By Mark Peranson

On a certain fine day in August, the unthinkable happened — actually, two unthinkables: 1) a jury awarded Pedro Costa the main prize at a major festival, and 2) all the reviews of a Pedro Costa film were raves. This utopian state lasted until around the same time that award was announced to the press—which I am sure was no coincidence—and, yes, it was good old Variety, still toiling mightily under the institutional memory of Todd McCarthy (Locarno jury, 2000), that did not let me down, launching their review of Vitalina Varela with this critical equivalent of a velvet-gloved slap to the face: “Frequently beautiful compositions and the theatrical use of a fierce kind of artifice have long been the hallmarks of Portuguese auteur Pedro Costa, regarded by a small but influential group of aesthetes as one of the great filmmakers of our era.” As I have an inkling that, in this context, I’m one of the small (I’m over six feet tall) and influential (I can’t even find an apartment in Berlin, if anyone has any leads let me know) aesthetes (such an insult!), I can correct this misinterpretation: having now become the first filmmaker to win all three of Locarno’s major prizes (Golden Leopard, Special Jury Prize, Best Director), Pedro Costa is one of the great filmmakers of all time, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it. 

Having been in Locarno at the premiere of Vitalina Varela, I can testify that every single one of the 3,000 people who remained in the Fevi for the duration of the film were overwhelmed by the power Costa’s vision, and leapt to their collective feet in standing ovation as the credits rolled. That’s just as believable a scenario as, say, a cadre of radical critics and programmers imposing their beliefs on a bunch of uneducated suckers by sheer will, which is essentially what the Variety argument implies—a bunch of suckers, mind you, that includes a jury of rather experienced filmmakers, watchers, and actors, all of whom as far as I can tell are sentient beings with brain stems unconnected to the cinephile Matrix. (I haven’t even gotten into the meat of the Variety review because I stopped really paying attention after that first sentence, but trust me, it gets worse.) But anyway, I’m wasting my words—you can read 8,000 of them on the film in the pages that follow, many of which are spoken by the director in our de rigueur interview because, as usual, he has a lot to say that future film historians will be able to benefit from, and as long as he keeps making films, I’ll keep interviewing him. However, this time I’ve relinquished the introductory essay to a very special guest, who I think we can all agree is the crown prince of the influential aesthetes.

Now for the even better news: the members of the international cabal of cinephiles, after a secret meeting on the Greek island of Syros, have decided that the next filmmaker to be promoted to undeserving upper-echelon status is…Pietro Marcello! Congratulations, Pietro, your 15 years of toiling away in the filmmaking darkness as a nobody obsessing over Artavazd Peleshian has finally been rewarded, no thanks to your own talent! With this honour you are guaranteed a lifetime of producing art that will be hailed by aesthetes, will hardly be seen by anybody, and for which you shall barely reap any financial reward, unless you go to back Locarno one day and win the Golden Leopard and all those Swiss francs. But even that bounty will probably go to pay off your debts, and you will die penniless in a pauper’s grave. 

Tagged with →  

Follow

Friend me on FacebookFollow me on TwitterRSS Feed

From the Magazine

  • Issue 84 Table of Contents

    INTERVIEWS *The Act of Living: GianfrancThe Act of Living: Gianfranco Rosi on Notturnoo Rosi on Notturno By Mark Peranson*Reconstructing Violence: Nicolás Pereda on Fauna By More →

  • The Act of Living: Gianfranco Rosi on Notturno

    “The night scares me so much,” confesses a courageous Yazidi pre-teen girl to a therapist, remembering the period when she and her younger sister were captured by ISIS. Anyone who was seen crying would be killed, they were told; it turned out to be a vacant threat, but the sisters were still beaten, and now they are attempting to exorcise their memories by drawing pictures of them. Does it help? We never find out. More →

  • Reconstructing Violence: Nicolás Pereda on Fauna

    There’s a point in nearly every Nicolás Pereda film when the narrative is either reoriented or upended in some way. In the past this has occurred through bifurcations in story structure or via ruptures along a given film’s docufiction fault line. Pereda’s ninth feature, Fauna, extends this tradition, though its means of execution and conceptual ramifications represent something new for the 38-year-old Mexican-Canadian filmmaker. More →

  • I Lost It at the Movies: Charlie Kaufman’s Antkind and I’m Thinking of Ending Things

    “It’s all planned, but it isn’t thought out,” wrote Pauline Kael in her review of A Woman Under the Influence (1974), a nifty bit of critical jiu-jitsu turning John Cassavetes’ much-theorized—and, during Kael’s reign at The New Yorker, much-derided—technique of spontaneous improvisation within a dramatic framework against him. More →

  • Open Ticket: The Long, Strange Trip of Ulrike Ottinger

    One of the most surprising things about Ulrike Ottinger’s new documentary Paris Calligrammes is how accessible it is. Some cinephiles may be familiar with Ottinger based on an 11-year period of mostly fictional productions that were adjacent to the New German Cinema but, for various reasons, were never entirely subsumed within that rubric. Others are quite possibly more aware of her later work in documentary, in particular her commitment to a radical form of experimental ethnographic cinema. More →