By Patricia Zhang and Grace Zhu
Editor: Ellena Lu and Alloe Mak
*Note: Most of these movies are from TIFF ‘23. Some segments are recorded conversations transcribed, and others are just rants/compiled thoughts.
Without Air
Directed by Katalin Moldovai
P: Without Air seemed to me like a movie that moved without purpose. On the surface, it’s easy to identify its supposed purpose or its themes, but I think it lacks in execution. I watched this movie with a friend, Isabel, and after the movie, we both immediately started talking about the plot holes. There were so many discontinuities and though I loved the message and felt its resonance, it fell apart. Other than that, it’s pretty sad to say but there was nothing else remarkable about it. 3 stars out of 5.
G: Never trust the absurdists!!
P: I dislike Camus very much!
Orlando, My Political Biography
Directed by Paul Preciado
G: In the world of queer canon, Orlando is comparable to a religious text. It’s revolutionary— explicitly queer in an era where it’s illegal to be, much less to publish. Its prose is rigorously studied, beloved, worshiped, but most importantly, ubiquitous. For close to a century, Orlando has consistently been one of the defining works of the queer experience and is as significant to us today as it was for those in ‘30s Soho or ‘70s San Francisco. All of this contributes to this film’s premise being one of endless potential, though perhaps not for the better.
If adapting classics was a double-edged sword, then trying to reinvent the literal queer bible would be like maneuvering two machine guns taped together back to back. And reinvention it certainly is: the word ‘film’ is used loosely here– cycling between prose lifted straight out of the novel and candid participant-led interviews, it certainly is unique in its structure. Indiscernible between a documentary and a narrative, it does take care to not stray into the overused mire of Nat Geo-esque narration or Vox-style editing.
However, that is not to say its style is the best choice given the film’s subject. Their eclectic array of campy-goodness and sometimes overly saccharine script fails to complement each other in a way that belies sufficient forethought, which is doubly important when it comes to social commentary. While I do love a disco Freud diss track, the following excessively sincere narration only serves to dilute the purpose of both presentations.
This incompleteness is emblematic of the central problem in this film: the lack of a central focus. It tries to go for heterogeneity in its queer representation, with multiple ‘Orlandos’ as they call them, from multiple backgrounds. Though no new perspective was introduced, and even with the few BIPOC participants, these differing experiences weren’t explored to a sufficient degree. At the end of the day, it doesn’t have anything new to bring to the table. The second we get closer to a subject, focus is immediately switched out to a new one for the next chapter.
One could argue that the central focus is about the readaptation of an almost century-old book to fit our modern society, but the competency on that front is wishy-washy at best. The costuming is simply a paper Elizabethan collar juxtaposed with modern fashion, which at first is visually stunning, but at the seventh or eighth iteration, you start to get the feeling that the costuming department was employed for about 2 days, but I digress. The main issue with its attempt at reinvention is that it really made no attempt. When it comes to prose, lines are lifted word for word. Even with the added stylistic spice, there’s no twist except the one already proposed in the synopsis and the outdated sections that did need to be revised were never altered. The most problematic part of the original novel is its uninspiring depiction of the Middle East and its ignorant take on colonialism. You can imagine my surprise when instead of taking this opportunity to explore the differing experiences of queer persons of colour, this film instead leans into East oriental mysticism. In fact, their imagining of Constantinople was pretty much decked out in traditional East Asian decorations.
Essentially, this film is one without a message. Its ending tries to be optimistic, but queer liberation is not a small courtroom of mostly white queers getting new passports. Its stories are interesting, yes, but unvaried and approached at face value. Its structure and visuals are certainly creative, but no matter how polished the individual pieces are, decorating the same room with a Picasso and a Monet is never going to work. This film is not a bad film per se, but in a world with so many great films, it’s really not worth it to spend your time watching such an average one.
3.5/5
Solo
Directed by Sophie Dupuis
G: They told us it was a musical before the showing which was 40% a lie.
P: I agree! I will say I loved the drag performances—just because I loved RuPaul’s Drag Race growing up. I gave this movie 3.5/5 stars on my Letterboxd because aesthetically I think it stood out (regardless of our very skewed viewing seats all the way in the corner of Roy Thomson Hall). However, the plot is lackluster. This is an ongoing problem with a lot of the TIFF movies I saw this year. Something superficial—whether it be casting or aesthetics—doesn’t quite hide the fact many of these directors are clearly amateurs.
When making a movie relating to the queer community, it’s easy to fall into archetypes or cliches. Where this movie excels is that the main character doesn’t need to come from a “troubled past.” It’s no exaggeration to say the main character was the first gay protagonist I’ve seen on screen who didn’t have disapproving parents. For that, Solo deserves a nod. 3.5/5.
G: 3/5
Youth (Spring)
Directed by Wang Bing
P: For the first hour of this movie, all I could think about is how beautiful the directing style was. After that, I just started thinking, “Dang this movie is really repetitive,” and how long the movie was. Don’t get me wrong, it had a more stylistic feel than most documentaries, but after a while, it got redundant. I think I watched 100 of the same shots with the garment workers sitting and sewing pants.
At one point I thought, hey maybe redundancy is the point! He’s driving home the message that this line of work is horribly repetitive. But that thought was immediately followed up with, “Or maybe he just had 5 hours of footage and didn’t want to cut.” Because there’s something to be said about a minute of silence, like in Neon Genesis Evangelion, that drives home the impact, or a director that just doesn’t like to cut his movies. It gave me the feeling I felt when watching Eraserhead. I get why people think it’s genius—but I almost fell asleep. Multiple times. 3.5/5
G: Definitely. The funniest thing is that even with close to 4 hours of content, this documentary still feels unfinished. But then again this is just one part of a continued trilogy, reminiscent of the same director’s 2002 epic, West of the Tracks, itself boasting a 9-hour runtime. Honestly, this guy’s got whatever the opposite of ADHD is. Kudos, really, four stars out of five (🎵I put a taqueria on the roof, it was well-reviewed).
The New Boy
Directed by Warwick Thornton
P: When I was trying to remember what this movie was about, I genuinely just recited the entire plot of The VVitch and I thought I was completely in the right. Until I remembered this movie had Cate Blanchett.
G: If you had to survive a week in the wilderness, where would you pick, New England, or Australia? Obviously including possessed goats and rampant nuns respectively in either case.
P: Would definitely say New England because it’s probably super scenic—I just don’t think I would survive in Australia.
G: But Cate Blanchett’s in Australia.
P: I have vivid memories of you rambling about Cate Blanchett before the screening of The New Boy. Would have 100% made this movie better if she showed up to the premiere.
G: I blame Disney.
P: I can’t recall anything that happened in this movie. I just tried to and I thought, again, of The VVitch. I think it’s because I’m a huge fan of Anya Taylor Joy. Oh, wait, I remember the boy in this movie having some sort of magical power that was never touched upon or explained. And that Jesus kept coming to life? Something like that!
G: Lowkey, I might have been too stupid to understand this film, but I blame the film!! The only thing going for it besides Cate Blanchett was the cinematography, but in retrospect, it really wasn’t anything special. The best way really to describe it is literally BMW-advertisement-style cinematography.
P: Poor Cate.
G: 3/5
P: 2.5/5
Fair Play
Directed by Chloe Domont
P: I know Grace thinks the plot of Fair Play is way too Wattpad-y but I actually liked it.
G: Not worthy of AO3.
P: It’s on Netflix now! And it actually has some decent ratings. Though I see some exaggerations, like the film being described as the “Best thriller ever!” With the bulk of TIFF movies, I was just looking for films I thought were interesting and that I could stay awake in. This was it! It was a wannabe feminist Wolf of Wall Street x Fifty Shades of Grey and I would be lying if I said I hated it.
Does it do much for the modern feminist movement? No. Will white feminists hail this movie as the new #MeToo megaphone? Probably! But with the new age of (literal) plastic feminism we see in Barbie, it feels as if we owe it to ourselves to appreciate anything teetering on the verge of more constructive feminism. When I see a movie that markets itself as feminist, I have learned to lower my expectations before walking in. Because let’s face it, you can’t sell out at the box office unless you water it down.
G: I agree with everything except the Barbie part because we stan our queen Greta Gerwig, but jokes aside, this movie was fun— indisputably fun. But it’s fun in the way that Avengers is fun, and not the way But I’m a Cheerleader or Legally Blonde is fun. It’s fun in the way that time passes quickly but you don’t really think about it after viewing. The plot beats are cliché, but not egregiously bad. The characters are simple but likable. This really would have been a solid film if not for its scrambled and rushed ending. The whole progression is laid out in a standard romantic drama style that can even get a bit highbrow and inventive at times if you squint at the right angle, but the entire last third of the film rings too close to a made-for-TV soap opera narrative to leave you on a good note.
P: That’s true, the last part was a make-it or break-it for a lot of people. I took it at face value—kind of like they wrote it and realized they made the main character not feminist enough, and what better character building than the emotional turmoil she goes through in the last act? It felt rushed—a cheap plot twist device. But inside me somewhere is the person who loves sappy gut punches, and that person thought it was a masterclass. In a surprisingly unpretentious act, I think this movie was my favourite in all of TIFF ‘23. Maybe that means overall TIFF ‘23 was kind of bad. I would have killed to see Nope and The Whale last year, and I honestly can’t think of any movies from TIFF ‘23 that come close to those. My rating of Fair Play is 4 stars. Fair? In my opinion, probably not. It deserves 3 stars, but I just really love bad, messy plots.
G: Totally, TIFF really didn’t manage to premiere anything substantial this year besides maybe American Fiction, and going from Taylor Swift to Nickelback is quite a steep dropoff. The film, though, is a solid 2.5 for me.
Letterboxd:
Patricia: @poplrst
Grace: @grace216