Another movie festival has ended that I followed a lot less than I hoped. I saw four films of Chantal Akerman (three long and one short). Before the show I had only seen, in full, The Prisoner - I still find it among the best I've seen.

Why full? Because with this business of downloading movies, I just saw snippets of all before backing up, and I'm seeing these giant pieces, trying to see if the file has no flaws, if the sound and the subtitles are in sync (and how many of her movies have a few lines, it takes for me to realize this).

The only one I tried was to see Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (the name is so beautiful that I have to write no abbreviations). I stopped with less than an hour to realize that it would be unfair if he was not completely absorbed in the experience, which at home is a little harder. One day I finish, I promise.

The films that I saw on the show are all very good, with special emphasis on the photo above, News From Home, with entire scenes in New York while the mother's letters are read off. It is the observational experience of Hotel Monterey plus a feeling of being loose in the world that only magnifies the film. The ultimate plan, with the boat moving away from Manhattan, is a wonder so beautiful. And the way she tries to discover the city, from the alleys and slums to the viaduct, subway trains and parks, is touching, and goes well with the content of the letters - do not hear the letters she sent to her mother, only the responses of the mother and the fear that it takes to return.

You, Me, Him, She has very strong moments, especially in the He and She, the first half but did not say much, unfortunately. His first short film Saute Ma Ville, is more interesting and provocative than really good. The impression given is that it lacks a little something more for the Akerman is more than a frequenter of the CCBB said, the greatest film directors. I have not seen a book that I snatched. What does not take anything that was, so far, the most important shows held during the year.

Yesterday when I arrived in Sacramento, I did my old ritual of checking the calendar and see what the commitments the next day were. I was surprised and delighted when I realized that after a long time I had no appointments on the agenda. I mean, I have a bunch of things to do, but surprisingly had nothing pressing scheduled for this glorious day. Was already preparing myself to sleep the sleep of the justly sober (after only drank one beer car in the company of Messrs. Paul and Tharsis) when the phone rang twice. Brum and Carl inviting me to drink at the pub on the corner.

So I tried to drag my carcass back and sober soaking it in a good fake Red Label. Mr. Paul Tharsis also arrived soon after and spent the morning discussing biographies or more accurately tried to explain to Mr. Fabio Brum biography that does not interest me (however I interest in his life) if the biography is not well written . For me literature is the same.Good and bad literature. Brum and I usually discuss such matters vigorously for hours. We always disagree with each other. If he was not satisfied by I refuse to read the biography of Clapton. There are other issues in our recurring patterns of bar. There are several issues that certainly we will never reach any agreement, but I know we will continue to discuss the glasses while still showing up on the table with those ice cubes floating around and making us believe that Red Label is the same kind of watery color. Are the endless nights of friends.

Bars through has left me bored with their trails tacky, annoying drunk squandering his "wisdom" of this kind that falls on your desk with a soft smile and key issues. For me, none of this matters, and each day that passes, the more I want to take refuge at home. I predict a future for me sad when I will make a misanthropic old and unable to communicate even with good friends. But I also believe that I still have some time. Soon, of course.

And I'll try to take advantage of this short time with good friends like that last night, disagreeing with them, emptying glasses of whiskey and leaving fake staggered from the bar. When I left there, the day was clear, saw Carcarah around the corner in his step tottering Zeca Vulture. Fabio Brum was still trying to negotiate with the Tagus "pindura" of many doses. I thought to myself: "It's okay. Today is Tuesday. Not that I know I have shit to do urgently. I think I'll take a ride on the Rock Gallery this afternoon." I was happy with that thought and went to sleep. Still worth it. We still have some time.

All my friends know that I have a tremendous difficulty in fully enjoy any movie that has the camera shaking all the time. It is because the effect lacks necessity, but because it's a tick even half beast. Anyone who has ever handled cameras of different weights at least for a few minutes knows that it shakes like that just if you want it to shake, or if the person behind it is wearing a T-shirt in the snow and on top of that it’s undernourished. I've read that this shaky camera trick is Cassaveteana, but the director of faces wore no camera shake at any time used camera in hand, which trembled as he had to follow an actor walk around, or abrupt actions, never in quiet moments when to resemble more a head quietly observing the scene. I have an interesting document about this issue that I'll post here as soon as I've converted the pdf to excel.

Not that Laurent Cantet on the walls of the school, falls into this trap? In order to fit perfectly in a movie social force he felt he needed to shake the camera all the time, as if to show a witness closely, nervous, a total submission to the story and characters. Yes, submission, since the word contemplation is prohibited when the company wants to achieve, a bizarre ban, by the way.

Worse is that the film is strong, has moments of anthologies in the classroom, provided that we abandon the notion of a more narrative film, you want catharsis, correction of wrong paths taken by all, in one word: redemption. If the viewer does not get disappointed to see the teacher getting the better of the two students who entered the film defamed him wrong.

Cantet wants to show the reality without filters, with no easy solutions without compromises empty. He is happy most of the time. But his testimony leaves scorched by camera shake, and one more detail: the use of the scope, which accentuates the camera shakes, trembles more than bearable at times.

Worse after I reviewed the film Gran Torino, and there is clear how much Clint (and / or your photographer, Tom Stern) thought the frame 2.35:1, as the drama is reinforced with actors positioned in the frame as well. It may even be romehriana tantrum about the film's Cantet, director I admire a lot, but why shoot in scope if not to have any concern with the elements in the picture? It would be best to do as Rohmer, the most respected actor, and it give you more space on the screen, a chance to have it closer to the camera without the help of close-ups unnecessary.Film was 1.66:1 max.

And this is it. \o/