Quiet City

[dreamdead]

Quiet City trailer can be viewed here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JgRzs5qzb_4).

Quiet City. Pretty girl meets somnolent guy. Jamie (Erin Fisher) and Charlie (Cris Lankenau). They wander the streets of Brooklyn, hesitatingly broaching issues of greater and greater intimacy. Yet what begins as diversion for them morphs into something more corporeal, more meaningful, and the film closes just as that epiphany has been understood by the two of them. It’s a wisp of a film; a soft intake of breath, and then it finishes as it exhales in hushed exhilaration.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/uploaded_images/29city600-722928.jpg

Does this film have the potential for becoming just as much of a stereotype as the most contrived romantic comedy full of pop culture references, random physical comedy, and soulless (and identity-less) leads? Perhaps. Will it strike some as a film where nothing happens after 80 minutes beyond gesturing to the emo crowd? Perhaps. But I hope not. The film is about texture and small shifts on that palette, until Jamie and Charlie are subtly transformed. It all depends on how you react to the conversations and ease with which director Aaron Katz orchestrates his modest vision of contemporary relationships; how willingly you accept wayward characters who know little about themselves until they are forced to confront how little they themselves (and others) know of their ontology.
http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/archives/images/quiet_city_trailer_mg1.jpg
That which shall not be named--the subgenre that this film comes out of--is frequently chastised for its lack of integration with minority voices (be they women or racial minorities), and this film actually works best in its study of gender. Jamie and her friend Robin (Sarah Hellman) engage in private confessions after some snapshots during a party, and the conversation samples regret, confusion, and an ambivalent attitude toward sexuality. It’s a rich conversation, and revealing on both women’s parts. Meanwhile, Charlie is in another room of the party and he and the guy he’s sitting beside confer on empty nothings, struggling to find some compatibility in the conversation. Here and elsewhere Katz seems emboldened to insinuate a greater, richer connection between women than any of the men show here, and the film’s politics of gender are thus subtly woven into the forefront.

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/quietcitySTILL.jpg

If there is claustrophobia to the dialogue in the film, there is liberation in the mise en scene. Katz has an eye for linking pillow shots back to the action, frequently utilizing trains or changing traffic lights or the iridescent glare of the sun, and these links engender a dialogue between image and word, between constant movement and transition and the far more wayward immobilization of these characters’ struggle from a preternatural, some might say cultural, stasis. It’s telling that the final exhilarated moment comes as Jamie and Charlie are on a train. Just marvelous filmmaking, and my surprise film from ‘07.

[Llopin]

Sounds interesting. That trailer somehow gives off japanese vibes, as in Bujalski meets Kore-eda.

I'll try to look it up.

[Sycophant]

Enticing review, dreamdead. I'm going to try to check this one out as soon as possible. Frankly, it's the "pillow shots" line that has me all kinds of eager to see this.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Mutual Appreciation (Bujalski, 2005) *** 71

I'm tempted to negative rep you.

[dreamdead]

I'm tempted to negative rep you.


If it makes you feel more isolated and alone and inarticulate, you might know that that was my rating for it as well.

[Sycophant]

I'm tempted to negative rep you.
I believe it was actually your vitriol toward this film had me expecting something much, much shriller and more irritating. When I watched it, I was bracing myself for two hours of whiny-ass hipsters mumbling about things that didn't matter, which turned out not to be the case. There are a couple of missteps (most of the stuff with the lead character directly related to the music) and it could have been tighter, but I liked its rather keenly observed, naturalistic style. It is unabashedly uncinematic, which has me all the more interested in this here Quiet City.

[Raiders]

Yeah, that's pretty close to my rating for the Bujalski film as well. Mine was a little lower, though. Still, don't worry, swift vengeance will be taken upon KF should he dole out the neg rep.

I foresee the word Dylan being converted to Lennon on all future KF posts...

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, that's pretty close to my rating for the Bujalski film as well. Mine was a little lower, though. Still, don't worry, swift vengeance will be taken upon KF should he dole out the neg rep.

I foresee the word Dylan being converted to Lennon on all future KF posts...

You wouldn't dare.

[Rowland]

I have this and Dance Party, USA rented out from Netflix. I'll watch both over the next 24 hours. Praise from Dennis Cozzalio, Michael Sicinski, and Amy Taubin sparked my interest, and this was the clincher.

[Sycophant]

I kind of loved this.

[dreamdead]

I kind of loved this.

:pritch:

Rep for you! And I look forward to any thoughts you have on it as well.

[Rowland]

I kind of loved this.Excellent.

[chrisnu]

This looks like something I'd like, considering I really liked Mutual Appreciation. I'll check it out shortly, and I'll be sure to post some thoughts in here. I hadn't even heard of this until recently.

[MacGuffin]

This looks like something I'd like, considering I really liked Mutual Appreciation. I'll check it out shortly, and I'll be sure to post some thoughts in here. I hadn't even heard of this until recently.

I think you will love it, no offense.

[chrisnu]

I think you will love it, no offense.
None taken. I tend to like simple and contemplative.

[MacGuffin]

None taken. I tend to like simple and contemplative.

Well, so do I, but this is "simple" and "contemplative" in the wrong direction for me.

[ledfloyd]

I've never been so unsure about a film. I feel like I could give this a negative rating, or call it the best film of the year. One thing I am sure of, is I thought to myself 'if i ever made a film, it would probably be very similar to this.' Given the loathing I have for songs and poems and short stories I've written, I'm not sure if that's a positive reaction or not.

The first five or ten minutes of the movie I had an extremely negative reaction to. I thought the editing of the opening shots was kind of off rhythm. Once they started talking I was pretty sure I was going to hate it. How many ''like''s can one be expected to tolerate in such a short span? I thought the girls voice was slightly annoying as well.

I think it was the scenes in his apartment when I started to warm up to the film. It felt really authentic. I liked the scenes in the park and at the art gallery and in her friends apartment. And when he went to get his hat. Unfortunately I don't think I ever warmed up to either character. I did really love the scene with the two girls and the two guys at the party that you mentioned.

I feel like this film wasn't a great film or a terrible film. This film just kinda was. I don't mean that negatively, more in the eastern sense. It had great moments and terrible moments and in the end was kind of a reflection of life. Which I'm assuming was the director's intent. Whether or not I found the whole enjoyable I have to at least respect it for that.

The minimalistic natural style kind of reminded me of Old Joy which was one of my very favorite films of 06. I didn't love this the way I loved Old Joy. But I think it is similarly effective in accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish. Maybe Quiet City is for emo kids and Old Joy is for disillusioned hippieish sorts.

[thefourthwall]

Yet what begins as diversion for them morphs into something more corporeal, more meaningful, and the film closes just as that epiphany has been understood by the two of them. It’s a wisp of a film; a soft intake of breath, and then it finishes as it exhales in hushed exhilaration.

What epiphany is that? What's the meaning they learn? I see nothing in the film to evidence that either of the lead characters have reflected on anything, let alone changed.


Will it strike some as a film where nothing happens after 80 minutes beyond gesturing to the emo crowd?

Yes.


The film is about texture and small shifts on that palette, until Jamie and Charlie are subtly transformed. It all depends on how you react to the conversations and ease with which director Aaron Katz orchestrates his modest vision of contemporary relationships; how willingly you accept wayward characters who know little about themselves until they are forced to confront how little they themselves (and others) know of their ontology.

Again, you reference changes and shifts with out identifying them. I'm not sure if the film is meant to be read as a critique or just earnestness. I'm leaning towards earnestness in that Katz doesn't seem to be suggesting that the audience judge the characters in any particular way.


Jamie and her friend Robin (Sarah Hellman) engage in private confessions after some snapshots during a party, and the conversation samples regret, confusion, and an ambivalent attitude toward sexuality. It’s a rich conversation, and revealing on both women’s parts.

Robin was my favorite character in the film. Even though she actively eschews the cerebral, emotional connection with men in favor of the visceral, physical, at least she's conscious of what she's doing, despite the fact that she longs for a deeper connection with another.



Unfortunately I don't think I ever warmed up to either character.

I feel like this film wasn't a great film or a terrible film. This film just kinda was. I don't mean that negatively, more in the eastern sense. It had great moments and terrible moments and in the end was kind of a reflection of life. Which I'm assuming was the director's intent. Whether or not I found the whole enjoyable I have to at least respect it for that.


I agree with this. I appreciate that it looks pretty good for probably being made for next to nothing. And it does accurately portray something of this generation. It just doesn't actually take a stance one way or the other. It neither celebrates nor critiques, which is what the characters do--live in vague, passionless ambivalence, one of the things I hate most and find most distressing about this--my--generation.

[dreamdead]

Again, you reference changes and shifts with out identifying them. I'm not sure if the film is meant to be read as a critique or just earnestness. I'm leaning towards earnestness in that Katz doesn't seem to be suggesting that the audience judge the characters in any particular way.

I don't think that Katz himself knows whether or not the film is a cultural document that attacks or merely earnestly reveals the generation of post-grad slackers. There's the sense earlier in the film that Jamie doesn't want to be held down by a boyfriend that is stuck in ennui, as she tells Charlie at one point. Yet, indeed, the head-recline at the end of the film suggests that she has, at least briefly, fallen for a ennui-based character. It's too little for us to suggest that Katz is hereby judging Jamie for her actions. Yet there does seem to be, at the very least, awareness of the failings of this kind of psychological temperment. The bigger issue, then, would be why she doesn't seem to be attracted to any other kind of guy, and indeed the film never presents any real alternative. That can, in all likelihood, be the central flaw of the film, but I also think that it is not really the point of the film.

Much like Easy Rider or even Before Sunrise or Pulp Fiction, Katz throws us in with a small group of characters and asks us to watch and wait for developments. The key difference in those films: they were about something. This film, and seemingly the whole movement, is about chronicling the nothing before a decision. So even if those films document the hippie and '90s irony eras, I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that they're ever really critical of the period that they're documenting. I'd like to see something like Nights and Weekends in the hope that the co-directing would enable a greater shift toward gender distinctions, rather than the blank slates that so many of these characters are. At the same time, Katz's film had a grace that, on the initial viewing, I was entirely on board with, all awkward pauses and non-essential dialogue considered. This revisiting was less than kind, and I exhibited the kind of rhapsody for what the film achieved that I suspect others exhibited when Bujalski first put out one of the post-grad narratives. It was a fresh breath--but does it necessary state anything substantial in contrast to normal romantic comedies? Not really. Does it need to? Initially I thought not. Now I'm less sure. I know that my interest in it always lies in relation to another romantic film, such as Before Sunrise, where it turns into a study of why one generation yearned to talk and communicate, and the succeeding generation got caught in empty nothings. Does it work as well on its own merits. Not so much. I do, however, think that Katz would be a really interesting director if someone handed him a good script that went beyond this movement.


Robin was my favorite character in the film. Even though she actively eschews the cerebral, emotional connection with men in favor of the visceral, physical, at least she's conscious of what she's doing, despite the fact that she longs for a deeper connection with another.


Yeah, Robin is indeed the most fully developed in the film. That is both a plus, in that the actress contributes fully in her scenes, and an indictment against the central non-conflict that arises in the two leads. A more exciting film, both philosophically and emotionally, would have likely tracked her character...

[Rowland]

Check out Katz's debut Dance Party USA, I'm actually partial to that over Quiet City, which I liked as well. The former, despite being shorter, has more of the sort of development I think you're looking for.