10 Pianer oF THE Arts / NovemBer 1995 Art For Teachers of Children dir. Jennifer Mongomery (USA, 1995) Jennifer Montgomery’s film is remarkable in that it is her own story, told directly. It’s a narrative with definite documentary lean- ings, almost uncomfortably close to real life. In the film, her name is not changed but the name of Camera the other principal character is: from Jock Sturges to the fictional John Goddard. And the events portrayed in the film basically reflect a fairly well known minor scandal in the art world: that of a photographer whose subject matter is predominantly nude teenage and pre-pubescent girls (for which he was later prosecuted by the FBI, but acquitted). An autobiography, this film deals with Jennifer's per- sonal contact with this man as one of his models at a New England boarding school in the seventies. o/ A lot of films you see are as close to real life as this one is. People make films about events that happen in their childhood and then they improvise around things, make it better art, and get people who are slightly different from themselves and that changes the characters. Much has been made of the autobiographical nature of this film, it’s because it’s a well known case in the United States, but most of this film takes place in the sev- enties and is pretty predictable and not scandalous in nature, really. It’s about the development of this relationship. So I never thought of 3 bu >. ial of = n LL 4 LL it as a document, I don’t make documentary films. I make art films. This film is deeply influ- enced by various avant-garde film makers’ methods. Because of this term “personal film making,” for a lot of people the line between doc- umentary and fiction has been blurred permanently. I worked so long on this film and to me it became an art pro- Never ject. And also the actors used a certain amount of improvisation. It’s a long time since this stuff happened and there’s a lot of mileage between then and now. I mean, I’m a writer. There’s a letter from the man in the middle of the film that’s verbatim. That was written down so there was no need to change it because, well, it was a gem. But other things you just work with all the different vari- ables. Also, I have to credit myself. I mean | wrote the script and I wrote things that I thought were ridiculous that I liked, that I thought were funny. And I sort of forgot that I thought they were funny in editing because it’s so arduous. You know, and then when I showed the film I realized again that when I was writing these lines, I had laughed. I wouldn’t say it was light hearted. I do think that things reach such a level of, almost like, predictability. You know, the machinery that goes into action in social situations is so predictable that it becomes hilarious. You know, it’s this man and this girl and, “Let me take your picture,” and, “How come your camera’s so big?” All this stuff is so laden with symbolism that we can’t do any- thing but laugh. But to me, this is not a light hearted film. In fact, to me it’s a very, very angry film. But it’s obviously anger in ways that people find either confusing or more palatable than I expected them to. I didn’t really deliver the entirety of my opinions just because I wanted to leave it open. I didn’t & expect to e be show- ; S ing it to : the kind of audience I'm showing it to. You know, I’ve mainly shown my films in gay and lesbian film festivals and also experimental venues where the audience would have a tremendous sense of irony about the whole thing and also would be very diffi- cult to shock and maybe judgmen- tal in ways that these audiences are not, you know, in terms of stylistics and quotations of other films and such. But, you know, when you show your film to a broader audience, you end up dealing with broader concerns. Like, the concerns in the audiences I've been showing the film to as a result of its crossing over are somewhat similar to the concerns of people who watch talk shows. Like, they want to know the truth and they want to know what I really think and they don’t care. They watch the film and they get out all that I do have to offer and then they still want to know. To me, that’s a very passive viewing format, where the audience just wants to be given all the answers. But there are many people who watch this film who I have to credit. They’re perfectly happy to watch a film that doesn’t deliver a lot of answers because they’re really sick of that. There are peo- ple who actually get some pleasure out of watching this sort of bizarre fate replay. It’s an aesthetic plea- sure for them. Somebody panned the film and wrote that it was “emotional mini- malism.” And then my friends and I decided that’s what we were and that was good. This is a new movement! Yeah, it’s already fully in action. It’s got a full membership and everything. Basically, I think that most people make films about their lives. It’s just one degree or anoth- er of sublimation. I actually con- sider this film highly sublimated. The people are simply cut out stand ins. I was able to transform continued on next page, “Art Imitates Life" The Wife dir. Tom Noonan (USA, 1994) Two doctors, a husband and a wife, are a “team of new-age ther- apists” who provide a ‘safe place’ for their therapy patients. The story unfolds when one of their patients and his wife unexpectant- ly arrive at the house. The wife is an outsider amidst the triad. She is disenfranchised from the world of therapy and healing. Her approach to commu- nication is deliberately dissimilar to the others: she cuts to the shit. She does not cover up her feelings with psycho-anal-lytical diver- sions. Her face is lit directly, she is ‘in the light’ Frequently, the characters are seen in reflection. The audience views the characters indirectly; the characters are reflected onto objects outside of themselves; they remain on the exterior. Perhaps a comment on projecting outside of ourselves, and thus judging others according to our own limited per- spective. Perhaps an allusion to surface persona. The Wife was a good film. The film offers a glimpse behind the closed doors of ‘spiritual-media- tors’ and the hypocrisy found therein. Though not my favourite film, the director’s execution is admirable. —Jessica Joy Wise Five Visits to the Doctor dir. Marlene Madison Plimley (Canada, 1995) Marlene Madison Plimley’s video is technically very straightforward, relying mainly on character. The character that Marlene chooses is an exaggerated manifestation of an obsessive-compulsive personal- ity. And what does this character get upset about? A drop of spittle lands in her mouth at a party. The video then becomes a snowball rolling down a hill. An urban shaggydog story. Nice use of jump cuts, too. I wish there were more. -Robert Dayton Angels and Insects dir. Philip Haas (USA/Great Britain, 1995) Seeing a film based on a novel previously read almost always annoys me; I tend to prefer my own illustrations. Lost from the film are A.S. Byatt’s clever literary references and her subtle and intricate construction of a narra- tive, leaving us with a visually crude, poorly narrated, silly Victorian melodrama (which did have some really nice insect imagery). -Lulu 10 Paver oF me Aes | Novnsee 1995, Art For Teachers of Children dir. Jennifer Mongomery (USA, 1995) Jennifer Montgomery's film is remarkable in that itis her own. story, told directly Its a narrative with definite documentary lean- ings, almost uncomfortably close to real life. Inthe film, her name {snot changed but the name of Camera the other principal characteris from Jock Sturges tothe fictional John Goddard. And the events portrayed in the film basically reflect a fairly well known minor scandal in the art world: that of a photographer whose subject matter Is predominantly nude teenage and pre-pubescent gils (for which he was later prosecuted by the FBI, but acquitted. An autobiography, this film deals with Jennifer's per- sonal contact with this man as one ‘of his models at a New England ‘boarding school in the seventies Alot of films you see are as close to real life as this one People make films about events that happen in their childhood and then they improvise around things, rake it better ar, and get people ‘who are slightly different from themselves and that changes the character, ‘Much has been made ofthe autobiographical nature ofthis film, i's because it's a ell known ‘ase in the United States, but most ‘of this film takes place in the sev- centies and is prety predictable and not scandalous in nature, realy It’s about the development ofthis relationship. So I never thought of E: iu > Lil o - td LL a L. it as document, I don't make documentary films. 1 make art films. This film is deeply infla- ‘enced by various avant-garde film makers’ methods. Because of this term “personal film making,” for a Tot of people the line between doc- ‘umentary and fiction has been blurred permanently. 1 worked so long on this film and to me it became an art pro- Never Ject. And also the actors used a ‘certain amount of improvisation Tes a long time since this stufT hhappened and there's a lot of mileage between then and now. 1 ‘mean, I'm a writer. There's a letter from the man in the middle of the film that’s verbatim, That was written down so there was no need to change it because, wel, it was a ‘gem. But other things you just work with all the different vati= ables. Also, [have to credit myself. mean I wrote the script and I wrote things that | thought were ridiculous that I liked, that 1 thought were funny. And I sort of forgot that | thought they were funny in editing because its so arduous. You know, and then when I showed the film I realized again that when L was writing these lines, I had laughed. T wouldn't say it was light hnearted. Ido think that things reach such a level of, almost like, predictability. You know, the ‘machinery that goes into action in socal situations is so predictable that it becomes hilarious. You know, is this man and this and, “Let me take your pictur, , “How come your camera's so selec ccaas De Ps geet Og Po nee) Jaen seichen dpe pairs ceutasmate eased eee Sonaierart ae ae oo 1es =: oF ch retest es see eee sain ol alt Se goes See lie tar Suge s ieee cee pte eae ere semen ee Pee a eee Crepe pb SER. spear teas rene eects i serene eee presto suites Set ea Se lee Sauer oem Sova poem apace per Bere a ee ee pce ees see peepee fe lo ge pier pose tore pp Ea fe pyre es “itl pe ees eer cee es aes pore batt ‘conus on et og. “he inate te The Wife dir. Tom Noonan (USA, 1994) ‘Two doctors, a husband and a wife, are a “team of new-age ther- pists” who provide a'safe place’ for ther therapy patients. The story unfolds when one of their patients and his wife unexpectant- ly arrive atthe house. ‘The wife isan outsider amidst the triad. She is disenfranchised from the world of therapy and healing. Her approach to commu- nication is deliberately dissimilar to the others: she cuts tothe shit. She does not cover up her feelings with psycho-anal-Iytical diver- sions. Her face is lit directly, she is “inthe light Frequently, the characters are seen in reflection. The audience views the characters indirectly; the characters are reflected onto ‘objects outside of themselves; they remain on the exterior. Perhaps a ‘comment on projecting outside of ourselves, and thus judging others according to our own limited per- spective: Perhaps an allusion to surface persona, The Wife was a good film. The film offers a glimpse behind the closed doors of ‘spirtual-media- tors’ and the hypocrisy found therein, Though not my favourite film, the director's execution is ‘admirable, Jessica Joy Wise Five Visits to the Doctor dir, Marlene Madison Plimley (Canada, 1995) Marlene Madison Plimley’s video. is technically very straightforward, relying mainly on character. The character that Marlene chooses is ‘an exaggerated manifestation of an obsessive-compulsive personal ity. And what does this character fet upset about? A drop of spite lands in her mouth at a party. The Video then becomes a snowball rolling down a hill. An urban, agaydog story. Nice use of jump ‘cuts, t00, I wish there were more Robert Dayton Angels and Insects Ai Philip Haas {USA/Great Britain, 1995) ‘Seing a film based on a novel previously read almost always, ‘annoys me; I tend to prefer my ‘own illustrations. Lost from the film are A.S. Byat’s clever liferary references and her subtle and. crude, poorly narrated, silly Victorian melodrama (which did hhave some really nice insect imager)