Palo Alto

As you may or may not know, I am partial to a good Coming of Age Drama/ Teen pic and I have to say, for me, Palo Alto ticks all the boxes in this genre. What also draws me to the film is the fact that it's directed by a female- which we all know is a rarity in the film industry. Palo Alto is 27 year old, Gia Coppola's Directional debut,  based on a collection of short stories by James Franco. 

At first glance Palo Alto has the appearance of a generic female orientated movie, mainly due to the fact that it stars Emma Roberts who is regularly typecast as your stereotypical teenage drama queen. However, I do not believe this is the case, as the film also focuses on the destructive relationship between stoner, Teddy and his disturbed best friend, Fred, who seems adamant on keeping Teddy on the same wayward path as himself. Teddy and April are both infatuated with one another but neither have the confidence to admit it. Meanwhile, pervy soccer coach, Mr B (James Franco), exploits naive and vulnerable April, who babysits for his son. 

I must admit the film is slightly superficial and packed full of high school stereotypes: the stoner, the slut, the creepy teacher - all of which detract attention from the films attributes: the stunning cinematography and convincing yet significant performances from Emma Roberts and Jack Kilmer.

Despite coming across as a quirky low budget Indie American film, with a budget of only $1 million, in my opinion, Palo Alto is far from it, as a large percentage of the cast, crew and even director come from established Hollywood families. This leaves me to question if its positive reception at Telluride, Venice and Tribeca, was in fact down to its artistic merit or if it was due to its numerous connections and contacts within the film industry. However, regardless of the films positive reception and understandably high praise for both cinematography and soundtrack, it didn't manage to breakeven, making a loss of just over $80,000. Like many films of its type that premiere at multiple film festivals, they often have a limited release and due to minimal publicity, don't tend to expand to a wider release. I also doubt that Palo Alto was successful when the it came to DVD sales either; but good old Netflix came to the rescue, giving us Brits the opportunity to watch it, and from what I gather, the British teen demographic are suckers for films about the existentialistic struggle through adolescence.

Although the film may be seen as an honest and moving portrayal of wasted youth, it hardly captures the raw and exploitive edge like, for instance, Larry Clark or Harmony Korine have in the past. Nevertheless, Palo Alto is surprisingly engaging for a film riddled with teen angst clichés and in which your standard well-off but misunderstood teen's main form of rebellion is through substance abuse and casual sex as they stumble into adulthood.

Throwback Thursday: KIDS (1995)

As it's Thursday, I thought it would be appropriate to throwback to one of my favourite 90's films of all time: KIDS, directed by Larry Clark. This Teenpic follows the lives of a group of alienated teens as they roam the streets of New York. With the absence of any kind of parental influence, these teenage delinquents partake in underage sex, drug and alcohol use as well as violence, theft and borderline rape. 

KIDS was Clark's debut film and one that accurately portrayed a bleak and uncompromising picture of contemporary youth culture and adolescent sexuality. The film was scripted by 18 year old, Harmony Korine, who also worked with Clark on Gummo and more recently directed Spring Breakers.

KIDS is somewhat of a social commentary which accurately highlights the major problems affecting urban youths in the early 90's, such as unemployment, lack of parental involvement and the threat of HIV and other STDs. Clark illustrates clear gender division throughout the film as well as the characters notions of dislocation, fragmentation and existentialism, in addition to touching on politics of HIV and AIDs.

At the time of its release, there was much public debate surrounding the films artistic merit due to it's unsettling authenticity and I think its safe to say; it's a film you either love or you hate. Despite the heavy criticism Clark's controversial debut feature received from the media, labelling it as child pornography and questioning the ambiguous relationship with his subject matter, he continued to make additional films depicting illegal drug use, underage sex and violence in youth culture.

In my opinion, Clark undoubtably succeeds in exposing the reality of American suburban life with it's unsettling frankness, intimacy and authenticity. To a certain extent, the films tone and visual style blur the line between fiction and reality, along with the documentary style techniques used to portray the voyueristic images of teen sexuality. 

His work is utterly unique, underrated and unlike any other films I have seen; much like the works of Kubrick and other didactic film makers, the film has the ability to engross the spectator to reveal an additional, more significant meaning within. So if you're like me and love a good obscure controversial film, then I'd definitely go and watch of some Larry Clark's work.

Link to full movie of KIDS

Amy : The Girl Behind the Name

In my opinion, Asif Kapadia's Amy: The Girl Behind the Name, is one of the most genuinely moving bio-documentaries to have ever been made. It comes as no surprise to me that it has recorded the biggest ever opening weekend for a British documentary in the UK, making over half a million. Every aspect of it was perfect, capturing Amy's raw emotion and originally and ultimately portraying her as the talented artist she truly was. It didn't at all feel intrusive, instead it clarified many aspects of the singers life that had previously remained unclear, through accusations from unwanted media attention and personal prejudices against her.

I haven't yet seen the infamous Senna, so I was half expecting a Kurt & Courtney style documentary or a film solely focussed around the singers friends and family, rather than about Amy herself. Also, having previously watched a few TV documentaries about Amy Winehouse, both before and after she passed away, I assumed that many of the clips shown would be ones frequently repeated and played around the time of her death in 2011. But rest assured, Kapadia definitely did not disappoint, making good use of all the unseen archive footage he had access to. 

We all know how the documentary would end, but what made it so infatuating was the way it began. The film paints a heartbreaking portrait of a little girl who grows up to be a star, whilst also questioning whether fame is all it's cracked up to be. Asif Kapadia has structured his documentary in a way that makes it clear the singers addictions were a result of deeper personal issues that went inadequately addressed. Kapadia didn't shy away from depicting the reality of Amy's addictions and he certainly didn't sugar coat them, it was because of this that made the spectator feel embarrassed for the way she was treated in the eyes of the public. 

As for Mitch Winehouse and his criticisms, in all honesty I think the man is in denial. He can't face the fact that in certain points of Amy's life he failed to recognise that she really did need help and for once she needed her father to be there; instead of which, Mitch was too absorbed in her career and money to help her. I'm not going to pretend that the film hasn't painted Mitch in a bad light because in all honesty, from his point of view, it has; but what Mitch fails to acknowledge is the fact that it allows the world to see Amy from different perspective, as most prejudgements associated with her name are to do with drug and alcohol abuse, as magnified by the press. Whom, might I just add, have had a considerable part to play in Amy's death, through victimising and tormenting the girl at the lowest points of her life. I also found it absolutely disgusting how it was deemed socially acceptable to make jokes about her bulimia, battles with addiction and mental health issues. 

Like many other fans of Amy Winehouse, I can't help but contemplate what might have been if the antagonistic figures in her life could have done things differently. Which, in all honesty, is why death from addiction is one of the most tragic, because it may well have been preventable. The film is an eye-opener, it will erase any preconceptions you may have of Amy and I can guarantee you will walk out at the end of the film having seen the singer in an entirely different light.

Knock, Knock

First of all, I'd just like to point out 
how beautiful the poster is.

Knock, Knock, directed and written by Eli Roth, is an erotic horror-thriller in which sexually frustrated architect, Evan, is home alone on Father's Day, until his evening is disrupted by two helpless females who are stranded in the rain. He obligingly invites them in and idiotically gets lured into the palms of their hands. From then on the pair of Femme Fatales torture and torment him, trashing his house, killing his friend and burying him alive.

When it comes to horror, I loathe films such as Paranormal Activity, The Devil Inside etc. as I find them trashy, tasteless and repetitious. So considering Knock, Knock is neither of these, my expectations were moderately high. I have to say, I am still undecided on whether or not I actually enjoyed it. Looking back, the film was both comic and brutally sadistic, so to a certain extent the balance of these qualities is what made it work.

Despite being made on a budget of $3 million and having only taken 27 days to shoot, the film didn't come across as your standard cheap-looking production. Instead it had a certain elegance to it, as well as succeeding in capturing the zeitgeist.

Although the film will not be released in the US until October 9, I have a feeling that it will be more of a hit over there than it has been in the UK. I think the film has potential to gain some sort of minor cult status, particularly overseas due to the fanbase Keanu Reeves carries with him.

Knock, Knock was mediocre, contained all basic tropes of a thriller and didn't fail to disappoint as far as being dark and twisted goes. As for the methods of torture: impaling Evan's chest with a fork, deafening him and using his daughters my little pony underwear for role play - they were pretty grim to watch but nothing overly shocking and to some extent satirical. Anyhow, to me, this film is one that everyone loves to hate because we are drawn in, regardless of its never ending cringeworthy clichés. Saying that, I was half expecting to be underwhelmed with the ending, but in actual fact the film couldn't have ended on a more suiting note: when the pair post Evan's sex tape on his Facebook account, he desperately tries to delete it whilst buried alive but ironically ends up pressing the like button instead. 

From a female perspective, I found Keanu Reeves portrayal of Evan, one of the most irritating helpless morons in film history. Aside from his hideously awful acting, Keanu Reeves comparison of infidelity to "free pizza" has to be one of the most pathetic monologues I have ever come across. Whether Eli Roth intended for Evan to be an unlikable character I am unsure, but its possible that his intentions were to make the spectator question the morality and consequences of Evans actions by portraying a few genuine and uncomfortable truths about male sexuality.

So, if watching a couple of unhinged, misandristic psychopaths push Keanu Reeves to Point Break(see what I did there), then Knock, Knock is a film for you.

A Brief Introduction

First thing's first, my name is Josie, I'm from the UK and believe it or not, I love films. As stereotypical as this introduction may sound, I have always been interested in film; but it has only been over the past year or two that I've started to truly appreciate them as works of art. As a result, one could say I've become somewhat of a filmophile.

As far as the feminist aspect of this blog goes, I would not consider myself a feminist, however, I am intrigued as to why it is that the film industry is so heavily dominated by men and the prejudice associated with female directors, critics, writers, etc. Is it because the film industry is a man's world? Or because men possess the ability to get straight to the point, unlike women? Even, dare I say it: that men are the overall superior gender when it comes to film? It may well be the case that women simply have no interest in pursuing a career in film. In all honesty, like many things in life, I  don't believe there are any straightforward answers.

I suppose in a way, Filmophilic Feminist is my means of experimentation: to see if  a females opinion of film can be regarded as equally as a males. So if by some miracle you are still interested in what I have to say, then be sure to expect frequent posts on films that are floating my boat(or not as the case may be).

Cliché but true