This is quite like Sud — longish takes with people talking straight to the camera. But here we can also hear Akerman (presumably) asking questions.

Oh, yeah, in case you didn’t guess already, this is about the situation on the northern Mexican border.

The problem, again, is that the film is a lot more fascinating when people aren’t talking than when they’re interviewing people.

Especially when she lets assholes talk and talk.

*gasp* Now there’s even a voice-over — I think the first I’ve heard in an Akerman documentary?

Anyway, this is pretty good, but… not enough of the long silent takes?

From the Other Side. Chantal Akerman. 2002. ⚃

Heh heh so risque.

That’s like a super-hero costume.

Anyway, this 2K restoration is kinda odd — I mean, I guess it must be a problem with what they’re restoring from, but things are very soft-focused and noisy at the same time, which is an unusual combination. That is, there seems to be an abundance of film grain, but at the same time, nothing is as sharp as films from this period usually are. It’s odd.

Oh, I just read the restoration notes — it’s based on a nitrate negative duplicate (which I guess means third generation?) which was riddled with mold. It was scanned with a “wet-gate” scanner, which removed the mold, but left us with what we’re seeing here… but I swear I’ve seen earlier DVD versions that looked… better?

Or perhaps I’m misremembering:

This is the earlier DVD I watched, and it’s got none of the details of this version. But… it does look kinda swell anyway?

Nice kitty.

This film is exceptional. I mean, on one level it’s a descent into a hellish nightmare — Cary Grant is trapped (literally and not) in a mad world all of a sudden. But the film seems so say — well, what if you gave it all up to anarchy? Wouldn’t that be fun?

And indeed it is, while with just a itsy bitsy twist this would be a horror film.

This is a wonderful movie, of course. The Criterion restoration is a bit… the focus seems to be preserving as many details as possible in the (bad) nitrates this is sourced from. And it’s just isn’t all that pleasant to look at, unfortunately.

Bringing Up Baby. Howard Hawks. 1938. ⚄

Once again, I have no idea what this is… it looks like a documentary? But this time, I guess the South in the US?

Eek! People are talking in this one! In D’Est, there was no talkin.

This DVD really isn’t ideal — it’s interlaced, so it’s all smudged when doing tracking shots (which Akerman loves to do). It’s also anamorphic 16:9, which makes the resolution even lower, and it’s all just kinda… not sharp.

And there’s no subtitles, and I’m not quite sure what people are saying?

I’m just saying: This is not an ideal way to watch this film, so I’m not sure my take on this is right, but it just feels a bit half-assed, as Akerman films go. That is, she’s using her well-known techniques (long shoots that call for great framing and tracking shots that can be contemplative), but she’s here mixing in Americans talking to the camera and, and 16:9, and… it’s not shot on film? Is this video? Digital video?

And it’s just not as compelling.

It’s more of a traditional documentary. (It’s about the murder of James Byrd Jr.)

Must be digital video, I guess, but this looks quite good for early DV. I mean, it has the usual problems (everything that’s over a certain brightness is all #fff, so you lose details in the bright bits)…

… but it’s quite nice in lower light conditions.

I mean, I totally understand Akerman wanting to do this documentary — she happened to be here after this horrendous murder, so doing anything but a straightforward documentary about racism would be impossible, I guess?

But the film just seems overwhelmed by its subject matter (which is natural).

South. Chantal Akerman. 1999. ⚂