stain'd

palace of stains is too long. perhaps about an hour too long, but notwithstanding i still enjoyed parts. i'm not going to criticize stains in light of the fact that i've never seen any of moricz's feature-length films that weren't shot in one day. stains is a feat to be admired, for sure, but at 100 minutes it's too much.
if you've ever seen lars von trier's the kingdom then you'll have an idea of how moricz has paced and sequenced his narrative. he employs multiple storylines shot with cross-the-line coverage and jump cuts that more or less disregard convention in favor of cutting on emotional beats. this is great and i was very impressed at moricz's command over the film's pacing. the soundtrack only enhanced this command and is what really ties the thing together; it's a tremendous accomplishment. were stains to be pared down to about, say, less than 30 minutes, i think this could be a really smart short feature.
as for the screening, it was a riot. good times abound, especially for those in the film that were catcalling appearances and interacting with the film a la rocky horror. the crowd of about 250 stuck it out and it was heartwarming to see such a late-night support of local cinema. moricz is truly inspiring.
bias aside, damian and sarah sol's introductory doc, happy birthday bob, was impeccably well made. although i knew the circumstance of the stains shoot before going into the film, the sol's documentary would be essential for a viewer not privy to behind-the-scenes info. it sets the film up very well and is incredibly well crafted in its own right.
after moricz, i switched to cronenberg and watched a history of violence again, this time on dvd. when i first saw the film in november, i was put off by the ease by which cronenberg glossed over how violence can affect our domestic lives. this time, however, i appreciated the film's wry humor—especially william hurt's cameo, which exploits an almost tex avery-like attitude toward violence. i couldn't help but interpret the final scene, at the dinner table, as a sort of tongue-in-cheek condemnation of american values. originally, i interpreted this cynicism as a cop-out by cronenberg. i still disagree with rosenbaum, however: i think one can make a genre film that also forces the audience to reflect and enjoy simultaneously. the film's many cliches are less obvious upon a second viewing. it's a real sharp film and i'm back on the cronenberg bandwagon.