Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
I was under the impression that this was getting an art house run in December so Michelle Williams could be dark horsed in for the Oscars, but its DVD release just went up for pre-order on several sites for November 18. Has anyone heard anything more recently about a theatrical run? I know Reichardt's Old Joy has several fans here and though I am not among them, the word on this one is so good that I'm a little confused at how badly the distributor is handling this. I mean, where's even the trailer?
-
Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
The film was acquired by Adam Yauch's Oscilloscope Pictures. The press release from a couple of months ago indicated the December rollout, and they haven't published anything since then. I'm guessing that they decided the theatrical release was going to be too costly and decided to go direct-to-video. It's a shame. I was one of those Old Joy fans.
-
The Fanciful Norwegian
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
- Location: Teegeeack
The NYT did an article on Oscilloscope earlier this month and said it was still slated to begin a commercial run on December 10th -- so if they've changed their plans, they changed them only within the last ten days or so. To be sure, putting out the DVD a month ahead of the NYC theatrical release is perverse even in the HDNet/IFC First Take age; maybe they're testing a bizarre new business model.
Last edited by The Fanciful Norwegian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
- Location: Atlanta
The lack of trailer is baffling, but overall I wouldn't single out the distributor for botching this one. I think it's indicative of the climate in general with respect to actual independent films (though even Indiewood is drying up, with all the specialty divisions at bigger studios closing down).
As someone who has almost entirely stopped going to the theater, I don't regard direct-to-video as a slight, just a reflection of economic reality. In general, most films I care about are effectively direct-to-video these days if you recognize that limited releases exclude almost everyone outside of a few big cities. In the end, it means I'll get to see Wendy and Lucy sooner, and in the same format I would've been seeing it in anyways.
Not to go too far afield, but this is one thing that digital projection and distribution of films might possibly remedy - the cost of doing a theatrical run could be reduced if physical prints no longer need to be struck and shipped around the country. You still have to figure out advertising and find a place to screen it, but it's a start. Most audiences for these films can be reached through smart targeting on the net, so it's not out of the question.
I'm totally off-topic by this point, but this is where a technology like Red Ray becomes extremely interesting. I won't go any further.
As someone who has almost entirely stopped going to the theater, I don't regard direct-to-video as a slight, just a reflection of economic reality. In general, most films I care about are effectively direct-to-video these days if you recognize that limited releases exclude almost everyone outside of a few big cities. In the end, it means I'll get to see Wendy and Lucy sooner, and in the same format I would've been seeing it in anyways.
Not to go too far afield, but this is one thing that digital projection and distribution of films might possibly remedy - the cost of doing a theatrical run could be reduced if physical prints no longer need to be struck and shipped around the country. You still have to figure out advertising and find a place to screen it, but it's a start. Most audiences for these films can be reached through smart targeting on the net, so it's not out of the question.
I'm totally off-topic by this point, but this is where a technology like Red Ray becomes extremely interesting. I won't go any further.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
-
chaddoli
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
-
foggy eyes
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
- Location: UK
Oedipax, I totally agree with these sentiments, and do hope that digital projection begins to aid distribution of 'smaller' (or 'niche') films as soon as possible. However, it certainly doesn't seem to be working here in the UK - over here, I wrote:Oedipax wrote:Not to go too far afield, but this is one thing that digital projection and distribution of films might possibly remedy - the cost of doing a theatrical run could be reduced if physical prints no longer need to be struck and shipped around the country. You still have to figure out advertising and find a place to screen it, but it's a start. Most audiences for these films can be reached through smart targeting on the net, so it's not out of the question.
What I've heard about the Digital Screen Network is quite alarming - the system doesn't seem to be providing the opportunity for non-multiplex cinemas to show an increased number/wider variety of films (the obvious benefit of less expenditure on striking/transporting prints and the resultant potential for greater flexibility in programming). Apparently the UK Film Council stipulated that only the largest auditorium of many cinemas should be kitted out with digital equipment, so programmers are understandably reluctant to book more 'niche' films that would have to play in a screen often reserved for bigger/safer financial draws. Also, a fixed fee has to be paid to the outfit who originally provided the equipment to cinemas (can't remember what they're called) whenever a film is projected. The UK Film Council didn't cover the costs in the first place, so distributors are having to pay an additional fee just to get their films screened. AE, Soda and others will be understandably reluctant to send a digital 'print' for one-off screenings as the cost of paying the flat fee against potential admission returns means that the effort won't prove viable - I've noticed that digital projections are still largely block-booked (usually a handful of screenings over two or three days). It seems to be utterly counter-productive - I can't see a single benefit, and the fact that it's getting increasingly difficult to see films shot on film in 35mm across the arthouse circuit is a real pain.
-
pemmican
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:19 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Contact:
Saw WENDY AND LUCY at the VIFF. I liked it, but didn't love it - it's less ambitious than OLD JOY, I think it's fair to say - smaller in scope and a bit more direct. OLD JOY requires a certain degree of attentiveness and emotional connection/"work," packing a lot into its very minimal frame - which makes it rewarding on repeated viewings; while WENDY AND LUCY seems much more obviously a film about the current climate in America, and the ways that "kindness" - or its lack - can be understood... I was with it morally and enjoyed watching it, but feel little impulse for a second viewing. I kinda felt like I got the whole thing in one sitting, which was a bit disappointing.
Still, I like Reichardt a lot, and I'm glad she's making movies like this. Have picked up her first feature, RIVER OF GRASS, on DVD, but haven't gotten to it yet.
Lucy, I believe, is the same dog you see in OLD JOY.
P.
Still, I like Reichardt a lot, and I'm glad she's making movies like this. Have picked up her first feature, RIVER OF GRASS, on DVD, but haven't gotten to it yet.
Lucy, I believe, is the same dog you see in OLD JOY.
P.
-
foggy eyes
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
- Location: UK
-
tugboat5555
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:36 pm
- Location: New York, San Diego
- Contact:
Saw this at the NYFF in the finest theater in Manhattan, The Ziegfield. Loved Old Joy.
A truly incredible experience. Enjoyed it completely and will revisit it again as soon as possible. Definitely a more straightforward film than Old Joy, but to me it is in no way a lesser work. I was more emotionally affected by Wendy and Lucy than I have been at a film in a long time, and it's subtly cathartic climax is still burnt into my mind.
It moves rather briskly, and I was surprised at how wonderfully classic the minimalist narrative felt.
Performances are incredible all around, from a few unknown actors (local?), the boy from Elephant, Will Oldham, and a terrifying Larry Fessenden. Michelle Williams will totally fucking break your heart though. She looks about 16 in this and has this sad resilience in her eyes that sort of crushes you with every close up.
Definitely achieves an emotional peak that Old Joy sort of traded for an understated sublimity.
(Will Patton feels a little odd in this, though. And I don't think the music is as good, as there is a non-diegetic whistling theme that hits and misses. Yo La Tengo's score is tough to beat though.)
Reichardt is truly an American Filmmaker, and I love how she is sort of poetically dissecting these tiny moments within a distinctly Americans setting and context. A real pleasure.
A truly incredible experience. Enjoyed it completely and will revisit it again as soon as possible. Definitely a more straightforward film than Old Joy, but to me it is in no way a lesser work. I was more emotionally affected by Wendy and Lucy than I have been at a film in a long time, and it's subtly cathartic climax is still burnt into my mind.
It moves rather briskly, and I was surprised at how wonderfully classic the minimalist narrative felt.
Performances are incredible all around, from a few unknown actors (local?), the boy from Elephant, Will Oldham, and a terrifying Larry Fessenden. Michelle Williams will totally fucking break your heart though. She looks about 16 in this and has this sad resilience in her eyes that sort of crushes you with every close up.
Definitely achieves an emotional peak that Old Joy sort of traded for an understated sublimity.
(Will Patton feels a little odd in this, though. And I don't think the music is as good, as there is a non-diegetic whistling theme that hits and misses. Yo La Tengo's score is tough to beat though.)
Reichardt is truly an American Filmmaker, and I love how she is sort of poetically dissecting these tiny moments within a distinctly Americans setting and context. A real pleasure.
-
chaddoli
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
This is just such a beautiful, perfect gem of a film. It is really overwhelming. Michelle Williams' performance is one for the ages. This is one of the most fascinating and fruitful actor/director collaborations I've seen. Like Old Joy, it is subtly and organically political in nature, but without being heavy handed or fussy about it. It comes from the devastating empathy afforded to Reichardt's tragic little Mouchelle. I wish everyone in America would see this film. December is too long a wait for me to enjoy its numerous pleasures again. The best film of the year.
-
reddye4
Digital Projection Woes
Thankfully Wendy and Lucy is released in regular 35mm prints (though I'm not sure in what format it was originated).
The unfortunate reality is that the cinemas that most need high quality digital projection -- because they show smaller arthouse features whose scale of release does not merit the expense of recording out to film -- are also frequently the ones that can least afford it.
The dilemma for any filmmaker is, yes, it's possible to achieve excellent results by originating a feature as HD video or digital cinema (Red, etc.), but if you're going to exhibit it theatrically, you're at the mercy of the projector, which is often inadequate, unless the venue is DCI-compliant.
Studios have had to subsidize the cost of making mainstream cinemas DCI-compliant. See, for instance, http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=343 and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055919-52.html
With small distributors and financially marginal movies, such an arrangement, of course, is impossible.
A good example of the sorry state of affairs is Laemmle's Sunset 5 Theatre in Los Angeles, which shows many excellent, well-shot HD or digital cinema features that are shown nowhere else in the city. Yet the brightness of their digital projection is woefully inadequate. In the past year I have shown up there to see numerous promising new films only to have the film start and feel as if every scene is night, whether or not it was intended that way, and then have to walk out.
This is especially unfortunate given the Laemmle brothers' prior history of being practically one of the only chains in the region that actually ran the lamphouses of their 35mm projectors at the appropriate level. They also took a commendable, pro-union position with regard to the "one man, one booth" question that played out some years ago.
In contrast, the Silent Movie (Cinefamily) Theatre, a small, single-screen venue with excellent, highly diverse, mostly repertory programming, has outstanding digital projection (a Century 2K projector, I believe). But for the most part they don't show first-run movies of any sort.
The bottom line is that in order for the audience to see what the filmmaker intends, the projection system (the combination of lamphouse and screen gain) must produce 16 footlamberts of illumination reflected off the center of the screen. This has been the SMPTE standard for decades, even if it has been flagrantly disregarded by such mainstream chains as AMC and Mann, and even in their newest stadium multiplexes!
Filmmakers, distributors and exhibitors recognized the needs for projection standards long ago. It's saddening that with all the promising and affordable technologies now available, we are heading backwards in some respects.
The wider rollout of DCI will hopefully force all exhibitors to get their digital projection up to snuff, even if they can't afford the likes of a Barco FX-5 system.
The unfortunate reality is that the cinemas that most need high quality digital projection -- because they show smaller arthouse features whose scale of release does not merit the expense of recording out to film -- are also frequently the ones that can least afford it.
The dilemma for any filmmaker is, yes, it's possible to achieve excellent results by originating a feature as HD video or digital cinema (Red, etc.), but if you're going to exhibit it theatrically, you're at the mercy of the projector, which is often inadequate, unless the venue is DCI-compliant.
Studios have had to subsidize the cost of making mainstream cinemas DCI-compliant. See, for instance, http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=343 and http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055919-52.html
With small distributors and financially marginal movies, such an arrangement, of course, is impossible.
A good example of the sorry state of affairs is Laemmle's Sunset 5 Theatre in Los Angeles, which shows many excellent, well-shot HD or digital cinema features that are shown nowhere else in the city. Yet the brightness of their digital projection is woefully inadequate. In the past year I have shown up there to see numerous promising new films only to have the film start and feel as if every scene is night, whether or not it was intended that way, and then have to walk out.
This is especially unfortunate given the Laemmle brothers' prior history of being practically one of the only chains in the region that actually ran the lamphouses of their 35mm projectors at the appropriate level. They also took a commendable, pro-union position with regard to the "one man, one booth" question that played out some years ago.
In contrast, the Silent Movie (Cinefamily) Theatre, a small, single-screen venue with excellent, highly diverse, mostly repertory programming, has outstanding digital projection (a Century 2K projector, I believe). But for the most part they don't show first-run movies of any sort.
The bottom line is that in order for the audience to see what the filmmaker intends, the projection system (the combination of lamphouse and screen gain) must produce 16 footlamberts of illumination reflected off the center of the screen. This has been the SMPTE standard for decades, even if it has been flagrantly disregarded by such mainstream chains as AMC and Mann, and even in their newest stadium multiplexes!
Filmmakers, distributors and exhibitors recognized the needs for projection standards long ago. It's saddening that with all the promising and affordable technologies now available, we are heading backwards in some respects.
The wider rollout of DCI will hopefully force all exhibitors to get their digital projection up to snuff, even if they can't afford the likes of a Barco FX-5 system.
-
foggy eyes
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:58 am
- Location: UK
Well-crafted but disappointing. Unfortunately everything hinges on a shaky turn of events that I'm surprised a dog-owner like Reichardt let slide.
Michelle Williams is very good, but Lucy is even better. All in all, far more conventional than Old Joy, and not nearly as interesting.
SpoilerShow
Seriously, why on earth doesn't Wendy kick up more fuss about not leaving Lucy before she's being driven away in the police car? I don't believe that anybody who cares about their dog that much would act so passively - it would be the first thing I would think about. This may seem rather petty, but the contrivance really did prove too problematic for me - not least because the rest of the film is built upon it. Logic is surrendered to a specious narrative conceit, and the rest of the film suffers.
-
LQ
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
- Contact:
Re: Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
I saw this last week, and in the first few minutes of the film I decided that I probably wasn't going to love Wendy & Lucy, simply because I've seen quite enough down-and-out, pariah-on-the-road-type films and it doesn't happen to be my preferred trope. However, and its pretty much all thanks to Michelle Williams, it ended up devastating me (I'm deliberately trying to not think of the ending while writing this, or I'll probably well up again). What a perfect, perfect performance. This weekend on an hours-long car trip that saw many a decrepit, nearly-silent central-PA town pass by, the beautiful sadness of Wendy & Lucy lingered with me, as did that tune.
-
royalton
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:18 am
Re: Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
This killed me too. It edges out Speed Racer (laugh as you will) for my favorite film of 08. It's also all too resonant with me and other people I know lately.
Particularly haunting was how it seemed that Wendy's whistling tune was playing as muzak in the grocery store - maybe that's me projecting, maybe it was subliminal.
Particularly haunting was how it seemed that Wendy's whistling tune was playing as muzak in the grocery store - maybe that's me projecting, maybe it was subliminal.
-
LQ
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
- Contact:
Re: Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008)
Yeah, I caught that too. I still can't shake those few melancholy bars. Apparently the melody was composed by Oldham.Particularly haunting was how it seemed that Wendy's whistling tune was playing as muzak in the grocery store