working at a much higher level.

Nick

Tuesday, 23 October 11:03PM

I heart Bujalski, although I'm not sure especially that he's working on a higher level at all. Funny Ha Ha is certainly not the prettiest film in the world. It's just film, that's all, and so it sure as hell seems prettier. But, really of that crew Katz has the best eye for the visual. Bujalski's work is just more deliberate and kind and attentive to people, not in the same way Katz's is. Katz generally likes people in an easy way, where I think Bujalski's a bit more shy and erratic.

And, I have to say, I think Russo-Young's gotten the shaft in a lot of ways. Why the hell wasn't she on Filmmaker's 25 list if Kentucker Audley was? And, why the hell wasn't Frank V. Ross on that list either?

Nora

Wednesday, 24 October 12:01AM

I totally agree about Katz's eye. His film looks worlds better than the other films in the group. I guess what I mean about Bujalski is that Mutual Appreciation kind of had sequences and climaxes and made me feel things (discomfort and chuckles, I suppose) whereas the other films didn't accomplish nearly as much as that.

Perhaps it's true that in the group Ry Russo-Young is one of the few actually going for something 'dramatic'. Her film struck me in a way as junior-dogma...but I really didn't feel like she understood what she was doing in that film. I felt like it was all very superficial....especially that Carol Burnett stuff....Ouch. That was an awful way, in my humble opinion, to reveal that plot detail....because it's exposition, direct exposition, but done in a kind of faux-artsy way to make you think it's more than just an explanation.

I was struck by this quote in Creative Screenwriting's weekly email: "You don't write because you want to say something, you write because you've got something to say." – F. Scott Fitzgerald. I'm not making an accusation as such, but I think there's some truth to the theory that these guys are more interested in making films than in asking direct questions or making artistic statements. And that's why they're producing so much. They don't answer to nearly as strong a filter, and they've chosen a format that works well with a lack of decisions.

Just my take. Fun discussion.

Nick