42 - but who's counting?

As a dues-paying member of The Southern New England Brooklyn Dodgers Fan Club, how could I not like 42? Any retelling of the amazing story of Jackie Robinson's debut in Major League Baseball in 1947, breaking the shameful color barrier, is going to be worth watching - and worth retelling to generations who may not comprehend the magnitude of his accomplishment. Robinson's personal bravery and strong, dignified personality did so much to change the sport and to change our culture. All baseball fans of my era, particularly Dodger fans, are also somewhat familiar with the key episodes in Robinson's rookie season - the hostility from fans and in particular from racist plays such as teammate Dixie Walker and opposing manager Ben Chapman (Phillies), the withering media attention, the fortitude of Branch Rickey, the despicable silence of commissioner "Happy" Chandler. And everyone's aware of Robinson's great skills as a ballplayer - and how so many great black players followed him through the door that he and Rickey opened. So, yes, 42 reminded us of all of that and is a great movie to show kids and others. Wisely, it's not a biopic in the traditional sense - there's virtually nothing about Robinson's life before Rickey signed him. It's a story of two seasons, postwar - 46 is Montreal and his rookie season in Brooklyn. Sadly, the movie isn't really so great as a film: it's absurdly sanctimonious (cue the strings! cue the orchestra!), full of absurd set pieces (Rickey, way overplayed by Harrison Ford, bucking up Robinson's confidence again and again, for example), and in my view none of the actors looks like a ball player of the era and the company seemed to care very little about accurately re-creating the look or feeling of spring training or major league ball in the 1940s. A couple of good scenes - Robinson driven from his lodging in Florida by a gang of racists - aren't enough to outweigh the stodgy set pieces and the heavy-handed messaging Not a bad movie at all, but not nearly what it could have or should have been. On the DVD edition, Warner Bros cheaps out, taking plenty of time and space for innumerable promotional trailers and including only one crappy special addition - why not some clips showing Robinson in action or on camera?

The weird enshrinement of Walt Disney and Mary Poppins: Saving Mr. Banks

Just as you should read and study The Odyssey, preferably in the original Greek, before setting off on a reading of Ulysses, you should probably see and ponder Mary Poppins before you set out to see the new Disney movie Saving Mr. Banks. No, stop it - I'm just joking! But you might think, from the hagiographic tone of this film, that Mary Poppins is one of the great cultural monuments of our time. In essence, the movie is about Disney's 20-year quest to get Aussie-British author V.L. Travers to assign his company the rights to her books; as the movie opens, she's about to sign the contract, which gives her the right of final script approval - her agent says this is a first for Disney, and it's very unusual in any event. The very best scenes in the movie involve (some of) her meetings with the writer, composer, and lyricist team to go over some of the scenes, the art direction, etc. Travers, played very well by Emma Thompson, who adds value to any movie she's in even this one, is really funny in some of her bizarre critiques - insisting that film not include the color red, for example - and we learn from the closing credits that these working sessions were in fact recorded and the best scenes it seems are very closely based on fact. And that's where the movie goes off base; I would have enjoyed seeing a realistic account of how this team managed to put the project together even w/ her literally insane demands - but no, this is a Disney film, after all, so over time we see the writing sessions become increasingly Glee - choreographed, background score, and so on - why not just play it w/ the single studio piano? And we see Travers/Thompson become less irascible and increasingly relaxed, cool, eccentrically lovable. In other words - this film has a Hollywood, a Disney, ending. There are two other aspects to this film, neither of them good. Though Tom Hanks plays a credible Disney, it's totally bizarre to see him plead with Travers for the rights to this film - it will bring joy to children, and adults, everywhere, he says; he promised his daughter he would make this film, and a man doesn't break a promise to his children; and so on. It's impossible to know whether Disney is meant to be seen as such a cornball, or whether he's being a shrewd businessman. I suspect he was a shark - but I also suspect, for some weird reason, that this movie is meant to enshrine him as an affable genius. The less said about the many flashbacks to Travers's difficult Australian childhood the better, but let's just say I found the youthful T. and her eccentric but fatally flawed father insufferable, almost nauseating. Paul Giamatti, btw, is wasted in a dumb part as a limo driver who at one point literally sits on the ground digging holes w/ Travers as he talks about his "handicapped" daughter. (Later, in lieu of a tip, she gives him a list of famous people who had disabilities.) Travers may have wanted to ban the color red from her film, but it seems the studio wanted to ban the color black from this one. It's the most lily white casting I've seen in any movie in many years - right down to the extras. In a very long sequence at Disneyland with many crowd scenes, I saw not a single person of color. In fact, the only black person I can recall in the entire movie is the man who lifted the luggage from Travers's limo. Happiest place on earth indeed.

Hysteria and a charge of sexual abuse - The Hunt

Thomas Vinterberg's The Hunt (2012) is absolutely gripping and will keep you engaged and on edge from its first shot (a group of drunken Danish middle-aged guys carousing at a wilderness hunting lodge) to its last, which I won't divulge. That makes it a totally successful psychological social drama, but whether that makes it a great movie or even a movie you'd want to see is another question. That depends on your capacity for enduring disturbance - and moral ambiguity. The film is in essence about a 42-year-old father, just divorced, apparently unsuccessful in whatever his career was (seems financially pretty comfortable) now working in a kindergarten (seems more like what we would call a preschool). Through a series of incidents, the man, Lucas (the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, also great in A Royal Affair) is charged with sexually abusing one of the children - we know that the charge is unfounded, and we also know that Lucas is very vulnerable to the charge, as man living alone, and known for kind of rough, physical play with the kids. By the nature of his job, there is body contact - we see in an early scene that he helps clean a child after the child has a bowel movement. So when a child wrongly accuses him (she's a very troubled young girl who'd seen a porno video that her teenage brother handed her) the charge quickly accelerates to hysteria - largely because the head of the school and a counselor handle this terribly - asking the girl leading questions; calling in all parents and asking them to watch for any signs of disturbance. One thing very disturbing about this story is the possible implication that charges of sexual abuse are often unfounded - I believe that's not true, that more than likely most incidents are never reported because of fear, shame, confusion. On the other hand, the film is a warning as to how a criminal charge can quickly become mass hysteria that can lead to ostracism or worse - that's really what the film is about, the effect of the incident and its aftermath on Lucas/Mikkelson, his family, his friends, the whole community. There are some incredibly tense and dramatic confrontations, one or two of them physical but most of them verbal, emotional - with typical Scandinavian understatement and then sudden bursts of passion and violence. This film would have a much wider audience if there were an American re-make, but that's unlikely given the sensitive and disturbing nature of the subject; it is a Golden Globes nominee and will possibly be an Oscar nominee as well. The Hunt may also recall for some the fine novel and British film Atonement, which also centered on an unjust charge of sexual abuse - though that one by a much older girl, who should have born some responsibility for her actions and instead carried the guilt inside of her for the rest of her life.

The 20 best films I saw in 2013, part III - 7 documentaries

Completing my list of the 20 best movies I saw in 2013 - once again it's been a great year for documentaries which have clearly moved ever closer to the mainstream of cinema in the past few years, thanks in part I think to increasing use of and familiarity with personal documentary video on social media and YouTube, the ready availability of good documentaries on Netflix and other media that bypass commercial theater distribution, and the ever-increasing portability and affordability of videocameras. Here are the best documentaries, many of them disturbing and unsettling, a few of them uplifting as well, that I saw this year (listed alphabetically):

Five Broken Cameras. A fine and disturbing Palestinian documentary made up of footage by an amateur videographer who started out buying a camera to film family birthday parties etc. and ends up filming various marches, public events, and encounters with the Israeli military - without meaning to, he becomes the unofficial chronicler of the struggles in his village; as the title tells us, he has had his camera smashed and destroyed during at least 5 encounters - each one chillingly captured live.

The Imposter. A weird film about about a family whose 14-year-old son disappeared - and then three years later a kid shows up who claims to be their son. Very mysterious and unnerving, and will leaving you thinking, and puzzled, right up through the end and beyond.

Last Train Home. A terrific documentary from China that shows the lives of a family of garment workers who migrate from a seemingly idyllic countryside into the extremely over-crowded city in order to earn enough to survive. Relation between parents and daughter, seeking her independence, is very powerful and sad.

Marwencol (2010). An excellent and thoughtful look at the work of a great outsider artist, Mark Hogancamp. Sad and disturbing in some ways, but also triumphant, as the artist gains recognition for her very peculiar oeuvre.

Searching for Sugarman. By far the best-known documentary on this list, the excellent story about an obscure American singer-songwriter, Rodrigues, who for some reason became hugely popular in South Africa - and who completely faded from public life, to the point where there were rumors of suicide, or death during a show. Turns out - not so.

Stories We Tell. Sarah Polley is emerging as one of the most talented and innovative directors; this semi-documentary, which uses a lot of recreated footage, tells the story of her family, with many secrets revealed, to her and to us, during the course of the making of this movie. Unlike so many family documentaries, this one is not filled with misery and abuse. The relationship w/ her father is very moving.

This Is not a Film. An Iranian documentary made surreptitiously by a filmmaker whom the censors have confined to his apartment. He takes great risks and pushes the limits of censorship, and some very disturbing sequences, particularly toward the end of the film, show the dangers dissident artists face every day in repressive societies.

The 20 best films I saw in 2013 - continued (foreign and classic)

Continuing with the 20 best films I saw in 2013: yesterday I posted on five contemporary or near-contemporary English-language films, and I will add 8 films to the list today - some foreign-language, some classic, some both:

The best classic/foreign-language films I saw in 2013 (listed alphabetically):

A Hijacking. This terrific Danish film from 2013 makes a good counterweight to the bloated, action-drenched Captain Philips (perhaps a case study of the difference between U.S. studio films and indie, foreign films) - tells the story of Somali hijacking primarily seen from the POV of the corporate chief who wrestles with crushing moral and strategic decisions as he negotiates to free the hostages and the ship.

Holy Motors. A completely unusual, in fact unique, contemporary French film that's more or less about an actor who has to take on 12 (or so) roles during a long and complex evening, leading him through Paris at night and into some very odd places and predicaments. Not for everyone, but one of the best experimental narratives I've seen in some time.

The Human Condition. A Japanese WWII saga - sometimes considered one of the longest films ever made, and maybe best to think of it as a 6-part series. A stunning account of a young man's journey from innocence to experience as he gets drafted into the Japanese army, sent to the China front, and put in the middle of many extraordinary challenges. The arrival of the POWs as conscripted labor in the mines is one of the greatest scenes in cinema.

Kid with a Bike. Another great contemporary film from the Dardenne brothers, in Belgium, who have made an extraordinary career examining the lives and troubles of working-class families in the industrial towns of the Belgian-French borderlands. See this one and see all their films if you haven't already (especially The Child). 

The Loneliest Planet. A contemporary film shot in the Caucasus, follows a couple on a hiking adventure that leads to one shocking confrontation that will change their lives forever. Very beautiful film to watch as well. 

Rocco and His Brothers. A great Italian postwar family melodrama, that follows a group of brothers who leave the wretched poverty of southern Italy for what they hope will be a new and more prosperous life in Rome. A great saga, and an incredibly interesting look at street life and family life in Italy in that long-gone era.

Shoeshine. Like Rocco, a neo-realist Italian postwar melodrama, this one focusing on a few of the street urchins struggling to get by - incredibly sad, and amazing to think how these children had to live and thrive. Anyone who ever thinks society doesn't have an obligation to provide welfare, sustenance, and education to all children should be made to see this film.

The Southerner. A Renoir made-in-USA rarity that's yet another melodrama and has some of the finest en plein air cinematography ever. No doubt the war and his exile in America kept Renoir from obtaining a higher level of greatness, but his American films are still on a par with some of our best.

The 20 best films I saw in 2013: Contemporary English-language

Looking back, I realize that a watched a lot of very good films this year - most at home, on dvd or streaming - and I also realize that it's hard to judge among films of different types, all of which I've enjoyed. So I'll present my list(s) of the 20 best films I saw in 2013 into groups, starting with:

The best contemporary English-language films I saw in 2013 (listed alphabetically):

Frances Ha. I've been up and down on director Baumbach, but definitely a fan of Frances Ha, a terrific movie about a young woman in NYC trying to find her way as an artist, daughter, friend, girlfriend - and seems to me to very much capture the mood and spirit of a segment of the under-30 generation. Greta Gerweg terrific in the title role, and the film has a nice understated quality - and a sense of what NYC really looks like, not scrubbed clean as it is in so many movies and TV shows, e.g. Sex and the City, Seinfeld, anything by Woody Allen.

Happy-Go-Lucky. One of the most likable films in years, totally carried by the great performance of Sally Hawkins in the title role, and a very smart script, in the British manner.

Much Ado About Nothing. One of the very best Sheakspeare on film I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. A terrific transposition to contemporary LA - hard to belief how effective and credible the words of Shakespeare (largely unaltered in this screenplay) can sound in a contemporary setting. The subplot humor comes across far better than in an production of this play I've ever seen, and it's nice for once to hear S. played in American English.

Nebraska. I've been a big fan of Alexander Payne's films; in Nebraska he takes a new direction - working from an original screenplay rather than from an adapted novel - for a "buddy" movie, a father-son movie, and road-trip movie, that breaks with convention in many ways and is consistently moving and surprising. Some terrific subtle humor, and beautiful wide-screen b-w cinematography that captures the look and feel of isolated, dying Plains State small towns. (For whatever reason, 3 of the 5 films on this list are shot in black-and-white - go figure.)

Zero Dark Thirty. Fast-paced, dramatic, and intelligent account of the hunt for and killing of OBL. Obviously not a documentary but at times has the sense of veracity and real-time that documentaries convey. Examines the tough decisions interrogators and agents had to make regarding use of torture, physical and psychological, to extract info that could save lives of others.

Positively Main Street - Inside LLewyn Davis

I've been up and down on the Coen Brothers, so I approach each new release, despite the critical encomiums that always rain down on them, with a little trepidation. I wasn't, therefore, disappointed by Inside Llewyn Davis, but it didn't blow me away, either. I think the Coens do capture the look and mood of the Greenwich Village folk scene in the 60s, although, like most directors, they have no idea how to make a NYC apartment look like "a dump." The main character played very well by Oscar Issac who actually sings the part very beautifully (not sure if he actually plays guitar as well - probably, though no doubt the music was over-dubbed). Some really fine scenes, including his audition before a gruff and brutally honest club-owner, the recording of the pop song (with Justin Timberlake - what  good actor he's become!), the fake Clancy Brothers (and a Young Bob) performing in the Gaslight, and a dinner at a Columbia profs house that ends in disarray, among others. The problem with the film, though, is that it's a story without an arc. Loosely based on Dave Van Ronk's memoirs (and it sometimes reminds me of that mockumentary about 1980s folks music - although in this case some of the songs that I thought were parodies were actually songs from the era, who knew?), it never comes clean as to whether Davis will have a singing career or not; it's a story told in a circular, roundabout narration, jumping backward in time and then coming back to its starting point; there's a not-subtle reference to Ulysses, a theme for an earlier Coen Bros movie, btw, yet the journey home does not particularly work as a metaphor here in that Davis does not return home but ends up where he began, at a crossroads, so to speak. I do appreciate that this is not a conventional biopic, and it's all the stronger for that, but on the other hand it does not particularly engage us in LD's fate - I found myself a lot of the time trying to figure out whom the characters are based on, if anyone. There are allusions to LD's back story - we see a little about his troubled relationship with his father, about the tragic death of his one-time singing partner - but these elements are not particularly integrated into the film - they may be relics from the Van Ronk memoir. Not sure why the CB's made "Jean," played by Carrie Mulligan, such a bitch - there are few enough good roles for women in this film, and none comes off well at all, which is unnecessary and probably unrealistic, if you've read other accounts of Dylan and other male folk singers given great strength and sustenance by the women in their lives. And there were some great female folk singers of the era, too, but they are absent here. The pluses - with the additional plus of a strong soundtrack, as in most CB films, to outweigh the negatives, but it's not the be-all, end-all story about folk. Maybe someone will buy the rights to Positively Fourth Street.

Good v Evil: Captain Phillips

No doubt Captain Phillips was a true hero, risking his life and making some wise and daring decisions to save the men on his crew when they were overtaken by a gang of 5 Somali pirates, and the Greengrass-Tom Hanks movie does a great job conveying the tensions aboard the ship, seen almost completley from Phillips's POV. The movie, for better or for worse, is almost entirely about him - very little about the crew, even less about the rescuers or the stateside support, almost nothing about his family. In other words, it's a straight-out adventure movie, so if you like that kind of thing - lots of beatings, guns being held to captives' temples or foreheads, and finally an incredibly long assault by Navy Seals on the small lifeboat where the Somalis are holding Phillips captive, then go for it. To me, the film is admirably made - and I for one like that Greengrass did show us a little bit about the Somali pirates the deprivation from which they came - but too long, too assaultive, and in some ways too obvious. We see Phillips suffer, but we don't understand exactly how he was rescued or for that matter why there was no protection aboard his ship sailing along the Somali coast. Can't help but compare this movie with the much-less known and, to me, much smarter and in a way tenser Danish film, A Hijacking - which actually focuses on the shipowner back in Europe and the decisions he has to make in negotiating with the captives - really examines the moral dilemmas in a far more intelligent way than CP, which is about good v evil in a pretty formulaic manner. A good film for what it is, with one fine acting performance and a lot of technical bravura, but it's just a step removed Armageddon or Iron Man. If you like that sort of thing, go for it.

Nebraska deserves to be among the best on any list

I've really like Alexander payne's movies over the years and what a great one we have this year - Nebraska, w excellent script by bob Nelson - first time Payne hasn't worked from a book? - and a stunning lead performance from Bruce dean. It's a father son road trip buddy movie but w many variations on the genre and a style and mood of its own - shot in wide angle bw which makes these small towns of the western plains hauntingly beautiful and also dead, frightening - as in the great scene in the tiny newspaper office  clearly a dying enterprise. There are no young people in this movie which makes us feel by their absence the these towns are relics doomed. All this said but it's by no means a depressing film - has some amazingly funny minimalist dialog esp the  brother and cousins watching tv and engaging in desultory conversation mostly about cars. And it's also a v warm filme even if anything too sentimental - about a devoted son and his struggle to win the love or at least the attention of his irascible dad. Deserves to be among the years best on every list.

Timeless - and of its time - The Fantasticks

Our regular trips to the theater world of Harvard Square continued last night with tix (thanx AW) to the very enjoyable and ageless The Fantasticks, at the Cabot Theater Company - a highly influential play back in the day and a perfect show for a small venue and a college-aged cast, as the story is of course about youth - and it requires only a very small cast and crew and simple, minimalist set and costumes, and very crisp direction. The fine production at Cabot had all of this. Of course we always love seeing fam-friend Susanna Wolk, and have watched her performances mature and deepen over the years - she's still cast often as the ingenue, but she brings more than that to the show - the whole package, in fact, of lively stage presence, warm voice, graceful dance - great for a lead in a musical. Won't single out others in the fine cast though was pleased to see a student from my town, Karl Aspelund, do a star turn in the comic role of Boy's Father. Two-person orchestra was right on, and much of credit has to go to directors Reed Silverman and Kent Toland and music dir Isaac Alter (also pianist). Very interesting for parents to come watch this show, as so much of it is about kids breaking free from over-bearing parents. Also v. interesting to come back to this show after who knows how many years, too many to count; as noted, it was a hugely influential play in its day, one of the first to show how a musical can be simple, minimalist, elemental - and all the more moving for that. It seems, strange as this may sound, that the play is both universal and extremely dated. Obviously the whole beauty of the play is its light-hearted attempt to portray universal truths, that is, true for every generation, about youth moving from innocence to experience - the children doing exactly what their parents don't want them to do, the relationship falling apart once parents approve, the journey off into the world for experience, the painful realizations about the hardships of the world when outside of the family orbit, the return to one another, wiser and not all that much older. Early viewers id'd with so many of the sentiments in the show - please don't let me grow up to be normal, etc. In some ways, it's a very 1960s show: emphasis on freedom, on the "new generation," on "discovery" that there's suffering and injustice in the world, which others (elders?) can't or won't "see"- later transformed into the Age of Aquarius etc. But also a very 1050s show - very stereotyped about gender (the girl wants to stay at home and pose like a statue, waiting to be "ravished," while the boy wants to go off and see the world ... ), and I have to say I was surprised that a Harvard production left in the "Indian" scenes - these could so easily have been made less potentially offensive. I wondered about a contemporary twist: have the couple be two guys, or two girls?, and have the parents be a mom and a dad (the absence of mothers in the original is a very peculiar matter, isn't it?). Though the sentiments may seem quaint and naive today, 50 years after JFK assassination, more than 10 after 9/11, there is definitely something still appealing about the Fantasticks, right down to the improvisational spelling and the unique font, and in particular the simple but very clever and memorable music and lyrics.

Before Sunset, After Sunrise, Before Midnight - and beyond?

I was (am) a big fan of the Hawke-Delpy-Linklater collaboratiaon Before Sunset, which I think beautifully captured the mood of young people at a particular time of life - somewhat established in careers and but not in relationships - as Hawke (Jesse) and Delpy (Celine) meet on a train and disembark together for one long night in Vienna - the beginning and, seemingly, the end of their relationship. Very moody and funny and endearing and a little bit sad, but you also felt that each was strong and talented and would go on to fine and successful lives, with this one night as a memory or pole star. But both seemed so real and imbued in the character - that many, including the 3 creators or the movie - were curious about exploring the course of these lives; the follow-up, After Sunset, in which Hawkes returns to Europe to promote a novel he wrote based on his night with Delpy - she seeks him out and they spend much time talking and reflecting - was to me drab and much less moving and provocative. This 3rd segment - each about 10 years apart, something like a fictive version of the Up series - Before Midnight - returns I think to the strengths of the first movie - funnier, equally credible (for the most part - though I can never buy Hawke's discourses about writing - even though H. himself is a published novelist - odd how phony these sound). Both Jesse and Celine are still endearing and at times charming, and also at times irrational and difficult and annoying - and this film examines, over the course, again, of one day, in about 8 scenes, most very long and most involving just the two of them - the course of their lives; at times they seem like a happy, quirky, joyous couple and at other times angry and embittered and selfish - Jesse virtually admitting to infidelities, Celine haranguing him about his oppression of women and how she's tied down by their twin daughters. The crux is they are wrestling w/ whether to move back to the U.S., at risk of C's emerging career - an issue so many couples face. Several of the long scenes could be classics for acting classes to analyze, and to try to re-create - which would be a real challenge (I wonder how much of their dialog was improvised, btw). Definitely a film worth seeing but only if you've seen the other 2 first - and I have a feeling more are to come, over time.

Treating hysterics - and mistreating them

Augustine is a French film about the Dr. (or M.) Charcot and his pioneering treatment of female hysteria in Paris in the 19th century - particularly his treatment of a patient, the eponymous Augustine, a house maid who has seizures and fits, during which she writhes and cries out as if in violent and fevered sexual orgasm. Not sure how much is based on fact, but Charcot was a famous practitioner, whom Freud admired - his great insight was that the treated hysteria as a curable disease or illness, and not as a form of witchery or possession. The insight that he didn't have - and that Freud did have - was that hysteria was an illness of the mind, not just of the brain - so he never engaged in anything remotely like psychotherapy in any form. He barely talks to his patients, treats them as objects of study and of display - he worked with A. to "train" her to undergo hypnosis and fall into fits on command, for demonstrations before other doctors, in his efforts to seek more funding for his work. So he's both a hero - helping these women whom society had ignored or worse - and a brute, especially to Augustine (in one horrid scene he penetrates her with some kind of medieval looking torture device). Gradually, he comes to develop a bit of tenderness for A., but they never engage in any serious dialogue - she, by the way, is illiterate and very taciturn. The actress - Soko - is very good, btw, and her sexual fits are the kind of scenes that often bring an actor an Oscar nomination, but probably not in this case, as she hardly says a thing throughout the film. Up to a point, I found it a very captivating and provocative look at early medical treatment and the ethical issues surrounding treatment of the mentally ill - but then the movie goes off the rails near the end (spoiler). Why does the director, Alice Winocour, have Charcot have crude sex with Augustine after one of her fits? I doubt he would do so - I hope he wouldn't - but it seems she does this just to make a feminst point: the doctor is a brute, weak willed, exploitative, horrid. Augustine - apparently "cured" before the sex scene - runs away from the asylum, and we wonder whether his attack on her (though she came on to him, she's obviously sick and vulnerable and he took advantage from his position of power and health) ruined all of the progress he had made - we suspect she was not wakened to sexuality in some pseudo-Laurentian way but rather frightened and distraught by this attack and maybe reverted to hysteria or worse. Seems needless point-making, and, hard as it may be to imagine a French movie without a sex scene, the film would have been stronger had it been less sensational.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Terence Nance's An Oversimplification of her Beauty is like the best graduate-student workshop-project film ever made - which is to say that it shows an abundance of technical talent, of imagination, of daring - and yet, by the end, and I have to admit I was fading by about half-way through this relatively short (90 minutes) film, the whole is less than this sum of its parts. It's a compendium of just about every narrative device in the repertoire, and some in fact that have never before been in the repertoire: scripted acting, improv, archival footage, hidden camera, animation, stop-action, frames within frames, voice-over, handwriting on screen, and many more - always visually engaging, up to a point. Overall, the simple "story" if it can be called that involves a guy who's rebuffed by a girl w/ whom he's been flirting and on whom he has a serious crush, and he uses this rebuff as an occasion to examine their relationship and several other failed relationships in his life. In a stronger film, this would present us with a complete and surprising portrait of the artist, and we would continue to learn more about him (or her, or both), perhaps in surprising ways, throughout the film - and, even better, he would continue to learn more about himself. For comparison with a slightly similar, excellent film - see Stories We Tell, by Sarah Polley. In Oversimplification, unfortunately, it seemed to me as if we were going over the same ground repeatedly (we kind of were, in a literal sense - as many scenes repeated - another narrative technique seen in some experimental films, even narrative ones, such as Run, Lola, Run). All told, lot's of talent here, which, when someday linked with a strong narrative, might lead to a truly knockout film.