Daughters of the Dust

Wow, this movie has been pretty annoying in the first few minutes — the use of music indiscriminately as a “bed”, and how Now That’s What I Call Stock Nature Sounds Vol XIV is used constantly… It’s ridiculous.

Everything here is a cliché.

Well, OK, I’m only ten minutes in. Perhaps it’ll turn out to be awesome, despite the indifferent (if pretty) cinematography, annoying soundtrack and atrocious foley work.

So bokeh.

Very drama.

If it hadn’t been for the music telling us how to feel (every damn second of this movie) I wouldn’t have been as annoyed, I think. But the sound bed is insufferable. So I turned it down now.

The incessant music er cessed! Ceased! Stopped! *phew* The movie is much more enjoyable now. (The hyper-active foley guy hasn’t given up yet, though — every time somebody picks up a piece of paper you get at SCRUNCH sound, and if somebody touches their hair you get a SCRIIIITCH sound.)

I think this is all supposed to happen on one day? In the previous scene, the sun was setting, and in this, it’s… not? So I guess they just filmed for a couple weeks without thought for where the sun was? It’s all filmed outside, si it’s a logistical nightmare if you want to have consistent light, and I think they just decided “eh whatevs”. Or perhaps “it’ll look more magical if every scene has the sun coming from a random direction”.

Right:

In 2022, Daughters of the Dust was named at number 60 in the Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time list selected by critics and published every 10 years since 1952.

It was not on the directors’ top 100.

Many, many people are saying that this is a non-linear movie:

I’ll start by saying that I usually like non-linear movies

But… is it? Are people interpreting the shifting lights as meaning that things happen over a long time or something? It’s basically just a (big) family having a dinner party one day and talking about stuff (like whether to go north). (And then we get some flashbacks to Olden Times now and then.) It’s really straightforward — it’s a Robert Altman kind of thing?

(Well, OK, there’s also an unborn child doing a voice-over.)

It might also be the painfully uneven acting that’s leading people to think that there’s more er complexity? Some of the performances are really good, but two of the most central characters sound like they’re putting on a student performance of Shakespeare — “poetic” voices, don’t you know.

Oh!

It seems to have several dialects that would be impossible to close caption and completely unintelligible as it is. Only a rare person would get anything from it.

Perhaps all the mystery surrounding this film comes from people not being able to understand what they’re saying? I’m watching it with subtitles, of course, and they are in standard English, not in the dialect they’re talking.

I’m actually kinda enjoying this movie now. If they’d removed the horrible soundtrack, it would have been a pretty watchable movie.

By turning down the volume so I almost couldn’t hear it, I found that I quite liked the movie. It’s nice — it’s a movie type that I’ve mostly encountered in Swedish cinema? That is, we’re introduced to a large group of people (for instance a family) who are getting together for an event, and we listen to all these people bicker and talk and slowly get to know how the family dynamics work. And then in the third act, there’s always some dramatic thing (somebody has to make a decision or whatever), and then everybody goes home.

I’ve had a look at rottentomatoes, and most of the reviews are incomprehensible to me, because they talk about “non linear” and “complex” and “timelines”, and… there’s less than a handful of flashbacks, and otherwise it’s totally, utterly linear, as far as I can tell. (Well, OK, there’s the unborn girl we see in the past, too, but she’s doing the voiceover, so…)

So it seems to be a well-liked movie, but because people didn’t understand what anybody was saying?

Anyway, the sountrack is so painful that I have to go with this die:

Daughters of the Dust. Julie Dash. 1991. ⚂

Lust in the Dust

I was watching Polyester last month, and on one of the extras, Tab Hunter said (or somebody said that he said) that he was so impressed with Divine’s performance that he invited him to play in his next movie (which is this one). So I bought the bluray. By amazing koinkidink, I’d also gotten Eating Raoul, so I’m having a mini-Bartel festival here.

It’s Divine!

This is most amiable. It’s a straight-up old-fashioned parody of a western movie — I guess it references both classic westerns and spaghetti westerns. It feels a bit out of time — it’s from 1984, but it has a 70s vibe going on?

It’s funny, but it’s not hilarious.

And it’s a musical?

Edith Massey was apparently supposed to play this part… and they’ve kept the lines. You can just picture her saying all this stuff.

But I dunno. The movie was going quite well for about 45 minutes, and then it turns… more serious? Nastier? I mean, the *crack* gag is fine, but then to kill off the pianist? (Oops spoilers.) It just seems… mean, and isn’t that funny.

Apparently the movie bombed, and I can totally see why. It’s a hard movie to peg down. It’s not a Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker thing, and it’s not a John Waters thing, it’s not a Mel Brooks thing, and it’s not a straightforward parody, and it’s not an exploitation movie… instead it lives in a kind of uncertain state of uncertainness. As they say.

They do to!

The performances are wonderful, though, and without the scenery chewing from, well, everybody, there wouldn’t have been anything at all. It’s probably Divine’s greatest performance, really?

There’s also a lot of plot happening in the last half, and… it’s not that interesting? There’s still some good gags, but they mostly fall flat betwixt the plot machinations.

The first half of the movie is great, and the final scene is wonderful.

Lust in the Dust. Paul Bartel. 1984. ⚃

Eating Raoul

I’ve been hearing about this movie seemingly my entire life, but I’ve never gotten a handle on what this is supposed to be. That is, I’ll be reading an interview with somebody, and they’ll be mentioning this movie, and everybody agrees that it’s genius. But I’ve never seen it, and I’ve never looked the film up on the interwebs.

But while doing some shopping on the Criterion web shop I saw this and bought it, and now I’m watching it.

And…

… I realise that I thought that this movie was directed by the guy in Cold Souls:

I.e., Paul Giamatti, but that’s because if the beard and because the director was called Barthes. Not Bartel.

Is everybody as confused about everything, or is it just me?

Anyway, roll film.

Heh heh — this is some John Waters-like kinda thing?

And… this blu ray is in 16:9, but nothing was shot in 16:9, so Criterion has mangled the film!?

Yeah, it was 1.85:1 originally… they’ve cut the edges! Shame! Shame!

Huh, I just checked the liner notes — they claim that the original aspect ratio was 1.78:1 (i.e., 16:9)? I’d like to believe them, but… it would be a really unusual aspect ratio for 1982. Like really.

ANYWAY! ROLL MOVIE I SAID!

OK, this is more broad comedy than John Waters — it’s not unlike, say, Airplane? But a bit more… more.

It’s funny. But it’s… it’s kinda choppy? The jokes come at you fast, but then there are pauses where you’re just going “hm” while enjoying the, er, acting… It’s like… a bigger budget, straight, studio version of John Waters. I.e., a lot slower and less insane.

Hey! That’s the guy from Star Trek!

It really is the Star Trek guy.

I guess this is the type of film you should be really stoned to watch? And then everything would just be getting funnier and funnier… But unfortunately, I’m not, and I’m just getting bored with this. I mean, the funny bits are genius, but the movie lacks zip.

I kinda want to give this a ⚅ because of the concept, but the movie really, really drags, so it’s really more of a ⚁ film. So I’m going with:

Eating Raoul. Paul Bartel. 1982. ⚃