1154 Eve's Bayou

[swo17]

Eve's Bayou



"The summer I killed my father, I was ten years old..." So begins Kasi Lemmons's spellbinding feature debut, an evocative journey into the maze of memory steeped in fragrant southern-gothic atmosphere. In 1960s Louisiana, a young girl (Jurnee Smollett) sees her well-to-do family unravel in the wake of the infidelities of her charming father (Samuel L. Jackson)—setting in motion a series of deceptions and betrayals that will upend her world and challenge her understanding of reality. Rooted in Creole history, folklore, and mysticism, Eve's Bayou is a scintillating showcase for a powerhouse ensemble of Black actresses—including Lynn Whitfield, Debbi Morgan, and the legendary Diahann Carroll as a voodoo priestess—as well as a profoundly cathartic exploration of trauma, forgiveness, and the elusive nature of truth.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED TWO-BLU-RAY SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES

• New 4K digital restoration of the director's cut, supervised by director Kasi Lemmons and cinematographer Amy Vincent, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack
• Original 108-minute theatrical-release version
• Audio commentary on the director's cut featuring Lemmons, Vincent, producer Caldecot Chubb, and editor Terilyn A. Shropshire
• Dr. Hugo (1996), a short film Lemmons made as a proof of concept for Eve's Bayou, in a new 4K digital transfer
• New interview with Lemmons
• Cast reunion footage
• Interview with composer Terence Blanchard
• New program showcasing black-and-white Polaroids that Vincent took during production
• Cast and crew photographs by William Eggleston
• Trailer
• English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• PLUS: An essay by film scholar Kara Keeling

[domino harvey]

The only thing I know or remember about this movie is that Ebert named it the best film of the year it was released

[knives]

And he was right. It’s a great film with arguably Jackson’s best performance. Of all the half remembered childhood movies that were made in this period it’s arguably the best.

[Computer Raheem]

Second the praise for the film; it's easily one of the best debut features from the 90s. Shame that Lemmons has been unable to get funding for her own written material (much of her recent work has been director-for-hire gigs). I'm just surprised that Criterion managed to snag this away from Lionsgate (it's not as though Lionsgate was doing anything with the film anyway, though.)

[swo17]

Wait, Eve is Jurnee Smollett? I'm in. Also going to pretend the director's name is Plemmons

[hearthesilence]

I haven't seen this in ages - it's a good pick. I feel like the movie was buried in history for a while and really deserves better exposure. I wonder what differences this will have with the theatrical cut?

Also I keep forgetting Kasi Lemmons was in The Silence of the Lambs and in many other things before directing this.

[cdnchris]

I'll third the praise for this title. I mistook a past comment elsewhere on the forum as meaning this was definitely coming from Criterion, only to be disappointed that didn't appear to be the case, and yet here we are! Been waiting for a half decent release. I recall a Trimark DVD but it was non-anamorphic.

I'm curious about the director's cut, as I believe that's new.

[hearthesilence]

Oh, Trimark put this out originally? I didn't really take note of that company until I went to a Q&A for Kicking and Screaming, and Noah Baumbach went into it more in-depth. It sounded like one of those companies that came from someone who made their money in other industries and decided to dabble in movies. Baumbach joked it was called "Try Mark!" (as in if you were rejected by Sony's TriStar, try talking to the guy down the street).

[Computer Raheem]

I'll third the praise for this title. I mistook a past comment elsewhere on the forum as meaning this was definitely coming from Criterion, only to be disappointed that didn't appear to be the case, and yet here we are! Been waiting for a half decent release. I recall a Trimark DVD but it was non-anamorphic.

I'm curious about the director's cut, as I believe that's new.

The last Lionsgate DVD (which was issued after Trimark went belly-up) was the first to introduce the director's cut, and was also anamorphic. This is the first instance of the theatrical cut being issued in anamorphic (the Lionsgate DVD only had the director's cut.)

[Computer Raheem]

Oh, Trimark put this out originally? I didn't really take note of that company until I went to a Q&A for Kicking and Screaming, and Noah Baumbach went into it more in-depth. It sounded like one of those companies that came from someone who made their money in other industries and decided to dabble in movies. Baumbach joked it was called "Try Mark!" (as in if you were rejected by Sony's TriStar, try talking to the guy down the street).

Trimark's existence was before my time, but looking at their credits, you weren't missing out on much. There are some notable titles other than the aforementioned - films like Warlock, The Doom Generation, Swimming With Sharks, Love and a .45 - but most of it was direct-to-video shlock like the Leprechaun series.

[Red Screamer]

I must have missed something when I saw this movie for the first time last year, since I thought it was pretty obvious and half-baked, straining to be atmospheric and with a not-particularly fresh or nuanced way of handling its story and themes. I look forward to catching up with others' thoughts here and elsewhere as it gets the Criterion bump.

[bad future]

I went googling for info on the director's cut and found a passage from a writeup on a screening from Ebertfest 2016... I don't know what I expected but probably not this:

As had likely been on everyone’s minds during the presentation, Lemmons clarified how the director’s cut was different. The changes are distinct to the film's entire philosophy: an entire character was taken out from the story, a physically disabled mute that lives in the house named Uncle Tommy. A financier wanted him out of the movie, and though she likes the theatrical cut of the film, Lemmons said it was an emotional move at the time. His part of the film was important to her, as the character was inspired by her great uncle, even though the movie isn’t directly autobiographical. “It said something to me about black families,” she stated. Lemmons also explained the process that they went through to remove the character from the shots, using CGI. With a bit of a laugh, Lemmons shared that the post-production crew even made t-shirts with an empty wheelchair on them that said, “Where’s Tommy?”

[Saturnome]

... Am I reading this right

[cdnchris]

Wow, was completely unaware of the cut prior to this and also had no idea about the Lionsgate DVD. Interesting they're including both cuts here and I'm curious how it differs. Haven't seen it since around 2000, so hoping it holds up.

I also assumed they just reused the commentary from the original DVD, which would have been the theatrical cut, but it looks like it's only included with the newer cut here.

[therewillbeblus]

That's just insane- imagine the backlash Criterion could've faced if they didn't consult with their films' makers like KL et al. I'm gonna go rent the DVD from my lib ASAP just to be able to compare with this disc when it comes out. Wild

[hearthesilence]

I went googling for info on the director's cut and found a passage from a writeup on a screening from Ebertfest 2016... I don't know what I expected but probably not this:

As had likely been on everyone’s minds during the presentation, Lemmons clarified how the director’s cut was different. The changes are distinct to the film's entire philosophy: an entire character was taken out from the story, a physically disabled mute that lives in the house named Uncle Tommy. A financier wanted him out of the movie, and though she likes the theatrical cut of the film, Lemmons said it was an emotional move at the time. His part of the film was important to her, as the character was inspired by her great uncle, even though the movie isn’t directly autobiographical. “It said something to me about black families,” she stated. Lemmons also explained the process that they went through to remove the character from the shots, using CGI. With a bit of a laugh, Lemmons shared that the post-production crew even made t-shirts with an empty wheelchair on them that said, “Where’s Tommy?”

Wow, not just cut out but literally ERASED from the film. Quite a change, and probably quite expensive for a film on a modest budget!

[Computer Raheem]

I went googling for info on the director's cut and found a passage from a writeup on a screening from Ebertfest 2016... I don't know what I expected but probably not this:

As had likely been on everyone’s minds during the presentation, Lemmons clarified how the director’s cut was different. The changes are distinct to the film's entire philosophy: an entire character was taken out from the story, a physically disabled mute that lives in the house named Uncle Tommy. A financier wanted him out of the movie, and though she likes the theatrical cut of the film, Lemmons said it was an emotional move at the time. His part of the film was important to her, as the character was inspired by her great uncle, even though the movie isn’t directly autobiographical. “It said something to me about black families,” she stated. Lemmons also explained the process that they went through to remove the character from the shots, using CGI. With a bit of a laugh, Lemmons shared that the post-production crew even made t-shirts with an empty wheelchair on them that said, “Where’s Tommy?”

Real question is: how did a $3 million movie afford to do such a complex thing? I'm surprised that they would be able to afford it, let alone do it so effectively. Granted, I've only ever seen the theatrical cut (it's the cut that Lionsgate puts on streaming services), so I'd have no clue where the character of Uncle Tommy would fit in.

[hearthesilence]

I can only guess that the film was probably finished within its budget, and once the financier dictated that change, it was a given that the same financier would pay whatever extra money was needed to do it. Like, he can say it's his money and thus his film so what he says goes, but that means he bears that extra cost if he really wants that change to happen.

[Ribs]

That's just insane- imagine the backlash Criterion could've faced if they didn't consult with their films' makers like KL et al. I'm gonna go rent the DVD from my lib ASAP just to be able to compare with this disc when it comes out. Wild

Uh, as both cuts will be included, why would you need the previous release?

[therewillbeblus]

Well, I want to watch it first, and I doubt I'll want to watch it back to back once I get the release. So this way I can view it one way, and if I like it, I can see it again under a lovely restoration with a whole other character populating the frames!

[colinr0380]

Also I keep forgetting Kasi Lemmons was in The Silence of the Lambs and in many other things before directing this.

Most notably the friend who comes to a sticky end in Candyman and in the equivalent to the Rob Reiner role in the This Is Spinal Tap of rap music, Fear of a Black Hat.

[therewillbeblus]

This was pretty great, a southern gothic melodrama-turned-thriller, where the terrifying components are entirely sourced in the high stakes of childhood subjective experience, as a powerless vessel vying with forces she can't comprehend. Rarely have I seen a film capture that kind of magical thinking and extremist projection so aptly, but it's the tragic awakening that comes with maturity, as we sober to the grey truths about our families' tainted histories and fragile imperfections, that hits the hardest. Contrary to knives, I think Jackson's perf is the least impressive here. Don't get me wrong, he's great as usual, but the child actors are incredible and various idiosyncratic characters in the community become instantly memorable based on how much they do with so little. This is a terrific blend of rich style, substance, and performances, and has the audacity to remain enigmatic enough regarding its themes' lucidity to focus attention on the emotion whilst resisting didactic cues. The bookended valuation of memory as formation of intrinsically dignified and true subjective narratives is beautiful without overselling its implications on the events, which retain lyrical significance most of all.

Unfortunately I was a bit distracted looking around for an invisible mute character who apparently shoulda been there, in a kind of futile anti-Where's Waldo? compulsion, and so I look forward to viewing the DC on Criterion's upcoming disc to remedy that absence I never would've known was there if not for this thread. Also, now having seen the film, I do think the cover art appropriately communicates the uneven dichotomy of fluidity and segregation of memory and experience conveyed here, extrapolated into genre and mood prisms within the film itself. So the cover translates that pretty well. Doesn't mean it's "good" though

[knives]

I should rephrase my Jackson praise to indicate it’s at least partially motivated by how unique a performance it is in his career especially now that everyone wants him to lazily be his Pulp Fiction character.

[Computer Raheem]

Also, now having seen the film, I do think the cover art appropriately communicates the uneven dichotomy of fluidity and segregation of memory and experience conveyed here, extrapolated into genre and mood prisms within the film itself. So the cover translates that pretty well. Doesn't mean it's "good" though

I feel vindicated. Thank you for making me feel less alone in my dislike of this cover

[therewillbeblus]

I should rephrase my Jackson praise to indicate it’s at least partially motivated by how unique a performance it is in his career especially now that everyone wants him to lazily be his Pulp Fiction character.

True, and I think this is the kind of film where repeat viewings will help detail how diverse his performance is, since only by the end are we really attuned to the depth of his role as the focal point of contextualized subjective narratives. We know the story revolves around the mystery of him from the beginning, but it's different to slyly be the key figure of layered complexity, as opposed to the central principal who is just influenced by other subjectivities in her quest to comprehend a figure she feels such strong feelings towards and doesn't know what to do with them. The film gets a lot right about childhood social development, since it's not only developmentally appropriate to be so egocentric at this age, but Eve gravitates towards polarized categorizations of good or evil, with simplified feelings of love or hate, as she engages in dark fantasies to mirror her internal states and confusing psychological evolution. Jackson is a multifaceted human being, like everyone, and it's a treat that we get to see him this way under Eve's fittingly messy ability to entertain multiple drives to define him beyond a solitary note, instead of as a devolved unidimensional figure the way we might in a lesser film from a kid's reactive perspective. This is a tremendously eclectic mood piece that reflects the comprehensive experience of a girl at this age struggling to engage with a semi-coherent milieu. It's grown on me lots in only a few hours, so I imagine it'll only grow richer from there.