So yesterday was my day at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Unfortunately life won't allow me to spend any more time than that (although I may try to make it back for the last afternoon and Marilynn Hotchkiss). But if I only can see two films from the festival, I'm glad to report that I managed to pick two worthwhile ones.
First up: Three Dollars. This is a film that I have a hard time describing, which is exactly why I liked it. If you can precisely sum up what a film is about, then there was really no point of it being made in the first place ... it's supposed to be an expression that transcends specific explanation; it is its own explanation. One of the most concrete impressions I took away from it is its point that people who hold on to their integrity and compassion in the face of ease and necessity are now living in a world where that is rewarded less and less, and sometimes they end up paying dearly for it - but it's still worth it. This is a film I would recommend you just simply explore on your own.
Then I saw Karla, which I had been looking forward to seeing - not so much as a film fan but as a true crime junkie. The showing was sold out, and the stand-by line was a mile long. This one is a bit easier to describe - it's about Canada's most notorious serial rapist and murderer, and more specifically, his wife Karla, who knew about and even helped in his crimes. Since the tale is told from Karla's point of view, to the doctor who is going to help decide on her parole, it's skewed in her favor, and potrays her as manipulated and victimized herself. But the film is still directed in such a way that you still question her intent, her actual involvement, and if her act of becoming his accomplice in rape and murder despite seeming to know how deeply wrong it was is actually more horrible than Paul's dementia. Actress Laura Prepon definitely carried it off. And I was fortunate enough that the film's director, Joel Bender, was at the screening and spoke about it afterwards.
There are two particular lines of thought Karla provoked in me - one, that I expected it to be much more graphically violent. The subject matter is [retty chilling, and there have been controversies all over the place about the filming of it. But when it came to actual sex and murder depiction, the film was surprisingly coy. I know that a large part had to do with strict Canadian regulations and a completely appropriate consideration for the victims' families. However, deliberate or not, it made the film so much more powerful. Remember in Double Indemnity where Neff kills Phyllis's husband in the car? You don't see either one of the men - all you see is Phyllis's face, looking straight ahead and listening to her husband die. You're not thinking so much about Neff's act as you are about her, and her monstrous indifference, and how much she is still guilty of murder despite never lifting a hand during the physical deed. That's what's in Karla, and stripped of Double Indemnity's noirish elegance.
The other thing I was intrigued about was the role of film itself, or at least video. Paul videotaped their crimes, including the first, the murder of Karla's sister, and kept the tapes. How close is the link between their desire to record and view such acts and the audience's desire to watch the story of a couple who would do a thing like that?
Technorati tags: Karla, film