On the last day that this journalist is saw films at Sundance [tomorrow it's interviews back to back] the theme for today seemed to be relationships, all depicted vastly differently. John Krasinski, best known as the laid-back Jim from ''The Office'', makes his directorial debut on ''Brief Interviews with Hideous Men'', based on the cult novel by the late David Foster Wallace. The film's protagonist is grad student Sara Quinn who, after her boyfriend [played by Krasinski] mysteriously leaves her with little explanation, she is left looking for answers as to what went wrong. Directing all her energies into her anthropological dissertation, Sara conducts a series of interviews with men in an effort to uncover the secret thoughts that drive their behavior. As she records the astonishing and disquieting experiences of various subjects, Sara discovers much more about men and herself than she bargained for.
This is the kind of film one needs to mull over for several hours. I must confess, my instinctive reaction was that the film is too anti-male, overly verbose and requires too much thought, in particular seeing the film at about 9am. Yet, when one begins to think about it, one realizes that it's far more ingenious a philosophical treatise than one realizes, and writer/director Krasinski has made a very intelligent, brilliantly acted cinema verite piece, that goes in some unexpected directions. Yes, there is some male bashing, but that is really being far too simplistic an examination of a film that deeply and courageously explores the male psyche. There are harsh truths spelled out by some of Sara's ‘subjects' and some characters are intensely misogynistic, but Krasinski is deftly non-judgmental and that is why the film works so well. It is a very dialogue centric piece, requiring the audience to think and analyze, but cinema is often superficial and mundane, so a film like Brief Interviews comes as a refreshing change. Krasinski's direction is simple, not cinematic, which is in keeping with the style of the piece, and his own performance that closes the film, in which he delivers an emotive monologue offering his reasons for leaving, is simply stunning. As to what the audience is for the film, is a different matter. It may be better served on an HBO, but either way, this is a bold and audacious work that is provocative and intellectually stimulating which deserves an equally wide and intelligent audience.
On the other hand, Australian director Gregor Jordan's ode to the 80s, ''The Informers'', seems so out of place at this festival. Sure it's a guilty pleasure film full of copious amounts of sex and nudity, which is not objectionable per se, but a script helps, and actors who can solidly interpret characters. Based on author Bret Easton Ellis' rambling tales of 1980s Los Angeles, The Informers is a multi-strand narrative set in 1984 Los Angeles, centered on an array of characters who represent both the top of the heap (a Hollywood dream merchant, a dissolute rock star, an aging newscaster) and the bottom (a voyeuristic doorman, an amoral ex-con). Connecting the intertwining strands are a group of beautiful, blonde young men and women who sleep all day and party all night, doing drugs -- and one another --with abandon, never realizing that they are dancing on the edge of a volcano. I get what Ellis was doing, commenting on the sexual excesses of the 80s when AIDS was first coming into being, and the disease is certainly part of the film. But the screenplay, co-written by first-timer Nicholas Jarecki, along with novelist Ellis, has no depth whatsoever, but a meaningless series of unsympathetic caricatures, brought to life by a bevy of attractive, soulless actors. None of this is the fault of director Jordan, an accomplished filmmaker who can only shoot the material available to him. He has a fluid, visual style, and the film certainly looks stylish and perfectly captures the period. With the exception of pros Billy Bob Thornton and a striking Kim Basinger, The Informers has very little to offer, apart from numerous sex scenes, drug-taking and the weirdest, out of place character played by Mickey Rourke who needs to think about the choices he makes. This film about perpetual self-destruction is an unnecessary addition to Sundance, and it is likely given the film's bad reviews, that a theatrical release is an unlikely event, but rather relegated to cable and DVD. As a huge admirer of Gregor's work, it is unfortunate that he opted to do something this shallow and narratively incohesive, but then you're only as good as your source material and therein lay the problem. (UPDATE : The film has since been picked up for a theatrical release by SENATOR ENTERTAINMENT U.S)
Relationship movies are a dime a dozen at Sundance, and some work, others are bold failures. Jay DiPietro's ''Peter and Vandy'' falls under the latter category. The film is a love story told out of order about a couple that is out of order, juxtaposing Peter and Vandy's romantic beginnings with the twisted-manipulative-regular couple they become. It is a bold idea, but the idea of completely confusing your audience by telling a story out of order, where scenes are juxtaposed, doesn't quite work. A good film, a good relationship film, needs carefully delineated characters in order for the viewer to be invested in the relationship, so by mixing up scenes and moments, by showing the destruction of the relationship at one point, followed by love confessions, the two characters are never allowed to grow. In addition, the film becomes very confusing, and for a relationship film, that is inexcusable. On the plus side, the film is beautifully shot in New York and feels like a rich love letter to that city. The acting is terrific. Jason Ritter is an explosive talent who goes from romantic to angry character with effortless brilliance, and the beautiful Jess Weixler of Teeth fame, has a luminous expressive quality. The film's flaws are structural, a lack of character development and narrative problems, and one questions its ability to find theatrical distribution.
