Quantcast
Channel: Wonders in the Dark
Viewing all 2835 articles
Browse latest View live

Lilika – 1970, Branko Plesa

$
0
0

 

lil 1

by Allan Fish

(Yugoslavia 1970 80m) not on DVD

A tale of two slippers

d  Branko Plesa  w  Dragoslav Mihailovic, Branko Plesa  novel  Dragoslav Mihailovic  ph  Aleksandr Petkovic  ed  Bojana Subota  art  Miodrag Hadzic

Dragana Kalaba (Milica Sandic), Blanko Plesa (counsellor), Ljerka Drazenovic (Aunt Jelena), Danilo Stojkovic (Poocim Sandic), Lilijana Kontic (Djurdjica), Vladimir Pevec (Peca),

We all know the final freeze frame of Truffaut’s Les Quatre Cents Coups; Jean-Pierre Léaud looking not so much at the camera as beyond it, to a free future.   It’s one of the most iconic closing shots in movie history.  Take another 13 or 14 year old child, this time a girl, with blonde hair, tiny freckles and blue eyes.  She’s seen in colour, not in black and white, and this ending has the opposite effect.  Where Antoine Doinel ran away from the equivalent of borstal to the freedom of the sea, this girl, Milica, is being taken from the freedom of the coast to the confinement of, in her own words, “a prison for children.”

In actual fact there was nothing much liberating about the beach for Milica.  The times we see her there it’s in a flashback, just her and her infant little brother playing with a ball on the beach.  Or else she’s running around, screeching, chased by her aunt, like a headless chicken with no sense of direction.  It’s a scene that acts as a metaphor for her whole existence.  She’s never had a sense of direction.  She lives at home with a brutish father who beats her and a mother who seems to spend her days in bed in her negligee, slapping Milica for not attending school.  The reason she doesn’t is that she feels equally unloved there, and has to bunk off regularly to do laundry, spied on by her idiot savant best friend, Peca.  She’s also caught stealing and had up in front of counsellors.  The only one in her family who does have any time for her is her aunt, but she’s a whore and has to pay for her board and can’t have a teenage girl staying when she brings home clients.

The dialogue, adapted from his own book by Dragoslav Mihailovic, contains various throw-away lines that sum up Milica’s existence.  “What shall we do with you?”, a teacher bemoans; Milica just shrugs her shoulders.  She’s an outsider looking in, at the girls in her class who have decent parents, with toys in their rooms, even at the various shops she steals things from seemingly at random.  At times, it feels like a dream inside Milica’s head, but it’s noticeable that when she’s running around playing with Peca, the nervous laughter betrays a girl screaming for attention, nervous that if she doesn’t at least even pretend to be enjoying herself she’ll cop another beating.  In one pivotal scene she’s taken for a drive and talk with her counsellor – don’t even think about the safeguarding issues that would cause today – and she confesses to dreaming of going to America and making good.  Not because she wants to make good as such, but because then she can buy a red cabriolet and a puppy and come back and say to those who abused, ignored and belittled her that she’s made it.

As with many Yugoslav films of the day, the visual palette seems bleached, film stock that’s been left in the sun a little too long.  It certainly adds to the sense of bleak hopelessness of Milica’s existence.  As does the rundown neighbourhood she populates, dominated by a coal heap which she at one point considers getting buried in.  But note also Plesa’s symbolic use of rigid desk formations, first isolating Milica in the classroom and later in her juvenile hearing.  By this time, she’s had all hope knocked out of her, she’s quite possibly given herself sexually to poor simple Peca as a parting gift, as if it’s the last time she’ll see him, and accepted her fate.  It’s here that we see her, in that final shot, staring at the camera, not so much accusingly as saying “so be it.”

Still largely unseen in the west, Lilika now seems a link from Les Quatre Cents Coups to Kedzierzawska’s Crows and, beyond, to Sam Morton’s The Unloved.  It may be a little unpolished, but it carries all the power of a punch to the gut, superbly directed by actor Plesa in his directorial debut and, in the heart-breaking Dragana Kalaba, it has a face that should be as well-known as any child in film.

lil 2



Muddy Water – 1953, Tadashi Imai

$
0
0

 

mw 2

by Allan Fish

(Japan 1953 130m) not on DVD

Aka. Nigorie; An Inlet of Muddy Water

Three tales of sacrifice

d  Tadashi Imai  w  Yoko Mizuki, Toshiro Ide  stories  Ichiyo Higuchi  ph  Shunichiro Nakao  m  Ikuma Dan  art  Totetsu Hirakawa

Ken Mitsuda (Kanae Saito), Yat’suko Tanami (Seki Harada), Akiko Tamura (Moyo Saito), Hiro Kumon (Inosuke Saito), Hiroshi Akutagawa (Rokunosuke Takasaka), Yoshiko Kuga (Omine), Nobuo Nakamura (Yasube), Michiko Araki (Shin), Hisao Toake (Tobei), Haruko Sugimura (Ohatsu), So Yamamura (Asanosuke), Seiji Miyaguchi (Gen Shichi), Meiko Hojo (Otaka), Chikage Awashima (Oriki),

Tadashi Imai’s Muddy Water was on a hiding to nothing.  In 1953 it was rated the best Japanese film of the year by Kinema Junpo, which could normally be taken with a pinch of salt, until you take a look at those in the top 10 below it.  Three of them didn’t quite make the cut here, but were all close (Shindo’s Shukuzu, Naruse’s Older Brother Younger Sister and Imai’s own Tower of the Lilies).  The others?  Toyoda’s The Mistress, Mizoguchi’s Gion Bayashi, Kinoshita’s A Japanese Tragedy, Gosho’s Where Chimneys are Seen and Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu Monogatari.  Oh, and at number two, the little matter of Tokyo Story.

That it doesn’t quite live up to some of those is expected, but Muddy Water is an exceptional film in its own right, now perhaps out of favour for being a portmanteau film when in 1953 such films were in vogue.  It comprises three stories by Ichiyo Higuchi, all dealing with the somewhat miserable fates of young women in a world dominated by men.  The first, The Thirteenth Night, follows Seki, married for seven years with a small son, who returns home to her parents one night refusing to go back to a husband who treats her appallingly and has had numerous affairs.  Her mother is in favour of her staying, but her father talks her into returning for her son’s sake.  Reluctantly, she agrees, and her student brother Inosuke hails her a rickshaw cab.  Disconsolate, she begins the long journey home, but the rickshaw puller is in no hurry.  Asking him to speed up, he suddenly stops and orders her out of the cab.  But then she recognises his voice.  He is Rokunosuke, a childhood friend whose family business has fallen away and who has lost his family and been reduced to pulling a rickshaw in between bouts of drunkenness.  He agrees to take her to where she can get another cab and they discuss the past on the way.

The second story, On the Last Day of the Year, is perhaps the least affecting, following Omine, who works in the establishment of a rather mean woman who is only interested in gaining her husband’s inheritance for her three daughters and disinheriting the admittedly wasteful and arrogant stepson.  Returning to visit her aunt and uncle, Omine is told of their debt and promises she’ll get it from her boss.  But after initially agreeing, the mistress refuses and Omine steals the money from their safe box.  When the mistress opens the box, however, Omine is reprieved when it transpires the stepson has left a note saying he’s taken the entire contents.

Finally, in Troubled Waters, we follow two women.  One, Oriki, is the most popular girl at a liquor parlour cum brothel, and fears for her future when she grows too old.  She meets a client, Asanosuke, and what begins as a platonic relationship develops into love on her part.  Across the alley lives Gen, the man she previously loved, and the other half of the story centres on Gen’s poor cheated wife Ohatsu.

While portmanteau stories have always worked better with an overarching plot device or a connection between the stories, the cumulative effect, while not quite adding up to a masterpiece, is still deeply affecting.  Each of the women is effectively trapped by fate or by family ties and cannot escape.  Entirely studio shot, and mostly set at night, the photography is subtly shaded, rich in shadows, while Imai and Dan’s use of deep focus to distance the characters subliminally, in a manner evoking Mizoguchi’s thirties masterpieces, is exceptional.  Great performances, too, from Sugimura, Awashima, Kuga (in traditional dress for once) and Yamamura.

mw1


The Complete Hitchcock, Bethlehem and The Grand Budapest Hotel on Monday Morning Diary (March 17)

$
0
0

by Sam Juliano

Is that Spring that has been trying to force its way through the chilly air mass?  And what’s with the snow melting away under a rejuvenated sun?  Well, I think we are in a fair enough position now to sign the certificate of death for Winter 2013/14, and look ahead to some very nice things from Mother Nature.  For those living in areas where the dire weather continues to persist I can only offer my best wishes for a soon enough changeover.

The romantic films countdown was given a real shot in the arm this past week with a flurry of completed ballots being sent on to e mail network members.  As of Sunday afternoon a total of fourteen (14) Top 75 lists have been sent on to the members and Voting Tabulator Extraordinaire Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr., who will be enforcing an April 1st deadline for all submissions and changes.  About a dozen films that are anticipated to make the final cut have been “reserved” by several bloggers to write essays for, and further requests to that end will be similarly honored.

That portly man with the trademark profile and distinct English accent has been haunting our dreams over the past several weeks, and this past seven day stretch has been again dominated by his specter with Lucille, Sammy and I overdosing  at the Film Forum, seeing nine (9) more of his films, while taking in two new 2014 releases on Saturday, when Hitch had a day off.  We saw:

Rear Window (1954) *****  (Tuesday) Hitch at Film Forum

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) **** Film Forum

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) **** 1/2 Film Forum

Sobotage (1936)  *** 1/2 (Thursday)      Film Forum

Number Seventeen (1932) ** 1/2   (Thursday)  Film Forum

Psycho (1960) *****   (Thursday)  Film Forum

Vertigo (1958) ***** (Friday)   Film Forum

Mary (1931) *** (German version of ‘Murder’)  ***    Film Forum

Lifeboat (1944) ****       Film Forum

The Grand Budapest Hotel  **** 1/2  (Saturday) Montclair

Bethlehem ****    (Saturday)  Montclair Bow-Tie

Hitchcock’s 1944 LIFEBOAT was the first of his four limited setting films, and the drama all played out on a lifeboat during World War II.  A splendid Tallulah Bankhead leads a cast that includes Walter Slezak, William Bendix and Hume Cronin, and the master’s cameo was perhaps his most creative one of all.  Optimism turns to desperation in this somewhat didactic, but exceedingly entertaining drama- adventure with an obvious propaganda thrust.

VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW and PSYCHO rate among the greatest films of all-time, and seeing all three on the big screen in DCP in the same week is an indescribable treat.  My daughter Melanie joined the three of us for VERTIGO.  In any case, the latest of many viewings over the years of all three films further enhanced the veneration, and it is easy to see why the critics of Sight and Sound named this the greatest film of all-time last year after the six-decade reign of Citizen Kane.  There isn’t much I can say that hasn’t already been said, except to note that VERTIGO is a superlative choice for the Romantic Films countdown, and that all three films are brilliantly shot and contain spectacular scores by Bernard Herrmann that rate among the greatest ever written.  Eagle-eye readers may remember that REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO placed Number 1 and 2 in our 50′s polling of a few years back, and PSYCHO placed Number 2 for the 60′s poll behind only 8 1/2.

http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/hitchcocks-rear-window-and-vertigo-place-no-1-and-no-2-in-best-of-the-1950s-movie-poll-at-witd/

For the first time ever, I have come to the conclusion that Hitch’s 1956 re-make THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH edges out the original film from 1934.  This was a position I had opposed a few years ago at Ed Howard’s Only the Cinema blog, where both he (Ed) and David Ehrenstein stated they felt the re-make was better.  At that time I gave the edge to the earlier film, but after this past Wednesday I have decided otherwise.  Sure the 1934 has Peter Lorre and a buffo shoot-out ending, but the later version has a superlative score by Bernard Herrmann, a far more compelling Albert Hall sequence, both James Stewart and Doris Day in delightful form, and a stronger emotional context and underpinning of humor.  And Robert Burks’ cinematography is great as is the irresistible song “Que Sera Sera” (Whatever will be will be).

SABOTAGE certainly has its moments, and Silvia Sydney and Oscar Homolka are memorable as the owners of a movie house, but this is NOT remotely (as Pauline Kael claims) “possibly the best of Hitch’s English thrillers” but rather a solid, if unremarkable effort.  Hitchcock has called NUMBER SEVENTEEN “a disaster” but it has an interesting style, some humor and a fine use of miniature sets.  It is, however, incomprehensible, and can be considered an experimental work.

The German-language MARY was shot simultaneously with the English language MURDER, and the results of this rarity of rarities is a mixed bag, mainly because it is basically just a scene-by scene replication of an average early thriller.  Somewhat stilted.

I am finally becoming a Wes Anderson fan.  I resisted for a while, and I still can’t warm up to some of his earlier efforts.  But gosh darn, the creative director has turned the corner, and his newest film the irresistible THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL is far more than quirky, possessing as it does a sly intelligence, emotional depth and appealing exotic locale.  And Ralph Fiennes is a marvelous lead as the incorrigible concierge.  The film tramples all over the notion that Anderson is ‘all style over substance’ and makes a worthy follow-up to Moonrise Kingdom.  This is definitely a film to see again, soon after the first viewing.

The tense and emotionally wrenching Israeli-Palistinian drama BETHLEHEM will hold you riveted to its familial themes of loyalty, mistrust and betrayal, while using its settings to excellent effect.

Powerful Israeli film ‘Bethlehem’


The Dupes – 1972, Tewfik Saleh

$
0
0

dupes1

by Allan Fish

(Syria 1972 106m) not on DVD

Aka. Al Makh-du’un

The heartbeat of the earth

d/w  Tewfik Saleh  novel  Ghassan Kanafani  ph  Bahgat Heidar  ed  Farin Dib, Saheb Haddad  m  Solhi El-Wadi

Mohamed Kheir-Halouani (Abou Keïss), Abderrahman Alrahy (Abou Kheizarane), Bazzan Lofti Abou-Gazzala (Assad), Saleh Kholoki (Marouane), Thanaa Debsi (Om Keïss),

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to composing a work like this is to put aside but not entirely dismiss personal taste and familiarity.  Where this becomes most difficult is with regard to foreign classics tailored for home audiences.  The most obvious example is Bollywood, which western audiences can either embrace or shun, but there are others.  Take the often broad comedy employed in Hong Kong action films or the gypsy subculture that forms the heart of several important Yugoslav films from Petrovic to Kusturica.  Then there’s the biggest blind spot of all, African film, a true appreciation of which requires an immersing into the culture, flavour and aroma of what is, to western eyes, the most unknown of continents. 

All these cultures do at least have an identity and a home in those countries.  What, however, of Palestinians, the ultimate modern nomads, thrown out of their own country on a political expedient to cleanse the west of the guilt of its inaction over the Nazi Holocaust.  They’ve barely been touched by the cinema, so watching Tewfik Saleh’s criminally unseen film now seems a matter of historical and cultural necessity, almost irrespective of its cinematic worth, which is not to be underestimated.

Essentially, it’s about three Palestinians who are each seeking a place to call home, or at least take refuge.  The eldest, Abou Keïss had once lived in comfort prior to that fateful day in 1948, but now has lost everything and lives in a shelter.  Assad is a political activist needing to lay low from the authorities.  The youngest, Marouane, is barely 16 and forced to work when his elder brother marries, goes to Kuwait and stops sending money home to his family.  All three decide on Kuwait, but are warned that it’s no better there and they won’t be accepted.  They hire a driver, Abou Kheizarane, to try and smuggle them across the Kuwait border in the tank of a water truck.

Even if one only saw the first and last scenes of The Dupes, you wouldn’t forget it.  It opens with a credit sequence in which a distant figure, a spot on the desert horizon, comes gradually nearer.  In the near foreground we see the skeleton of a man who doubtless died where he fell.  It cannot help but recall the famous introductory shot of Omar Sharif in Lawrence of Arabia, but the comparison between the two is pointed.  David Lean’s Lawrence may have breathed the same desert air, but you never really felt the suffocating heat of the sun in Lean’s film.  It all looked too pretty.  In the rough black and white of Saleh’s film, you feel the consistent need to mop your brow, and feel one step short of seeing a mirage through the desert haze. It’s the nearest the cinema has got to giving the viewer sun-stroke.

Equally powerful is the closing scene – spoilers ahead – which comes after the driver finds the trio have died in the extreme heat of the tank in the time taken to try and get through border control.  In the next shot we see the truck in the distance while in the foreground we notice first a refuse pile and then, cast aside like rubbish in much the same way as the Palestinian people were by the west, the corpses of the three men.

The Dupes is one of the most powerful films to come out of the Arabic speaking world, and it’s hard to escape the irony that Saleh didn’t shoot the film in his native Syria but in Iraq, as if the film, too, was without a place to call home.  In some ways it can be seen as a The Grapes of Wrath for the Levant, with Kuwait the phoney California, the false promise of security and identity.  As one of the unfortunate trio is told, with brutal honesty, “they want you to remain a beggar with a drooping head.”

dupes2


PIER PAOLO PASOLINI’S ARABIAN NIGHTS “The truth lies in many dreams”

$
0
0

arabian-nights-1

 

© 2014 by James Clark

Jep, the erratic protagonist and man-about-town of Paolo Sorrentino’s The Great Beauty (2013), could be described as a man who has experienced a thousand and one Arabian nights. His embrace of “vibrations” does, very markedly, include a rich sense of irony and a strong sense of self-criticism. Not for him an educated playboy’s satisfaction in soaking up the fruits of a liberal historical momentum. During a lull in one of his parties, he sits with his rather glum and confused housekeeper and pronounces, “This wildlife I’m surrounded by…they’re my people…” [I’m stuck with them; and they keep me away from serious literature].

    Nuredin, one of the two main protagonists of Pier Paolo Pasolini’s Arabian Nights (1974) [actually, The Flower of One Thousand and One Nights], is an impoverished illiterate boy who harbors no literary ambitions and gives us in action his definition of “wildlife,” namely, being favored by women, like the slave, Zumurrud, for his “smooth cheeks” and “beauty.” More specifically and compellingly, he gives us a rendition of a bird having won over a mate by seemingly the most reflexive telepathy, only to have her stolen from him by more alert and shrewd members of an aviary strung across the whole expanse of this “Arabia.” His go-getter of a lady-love chooses him for her master in a raucous outdoor marketplace. That the transaction comprises her promptly producing the money for his purchase of her and their rental of “a house [nest] in the district” introduces the arresting stylization of such no-fuss-no-muss breeding exigency into a pulse of human interaction that very definitely poses the issue of one’s having much more to do than breed.

Pasolini, an inveterate theoretician (not to mention his being a novelist and poet of some renown), feels compelled to engage in polemic (against the approach to dynamics chosen by the likes of Sorrentino and a whole battery of modernist auteurs), over and above absorption with a cinematic exploration of sensual phenomena, a hostile stance that in fact can be used here to make headway into the strange brew he was cooking up.

“In neorealism, things are described with a certain detachment, with human warmth, mixed with

irony—characteristics which I do not have. Compared with neorealism, I think I have introduced

a certain realism, but it would be hard to define it exactly…”

What that mission statement hands over to us, with its slight regarding “detachment,” is an abhorrence of the witty as well as intense phenomenon of disinterestedness. Pasolini will, it seems, attempt in his films to disclose a species of sensual wildlife (“a certain realism”) in its candidacy for tipping those scales felt to be in need of realignment. What particularly leaves this such a long shot is an academic, traditionally rationalist stuffiness—which he goes some way, in that passage, toward acknowledging—that cleaves not only to Scholastic Catholicism and Marxism, in a confiningly pedagogical, classical rational format (Pasolini having had a checkered teaching career in the field of linguistics), but a practice of poetry devoted to revival of the obscure and obscurantist Friuli dialect. His being gay might speak to offsetting such orthodoxy. And it might not. But clearly we’re faced with an operative on behalf of precious exclusivity and adamant hostility toward that historical thrust more or less confusedly taking leave of long-standing rationality and its clannish predilection toward dominance, having prevailed since the time of Plato.

arabian-nights-2

Pasolini, then, has a lot to say (in text and film) about the skeptical evils of a market economy. That leaves his position unintentionally under fire by a recent filmic figure who of necessity turns to pseudonym, specifically the moniker, “Heisenberg.” In the course of devising and putting in motion a means of financial stability for his family after his imminent demise from terminal cancer, the protagonist of Vince Gilligan’s version of a thousand and one peculiar nights, namely, the TV series, Breaking Bad (2008-2013), finds himself so accelerated by a career of producing and marketing methamphetamine that he not only becomes an alien within his own family but an alien to himself (his former self as a mild-mannered high school chemistry teacher; and his more recent self as a desperately daring family man). He, in fact, having long ago fumbled an opportunity to become an affluent inventor, becomes, willy-nilly, a researcher into disinterested dynamics, like, presumably a hero or at least a notable irritant to him (a travesty to his rather prissy habits, like intently cutting the crusts [the rough parts] off of his sandwiches], namely, quantum physicist, Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976). (That he’s as handicapped reflectively as he is medically is capsulized by—over and above a rampage of mayhem and murder—his inattentively insisting that that the chemical element, carbon, is the quintessence of primordiality.)

Not to seem to be ganging up on our auteur of the moment (who, were he still alive, would surely find things even less promising, for his “certain realism,” than the prospect he faced years ago while still getting off a sort of Demar Derozan impossible 3-pointer while falling flat on his face), there is a recent film that ranges rather close to the zoological overtures of Arabian Nights, namely, Denis Côté’s  Bestiaire (2011); and it comes away far closer to Heisenberg than carbon. Set in a for-profit zoo, Cote’s work captures humans in close-up—for instance, a drawing class, intent on capturing a deer produced by the concern’s taxidermy department—where the intentness and move from stillness to productive motion give them a wildlife (bird-like) aura. We see the animals in winter quarters, for the most part as physically self-controlled and mysteriously possessed as the artists. After more than an hour of this largely silent interplay we’ve learned something about a kinship between the two orders of sentience. This cinematic gift comes wrapped in the grasp of present-day entertainment and gainful employment, installing into the proceedings an easily-ignored creative suspense.

Cutting marvellously across the grain of a presumably (for all of the on-location Horn of Africa/ Middle East sands, villages, fortresses and palaces) distant antiquity engulfing us in Pasolini’s seeming perversity, we have a couple of motifs to consider at the outset of dealing with a film sorely tempting the innovative instincts of its audience to bid it good riddance. Nuredin having produced a living space as quickly, say, as a nest gets built, it’s time for filling it up; and Zumurrud (his senior by several years) steers him to bed and removes his underpants. This latter phenomenon is more than a bit of an eye-catcher to us. First of all, the undergarment consists of two parts. The first is a diaper-like (he’s not that young!) wrap. The second is a sort of athletic support, and the waist band of the jockstrap resembles long, slender ears, with the pouch a donkey’s head. Like Bresson’s Marie bedecking her sweet young pet with floral favors, Zumurrud introduces the confused child to intimate ways of affection (“Not there, Silly!”) which he will never forget. Before the interactive naïveté of the Silly causes them to be torn away from one another, he returns from a botched errand to find her perched on the top of a bunk bed, reading, bringing to mind a mother bird warming up some eggs. Soon we are, by this action, brought into the second incongruous (?) bolt from another galaxy. “What are you reading?” the boy asks. As she proceeds to satisfy the youngster’s curiosity, by revealing to him (and us) a tale that—after the dusty streets and shadowy nest—pops with the crisp freshness of its oasis setting, we are doubly transported inasmuch as we know ourselves to be also immersed in Giuliana’s story (“The Girl on the Beach”) to her wayward son, in Antonioni’s Red Desert (1964). In line with the rejoinder to subtle feelings represented by Nuredin’s amateur but Pasolini-protégé penis, the Antonioni template of an elusive tall ship and a beautiful voice whose singing is “Everybody… everything…” becomes polluted by a gorgeous woman—far more attractive than the angular and masculine Zumurrud—flirting with a randy little senior who resembles a monkey and sighs, “My eyes saw her, to my misfortune.” Being a power-figure at the oasis, he goes on to commission the local poets to prove that “poets can speak of things they have not seen” [not, then, about Antonioni’s uncanny but about not being at the scene of the crime]. For good measure, he discharges a load of possessive energy—“What agony it was to leave you there… The gazelle who held me captive…”

On one hand we have what looks like the birth pangs of Bollywood by someone born to be obsolete. On the other hand, we have a thin thread of cognizance that “wildlife” and “realism” has been elicited from out of a sophisticated (and quite widely shared) passion for the problematical. As we go forward with our probe of this exceedingly odd effort, it is the overweening crudity being spilled against those film treasures—which have only gained in urgency as the twentieth century has run out –which becomes the site to be closely monitored. Though anchoring the narrative, the affairs of Nuredin and Zumurrud do not occupy the lion’s share of the chaos. On the female protagonist’s being plucked out of her nest by a wily, blue-eyed Christian hawk and deposited in the large nest of a persistent breeder whom she had spurned at the auction in the market, the juvenile (formerly lucky) beloved races about the dusty streets, repeatedly braying, “Zumurrud!” He’s trailed and mocked, as Balthazar was, by a gang of sadistic boys—their violence here reduced to routine thrill-seeking from out of an impoverishment of stimulation (no mopeds and no cool black leather for these ragamuffins). He ends up bawling his eyes out and being assisted in his search by a plump hen. “What’s your name, handsome lad and why are you crying?” With no self-control at all here, he blurts out, “I’ve lost my slave!” (But resolved, hard-won poise was the heart of those other films.) The lady, with both ulterior motives and a domicile within a territory of affection, promises, “I’ll find your Zumurrud [and she does], and the family man blubbers, “Thank you!” After servicing the hen, he falls asleep in the process of Zumurrud’s escape, once again losing her to a kind of vulture, and once again he tearfully flaps about the alleyways and outskirts (post-War Rome and its waifs coming to mind) where another mob of urchins gleefully pelts him with stones. The confrontation, thus framed, between this perpetually stunned weakling (with the lively vibrations) and the stoic donkey exerting a force here that is difficult to fathom (Pasolini did say, “it would be hard to define it exactly…”) is discreetly maintained within the film’s opening passage, by flashes (within the vicinity of their romantic crisis that threatens to bore us to death): of the donkey configuration of a greyish tent housing a randy devotee of young men; the migration of a tribe of nomads the possessions of which of which include many donkeys; and a boy with a donkey enticed by the leader of  the convoy to join them and unwittingly participate in a bet between him and a lady (who has similarly rounded up a girl) as to proving that “the one who falls in love is the less beautiful, for the plain love the beautiful.” This sense of “love,” provocative to the point of impudence—in conjunction with the compellingly comprehensive situation of Balthazar—guides us, I think, toward the reflective drive of a movie that appears to equate reflection with the crudest zone of appetite.

Zumurrud tricks her way out of that second imprisonment and, riding from out of the desert on a white charger, enters an aerie-like, dazzlingly decorated fortress, where she is immediately proclaimed to be the new king/eagle (her camouflage coverings complementing her already mannish flintiness). There she is able to pick off her two assailants happening by, one by one. And there we’ll leave her, to take up the hour-long, central, episodic kaleidoscope which telescopes a concern that hinges upon Giuliana’s reverie in (futile) hopes of rendering her son less vicious than he is. The crude but not particularly vicious Nuredin, while begging on a dusty street, is picked up and taken home by a woman who proceeds to read to him a tale about an oasis where a pigeon has been caught in a hunter’s trap. A white dove frees him, but she’s captured in doing so. The pigeon flies away, leaving her to die. This scene is arresting for its incisive cinematography and pacing within a general hail of deadened, cluttered composition, dispiriting clouds of dust and atrophied camera deployment. It is, correspondingly, arresting for circulating a conundrum of courage and its concomitants of love and loyalty. I think most of us will have been ready to conclude that the ill-mannered giggle-and-sob-fest would never relent. But here we have something to go on. Cogent courage and love having been expunged from human action by this semiotic intervention, there emerges here a tempering of its vandalism, its pollution (Salo is far from Pasolini’s only sickening movie), which becomes the subject of any analysis wanting to measure and engage the work’s contribution.

arabian-nights-3

From here on in we are given leave to regard the narrative’s naive exotica as something less than a multicultural goldmine (quite a step for invention involving more anal, orthodox confinement than Houdini ever had to squirm out of). From the portal of the most recent story teller’s painting of deer and a hunter in a forest (Pasolini heavily counts upon the constrictedness of painting and literature to move his screenplay along, as against kinetic possibilities of the players’ sensibility and the camera), we encounter a deer hunter who interrupts his pursuit in order to get to the bottom of a young man sitting in unfertile terrain, bawling his eyes out, and complaining to be “a person who is separated from his loved ones…” The story he tells closely mirrors that of Nuredin and Zumurrud, but now we are able to bring to bear the perfidy of the pigeon, in order to zero in on the cowardice of the lusty beast. Aziz, the now no longer acceptable cry-baby, tells of getting distracted by a pretty girl other than his bride-to-be on their wedding day (he was a bird just passing by her lonely nest on a balcony). He had been trailed by one of those ubiquitous gangs of brats looking for diversion; but now the taunt speaks straight to his sissiness—“You smell like a flower, Aziz!” The near-bride, who puts aside her own priorities to facilitate his sudden change of plans, dies of a broken heart (something the first look at the zoo would not have anticipated happening); and the new hot chick, suddenly becoming a feminist avenging angel (perhaps not so suddenly, as she had had to put up with his less than couth friskiness, brought to a head by an episode of his amusedly reaming her with an arrow involving an arrowhead in the form of a penis), takes umbrage with his cavalier mistreatment of his former squeeze. “I don’t see you mourning seriously.” It dawning upon her that there was another woman, she becomes a vehicle of pristine rectitude, a sort of pan-human force of equilibrium as meting out tough love toward laggards. She is, after “waiting a year without moving” (motion, in fact, checkmated at every turn by our calculating guide), ready to kill him (in the meantime he finds another mate and they have a child, of course); but the victim/bride’s words of (disinterested) wisdom, “Fidelity is good. So is infidelity,” softens the resentment of the voice of justice, so far as to result in her merely rounding up a gang of minions and having him castrated (that little couplet being a meditative plus, but not sufficiently efficacious on the front lines). The assertive arbiter of grace proves not to be significantly more moved by love than he is—“I don’t want you, but I won’t let her [the mother bird] have you either.” (The grave of the first bride, in its raw, rocky finality, punctuates the brutal materiality being heaped upon us here.) Thus the castration scene is a reprise of Nuredin and his hood. “Come, women,” the oracular harridan commands, and a large flock of shrieking birds of prey descend on him, first beating him and then pulling off his penis at the end of a rope. Aziz bawls, “What could I do now? I have become like a girl!” a bit of inference now within range of being challenged for an overly narrow sense of sufficiency.

Emphasizing the strictures this once-seeming free-for-all has chosen to put to its primitives (the ambitious designs of its venerable palaces and the landscape-painting delicacy and dazzlement of its natural locales also coming into critical play now), we are carried, from the tribulations of Aziz, to his conducting the hunter/listener to a princess who has been so moved by the betrayal of the dove that she will have nothing to do with men. Within that cinematic progression we have a sidebar (more literary-conceptual, in its convolutions, than cinematically mobile) of the hunter/suitor’s hireling spelling out his tale of cowardice. To the sharp peal of a Bach organ fugue (one of many incongruities cueing up the pressure cooker of fidelity/infidelity), a caravan is ambushed and all of the travellers are killed, all but one, actually, the storyteller, who plays dead (a bird’s trick) and smears a colleague’s blood over his face to make his ruse more convincing. He makes his way to a city built into the side of a mountain (an image evoking steadfastness) and finds employment as a wood cutter. (“I can write, do sums. I know science and literature.”/ “That’s not worth anything here. Money is all people understand.”) At an oasis he comes across a panel in the sand, pulls it open, goes down the cavity and finds a beautiful girl (another king’s daughter) trapped there by “a demon.” The woodsman and she soon set about to mating and he declares, like a plucky bird, “You must be mine alone. I’ll take you away from here.” He summons the red-topped bounder (perhaps a woodpecker at heart, being fluent with hidden pockets driven into matter); but, on beholding the in fact rather sad-sack spook (perhaps a factor of the [difficult] rally of love), the (over-) cautious survivor chooses flight over fight, is pursued by that nemesis of failings in integrity (which he supposes to be “fate”) and is faced with the girl as well. The voice of fate asks her, “Here’s your lover. Kill him and spare yourself.” She refuses to kill him. When given the same choice, the coward pulls himself together, in light of her bountiful equilibrium (consider, in light of this formulaic cookery, the ebb and flow of cogent tang, in Breaking Bad). He refuses to escape under those conditions, and this solidarity plunges the now-diminished source of savagery to chop off her limbs (consider the knife and axe-wielding Mexican nemeses being laid low by a flawed cop recovering a baseline of courage in that surprisingly edifying small-screen trip through panoramic American car-country), while the escape-artist feebly watches. “You’ve made love with your eyes,” the predator reminds them, and in so doing keeps us up to speed with the status of love being displayed. The amputee continues to look in an affectionate way toward the failure. In a repeat of the reasoning of the low-blow feminist, the demon pronounces a sentence upon the runaway—“I won’t kill you. But you won’t go unpunished… Become what your nature craves to be.” That is to say, he takes on the form of a monkey, nearly, but yet so far from, a real human.

Such eventuation tears into the candidacy of the sensual impulses so firmly established at the outset. The monkey (not very unlike Nuredin) is treated like a brilliant eccentric by the locals; he’s promoted, by the king, to be granted transformative love by his men-hating daughter (who obeys and then self-immolates), and, now a shaken misadventurer in fancy clothes, he trades his silks for a peasant’s robes and leaves town. Details of this turnaround importantly inject into the denouement of this strategic retreat the kind of cultivation of sensuous integrity seen to be essential. On the way back to the base where he has taken up wood chopping, the weak literate hidden within a monkey’s body commits some high-sounding sentiments to paper—“Let destiny take its course. Be not happy or sad about anything. But, if you open the inkwell of power and grace, ensure that your ink flows with liberality and generosity.” This stage of the problematical vein hits the film’s giddy momentum like a fire roaring through a circus tent during a children’s matinee. The king asks the former monkey, “Why are you determined to relinquish all for wisdom?” He receives the reply as if it were a foreign language. “Because of destiny which governs all of human life.” (The task of the viewer here is to factor in all that has transpired in order to comprehend that this type of “destiny” is about courage and a very strange creative grace, as distinct from a predestined puppet show.)

The concluding movement demonstrates that the integrity in the air now is a dismayingly elusive but not impossible matter. “The truth lies in many dreams,” was another king’s head’s up to a daughter confronted by the steadfast hunter, and determined to burn rather than bend. She, remarkably, relents and a poised and warm union is accomplished. Before this singularity, there is the now familiar treadmill. The scene shifts to the “India” [Nepal, actually] to which the massacred caravan was heading,; to another ambush (this time at sea); to another trap door in the sands (this time a sparkling beach); to another vow of freeing and protecting a regal prisoner (this time a prince); and to the hunter’s murdering the boy, en route to the (too-good-to-be-true?) happy wedding. Then it is time for Nuredin to romp with some young chicks in a bath (they calling his penis a pigeon and he calling himself, “… the donkey that grazes in perfumed meadow grasses, eats peeled, sweet pomegranates and spends the night in the Inn of Good Food.” Crying, “Zumurrud!” the donkey gets back to acting like a jackass, gets conducted to her by a lion (a vehicle of boldness far beyond his own capacities); and a life of clandestine (furtively birdlike) love begins, in the sanctuary of yet another “king.” The quality of this love is now heavily clouded, as captured by the irony of Nuredin’s final declaration: “What a night! God has made no other like this. It’s beginning was bitter, but how sweet is the end!”

Pasolini turned to filmmaking during the era of initial cinematic exploration of “wildlife” far beyond the wildest dreams of reflection hitherto, by explorers like Bresson and Antonioni. The practitioners of this art have, since then, been numerous and varied. But the distinguishing quality of such projects as The Great Beauty has remained, through the decades of our contemporary era, a close assimilation of the complex nuances of dynamics (a dilemmatic subject wonderfully apt for disclosure in movies). More specifically, the sophistication of the incisiveness at issue pertains to sensual/physical energies entailing the mobilization of that disinterestedness having exposed itself to such a wallop of death-dealing spaciousness as to render action going forward to be aptly self-effacing.

There is, I believe, about Pasolini’s saturating his sagas with reckless, desperate naifs, an assumption that those attending to cognitive skills on behalf of material well-being (skills implying global interaction) could never effectively manage the sensual exigencies (including apt modesty, disinterestedness, all the time in the world) essential for countering a planet of apes. He would come by this oversight along lines of ideological prejudice and first-hand experience of the malignancy of urban intellectuals. Arabian Nights presumes, if not to trump two of the great filmic sophisticates, namely, Bresson and Antonioni, to expose, in light of their tortured creations, a way toward historical integrity more commensurate to the reality (that “certain realism”) of the population. The thrust of film art has found its way to a full deck by which to generate changes irrespective of the lowest common denominator. Pasolini fascinatingly moots an imperative of the reprehensible (an original sin?), the failure to thrive, and a civilization based upon miracles, sentimental melodrama, and elitist coercion.


Under the Skin – Jonathan Glazer’s radical masterpiece reimagines the entire medium

$
0
0

 

Scarlett Johansson Under the Skin

by Allan Fish

(UK 2013 108m) DVD1/2

The girl who fell to earth

Nick Wechsler, James Wilson  d  Jonathan Glazer  w  Jonathan Glazer, Walter Campbell  novel  Michel Faber  ph  Daniel Landin  ed  Paul Watts  m  Mica Levi  art  Chris Oddy

Scarlett Johansson (Laura), Paul Brannigan (Andrew), Jessica Mance (alien), Krystof Hádek (swimmer), Scott Dymond, Michael Moreland,

After watching Under the Skin Mark Cousins tweeted “if movies hadn’t evolved out of other art forms, like the novel or theatre, what would they have looked like?  Like Under the Skin.”  Ne’er a truer word was tweeted, and yet it’s a statement that also gets to the heart of why the film was always going to be so divisive.  Many film writers, critics and commentators and the vast majority of audiences are set in their ways.  They like their films to have a linear narrative.  They can jump forward and back in time, so long as they explain everything by the end credits.  Under the Skin is a film that is happy to explain nothing.  It revels in its ambiguity.  To appreciate it one has to take a quantum leap, not to wonder what will happen next but to wonder what we will see next. 

Ostensibly it’s about an alien in the disguise of a young woman, soullessly going round Glasgow and its surrounding environs in a white van picking up stray male passers -by and offering them a lift that will be their last.  We are given some idea about what happens to them, but even that is left opaque.  It’s primarily about her wanderings, and after a while she ditches the van and takes to foot and, as she does so, she grows ever more introspective, barely saying a word.

What it’s really about, though, is the breaking down of barriers, the shifting of parameters, in a way that borders on cinematic re-education.  This is transcendent cinema of a type so rare as to make it seem like a solitary beacon shining out through a sea of sewage.  Or a dim white dot, coming ever so slowly out of a black void, such as we see at the opening.  It’s a bleak, brutal existence, with Johansson’s alien at first seeming like an angel of death but transforming, rather like the doomed replicants in Blade Runner, into something quite touching.  The pick-ups may be doomed, but they experience a sort of nirvana, where the basic touchstones of reality as we know it are ripped apart and everything around them dissolves into a pool of black emptiness where they are seemingly left hanging like flies put aside by a spider to be eaten later.

Glazer’s singularity of vision owes something to Nicolas Roeg, naturally, but also to Kubrick, with individual shots recalling such diverse luminaries as Lav Diaz and even Roy Andersson.  It’s splendidly shot in grimy hues by Daniel Landin and scored, if that’s the right word, by Mica Levi, in a way that recalls Jonny Greenwood’s work on There Will be Blood.  Yet it’s the star that provides the soul and Johansson is extraordinary.  Much has been said at her courage in taking on a role in which she’s not only divested of her clothes – don’t get excited, there’s nothing sexy about any scene in Under the Skin – but all the trappings of Hollywood fame.  This is more than a mere performance; it’s a complete surrendering to a director’s vision.  Glazer had been a decade waiting to get the film made and his star, too, had been in the doldrums.  Reduced quite literally to the level of comic book sex icon, directors forgot to utilise her greatest attribute, the attribute that once spellbound us abandoned in Japan and reflected through Vermeer’s light plays; her uncanny sense of observance.  (Without it she’d not have been able to walk about on the streets of Glasgow incognito during the shoot.)  Forget the unanswered questions, revel in the visual and tonal texture, then briefly imagine cinema as it might have been.  But before you get too optimistic, remember Glazer took ten years to get Under the Skin out in the world, while Johansson has three upcoming films playing Marvel’s Black Widow, like cinematic Hail Marys as penance for countenancing art.  Be under no illusion who the real black widow is, though; it’s from this quite impossible film, emerging as if defying the laws of physics, from a black hole, before retreating into the matterless void.

uts 2


‘The Tenor’ book signing in Nyack; Nemesys encore at Harvest Bistro; Jodorowsky’s Dune and The Complete Hitchcock on Monday Morning Diary (March 24)

$
0
0

Screen grab from ‘The Birds’

by Sam Juliano

Spring is now official, and the weather has certainly risen to the occasion over the last several days, at least in the NYC metropolitan area.  However some snow is now predicted for mid-week, and once again temperatures will drop into the 30′s.

Sixteen (16) ballots have been cast so far for the romantic countdown, and the April 1st deadline for further submissions is fast approaching.  The actual countdown will commence around May 1st, with essays to post every Monday through Friday.

Sammy and I were busy all week with The Complete Hitchcock Festival at the Film Forum.  Lucille attended most of the screenings as well.  A big event was held on Friday evening at 6:30 P.M. at the Nyack Public Library on Broadway in Nyack, New York, where author Peter Danish offered up readings from his new book The Tenor, and spotlighted a soprano and tenor from a local opera company to sing two arias vital to the book’s narrative.  The first was the beloved tenor aria “Una Furtiva Lagrima” from L’Elisir d’Amore.  Danish employed a slide show on some of the novel’s World War II era settings and signed copies of the book afterwards.  The entire family attended the presentation.  That same night we drove back down to Closter, New Jersey for an encore of the rock group Nemesys at the Harvest Bistro.  60′s and 70′s rock standards were performed by the three member band.  The kids were absolutely thrilled with the show.

The rest of the week was all that portly gentleman known for his cameos and a documentary on Alejandro’s unmade DUNE, which also played at the Film Forum.  We saw eleven (11) Hitchcock films and the DUNE documentary.  The Hitchcock Festival has only a few days left, before the two-week Truffaut Festival commences.

Foreign Correspondent (1940) **** 1/2 (Monday)   Film Forum

Stage Fright (1950)  *** 1/2   (Monday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Torn Curtain * (1966)       (Tuesday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Secret Agent (1936)  *** 1/2  (Wednesday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Young and Innocent (1937) **** (Wednesday) Hitch at Film Forum

White Shadow (1923) ***    (Thursday) Hitch at Film Forum

Marnie (1964)  ****      (Thursday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) ***** (Friday afternoon)  Film Forum

The Birds (1963) *****     (Saturday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Suspicion (1941)  ****      (Sunday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Spellbound (1945)  **** 1/2 (Sunday)  Hitch at Film Forum

Jodorowsky’s ‘Dune’  ****  (Sunday)  Film Forum

On a number of occasions Hitchcock identified the small town Americana drama, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, penned by Thornton Wilder as the work he thought was his best, and certainly this slowly-building atmospheric film that focuses on the ‘Merry Widow murderer’, played by Joseph Cotten brilliantly examines what is normal and what is abnormal in a seemingly ordinary California town.  Teresa Wright gives a spirited performance as the young woman who maintains a telepathic bond with Cotten’s menacing character.

The cop-out ending of 1941′s SUSPICION with Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine takes away from an otherwise brooding thrilled that admirably builds suspense and the romantic context.  Fontaine is fabulous in her Oscar winning role, and the film is handsome and well-mounted with a lush score by Franz Waxman.

TORN CURTAIN makes a fair stab as Hitchcock’s worst film ever, though there are a few others that could beat it to that dubious prize.  The whole premise and execution is lame, and both Paul Newman as a nuclear scientist-defector and Julie Andrews who follows him along, have never been so undistinguished.  This was the film that brought about the permanent tragic break between Hitch and Bernard Herrmann.

THE BIRDS was once seen as mediocre at the time of its release, but now is rightly regarded as one of Hitchcock’s masterpieces.  Indeed the esteemed critic David Thompson wrote “THE BIRDS is Hitchcock’s last flawless film.”  Tippi Hedren as the ravishing blonde grows on you, as does the film’s enveloping tension.  There’s a certain Christian theme running through the film which is based on a short story by Daphne du Maurier, and the famed set pieces have become part of the popular culture.  The Bodega Bay setting is alluring and the scenes in the pet shop with the older bird loving woman are a hoot.  The DCP print on display at the Film Forum was spectacular.

Paul Kael called SPELLBOUND a “disaster” but the 1945 romance thriller about dreams and psychiatry has gained in stature over the years, and now is considered a masterpiece by some Hitchcock aficionados.   The Salvador Dali dream sequence is a classic and Ben Hecht’s screenplay is riveting, even if the film at times seems silly and dated.  Miklos Rozsa’s Oscar winning score is one of the most celebrated of all-time.  Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck star, and are madly in love in a film with its share of Freudian symbolism.

MARNIE is an oft-fascinating psychological melodrama about a disturbed and emotionally frigid kleptomaniac who suppresses a violent episode from her childhood.  Hedren is superb in her own favorite of her two roles for Hitchcock, and Sean Connery does a fine job as the man who falls for her despite all the baggage.  Great DCP print.

The pristine 35 mm print for STAGE FRIGHT was one of the very best of the festival (I believe we have seen 29 films so far over three-and-a-half weeks, so that is quite a contention I would think) I found the film neither great nor forgettable, though in the end I was sufficiently engaged to count the film as a somewhat overlooked work that was produced during the period Hitch was at the peak of his artistic powers. The film clearly enough lacked the psychological complexity of REBECCA before it and STRANGERS ON A TRAIN after it and lacked the moral complexity of NOTORIOUS, released four years before it, or the great films of the 50′s that were just on the horizon. The film also lacks the famed set pieces in films like SABOTEUR and LIFEBOAT, but of course that was never it’s aim. No doubt these comparisons always held the appreciation for STAGE FRIGHT as guarded. Indeed a good number of critics have long contended the film is plodding and conceptually awkward. I saw the biggest problem the wooden performance of Richard Todd in that vital lead role. Marlene Dietrich was fine, and Jane Wyman (and Alistair Sim and Joyce Grefel in support) even better. Over the years there have been many complaints lodged against the deceptive flashback, but this bothers modern day audiences who by now are familiar and comfortable with such duplicity. Hitch returned to the theatrical world of MURDER (MARY in the simultaneously-filmed German version) for a solid drama that holds your attention up until the shocking finale.

YOUNG AND INNOCENT contains a terrific pan show atop a dance floor, and an exceedingly entertaining search for the murderer.  The film would surely rate among the most underrated of Hitch’s early thrillers.

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT has propaganda to spare, but it’s also deliriously entertaining, well-plotted and filled with many unforgettable scenes.  SECRET AGENT features a charismatic Peter Lorre in a very uncharacteristic role, and John Gielgud, but it is an uneven work that falls as third tier Hitch.

ALEJANDRO JODOROWSKY’S DUNE is a fascinating and oddly moving account of a film that never got made, and could have in the word’s of it’s celebrated would-be creator “changed the world.”  The interviews with those involved (including the 84 year-old director and his son) and terrific story boards designs and sketches and a history of the director’s rise to prominence help to frame this subversive vision is compelling and persuasive terms.  First-rate documentary.

Sam with author Pete Danish at Nyack Library book reading and signing on Friday night.


As I Was Moving Ahead I Occasionally Saw Brief Glimpses of Beauty – 2000, Jonas Mekas

$
0
0

aiwma 1

by Allan Fish

(USA 2000 300m) DVD2 (France only)

A little fragment of paradise

p Jonas Mekas d/w Jonas Mekas ph/ed Jonas Mekas m Auguste Varkalis

narrated by Jonas Mekas

There’s a scene in Stephen Poliakoff’s masterful Shooting the Past when Emilia Fox’s Spig and Blake Ritson’s Nick arrive at Timothy Spall’s Oswald’s flat. Oswald is in a coma after a suicide attempt, but not before letting his old colleagues know that he’s made a discovery potentially vital to their staying in business. As Spig and Nick arrive, though, they realise they’re faced with a decision. There’s so much stuff in Oswald’s flat that they’ll never get through it all in the time left to them. So they have a toss of the coin decision to make; do they take the material from one side of the room or the other.

That was 1999, and around that time one can imagine Jonas Mekas making a similar sort of decision. He tells us about it in his opening narration. “I have never been able to figure out where my life begins and where it ends”, he begins. “I have never, never been able to figure it all out. What it’s all about. What it all means. So when I began now to put all these rolls of film together, to string them together, the first idea was to keep them chronological, but then I gave up and just began splicing them together by chance, the way that I found them on the shelf.”

What we’re left is five hours of home movies, the majority silent, of Mekas and his friends and family in New York since the early seventies. Mekas, one of the titans of the American experimental cinema, could count among his friends Ken Jacobs, Hollis Frampton, Robert Frank, Stan Brakhage and Jack Smith, key figures in the underground movement, and several can be seen or heard in Mekas’ film. But also numerous trips to Cape Cod, summers in Central Park, deep winter snows, weddings, births, christenings, parties, gatherings, Catholic saint day parades, holidays and an Eclipse seen from Central Park. It’s not all New York; he throws in clips from St Paul and even trips abroad, to Rome, Cremona, Provence and Paris. And enough footage of cats, both pets and those met on their journeys, to make Chris Marker smile.

One could call the length self-indulgent, but in the end the length seems rather irrelevant, for the same viewers would find it just as self-indulgent and pointless at ten minutes as they would at 300. Mekas even plays with this in having captions pop up as the rolls of film change and on a few occasions it just reads “nothing happens in this film.” As we don’t know the people in these films we don’t have a direct emotional connection, but by the end one recognises faces at different ages, at different points in their life. It’s both distancing and entrancing, and it was only by the last hour or so of the film that I thought of another TV drama, In a Land of Plenty. In the last episode of that most neglected of BBC masterworks, a little girl has gone mute after the tragic and horrifying death of her mother. To try and make sense of his own sense of loss and to make a breakthrough with the girl, her father explains to her all about his family’s past through dozens of photographs taken by himself during his life. Mekas tries something similar in his film, trying to see if, by randomly splicing these rolls of films together he could create a sense of meaning. It poses the question as to whether randomness is itself order, whether a sense of rhythm and meaning can be found in such a way. That has to be left to the individual viewer and many will be turned off by it and won’t make it to the end. But for those with patience, As I Was Moving is a deeply personal experience of the type too rare in film. As I ejected the DVD, I kept hearing Lennon & McCartney’s ‘In My Life’ in my head, and not without reason, for the song and film have the same heartbeat. And if you do make it to the later chapters, you’ll see a shot of lower Manhattan from across the Hudson on Liberty Island and the prominent then freshly constructed twin towers. When premiered at the London film festival, they were there, but by the time it premiered in New York they weren’t.

aiwma 2



Fruit of Paradise – 1970, Vera Chytilova

$
0
0

fruit 1

by Allan Fish

(Czechoslovakia 1970 99m) DVD1

Aka. Ovoce stromu rajských jíme

Ye shall surely not die

p Pavel Juracek, Jaroslav Kucera, Bronka Ricquier d Vera Chytilova w Ester Krumbachová, Vera Chytilova ph Jaroslav Kucera ed Miroslav Hajek m Zdenek Liska art Vladimir Labsky

Jitka Novakova (Eve), Karel Novak (Joseph), Jan Schmid (Robert), Julius Albert,

When Vera Chytilova died earlier this year film, enthusiasts, writers and critics tweeted about the influence she had on feminist cinema. Her film Daisies was trending, but there was no mention of any of her other works. She made seventeen fictional feature films and yet most people have only seen one. Is there any other director in history of film to be remembered for just one film out of so many? Her gender undoubtedly had to have played a factor, but even then, were the feminist readings accurate? Daisies never seemed a particularly feminist work to these eyes, but rather an anarchic essay, a petrol bomb in the face of the establishment, like its two female protagonists were urinating on the desks of those in authority.

Examining her other work isn’t easy. There were periods where she didn’t work, either banned by the authorities or lacking motivation. I’ve only been able to track down three for viewing aside from Daisies. Panelstory has its moments but the sense of devilry and anarchy had dissipated as she turned 50. Her debut feature, Something Else, was certainly something else, but it still felt like a work in progress, sketches for something to follow. Then there’s Fruit of Paradise, a film that is effectively two films. The first 10 minutes or so feels like a Stan Brakhage or Carolee Schneemann experimental work, with the Garden of Eden a kaleidoscope of psychedelic topiary and Adam and Eve wandering about naked and occasionally standing like statues against trees. Portions of Genesis are read out to the inimitable Gothic chanting on the great Zdenek Liska’s score (instantly recognisable as the work of the same composer as Marketa Lazarová).

What follows after is more bizarre still. A free, formless and radical reimagining of the Fall of Man allegory set in present day. Eve eats of the fruit of what we assume to be the Tree of Knowledge, wanders off and is almost peed on by the equivalent of the serpent. Characters are buried in the sand for no reason. The devil, if indeed he really is the devil, rides a bicycle along the sands. I’d say nothing is what it seems, if I thought it really seemed anything in particular or was intended to be.

It’s a maddening work, as Daisies can be in the wrong mood. Moments are insane for the sake of being mad. It probably goes on a couple of reels too long. As it plays one cannot help but think of the work of other cinematic surrealists; maybe not Buñuel so much, but certainly Jakubisko, Arrabal and Jodorowsky. The desert setting certainly has something to do with it – so many great surrealist films feature the desert – but it’s the inherent subversiveness that runs through every frame that keeps one entranced; it’s impossible to see what’s coming next. Whatever one thinks of Chytilova’s film, it’s hard to imagine any film lover worth their salt becoming bored by it. It’s like the Genesis/Sade shot by the inmates of a modern Charenton on day release. It features adults playing kids playing adults in a cinematic sandpit. You could call it a Biblical allegory, but one senses Chytilova would be disgusted, for it’s most definitely and defiantly a political film, as well as a snapshot of the time and place, or the summer of love, of Woodstock, of the fading memory of the Prague Spring and of the moon landing. Her first film in colour, it may suffer from the same poor Eastmancolor stock that blighted several Czech classics of the period, but despite the muddiness of the prints, it’s still one of the most visually vibrant films of the turn of the seventies, ripe for colour analysis by mise-en-scène students. Without Chytilova, try and imagine Céline et Julie, Valerie and Her Week of Wonders or The Asthenic Syndrome. Only one Chytilova was never going to be enough, so I had to make room for Fruit of Paradise.

fruit 2


The Lunchbox, Noah, The Complete Hitchcock and Tout Truffaut on Monday Morning Diary (March 31)

$
0
0

Iconic final freeze shot of Francois Truffaut masterpiece “The 400 Blows”

 

by Sam Juliano

More moderate temperatures have descended on the metropolitan area as some rain has cascaded on the region as if to portend what could be in store for April, traditionally the wettest month of the year.  While I wouldn’t quite recommend putting those winter coats in mothballs just yet, it does appear that Father Winter has nearly gone into hibernation.  These benign observations however, may serve as a jinx, so readers are advised to roundly reject them.  Baseball fans are no doubt in their own kind of nirvana as the season is set to commence this week.  Yours Truly of course is a lifelong Yankees rooter, and has reason to be optimistic this year in view of the spate of new acquisitions.

The romantic countdown ballot phase is nearly over with any and all ballots still outstanding due no later than tomorrow evening (April 1st) by 11:00 P.M.  I believe we have received in the neighborhood of 22 or 23 ballots, and may well get a few more before the deadline.  Voting Tabulator Extraordinaire Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr. will probably have the final Top 75 results ready for the inner group of people who cast ballots or were privy to the constantly updating e mail chain a few days later, or by the end of the week.  Readers of course will learn the results peace meal during the course of a three to four month Monday to Friday essay presentation that will launch on Thursday,  May 1st.  Some titles have been reserved by specific writers, but all this is tentative as some of these films may not even make the final cut, while others may draw multiple statements of interest. Latest report from Angelo:   As of this morning 25 ballots have been cast!

Locally the five-week ‘Complete Hitchcock’ Festival at the Film Forum has ended, with the ‘Tout Truffaut’ two week run officially starting.  Lucille, Sammy, Danny and I were busy taking in the various screenings and events of the week in what was surely one of the more active weeks in quite a while.  When I have time I will discuss the entire festival in a separate post.  I managed to see 40 of the 53 films screened over four and a half weeks, though I have already seen the ones I didn’t watch in the festival.

Topaz          ***       (Monday night)    Hitch at Film Forum

The Trouble with Harry (1955) **** (Tuesday) Film Forum

Family Plot (1976) *** 1/2  (Tuesday) Film Forum

The Manxman *** 1/2  (Thursday)  Film Forum

Frenzy (1972) **** 1/2 (Thursday)  Film Forum

The 400 Blows (1959) ***** (Sunday)  Truffaut at Film Forum

The Lunchbox    ****   (Friday)  Montclair Bow-Tie Cinemas

Noah  *** 1/2    (Saturday)  Ridgefield Park Starplex

Francois Truffaut’s THE 400 BLOWS is one of the supreme achievements of the French New Wave, and it remains poetic and deeply moving in its simplicity and universal truth.  The final freeze frame shot is one of the cinema’s most celebrated and unforgettable moments, and as the boy Antoine Doniel, Jean-Pierre Leaud delivers one of the landmark children’s performances of all-time as Truffaut’s alter-ego, and the film is shot in magnificent black and white around the Eiffel Tower and contains a melancholic bittersweet score that once heard is ingrained in the mind.  A definitive study of the misunderstood child, and early juvenile delinquency.

Hitchcock’s THE MANXMAN features a love triangle and the tragic consequences of some mistakenly applied news.  I like the film better after seeing it on the big screen than I have in the past, though I acknowledge the performances are uneven.  Still, Hitchcock’s style is in full flourish portending the greatness ahead and the sometimes stilted melodrama still packs and emotional wallop.

FRENZY is thought by many to be Hitchcock’s last exceptional film.  It contains a hefty dose of black humor and a different take on the Jack the Ripper theme.  A police inspector and his dotty wife provide the film’s laughs in a dining room in their home.   THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY contains plenty of laughs and some stunning color cinematography.  FAMILY PLOT is Hitch’s final film, and while not remotely among his best, is better than the critics of the day thought of it.  Noteworthy for some fine performances, including one in the lead by pipe-smoking Bruce Dern.  The spy thriller TOPAZ has some arresting moments, but it is largely an uneven film that divided the critics upon its 1969 release.

Darren Aronofsky’s new Biblical epic NOAH mostly focuses on the psychology of the characters, including the darker side of Noah and the results are better than expected, though the films ambitions insure there would be flaws.  Russell Crowe and Ray Winstone are especially exceptional, and the idea of the stone watchers is successful.  THE LUNCHBOX is an utterly charming and witty Indian drama that recalls the great Ray, but forges his own path with chance and a romantic context against all odds.  The melancholic underpinning enhances the emotional depth.   One of the cinema’s greatest actors Irrfan Khan again delivers a wonderful performance.

Lucille and I joined a lifelong friend and his daughter to see THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL on Sunday night.  This was the second time I have seen the film, and I am happy to report it held up marvelously well.

 

I also watched the Bulgarian film ARMOURLESS KNIGHTS on DVD on Saturday afternoon.  Allan had reviewed this quite glowingly at the site weeks back.


Morning – 1967, Mladomir Djordjevic

$
0
0

morning a

by Allan Fish

(Yugoslavia 1967 75m) not on DVD

Aka. Jutro

Freedom starts in the morning

d/w Mladomir Djordjevic ph Mihajlo Popovic ed Mirjana Mitic m Miodrag Ilic-Beli

Ljubisa Samardzic (Mali), Neda Arneric (girl), Milena Dravic (Slobodanka), Mija Aleksic (Capt.Straja), Ljuba Tadic (Gen.Milan Prekic), Neda Spasojevic (Marklena), Jelena Jovanovic (Ruza), Olga Jancevecka (Stana),

When it comes to Yugoslavian cinema, the west remains fairly ignorant. Essentially, it’s based around two figures; Makavejev in the sixties and Kusturica either side of the war that would tear the country into six or seven pieces. Yet Makavejev was only one of many directors at work in the sixties, and there are many whose work is worthy of some attention; Branko Bauer, Velkjo Bulajic, France Stiglic, Alexander Petrovic, Zvonimir Berkovic, Vojislav Rakonjac, Bostjan Hladnik, Ante Babaja or Zivojin Pavlovic, whose The Awakening of the Rats and When I am Dead and White came to embody the ‘black wave’ of Yugoslavian film of the period.

Only one or two of those directors have work represented here, but this is quite possibly a defect on my part, for Yugoslavian film has always been the odd one out amongst the old eastern bloc cinemas. We know Polish film, we know Czech, we know Hungarian. Yugoslavian was different. The people were different, the Romany DNA and the close proximity to Italy lent itself to exaggerated passions and structureless anarchy. Like Czech film, Yugoslavian film was subversive, but Czech film was gentler; its films seemed to ring the doorbell of authority and run. Yugoslav films rather seemed to put a Molotov cocktail through authority’s letterbox.

One name not mentioned above was Mladomir Djordjevic – nicknamed Purisa – and from viewing only a handful of films he seems one of the pivotal filmmakers of the period. In four films in the mid- to late-sixties, set during and just after the World War II Nazi occupation, he said as much about his nation’s identity and his people’s quandary as any director to come out of Yugoslavia. He began with The Girl, starring his then wife, that blonde Anna Karina of the Balkans, Milena Dravic, as the eponymous devojka who falls in love with Ljubisa Samardzic’s partisan.   It would be followed by The Dream, with Samardzic returning as the same partisan. Morning would be the third film in the series.

It’s now 1945, the four year occupation is over, but the nation is moving from being occupied by the force of Nazi invasion to the stealth politics of the communists. Samardzic’s partisan is merely glad to have survived and returns to thinking about his first love, women. Several occupy his thoughts, most notably the nameless young girl who, at age 13, he’d tried to make promise to wait for him. Now 17 she prevaricates and seems to prefer a young Russian officer. Finally, Samardzic realises that the girl he really loves is the girl from The Girl played by Dravic, but she’s up for treason and about to be shot for coughing up information to the Germans after being raped and tortured.

Morning offers more than just Samardzic’s amours, offering also an insightful look at a people who were freed but not freed. His aunt, who runs a boarding house, to use her euphemism, talks of how it once would have been a place to enchant Faulkner. A husband returns home to find his wife has had another child. Knowing it’s not his, he asks “I left you with five kids. Whose is the blonde one?” She replies, nonplussed, “Hitler’s, the son of a bitch!” I won’t spoil the ending, partly because it led into a fourth film, Noon, the following year, in which Samardzic and Arneric return. Both are exceptional here, with Samardzic reminding one of the young Belmondo, and when he and Dravic discuss movies over a bridge, it becomes truly Godardian. Special mention, though, to Arneric, who was only 13 when filming. If that knowledge gives Samardzic’s line “I’ll fuck you even if they shoot me in front of my house” an awkward edge, she convinces as the girl who’s grown up too quickly in one of the great film indictments of childhood, and life, lost to war. “War is finished for me”, one character says; “generals decide that”, he’s told.

anokg6


A Miracle Has Happened!!! Original ‘Greed’ and ‘The Magnificent Ambersons’ found in basement of Fish n Chips in Liverpool

$
0
0

Miracle find in basement of this Liverpool fish n chips shop in the U.K.

 

The unthinkable has happened, and film fans around the world are in frenzied celebration.  The owner of a Liverpool fish n chips store, Edward Fotheringham came forward late last night with news that has rocked the earth on it’s axis.  Once owned by a collector who dealt with underground acquisitions during the war, but who subsequently vanished, mint condition complete prints of the two most hoped for mutilated films were housed in a safe that Fotheringham said was found during basement excavation.  The print for GREED runs nine hours, while THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS runs close to four.

Film historians and authorities are estimating the find to yield Fotheringham tens of millions at auction later this month at Southbys, and early reports indicate Queen Elizabeth will be active in the bidding.

The winner will no doubt be besieged by film fans to commission a theatrical run and corresponding blu ray release.  The great grand daughter of Greed’s venerated director Erich von Stroheim told The Daily Mail that her famous ancestor is celebrating in heaven, while descendants of Welles are envisioning the iconic director lighting up the biggest Cuban cigar after the incredible news.


FEDERICO FELLINI’S LA STRADA (THE ROAD) “Anybody with a weak heart better not look…”

$
0
0

la-strada-1

© 2014 by James Clark

    Pasolini’s angry bid to undo not only modernist cinema but modernist culture may be an annoyance; but it’s also a golden opportunity. A special aspect of this windfall is Giulietta Masina, coming to us along those sightlines as the Antipode of the lumpen amateurs Pasolini would favor (not quite getting what Bresson was up to with that angle). Pasolini’s rather systematic but flamboyant notion of gender unwittingly shines a spotlight upon the supposed more natural and efficacious sense of integrity a quorum of female historical players possesses (to be supplemented by the coercive efficacy of the few teachable males on the planet). His sincerely longing for interpersonal decency, while happily installing mass regimes of bestial indifference, redirects our view to those of his filmmaker contemporaries who pursued their muse in resisting being sideswiped by traditional rationalism, including Italian neorealism. As such our examination of the case of Pasolini’s film output—a probe looking for signs of the wherewithal to counter being mired in half-measures—takes on a very welcome complement, namely, the films of Federico Fellini, which bring us to his muse and wife, Giulietta Masina.

Fellini’s rejoinder to neorealist desperation about sanitizing an erratic tide of history reaches an especially acute figuration in his early masterpiece, La Strada (The Road, 1954). There are many bravura ingredients going into this ascent to the heights of the hard climb that was Italian post-War cinema; but the two that really grab me are the writing and the performance. Fellini (assisted by Tullio Pinelli and Ennio Flaiano) carefully works out a protagonistic range that circumvents the suffocating inertia of ghetto experience, in a land left by its recent (and not so recent) history to regard immobility, and its compromised vision, as a basic element. (In Arabian Nights, we have an instance of mobile ghettoization, in the form of a nomadic tribe, its leadership proving to have nothing better to do than surreptitiously observe and make bets on the lovemaking of a pair of adolescent foundlings.) We follow the nomadic misadventures of a “strongman,” Zampano, and his assistant, Gelsomina, as they stage, again and again, the same busker scene for passers-by at village squares. Not only, then, are they untrammelled by local routines, including feuds; but the thrust of launching a spectacle catches them up in pressing for what touches the hearts and purse strings of entities drawn out of their regular absorptions. (We have to notice, though, as the narrative spins along roadways and rural landscapes startlingly spare and raw, their boundaries awash in luminescent ranges given devoted attention by the black and white cinematography of Otello Montelli, that Zampano’s performances seldom depart from a very limited progression and climax, and he does have a feud going with another itinerant street performer.)

Into a screenplay bound to render neoclassical stalwarts apoplectic about its refusal to maintain that the poor have nowhere to turn but to pray for and cheer on a rescue party, Fellini instigates sensibilities enacting, not merely a process of eating up mileage and catching many eyes, but striking forward into a kinetic territory of love the tellingness of which comes rather magically into view amidst the stationary general population. Having sketched out the rather abstruse circumstances of welcoming Fellini (and especially his La Strada) into these proceedings, we can now let that centre of magic come directly into its own. And what more apt moment to lead off with than that episode following their first gig which culminates in Zampano’s driving off with a buxom local woman he calls “Rosa” (the name of Gelsomina’s sister, now dead, but her predecessor as the strongman’s assistant; also “Red,” the only Red he cares about) and being told by a tearful Gelsomina, next morning, “You’re one of those men who runs around with women…” They come to a wedding reception just off the highway on the battered grounds of an extended family farm and they’re dipping into their B-game, she doing a little cake walk, spreading out a cane and, with her floppy jacket, far more a dwarfish Harpo Marx than a Charlie Chaplin (more compatible, than the A-game’s scarifying snapping of a steel chain by expanding one’s chest, with a long table having a blast in staging a food fight). We see that the recent hireling (rounded up by him at the same desperate homestead by the sea, with a mother considering herself lucky to be able to sell her daughters, one by one, for 10,000 lire a pop) is a comedian and dancer of natural genius. (Giulietta Masina gives us the arresting paradox of irresistible expressivity in her facial presences and tiny body while seeming entirely amateurish and impromptu.) This eloquence of body language conveys her joyous love of forging ahead with her life far more coherently and powerfully than any articulation in words she might attempt. They’re welcomed into the reception, Zampano sitting in the doorway having his dinner with a widow whose sexual priorities are both coarse and, as (surprisingly) evoked by her stuffing her mouth with the feast and the candid set of her eyes and bodily presence, touching. “I always eat on my feet. I’ve had two husbands. Both died. I could dance all night. Us older women are better than young girls. Everyone likes sweets after a good meal…My first husband was big… There aren’t many men built like you…” The children unsurprisingly take a liking to Gelsomina (in clown makeup), and they spirit her away to observe the family curiosity, a bedridden retarded boy. The children bring her to the bedside with a mixture of embarrassment and pride; and she, after an initial attempt to make him laugh, becomes still in face of his mishap and in face of a dangerous fragility she has clearly pondered at great length. Then his mother comes in and shoos them away. The free-lance clown goes on to attempt to interrupt the avatars of largeness, needing to tell him how she feels about what has just happened. But again she’s shooed away.

la-strada-2

    After an incident in which she has the opportunity to display in action her loyalty to Zampano, they stop at a convent, seeking a more sheltered place to sleep than the ramshackle trailer of their motorcycle-driven, less than glamorous but still compelling, tour. Alertly taking into account the aptness of tempering a general obviation of the horrors of ghetto smallness, we are given what would seem to be the acme of a stultified backwater which nevertheless radiates love at a level promising boundless innovation. As with the children at the wedding party, a very young nun intuits the exceptional heart of the distaff side of the act and generously provides food (“Have some more…”) and arranges, with the Mother Superior, for them to sleep in the barn that night. “Show the Sister how you play the trumpet,” Zampano urges. And, after hearing a few bars of the sweet, melancholy motif, the young girl tells Gelsomina, “Beautiful! What’s the name of the song?” Her new friend, so well embraced by composer, Nino Rota’s, invention, replies, “I don’t know but I love it!” In an effort to seem a soul mate in moving around a lot, the girl informs her, “We transfer to another convent after two years, so we don’t get attached to things of the world. You grow fond of where you live… even a plant…” That night, her enthusing about this stopover causes Zampano to call her a “potato head.” “It’s nice here,” she counters. And then, perhaps moved by their charade of being married, for the consumption of their hosts, she goes on to ask him, “Would you be sorry if I died? Now I’d even be willing to marry you.” He, as we have been aware right from his engaging her as a slave, has a very differently calibrated heart from hers; and his assimilation of her desire to live a life of rich and gentle love comes in the form of, “Enough of this nonsense! Go to sleep!” She can’t let go, and continues, “Do you like me a little?” And she turns to her trumpet and its harboring a world of loving wisdom. His growling, “Knock it off!” finally accomplishes her being squelched. She wakes up in the middle of the night to find him attempting to loot the convent. He forces her to procure silverware in a place which his big hands can’t reach; and next morning, at their departure, she can’t face her new friend. (Giving the rig a push, she does look over and gives her host a plucky twinkle of the eye and readiness of the chin.) But, from the back of the canvas, tent-like caravan, as Zampano guns his ugly but durable bike, she waves vigorously to the young girl—a treasure slipping away from her life. Their faces are alight with the inexpressible momentousness of this modest encounter. Gelsomina smiles through tears, with a transcendent passion, she buries her head in the bedding, still waving her white handkerchief.

Soon they encounter his long-standing enemy, stranded with a flat, who had recently ruined his chances of joining a big circus, and Zampano kills him with his bare hands, sending her into depression, bringing about the end of their partnership, her death and his terrible awakening. Over and above that chain of events, we have the masterful complement of this film’s dramatic endowment of the almost incredibly harsh demands of freedom and its loving impetus.

As we’ve more than alluded to thus far, the partnership of Zampano and Gelsomina is a tortuous work in progress. But make no mistake; La Strada goes to great lengths in revealing that its action is all about progress—all about dashing illusions and being introduced to a basic state of affairs testing us to the limit. On being left alone the night of the wedding, while he accompanies the widow (who presents him with her “big” former husband’s wardrobe), she tells him in the morning, “I like the work, being an artist. It’s you I don’t like. I’m leaving.” We can certainly confirm that she likes being a performing artist—and a constantly travelling one, at that. On being fetched, by her younger siblings, from gathering firewood along a beach, and presented with the prospect of joining scruffy Zampano having effectively killed her sister, she registers some anxiety and sadness, but far more a wide-eyed plunge into a windfall. Her mother’s mawkish howling adjacent to her sell-off, doesn’t deter the gusto with which the runaway plunges into that quintessentially badass vehicle. There is, at this juncture, the saliency of the need to avoid over-indulgence in psychological pigeonholing, with regard to Gelsomina’s apparent retardation. Unworldly, yes. Unguarded, yes. A sprite, yes. But it would, I think, be closer to the mark to say she’s come to cherish a navigational route few of those around her can comprehend.

One figure who does meet her halfway is someone she encounters soon after leaving the biker at the scene of the wedding. She comes to a town where a religious procession moves triumphantly through the streets, and then she finds a secular offshoot of the big day. High above the square, a tight-rope walker with abbreviated angel wings remarkably sets up a dining table and his attractive and poised female assistant, referring to him as “Fool” (a dramatic trope entailing remarkable perception), asks, “You’re not even going to invite us to join you?” (an impasse that will soon vitally include Gelsomina). “They’re welcome to come up,” he states with irony. Gelsomina, for one, seems very ready to take him up on the offer. At the completion of the skit, a heart-stopping “near-fall,” she claps vigorously for his wit and deftness; and he comes close to her as he gets into the car he uses for touring. They are eye-to-eye and he gives her a smile and then laughs, part cheeky, part congenial, at her awkwardness and big, innocent eyes. She gets drunk and gets rounded up by the showman on a far less graceful point of the spectrum. (The latter, in fact, on her refusal to get into the primitive tour bus, beats her and forces her in, reminding us of how he hit her with a switch on their first awkward rehearsal, and how she drew back like a bewildered pet.) When she awakens, they are in Rome at the site of a circus tent, and there they both become involved with the Fool, responding to him in vastly different ways.

One of Zampano’s comedy skits has had to do with a pop-gun rifle, and, on spotting him, the more lofty competitor (also seeking a more corporate venue) says, “It’s Trifle!” That greeting, we soon find, goes far beyond disparaging his showmanship, for the nemesis will soon declare, “What an animal! I can’t help teasing him!” So it is that (following the Fool’s successful debut) Zampano’s shot for more stability and liquidity is made a shambles of by the interruption and mockery of his adversary. Zampano had for years assumed that his strong suit was his brawny chest, popping those chains by expanding his lungs. This was not merely a (truth to tell, modest) stunt but an almost daily recourse to the reservoir, the heart, of his energies. He would mutter, before breaking the chain, “Anybody with a weak heart better not look…” That pretense of terrifying power had become, for the far more sophisticated aerialist, an insufferable blot upon the more subtle sense of integrity and strength he could discern. “A circus needs animals!” On being not only professionally compromised but embarrassingly insulted before a large urban audience, Zampano goes berserk, chasing the Fool around the circus compound and ultimately grabbing a knife and being restrained and arrested by the police.

The circus boss tells a distraught Gelsomina, “You’re better off without him.” And it is the new man in her life, namely, the Fool, who seems to make that a self-evident point. During the skirmish (stretching, with lulls, over the evening and the next morning) after the messed-up display of “superhuman strength” pertaining to “this here chain”—the breaking point being the Fool’s yelling out, at the big scene, “Scusi, telephone call for you…”—Gelsomina asks Zampano, “What has he got against you?” And the victim exclaims, “I don’t know!” (the war of worlds being far from transparent). But the underlying energies of the clash are ignited, for the dancer, musician, actress and prisoner, at the outset of their Big Top misadventure. She hears a (miniature) violin version of the “sad song’ that she loves so much and has now been able to perform tolerably, and she traces the touching music to the Fool. She is enchanted by this dash of rightness amidst so much wrongness; but Zampano angrily calls her away from that force so destructive and hateful to him. The Fool, being clearly the lesser public danger, is released from custody first, and he runs by her the notion of her joining his act (before the interruption by her overseer, he had induced her to go over a musical number with him). She hesitates, he realizes how much she cares for the lunk and he listens as she laments his crass indifference. It is at this moment that their direct chemistry—centered upon that tune and their delight in each other’s lightness, grace and affection—becomes an explicitly reflective experience and sureness of procedure falters. (He had, before his sabotage of the strong-man act, joked to her, “Don’t worry. It’s bound to be a disaster.” That glib, self-satisfied overdrive now comes to cover the murderous pitfalls nature presents, as especially enacted by the two sweethearts finally afforded an uninterrupted tete-a-tete.)

The Fool had asked her, at the outset of this pivotal moment, about his chances of staying on with the circus and its corporate advantages. On hearing from Gelsomina that the boss wants no more to do with either of such unpredictable talents, he reacts to the effect he doesn’t need it and is far better off a sublimely conspicuous one-man-show. But when she goes on to pout—“It doesn’t matter what I do [i.e., stay with the circus, stay with the Fool or stay with Zampano]… I’m no use to anybody… Why was I born?”—he attempts to be selflessly positive and things get out of hand. He had remarked to her that though he was stupid he had “read a book or two;” and the ensuant theorizing proves to be a double-edged sword. “He beats you like a donkey, but why didn’t he let you go [for more than a few hours, within which the circus angle may have surfaced]? Maybe he likes you… If you don’t stay with him, who will? Everything in the world has a purpose. Look at this little stone. I don’t know what a pebble’s purpose is. But it must have one. If a pebble has no purpose, then nothing does. And you have a purpose too…” This course of reflection entails a conceptual content fuelled by the physical positivity of their delighting in each other. The wild card of “purpose” to which both of them attain intuitively and which, given more alertness, would point to a partnership between them here, becomes overtaken by gestures of self-serving assertiveness (“You can do anything…”)—to wit, his reckless generosity, as informed by a vision of himself as a lone wolf (or eagle) doomed to die young (“I’m the one who’s going to die young” [a conflation, in that claim, between his dangerous occupation and his dangerous vocation]; he also can’t resist needling her: “What a funny face you have. You don’t look like a human. You’re an artichoke!”; “You like to make love?; “You really are an ugly one…”; and, finally, her vision of being the lover of a melodramatically challenging “super-human,” and going on to a life (in sharp contrast to what she had known at home) of grandeur and artistic beauty. Therefore, Gelsomina comes to the perilous inference, “If I don’t stay with him, who will?”

The Fool offers to drive her over to the jail in Zampano’s wreck (“What a piece of junk!”), where she can begin a life of recharged purpose. And here, with their farewell, their body language (their true selves) stages a recovery and lifts an already dazzling study of the timbres of innovative sensibility to unforgettable poignancy—pathos utterly devoid of bathos. He rattles off the cliché, on assimilating his blowing his chance to climb up the careerist stairway to the stars, “I’ll break my neck and no one will remember me…” But, on reaching the jail, in a treeless, sterile new development, he asks her once again about joining his tour, and immediately cuts off that gambit by declaring, “I don’t need an assistant…” He then places a necklace around her neck—“A souvenir for you”—and with a warm smile he waves good-bye, “Ciao.” She takes up this late traction with her own radiant smile, and one of those incisive little grabbing waves we’ve seen her attain to in saying good-bye to her family and in greeting the invalid boy. He waves from a distance and then turns away. The “purpose” of inert matter had been conjured directly by this disinterested interplay. But the harmonics implicit in that epiphany had been abandoned.

The title, La Strada, brings to us the factor of a “road” and its rigors almost overwhelming its joys. Fellini’s film, we may come to realize, for all its exquisitely gentle charms, is mountainously harsh. Zampano’s hype, about the heart-attack-inducing shock of his piddling stunt, marks him for precisely special treatment within the purview of this action. The Fool had bridled, in an inchoate way, to that emergency. “Imagine his face when he finds everyone gone. I can’t help myself. I swear, I don’t know [why I have to attack him]. I just have an urge…” Coming back to the purpose of the stone, over and above its constituting the sensual weight of vibrant motion, it constitutes physical leeway for countering the instance of primordial evil of which Zampano is an incarnation. (The caravan, occasionally shown with its canvas flapping, is more a bat out of hell than a motor vehicle. She had asked him, “Your accent is strange. Where are you from?” And he replied, “My father’s house…” It seems that, to Fellini, evil is not essentially a horrific magnitude of malignancy, but instead dull crudity.)

So they hit the road, after his brief sentence for petty crime, they loot the convent (a passage which includes Gelsomina’s not taking up the sweet little nun’s offering to help her join their order), they come upon the Fool and Zampano kills him. The denouement concerns Gelsomina’s having thus been consumed by the shattering wrongness of her navigations. She won’t eat, can’t perform convincingly in the show, won’t allow him to sleep in the trailer with her, and continually mutters, “The Fool is hurt…” (She had embarked on this winter-ravaged ride by declaring, “Now I feel my life is with you.” And he had sneered, “That’s because you were starving at home!”) On a sunny day, they come to the brickwork shell of a long-abandoned homestead and that lifts her spirits somewhat. She actually eats the soup he prepares there, takes simple delight in her coat and her hair, says, “It’s nice here;” but she soon subsides into lamenting the murder. “You killed him… I wanted to run away but he said stay.” She falls asleep and Zampano hits the road, leaving with her extra blankets and the trumpet by which she reached for something right.

Years later he’s part of another circus troupe, he’s better dressed, but still sullen. Hearing a woman singing that “sad song,” he discovers that Gelsomina had made her way to that town, while clinging to the melody, been treated with another instance of a wellspring of generosity and affection, but had died, locked away in her song and her mourning and her sense of utter failure. Zampano stumbles through a “not for faint hearts” performance, gets violently drunk that night, gets thrown out of the bar and gets kicked around by the bouncers, one of whom remarks, “Some strongman!” (to which he replies, “I don’t need anybody! I’ll crush you like bugs!”); and he comes to the seashore, looks into the dark sky and then falls upon the sand, cries, and, finally, lies there face down. The achingly arresting performance of this moment (and all the preceding moments of the whole movie) by Anthony Quinn, evokes the devastating remoteness of interpersonal integrity. And, moreover—here Fellini entering upon reflective precincts astronomically remote from those of Pasolini and the catalysts of neorealism—precisely at this moment when Zampano seems to have attained to something in common with human promise, there is dismissal of his loutishness (quintessentially too little , too late) a driving over this saga like a truck squashing a bug.

?????????

    Fellini and his cinematographer have given us as grotty and deadened a series of post-War, money-strapped country roads as anyone could have devised (all the while using lighting skills and filters to bequeath this network, which even the dogs have steered clear of, with a virtually unnoticeable silvery resonance). There is one remarkable exception to this leaving for dead and buried the cliché that getting there is the best part of the trip. Soon after she turns her back on Zampano at the site of the wedding, she’s on a road bounded by farms; the countryside remarkably does not look as if it has been saturation-bombed, the ditches are filled with deliciously textured grasses and shrubs, the pavement glistens as sunlight plays on the deposit of a recent rain; and she (who had planted tomato seeds at the very first stopover, involving a Rosa, and been chastised by him, “What have you got in your head?”) , coming to rest at the roadside, delights in surveying a mouse hole in a ridge of sandy soil. Here the possibility of striking forth alone, having (momentarily) transcended a toxic entanglement, is conveyed by that atmosphere as somehow mysteriously detached from the auspices of distemper and desperation. Then a three-man-band comes by, headed for the town and procession where she first sees the Fool; and she follows them, dancing to their song. La Strada allows us to try to assimilate a task of bringing coherence to such a startling range of energy.


Henry 9 ’til 5 – 1970, Bob Godfrey

$
0
0

h95 2

by Allan Fish

(UK 1970 6m) not on DVD

Defeating boredom and its vicissitudes

p/d Bob Godfrey w Stan Hayward m John Hawksworth

voices by Bob Godfrey, Monika Ringwald

Whenever I think of Bob Godfrey’s little gem I am reminded of my favourite Terry Gilliam animation from Python. The one with the middle-aged, nagged man sat in front of the gogglebox, out of which bashers, scrubbers and suckers emerge to try and pull his eyes out of his sockets. After surviving this attempted involuntary eyectomy, we hear a shout from the kitchen; “Henry, turn that television off, you know it’s bad for your eyes.”

The name Henry might have something to do with it, but in truth Godfrey was, along with Borowczyk and Lenica, surely one of the antecedents of Gilliam’s anarchic animation style. Just watch Godfrey’s The Do It Yourself Cartoon Kit, a near classic in itself, which not only uses similar techniques nearly a decade earlier, but even had faint echoes of Python’s famous ‘Blackmail’ sketch.

If Godfrey is remembered at all today, however, it’s generally for his work in children’s TV. In the 1980s and 90s there was Henry’s Cat (the same Henry?), while the 70s gave us Roobarb and Custard, with its iconic twanging theme music and deliberately sketchy drawings. Away from this, though, he was the man behind a series of satirical, subversive pieces aimed at the repressed sexuality of post-war Britain. Dear Margery Boobs, for example, dealt with an agony aunt and a writer signing himself as Worried Streatham. Instant Sex gave us a man buying a tin marked as such in a shop and returning home to try it out. In Dream Doll another middle-aged man buys a blow-up doll with ample attributes from a spiv-like shady character with a Zachary Scott pencil moustache. All are worth a look, while both The Do It Yourself Cartoon Kit and Alf, Bill & Fred (a man, a duck and a dog enjoy bouncing), which don’t deal implicitly with sex, have their sublime moments. There’s just something about Henry 9 ‘til 5 that sticks in my mind.

The Henry of the title is a London office worker. He comes out of his drab suburban house, joins the rat race on the Tube – all the other men are carbon copies of him, colourless suit, bowler hat, brolly and briefcase – and makes it to his desk bang on time as Big Ben chimes nine. Even his office is scrupulously Spartan; just the desk at which he monotonously stamps invoices, but he doesn’t mind. “I don’t like my job very much”, he tells us, “but I have discovered a way of defeating boredom and all its vicissitudes. I think about sex.” (Cue ‘The Stripper’ playing over pictures of glamour models in states of undress.) “I try to think about sex all day”, he goes on. He illustrates this with daydreams of chasing the office hottie around naked amongst fields of daisies or, “if in a more jocular mood”, by throwing custard pies at her welcoming breasts.

More daydreams follow, of similarly voluptuous naked women exercising on very bouncy trampolines. That only keeps him occupied for a little while, so his mind turns to other pleasures; “I find it satisfying to contemplate wandering gaily around amidst a profusion of bodies in a state of wanton abandon. Quite nice, this.” Stopping to think on and dismiss thoughts of voyeurism and indecent exposure because they can be chilly in cold weather, he turns instead to thoughts of voluntary chastisement, dreaming himself with a host of other identical office types as galley slaves whipped by a woman in fishnet stockings. He keeps that one aside for afternoon tea breaks.

Before he can think any more, Big Ben’s familiar chimes indicate it’s five o’clock. “How time flies when you’re fully occupied”, he mutters, before picking up his things and making his way back to suburbia. No sooner has he got through the door and he’s addressed by his wife, who sounds like she’s been wearing a chastity belt for a year and cries out “take me, take me!” Unfortunately, it’s all Henry can do to just crash out in his armchair, responding with “not tonight, beloved. I had such a hard day at the office.”   One can see it coming, just like the Python animation with the TV, but it’s still perfect, and a little present for anyone who’s spent a tiresome day clockwatching in an office.

h95

 


Take 2 Guide on Spielberg Published and Available on Amazon-Another major honor for Wonders in the Dark, Joel Bocko, John Greco, Ed Howard and Roderick Heath

$
0
0

spielberg_guide5_ss_697da926-bab1-44fe-83dd-df70360208c0_1024x1024

by Sam Juliano

Take 2 Publishing has released its first project on Kindle, and this comprehensive labor of love is now available on kindle through Amazon at a price of $9.99.  The project is the brainchild of John Pruzanski, who worked feverishly over many months to assemble reviews on director Steven Spielberg’s films from both the professional and blogger ranks.  Such Spielberg supporters like Jonathan Rosenbaum, Joseph McBride , Matt Stoller Seitz and James Bernardinelli are featured in multiple reviews, while stellar work from my colleagues John Greco, Joel Bocko, Ed Howard, Roderick Heath and several others have been published right alongside them.

Two reviews that I wrote for Wonders in the Dark (War Horse on January 2, 2012 and A.I. Artificial Intelligence on May 13, 2009) were included in this definitive collection that has greatly enhanced the Spielberg literature.  John Greco’s superlative review on Jaws in there as are several by the brilliant Joel Bocko including essays on Jaws, E.T., Duel and Schindler’s List.  And what with the Spielberg archives at Only the Cinema holding a whopping ten reviews on the director, Pruzanski and his enthusiastic editor Adam Zanzie of Icebox Movies has performed some glorious plundering there to bring Howard’s incomparable scholarship to a wider fan base.  Writer Extraordinaire Roderick Heath is also well represented with his own stupendous comprehensive coverage of the director with essays that were originally published at Ferdy on Films and This Island Rod.

Congratulations to all connected with this remarkable project.  Pruzanski has plans to move forward on other directors, and has tentatively named Woody Allen as his next subject.

Here is the amazon link to the Kindle guide:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Take2-Guide-Steven-Spielberg-ebook/dp/B00IUQVUPK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396649531&sr=8-1&keywords=take+two+publishing+steven+spielberg



Under the Skin, Oliver!, Tout Truffaut Festival, Top 101 Romantic Films and Mickey Rooney on Monday Morning Diary (April 7)

$
0
0

1968′s musical treasure ‘Oliver!’ screened on Sunday at Film Forum

by Sam Juliano

I just now, before publishing read a very sad e mail sent on to me by Tony d’Ambra.  The beloved actor and American institution Mickey Rooney has passed on at age 93.  His life and legacy will hopefully be included and/or well represented in today’s comment section.

The erstwhile adage April showers brings May flowers could not have been any more apt than the manner it has been applied for the first week of the month when Spring will first make its official appearance.  Several days of some serious drenching has linked up with the first days of the pollen season and the result for some of us has been sore throats, itchy eyes, incessant coughing and various other allergy-related discomfort.

The romantic countdown polling stage is now complete, with the Tuesday, April 1st deadline long gone, and final results will soon be released to the e mail chain of voters and prospective writers.  WitD readers of course will see the countdown unfold in reverse order starting on Thursday, May 7th, and running well into September.  This will mark the first non-autumn roll-out for one of our genre festivals, but it was done purposely to wed Spring and Summer with the romantic theme.  Between 20 and 25 films have been “reserved” by eager writers, but even if those claims were to stand (some probably won’t for a number of reasons) that would still leave 75 to 80 essays to be covered, so we will definitely need a lot of help.  A lot.  But all that bartering will be done behind close doors.  Ha!  I do anticipate sending out the results later tonight, as I have spoken at length with Angelo.  One thing that is certain is that we have decided to do a full Top 101 for the countdown, much as we did for the comedy countdown (100), largely because we received a whopping 30 ballots, and because Angelo tabulated the full hundred.  This is obviously one of the most popular pollings, and we should at least match the comedy countdown.  Somehow, 101 is a distinguished number that stands apart from an ordinary 100, and because of a tabulation error Angelo has tabulated 101, so 101 it will be.

Lucille, Sammy and I (and Jeremy for the Sunday Film Forum Jr.) attended several features in the ongoing Tout Truffaut Festival, one new release and the Sunday Film Forum Jr. offering:

Under the Skin **** 1/2   (Saturday night)   AMC Cinemas

Oliver! (1968)  *****  (Sunday)  Film Forum

Jules and Jim (1961) ***** (Tuesday)   Tout Truffaut

Close Encounters of Third Kind (1977) ****1/2 (Wed) Tout Truffaut

The Woman Next Door (1981) *** 1/2  (Thursday) Tout Truffaut

The Bride Wore Black (1968) **** (Friday) Tout Truffaut

Mississippi Mermaid (1969)  **** 1/2 (Sunday) Tout Truffaut

UNDER THE SKIN is one of the most visually arresting and creative films I have seen in years, and I’d conclude it is a near-masterpiece.  I would have liked if it were as intellectually evocative as it is visually brilliant, but I understand on the other hand that everyone will bring something different to the table in assessing what is less of a film than an experience.  As most already know the film is about an alien who meets up with men of all sorts in Scotland at a time not clearly delineated to ultimately kill them off after seducing and dehumanizing them.  Jonathan Glazer is a master stylist, (seemingly indebted to David Lynch, and as many also mention-Nicolas Roeg) and from the opening minutes you know you are in the hands of a cinematic maestro, who has brought forth a new language that even reduces the avante garde to narrative plausibility.  A stunning achievement, with an unforgettable Scarlet Johansson.  I might mention here that this film is divisive and both my wife Lucille and Broadway Bob Eagleson thought it was one of the worst films they have ever seen in their lives.  A number of the professional critics like Richard Corliss have trashed it as well.  I will say, however, that anyone who comes in with a negative verdict should not be derided by intellectual superiority talk that they disliked the film because it disavowed narrative elements.  Many other artists (Malick and Von Trier included) have strayed from narrative underpinnings too, and there are a number of people who have embraced such works and rejected Glazer.  Each film brings its own experience, and isn’t reached because of stylistic or genre aversion.

This week’s Sunday morning Film Forum Jr. offering was the fabulously delightful Oscar winning musical OLIVER!, and Lucille and I brought Sammy and Jeremy to join in all the fun for this pristine roadhouse version print with entrance music and intermission of this musical version of Dickens’ classic novel.  The review I wrote for it a few years ago for the musical countdown might be the one I more fun writing than any other I ever wrote at this site:

http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/oliver-no-18/

Steven Spielberg’s magical CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND was shown in its complete running time as part of the TOUT TRUFFAUT Festival.  Of course everyone knows Truffaut was one of the acting leads, and the Film Forum organizers had decided a while back to include any film that Truffaut was connected with as actor, writer or producer.  Maurice Pialat’s first film and Godard’s BREATHLESS (for which Truffaut wrote the story) are also featured in the line-up, though I am taking a pass on both due to the overload.  I certainly like both quite a bit.  And I like CLOSE ENCOUNTERS quite a bit as well (those final 20 minutes were magnificent) and was thrilled to turn young Sammy on to the film for the first time, and on the big screen to boot.

The renowned critic David Thomson, who has published some of the most acclaimed film dictionaries, has astoundingly included the once-panned but since re-evaluated MISSISSIPPI MERMAID as among his Ten Greatest Films of All-Time in the ballot he submitted to SIGHT AND SOUND for their 2012 decade polling.  A complete print of the film is hard to find, but one very fine one was screened Sunday afternoon (in fact four times for the day) at the Film Forum, and while Lucille and the two boys strolled downtown-Sammy needed a break from Truffaut after seeing OLIVER! and other Truffauts this past week- I was conquered by this 1969 vastly underrated Truffaut film that for me is a near-masterpiece.  A young and beautiful Catherine Deneuve stars with Jean-Paul Belmondo is a film that features some alluring settings on the French controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean and in France, and an enveloping story of a tobacco plantation owner who married the wrong woman after she comes in place of the one intended, and through the rest of the story this unlikely relationship is strengthened by undying love from the male who goes as far as to commit murder to keep it thriving.  One immediately notices the parallels to Hitchcock’s MARNIE in a number of telling ways, but this should hardly be seen as a surprise in view of Truffaut’s long-held veneration of Hitch.  Great ending too in the snow setting.  As this was the first time I saw this film, I regret now not voting for it for the romantic countdown.

Raoul Coutard’s lyrical romantic panning and the tender and wistful music by Georges Delerue bring the cinema’s most unforgettable love triangle in JULES AND JIM to the world of Truffaut, one in which the women unceasingly choose the less romantic man when there is a choice. The somber ending is practically as stunning as the one seen in THE 400 BLOWS, and by any barometer of measurement this is one of the director’s supreme masterpieces, and a sure choice to make any romantic films list.  Jeanne Moreau’s extraordinary performance is one of the most famous ever committed to film, and the film traces innocence to resignation.

THE BRIDE WORE BLACK is perhaps the most Hitchcockian of all Truffaut’s films, in fact its a homage.  A woman gets revenge on a group of men, and one by one dispatches them.  Some wry humor and stylistic flourishes this is certainly an exceedingly entertaining film.

THE WOMAN NEXT DOOR is not top tier Truffaut, but this story of a dormant love affair that spills over into a renewed fling is better than I remember it to be with very fine acting by Gerard Depardieu and Fanny Ardant.

Mickey Rooney still.jpg


Noite Vazia – 1964, Walter Hugo Khouri

$
0
0

nv2

by Allan Fish

(Brazil 1964 93m) not on DVD

Aka. The Empty Nigh

One night in Rio

p Nelson Gaspari, Walter Hugo Khouri d/w Walter Hugo Khouri ph Rudolf Icsey ed Mauro Alice m Rogerio Duprat art Pierino Massenzi

Norma Bengell (Mara), Odete Lara (Regina), Mario Benvenuti (Luisinho), Gabriele Tinti (Nelson), Lisa Negri (Nelson’s lover), Marisa Woodward (girl in club), Célia Watanabe (Japanese waitress),

Though considered one of the key films in the cinema novo moment in its native Brazil, Noite Vazia has never been accorded the same status on an international level. There are probably other reasons and yet is it a coincidence that, of the seminal works of that same movement which made Glauber Rocha, Nelson Pereira dos Santos, Ruy Guerra and Anselmo Duarte figures on the world stage, Walter Hugo Khouri’s film seems very much the odd one out. The cinema novo movement owed its debts to Italian neo-realism and the art-house cinema of the past. Khouri’s film seems indebted not to the past but to the Italian cinema of the early 1960s, the intellectual masterpieces of Fellini, Zurlini, Visconti and, especially, Antonioni.

As the title suggests, it’s set over the course of just one night, from around 8pm until dawn the next morning. It follows two married men out on the pull, Luisinho and Nelson. Luisinho is married with a little boy and is clearly the most callous of the two. Nelson has a lover who he has, in the past, been extremely possessive of, but now seems distant towards. They go to various clubs. In one a girl comes up to them, but they’re not interested in comforting her. Finally they end up in a Japanese establishment and there they meet an acquaintance who has just walked in with a brunette and a blonde. When said acquaintance then proceeds to just fall asleep, either through the effects of drink or, as is hinted, narcolepsy, the girls agree to hook up with Luisinho and Nelson. All four go back to an apartment which Luisinho has access to. They waste little time in getting down to it, the blonde Regina picking Nelson, leaving Luisinho with Mara. It becomes clear Luisinho wanted Regina and the pair then swap partners, but Nelson is not in the mood for continuing with Mara.

What follows into the early hours is a sort of pretence to avoid boredom. Nelson clearly has an attraction for Mara, but is unwilling to say as much. Luisinho sees the girls as just whores; indeed, seeing any woman who isn’t his family as a whore. What proves the turning point of the night occurs when Luisinho suggests, after watching a couple of dodgy, unerotic stag films, that Mara and Regina perform a lesbian sex-show for the two men. Regina agrees, but Mara is repulsed by the idea.

Throughout the film, despite the clearly sexually orientated plot, it’s remarkably chaste as one may expect in 1964, but then another catalyst occurs, a thunderstorm, releasing the previously close atmosphere to such an extent that Mara wanders topless onto the balcony, in full view of the camera, cleansing herself under the rain. For those who saw Bengell in The Unscrupulous Ones the nudity isn’t surprising, but it’s nudity of a psychological not sexual kind. In comparison, we only get hints of flashes from Lara.

With the possible exception of Yoshida’s later Farewell to the Summer Light, this may well be the most Antonioni-like film ever made, superbly directed by Khouri. The men are to all intents and purposes lightweights, but that’s deliberate; they’re meant to be tiresome, shallow and impenetrable. The women on the other hand are like fire and ice, sometimes both. Lara is the definitive voluptuous blonde amazon. Bengell is more timid, and certainly a nicer character. Furthermore, they clearly represent Antonioni’s women – Lara recalls Vitti in L’Avventura, Bengell Moreau in La Notte. The film even ends like La Notte, the quartet emerging onto empty streets, liable to repeat the night with different partners 24 hours later. And watch the opening credits, too, with those disfigured statues; like the credits to Spartacus (even the font is uncannily similar).

nv1


Nymphomaniac: Vol I & II – 2013, Lars Von Trier

$
0
0

Nymphomaniac a

by Allan Fish

(Denmark 2013 241m) DVD1/2

Mea vulva, mea vulva, mea maxima vulva

p  Louise Vesth  d/w  Lars Von Trier  ph  Manuel Alberto Claro  ed  Morten Hojbjerg, Molly Marlene Stensgard  art  Simone Grau

Charlotte Gainsbourg (older Joe), Stacy Martin (young Joe), Stellan Skarsgard (Seligman), Shia LaBeouf (Jerome), Christian Slater (Joe’s father), Connie Nielsen (Joe’s mother), Jamie Bell (K), Willem Dafoe (L), Sophie Kennedy Clark (B), Hugo Speer (Mr H), Uma Thurman (Mrs H), Felicity Gilbert (Liz), Jesper Christensen (Jerome’s uncle), Saskia Reeves (nurse), Kate Ashfield (therapist), Mia Goth (P), Michael Pas (old Jerome), Jean-Marc Barr (debtor), Udo Kier (waiter), Laura Christensen (babysitter),

Agent provocateur, enfant terrible, just plain naughty boy, call him what you like, any Lars Von Trier film is an event.  In the case of Nymphomaniac it was anticipated more than perhaps any other.  Those expecting something sexually arousing, however, may find themselves disappointed.  After all, don’t forget that this is the concluding part of his trilogy about depression, and when I say that it’s more depressing than either Antichrist or Melancholia, you should take pause.

It follows Joe, the sex addict of the title, who is found in an alley by intellectual Seligman, who takes her back to his flat to recuperate when she refuses to have the police called.  There he presses her about why she didn’t want the emergency services to come, and she tells him it’s a long story.  He’s happy to listen, so she tells him the story of her life and why she is, in her own words, an awful human being.  She goes back to her childhood with a kindly doctor father and an ice-cold mother, and takes in the loss of her virginity and her various friendships and lovers over the years.

It’s not quite as simple as that, however.  Many other films are evoked in Von Trier’s treatise, but while references to Tarkovsky and Dreyer may not be surprising, The Usual Suspects is very much so.  Yet Joe, like Verbal Kint, spins her tale by using the objects she can see around her; a portrait here, a seemingly shapeless stain on a wall there, many of the characters only given initials.  It thus becomes a shaggy dog story, and like Seligman, one may find some of the coincidences pretty hard to overcome, but the names themselves are less important than the narrative structure.  Essentially in eight chapters, it’s more like a cinematic symphony in eight movements, with healthy dollops of Shostakovich (referencing another erotic odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut), Mozart, Beethoven and Bach.  Indeed, all the references dropped into the piece, even the Fibonacci sequence numbers, aren’t by accident.  When Seligman talks of understanding sex despite never actually losing his virginity, he quotes reading ‘The Canterbury Tales’, ‘1,001 Nights’ and ‘The Decameron’, not just the sources behind the trilogy of another enfant terrible, Pier Paolo Pasolini, but each a collection of stories with a storyteller, a Joe.

If it’s not a perfect film, it remains a visceral masterpiece, while a longer five hour cut, soon to follow, may clarify a few loose ends.  LaBeouf is miscast with an accent that wobbles between cockney and Bondi beach, while regular Dafoe is given too little to do.  But Skarsgard is as good as he’s been in years, Slater is surprisingly moving as Joe’s father, Clark promising as Joe’s young equally promiscuous friend, model Goth ultimately frightening as Joe’s protégée and Bell unsettlingly repellent as a casual sadist with willing victims and a waiting room.  Then there’s Thurman, only in one extended sequence, but so stunningly raw and broken as to verge on acting as self-harm.  As for Joe herself, Martin is a discovery as the young version, while Gainsbourg, the brilliant constant in Von Trier’s trilogy, becomes like a feral beast.  In essence, it’s not about sex, but about need, loneliness and facing an inner void.  It opens over a long black fade-in, and exits the same way after a shocking final scene, recalling the end of I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (I am a Fugitive from a Gang Bang, anyone?) where Paul Muni retreats into the dark after responding to being asked how he lives with “I steal.”  Imagine Joe had been so stopped at the close, only to turn casually and reply “I fuck.”

nymphomaniac b


Tout Truffaut, The Retriever, Film Forum Schedule, Romantic Film Countdown and Tribeca Film Festival on Monday Morning Diary (April 14)

$
0
0

by Sam Juliano

It has taken a far longer time than we could ever have imagined, but I could now say with the utmost confidence that winter has been vanquished at last, and won’t be seen again, even in compromised form until a good seven or eight months from now.  Pollen allergies, the baseball season, short-sleeve shirts, sneakers, and the approaching Tribeca Film Festival, not to mention some April showers and a fast-approaching Easter Sunday have all converged to paint a picture of Spring and some glorious 70 degree temperatures.  Speaking of the Tribeca Film Festival, Lucille and I will again be armed with two press passes for the entire event, and I am presently attempting to put together an exhaustive schedule for the 11 days that comprise the April 17 to April 27 window.  Opening Day (the 16th) is not covered by the passes, but in effect it is a day of special events rather than the schedule proper anyway.  The preliminary (tentative) plans are now to see 37 films over the eleven days.  Yes, I know that is “certifiable” but I did see 38 last year.  There is no cost for the films, just for the toll getting over to the city, and maybe one or two tickets that will allow my daughter Melanie to come over for the Bjork documentary and teenage horror film that follows it.  Lucille, as usual will be my companion for most of the days, though for a few she will stay back to rest, allowing Broadway Bob Eagleson to fill in as he did last year.

The Romantic Films countdown is set to launch on Monday, May 12th, with the posting of the No. 101 choice, and will continue every Monday through Friday well into September.  The full results were sent out to the voters and writers shortly after being announced by Voting Tabulator Extraordinaire Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr, and will only be known by voters as they unspool in essays that have been reserved and assigned to an incredible 27 writers: Marilyn Ferdinand, Tony d’Ambra, Brandie Ashe, Jon Warner, Sachin Gandhi, Jaimie Grijalba, Duane Porter, Joel Bocko, Pat Perry, Judy Geater, John Greco, Maurizio Roca, Shubhajit Lahiri, Dean Treadway, Lucille Juliano, Allan Fish, Pedro Camolas, Stephen Mullen, Mike Norton, John Grant, Pierre de Plume, Jim Clark, J.D. Lafrance, Ed Howard, Sam Juliano, and possibly Peter Lenihan.  One surprise writer is also aboard for one essay.  As is the case with all the past genre countdowns, we are hoping for active comment threads under the reviews.

Manhattan’s premier revival house, the Film Forum, has announced their summer schedule, and it is dominated by two festivals back to back.  The first is a comprehensive Alec Guiness Festival, which brings in the Ealings and the epics the actor starred in later on in the 50′s and 60′s.  After that, there will be a three-week ‘Femme Noir” Festival that will offer a bunch of double features.  Here is the link:

http://www.filmforum.org/pdf/ff2_cal103_FINAL_v2.pdf

Lucille, Sammy and I were busy this past week with the fabulous Tout Truffaut Festival at the Film Forum, and also managed to squeeze in one new release, which ironically was also screened at the Film Forum, and which we saw late at night after one of the Truffauts:

The Green Room   ***** (Tuesday) Tout Truffaut at Film Forum

The Wild Child  ****           (Thursday) Tout Truffaut at Film Forum

Two English Girls   *****   (Friday)    Tout Truffaut at Film Forum

The Story of Adele H.  **** (Saturday)Tout Truffaut at Film Forum

Day For Night  ****       (Sunday)   Tout Truffaut at Film Forum

The Retrieval    **** 1/2    (Thursday)   Film Forum

Based on three stories by Henry James, especially “The Altar of the Dead” THE GREEN ROOM is one of Truffaut’s supreme masterpieces, and is a personal favorite of the esteemed critic Jonathan Rosenbaum.  This gothic tale focuses on death obsession, though Truffaut (who plays the lead himself) always saw in the tale the healing aspects of grief.  Beautifully filmed, though a restored print is very much needed, and an extraordinary score.  Unlike anything Truffaut or anyone else for that matter has ever made.

THE WILD CHILD again features Truffaut as a doctor who oversees a seemingly mute child who is found in the woods, and tries to make connections with him.  Great cinematography by Nestor Almendros and a memorable performance by Jean-Pierre Cargol.

TWO ENGLISH GIRLS and THE STORY OF ADELE H. are two riveting period pieces; the former is an absolute masterpiece, while the latter is distinguished.  DAY FOR NIGHT is an exhilarating film about film making that remains one of the director’s most popular films.

Note: My 11 year-old son Jeremy fell off a bike this afternoon and fractured his wrist, and incurred bruised ribs.  This has been  a very tough day, starting when Lucille got the call on her cell phone as we (Lucille, Sammy and I) were leaving Manhattan after watching Day For Night.  I am posting this already-prepared MMD now (with only a small one sentence addition) and will speak more about Truffaut at some point in the future.


The Lure of the Sila – 1949, Duilio Coletti

$
0
0

lupo 1

by Allan Fish

(Italy 1949 77m) DVD2 (Italy only, no English subs)

Aka. Il Lupo della Sila: The Wolf of the Sila

A tale of two crosses

p Dino de Laurentiis d Duilio Coletti w Duilio Coletti, Steno, Mario Monicelli, Carlo Musso, Ivo Perilli, Vincenzo Talarico ph Aldo Tonti ed Adriana Novelli m Enzo Masetti, Osvaldo Minervini art Ivo Perilli

Silvana Mangano (Rosaria Campolo), Amedeo Nazzari (Rocco Barra), Jacques Sernas (Salvatore Barra), Luisa Rossi (Orsolo Barra), Vittorio Gassman (Pietro Campolo), Olga Solbelli (Signora Campolo), Dante Maggio (Gennaro), Laura Cortese (little Rosaria), Michele Cappezzuoli (little Salvatore),

One hesitates to call director Duilio Coletti forgotten because it’s unlikely he was even known in the English speaking world in the first place. More surprising is that The Lure of the Sila isn’t better known; or at least, until recently. For too long, perceptions of post-war Italian cinema were that there was nothing but neo-realism and, indeed, little but Visconti, de Sica, Fellini and Rossellini. There were other neo-realist directors and films, of course, and it was one of these, Giuseppe de Santis’ Riso Amaro, that gave neo-realism its poster girl, Silvana Mangano.

What has until recently been overlooked is that Italian film c.1945-1955 was also home to many historical spectaculars and melodramas. The Lure of the Sila is one of these, and yet it seems to owe its ancestry not to Italy at all. It rather recalls the great Scandinavian melodramas of the silent era which Mauritz Stiller, Victor Sjöstrom used to turn out in Sweden and which were still then being made by Teuvo Tulio in Finland and other directors in Denmark and Norway.

What they hold in common is scenery. No fjords, but plenty of mountains and lakes, in Calabria, the northernmost outpost close to the Italian Alps. It’s essentially a blood drama, told over two generations. In the prologue, shepherd Pietro Campolo is shown making love to his beloved, Orsolo. But Orsolo is terrified of her brother, Rocco, and knows they won’t be allowed to marry. Pietro returns home to find that the police are waiting for him. A man has been murdered who he was not only the last to be seen with, but also argued with. He’s taken away and his mother goes to Orsolo knowing she must vouch for where he was the night before, but she’s bullied by her brother into silence. Pietro escapes but is tracked down and shot at his house, while another bullet hits his mother. His younger sister Rosaria is left orphaned.

The story then pushes forward ten years or so. Rosaria has now grown up but keeps her identity secret, so when she’s rescued in the snow by Rocco and his Alsatian Wolf and taken back to his house, she in time becomes part of the furniture. She plans revenge by making Rocco marry her, but the return of Rocco’s son Salvatore, who she has an obvious attraction to, throws a spanner in the works.

These melodramas are never about surprise and tension so much as they’re about the depiction of a simple way of life where legends are taken as gospel. The Nordic silents may be the biggest artistic influence, but there are essences of the German mountain films, too, as well as Wuthering Heights, with Orsolo equating quite well to poor Isabella Linton, turned ashen grey before her time due to having her heart turned to limestone. The photography dominates all, with Aldo Tonti’s work here quite possibly his greatest, full of shadowy interiors and painterly outdoor compositions. Amongst the cast, Gassman has to make do with the prologue, Nazzari is effective as the brutish brother with the misguided sense of family honour and Rossi is superb as the embittered Orsolo. All, though, bow to la Mangano, still only 18, pure sex on her formidable legs, equal parts temptress and saint, with those incredible dark brown eyes sparkling like jet. Note, too, to the dog, who seems invested by the spirit of Rin Tin Tin. It may not be subtle, it may not be a masterpiece, but as fatalistic Italian melodramas of the period go, this is pretty much as good as it gets.

13


Viewing all 2835 articles
Browse latest View live