Thou Wast Mild and Lovely

Hand-held cameras, dialogue that sounds, on the one hand as if being improvised and on the other as if it's just bad writing and acting that doesn't look like 'acting'; these are the trademarks of the cinema of Josephine Decker, apparently one of the primary exponents of what has come to be known as 'mumblecore'. Decker is obviously a filmmaker who knows what a film should 'look' like and "Thou Wast Mild and Lovely" certainly looks terrific but typical of Decker it's got characters you might want to cross the street to avoid let alone spend time with in a cinema. In other words, she makes movies that are so personal, watching them feels like an intrusion. This one is set on a farm inhabited only by a gruff farmer and his daughter in what looks very like an incestuous relationship, that is interrupted by a mostly silent young farmhand who comes to work for the summer. In a conventional movie, you might get some palpable tension out of these relationships but Decker doesn't do conventional. There is certainly a good deal of unconventional eroticism on display but no real drama, even if it does end badly. The mediocre performances don't help, giving the feeling of a very well made home-movie, a kind of * movie made by an intellectual with no interest in * and the end result is like a cross between "God's Little Acre" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Worth seeing, then, but I'm not sure if I would ever want to see it again.

I wanted to disagree with another reviewer who said that the film was not feminist.the the film does not put forward a programmatic feminist doctrine I think it is feminist because the female characters are complex, confounding and fully fleshed out. Especially too, the way Sophia Traub's character is viewed both as sexy but also having her own sexual desires and agency. But the film also shows the problematic nature of those desires and how they can express not only female agency but also maintain patriarchy. That being said, I do think the film ultimately errs at the ending into going more overtly into the horrific. The movie is a lot more unsettling when it is showing the low level humiliation of Swanberg's character than when it is going into over the top horror territory.

Many have got the wrong meaning of mumblecore and confused with the style, calling it lo-fi Dogme 95 trash. Regardless, i know both the trends are like distant relative and have created some great films on very limited budgets with DIY philosophy. The trend is still alive and here we have a post-mumblecore film by Josephine Decker, it is one of the best thing coming from American indie scene. The style will surely scrape together comparisons to Terrence Malick, Xavier Dolan's Tom at the Farm (2013) and Bruno Dumont's Twentynine Palms (2003) but it has a unique flavour and lot amorous flush which takes a different turn. The women in this film have dual role to play evoking primal nature that is so contrast and hypnotic in the calm pastoral setting. Damn funny to see Joe Swanberg jerking off and use his pecker a lot in odd locations. The best part was Ashley Connor's cinematography, the camera wandering from one place to another, change over perspectives and evokes bacchanal sense. Overall, Decker's experimentation of sexual tension in its dreadful form is as open to more interpretation, exciting terror with shortcomings. Nevertheless, A filmmaker on my radar to to watch out for.

So, I just watched this movie at the Literatur Festival in Berlin. Josephine Decker was there, to and she seems like a nice person so I am sorry I think her movie kind of (not totally) sucks. She calls herself a feminist and the movie was screened under a "About the status of feminism" focus at the festival so I guess I was expecting something different and smarter. In her defense: I couldn't stay for the discussion after the screening, I would have loved to ask some questions or tell her myself what I thought of the movie, so maybe I missed the big explanation why this film indeed could be read as feminist. The film should have a trigger warning, if not generally than maybe next time she presents the movie, she should at issue a trigger warning herself. The level of sexual and physical violence is over the top and not explained or necessary. I tend to like violent movies but I differ explained or somewhat logical violence in movies and exploitative violent movies, this one felt pretty exploitive. The sexual violence is pretty disgusting and shown in an affirmative way. Also, to be compared to David Lynch takes more than copying his sound-stage and usage of images.

Good movie!

source: Thou Wast Mild and Lovely

Hand-held cameras, dialogue that sounds, on the one hand as if being improvised and on the other as if it's just bad writing and acting that doesn't look like 'acting'; these are the trademarks of the cinema of Josephine Decker, apparently one of the primary exponents of what has come to be known as 'mumblecore'. Decker is obviously a filmmaker who knows what a film should 'look' like and "Thou Wast Mild and Lovely" certainly looks terrific but typical of Decker it's got characters you might want to cross the street to avoid let alone spend time with in a cinema. In other words, she makes movies that are so personal, watching them feels like an intrusion. This one is set on a farm inhabited only by a gruff farmer and his daughter in what looks very like an incestuous relationship, that is interrupted by a mostly silent young farmhand who comes to work for the summer. In a conventional movie, you might get some palpable tension out of these relationships but Decker doesn't do conventional. There is certainly a good deal of unconventional eroticism on display but no real drama, even if it does end badly. The mediocre performances don't help, giving the feeling of a very well made home-movie, a kind of * movie made by an intellectual with no interest in * and the end result is like a cross between "God's Little Acre" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Worth seeing, then, but I'm not sure if I would ever want to see it again.

"THOU, whose title is taken after a gospel hymn from Samuel Francis Smith, is an erotic thriller threatened by insidious masculine aggression, here Sarah's primordial sexuality tantalizes Akin, who is a man of nondescriptness and artlessness. As much as he intends to keep his own counsel, Akin is too intelligible by half, it doesn't take long for Jeremiah to suss his hidden marital status, and Sarah can easily find a picture of his wife also shows that he is not particularly smart in concealment. The savage finish has been brewing for a long time, with Jeremiah's macho churlishness assuming a threadbare disruptive force while Traub's Sarah playfully inhabiting a temptress whose libido can barely be checked." read my full review on my blog: Cinema Omnivore, please google it, thanks.

I wanted to disagree with another reviewer who said that the film was not feminist.the the film does not put forward a programmatic feminist doctrine I think it is feminist because the female characters are complex, confounding and fully fleshed out. Especially too, the way Sophia Traub's character is viewed both as sexy but also having her own sexual desires and agency. But the film also shows the problematic nature of those desires and how they can express not only female agency but also maintain patriarchy. That being said, I do think the film ultimately errs at the ending into going more overtly into the horrific. The movie is a lot more unsettling when it is showing the low level humiliation of Swanberg's character than when it is going into over the top horror territory.

So, I just watched this movie at the Literatur Festival in Berlin. Josephine Decker was there, to and she seems like a nice person so I am sorry I think her movie kind of (not totally) sucks. She calls herself a feminist and the movie was screened under a "About the status of feminism" focus at the festival so I guess I was expecting something different and smarter. In her defense: I couldn't stay for the discussion after the screening, I would have loved to ask some questions or tell her myself what I thought of the movie, so maybe I missed the big explanation why this film indeed could be read as feminist. The film should have a trigger warning, if not generally than maybe next time she presents the movie, she should at issue a trigger warning herself. The level of sexual and physical violence is over the top and not explained or necessary. I tend to like violent movies but I differ explained or somewhat logical violence in movies and exploitative violent movies, this one felt pretty exploitive. The sexual violence is pretty disgusting and shown in an affirmative way. Also, to be compared to David Lynch takes more than copying his sound-stage and usage of images.