Festen (The Celebration) (1998)

In 1995, Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier released the Dogme 95 manifesto into the cinema world by means of flyers thrown at a Parisian audience during a talk von Trier was giving to commemorate the first century of film history. The most prominent feature of the manifesto (one of many that von Trier has written) is the "Vow of Chastity", which is a sort of 10 commandments for film. The list is simply ridiculous, with rules like cameras must be handheld (preferably digital), all music must be recorded live, no props are allowed unless they are found on the site, everything must be filmed on site, and greatest of all, the director can never be credited.

In 1998, Dogme #1 was released, Thomas Vinterberg's The Celebration. Dogme actually had a board certify the films, which can be found in numeric order on their website (though the group has since disbanded).

The Vow was intended to reintroduce the element of realism into film (assuming it wasn't simply an elaborate prank being played by von Trier and co, seeing as how many of the Dogme founders never directed more than one Dogme film). However, it simply works as a stylistic guide for a specific aesthetic. Were the Dogme filmmakers really concerned with the lack of realism in Hollywood movies, the omission of any rules related to editing seem to negate any attempted realism (jump cuts aplenty!).

With all of that said, Vinterberg's debut feature is an absolute gem. Winner of the Jury prize at Cannes that year, Festen was justly praised on its release. No matter how gimmicky the Dogme "movement" was, films like this almost justify its extravagant scope (I'm sure there are plenty of Dogme duds, but so far, I've seen 3 and loved them all).

As for the film itself, I think it might just be one of the most depressing pieces put to film. The movie is about a family and their friends gathered for the 60th birthday of their patriarch. Like all Danish families, no doubt, this one has an unbearably dark past. Just minutes into the film, we discover that the father's grown children, spread out in various walks of life, are recently recovering from the death of a sister. Her twin seems the most rattled, while the youngest brother apparently didn't even attend the funeral. Domestic squabbles and family revelations abound in this film.

The setup of the film reminds me very much of France's golden cinema cow, Jean Renoir's La Règle du jeu, a film whose reputation I've never quite agreed with, but is a worthwhile watch anyway. Basically, there is a house full of people who have unknowingly agreed to enjoy themselves no matter what, and one rebel who is out to reveal the demon in the crowd.

What makes Festen so successful is a few things. One is the stylized look, naturally. What would become trite in just a few years was new and fascinating at this point. Secondly, the utterly fantastic characters, who are more well rounded, flawed, tragic than any film I can recall. Finally, the unrestrained content of the film is really shocking. The issues discussed in this movie (which I will not speak too much of, I would much rather you see the film for yourself, and say "Oh my god!" just as I did) are simply not addressed in films, and I really wonder why.

What really shocked me about the movie, other than the family secrets being revealed, was the very subtle humor. While I would gladly describe the movie as utterly depressing, it definitely doesn't go without taking a few jabs here and there, and by the end, you kind of hate Danish people. Well, more than you already, naturally do.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

Terry Gilliam makes a movie with "Imaginarium" in the title and casts Tom Waits as the devil. This sounds as close to a slam dunk as a movie can be. Unfortunately, Parnassus is more of a shot clock violation. The ideas get passed around so much that Gilliam forgets to take a shot.

There is a lot to like in Gilliam's newest film, from the exquisite cast (minus Verne Troyer, who delivers his witty lines like a particularly bland board), to the premise of the film, which involves an immortal monk making wagers with Mr. Nick/Satan to protect his family, while the rest of the cast gets to spend a lot of their time inside a fantasy land.

However, the fantastic elements just aren't that imaginative. Maybe it was just CGI overkill, but I found the film to be at it's least interesting in the dream-like imaginarium, which should really be Gilliam's strength. And as dull as I found Avatar, that technology showcase masquerading as a narrative, actors submersed in CGI landscapes in any other movie just looks silly in comparison. Watching this after watching James Cameron's film, which undoubtedly cost the GDP of various small countries was like watching Jurassic Park on TV. Had this film not relied so heavily on these technical elements, it could have been much stronger, but instead gets handicapped by its already dated appearance.

I would consider myself a fan of Gilliam's work. Brazil is one of my absolute favorite films (watch for Brazil lead Jonathan Pryce to make a brief cameo during Parnassus). It's a well established fact that Gilliam knows his way around an imagination as only someone like Tim Burton could hope for (the jury is still out on whether Gilliam or Burton will make Johnny Depp: The Movie first). But Parnassus seems more like the uninspired work of latter day Burton than Gilliam, minus the fact that it's not a remake (not that Gilliam has been at the top of his game lately, and I'll admit to greatly enjoying Sweeney Todd).

All in all, Parnassus is a surprisingly tight narrative, with generally good acting, but it just never really becomes anything great. It's not Gilliam's worst film, but it's far from his best. I think of this more as a step in the right direction than a great movie. Gilliam is indeed returning to the silliness and imagination of his older movies, it's just a matter of quality that's the issue.