criterionforum.org

Frownland



A nightmare transmission from the grungiest depths of the New York indie underground, the visceral, darkly funny, and totally sui generis debut feature from Ronald Bronstein is a dread-inducing vision of misfit alienation at its unhinged extreme. In a maniacal performance of almost frightening commitment, Dore Mann plays Keith, a disturbingly maladjusted social outcast and self-described "troll" whose neuroses plunge him into an unstoppable spiral of self-obliteration as his crummy coupon-selling job, pitiful living situation (featuring the roommate from hipster Brooklyn hell), and last remaining human relationships disintegrate around him. As captured in the grimy expressionist grain of Sean Price Williams's claustrophobic camera work, Frownland is DIY cinema at its most fearless, uncompromising, and unforgettable.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED BLU-RAY SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES

• New 2K digital transfer, supervised by director Ronald Bronstein, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack
• Introduction by Bronstein
• Conversation between Bronstein and filmmaker Josh Safdie
• Deleted scenes
• English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• PLUS: An essay by critic Richard Brody and an oral history of the making of the film

tugboat5555 wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:25 am Just wondering if anybody else caught this in its one week run at IFC. I thought it was a gritty, uncomfortable, almost intentionally flawed and at times magnificent film. The whole screaming match/bar scene/sunrise ending was really wonderful.

If anything, this is an important response to the current state of the "indie" film (much like, but different from Bujalski and Katz) and I would love to see more in the same vein.

Anybody?

I caught this at its sxsw debut last year, and although I didn't exactly like it, it's quite effective -- the sunrise ending is indeed magnificent.

This is an illuminating interview with its director, Ronnie Bronstein, even if you haven't seen the film.

I liked it, and it was worth watching if only because it's so rare to see a film like this these days. Not a surprise, because there were only 2 other people in the theater.

I managed to catch it, and loved it was well. Refreshing to see such an uncompromising film centered around such a dislikable character these days. Probably the perfect anthisis to this year's Juno, meaning it pulls no punches. At times the film reminded me of Paul Morrissey and some early Mike Leigh.

I saw Frownland at a packed screening at the Museum of Modern Art last fall and jesus christ it cracked me in half. A brutal, black, scathingly funny, totally original work of art as well as a rally cry against the commercial dreck that passes for independent cinema these days. And i think it's a pretty thin response to simply call the main character "unlikeable". I mean the whole point of the movie is to confront viewers with their own instinctive intolerance for weakness, no? The main character is horribly impotent, sure, to the point of being infuriating. And yet he resonates like a saint. A Bresson character in a Romero universe. Au Hazard, Frankenstein! Ha ha! The director was in attendance that night and he spoke about how violence had erupted after one festival screening of the work. When was the last time something like THAT happened?

after the premier of You Got Served, apparently dozens of youth began fighting outside the theater after an impromptu 'dance-off' left each side convinced they were victorious.

More than 100 fight in mall movie theater

The article unforgivably leaves out the name of the movie in question.

Of course, the relevance of any post-screening riot comes down to whether the ideas in the film itself acted as the catalyst. I was just searching through the web looking for some more Frownland info and found this, written by the head programmer of the Austin Film Society:

"I used to laugh smugly at the ridiculous idea that the audience present at the 1913 premiere of the ballet “The Rite of Spring” were so upset by Stravinsky’s ground-breaking music and Nijinsky’s style-shattering dance that they screamed at the orchestra, dancers, and composer and were at the very edge of rioting. Then last night I saw FROWNLAND (Ronald Bronstein, 2007), the final presentation of Cinematexas. For the first five minutes I was laughing at the painfully inarticulate protagonist Keith. Then I felt sorry for him for another five minutes. But fifteen minutes into the film I wanted him dead. I kept wishing other characters would “hurt him bad.” His pathological inability to express himself –open-mouthed stuttering, incoherent gesticulating, repulsive fidgeting – reduced me to a tense, nervous, maniacal wreck. The film is brilliant, the acting is letter perfect, the direction is masterful and I hated it all. My liver shot streams of bile into my mouth and I was on the verge of spitting vitriol onto the screen. I honestly thought I was going to explode before the movie ended, and yet I couldn’t leave because I needed to see Keith be murdered in a hundred horrible ways."

Ha! Personally, i felt nothing but deep heartbreaking sympathy for the character by the end of the movie. But it's rare and encouraging to see a film roil up this kind of intense visceral reaction in this day and age. It's what i hope for when going to the movies.

From that last description this film sounds along the lines of Lodge Kerrigan, or is that off base?

Also, the title puts me in mind of the Capt. Beefheart song, but I assume that it has no connection.

In any case this film sounds intriguing.
Though the Dvd is likely to take a while.

It's funny you say that cause Lodge Kerrigan introduced Frownland at the screening i attended. The movie definitely has the schizo intensity of a Kerrigan movie but with alot more black humor integrated into the bleakness and the angst.

yeah, the moments that often could be portrayed as humorous in a Kerrigan film are often the most heart-breaking and painful scenes (I'm thinking of the moment in Keane where he's singing in the bar).

I have to say that I'm really intrigued by this film (Frownland), I really hope I have the chance to see it sometime.

I assumed Factory 25 would put this out on their new OCN imprint, but I'm happy to see it get a Criterion release. I love this film, but I'm ready to see all the derision and hate it's going to get on here. Intentionally uncomfortable, sloppy, and really pushes the limits of how much you can enjoy a protagonist.

Damn, I need to see this.

This movie is incredible in that way where I both need to own three copies of it and maybe never want to see it again. But I'm concerned that none of the announced supplements involve Dore Mann. Is he okay? I need to know that he's okay. It's that kind of performance in that kind of movie.

brundlefly wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:31 pm This movie is incredible in that way where I both need to own three copies of it and maybe never want to see it again. But I'm concerned that none of the announced supplements involve Dore Mann. Is he okay? I need to know that he's okay. It's that kind of performance in that kind of movie.

You can rest easy, I think he's probably okay:

Ronald Bronstein wrote:Once I met Dore Mann (who plays Keith), he became the perfect conduit for whatever that sort of twisted inside-out insecurity was that I felt. This guy represented it much better than I could. He is an amazing guy, and is not the guy in the movie. It’s a performance, but he’s still tapping into something in himself.

Dore is an insecure person, but very confident about expressing that insecurity in front of a camera. He was hell-bent on taking what he felt were the ugliest sides of his personality and purging them in the movie.

The interview this comes from is a very good read, long and detailed about Bronstein's process to sort of reverse-engineer Mike Leigh's working method.

diamonds wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:52 pm You can rest easy, I think he's probably okay:

Ronald Bronstein wrote:Once I met Dore Mann (who plays Keith), he became the perfect conduit for whatever that sort of twisted inside-out insecurity was that I felt. This guy represented it much better than I could. He is an amazing guy, and is not the guy in the movie. It’s a performance, but he’s still tapping into something in himself.

Dore is an insecure person, but very confident about expressing that insecurity in front of a camera. He was hell-bent on taking what he felt were the ugliest sides of his personality and purging them in the movie.

The interview this comes from is a very good read, long and detailed about Bronstein's process to sort of reverse-engineer Mike Leigh's working method.

Thanks for that! There's also

Dore has moved away from performing and into social work. He works for a needle exchange program at a suicide hotline.

At least as of 2008. I like the idea of the non=professional actor joining a project to purge what he felt were the worst parts of himself and successfully being done with all that. Absolutely understand if there's any residual insecurity that might keep him from wanting to appear on camera again. I hope he takes a lot of pride in his performance and what he helped create here.

Can someone explain to me what the point of the lengthy sequence at the testing center is? What was the point of showing the roommate's conversation with the guy in the stairwell? I really don't get this part of the movie.

Peter-H wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:31 pm Can someone explain to me what the point of the lengthy sequence at the testing center is? What was the point of showing the roommate's conversation with the guy in the stairwell? I really don't get this part of the movie.

From the link above:

Rather mild spoilers

You make a bold choice halfway through, veering off of Keith’s story and following his roommate Charles. Why did you go in that tangential direction?

Most movies set up their conflicts in the beginning and you’re always one step ahead. I liked the idea of this unwieldy departure, where the audience might wonder if the main character will come back. Also, while I was making the movie, I realized that I needed a break from Keith. But we still needed to move forward and, in some way, have Keith grow. I was able to explore the same themes by following Charles, only instead of being hyper-inarticulate we dealt with someone who was so good at words. By the time we reach the end of this section with Charles, we see the same dynamic we found with Keith. For the audience, maybe it feels good sometimes to see Keith get swatted like a fly, but why does it also feel good to watch the guy who swats him also get swatted?