Oscar's Cinema Journal 2005

I also would like to see the work of Tarr.

I should have watched Los Olvidados more carefully, but whether I'm really a Bunuel fan I don't know. Certainly an auteur from the get-go. I first learned about him from The Secret Life of Salvador DalÍ, the limp watch artist's fascinating autobiography which in unique in beginning with "intra-uterine memories." "A day in the history of the cinema...a date marked in blood," he says after describing how at the first showing of Un Chien Andalu people threw ink pots at the screen and rioted.

I probably avoided Is Paris Burning? as schlock. Obviously it would have historical interest today with all those people in it. You meant René Clément, not René Clair; I used to confuse them.

*Thanks for pointing out my error. I've corrected the director's name.
*I think the "schlock" designation has a lot to do with the producer's decision to release Is Paris Burning? with the French and German actors' dialogue dubbed into English, the fact that big budget epics were considered old-fashioned, and the lack of psychological depth of the characterizations. I found it worth watching, with some well staged action sequences, nice photography, and a script that makes a complicated story accessible. Sophisticated viewers may want to head straight for Marcel Ophuls' The Sorrow and The Pity, the best doc I've seen about the French Resistance.

Saturday April 9th

Inside Deep Throat at the Gateway in Ft. Lauderdale

Documentary about the culture wars engendered by the porn film Deep Throat and the efforts to keep sex movies away from mainstream outlets of film exhibition and distribution. A chronologically-ordered doc combining historical footage, clips from the actual film, and interviews with those involved in the making and exhibition of the film, those who supported its distribution, and those who fought to supress it. How much you'll learn obviously depends on how familiar you are with these events of historical import, which probably depends largely on your age.

In the Realms of the Unreal at the Gateway Theatre

Director Jessica Yu wants to put you in Nathan Lerner's place. Landlord and photographer Lerner went into the room occupied for 41 years by Henry Darger and found a 15,000-page novel, a shorter one, his memoirs, and a multiplicity of paintings, clippings, and collectibles.

Henry Darger (1892-1973) was a Chicago native who lived in an orphanage and a "Home for Feeble-Minded Children" after his mother died giving birth to his sister when he was 3 years old. He was a reclusive eccentric who spent his life working menial jobs, attending Mass, and producing novels and paintings inside his Lincoln Park room. Darger avoided social contact. Yu interviews people who knew him but they have little to report. The bulk of the doc consists of Dakota Fanning reading from Darger's novel "The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What Is Known as the Realms of the Unknown of the Glandico-Angelinian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion" which borrows liberally from a variety of texts including the Oz books, "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and other known novels. Darger illustrated the novel by creating panoramic scenes containing drawings he made by tracing clippings from ads, comics, newspaper photos, etc. He created huge collages which Yu cannot seem to fit into her doc's frame. She shows them in close-ups that fail to give a sense of their composition. Yu uses digital animation to give movement to the drawings but the novelty becomes tiresome. After about an hour, I began to lose interest in the excerpts from the novel, which are interspersed with readings from his memoir, and the interviews. Yu does an excellent job documenting Darger's obsessions with Catholic motifs, weather phenomena, children's vulnerability (including a fixation on a 1911 picture of a girl who was murdered), war themes,etc. Yu's presentation of the material seems to indicate she's more interested in Darger the weird eccentric than in Darger, the self-taught artist. Seems to me that his genius has a lot to do with the placing of borrowed elements within a large canvas, in the composition of his huge scenes, but they are only shown in close-up. Moreover, Yu's decision to completely ignore the literature on Danger's artistic process, methods,etc. left the art lover in me unsatisfied. On the other hand, as presented, the writings and art work provide very rich, raw material for psychological conjecture and interpretation.

*I was somewhat disapointed with this, which I saw at Film Forum during its opening showing in January, and I sense you were somewhat disapointed too. YOu omit mention of the fact that Darger apparently had one dear friend. To say that those who knew him had little to report perhaps also understates things. Obviously he was mysterious and remote but that is not to say that people had nothing to report about him. He had regular contact with some people, as the film shows. I like you was also disappointed in the novel or novels of Darger, which I compared in my mind with the homoerotic novels of world domination, corporate expoitation, and drugs that William S. Burroughs wrote. Of course Burroughs' work, or some of it, is a literary classic and verbally and technically rich beyond most of what one encounters in the world of fiction even today; he was also a very smart man with a penetrating vision whose thoughts about the nexus of political and economic power, military and law enforcement and capital, are increasingly relevant. Darger is a fascinating case, and I was struck by how articulate his writing is, but he does not have Burroughs' sweeping, analytical mind or one iota of the richness and daring of Burroughs' imagination. For all his drugs Burroughs had a very clear head at all times. And he was also very connected with the world, with an enthusiastic young audience in his later years and connections with some of the major literary and artistic figures of his generation, starting with the Beats and the Tangiers expatriots. I mention Burroughs because there are parallels between the wandering gangs of girls in Darger's book(s) and Burroughs bands of"Wild Boys." Darger's novel isn't why Darger is a known figure. His artwork is. As an outsider artist, he is a kind of American superstar, I gather (I'm not much into outsider art myself). This, as you say, the filmmaker does not sufficiently explore. It would have been simply valuable to show Darger's works on display in museums, and to talk to curators or critics to hear what they have to say about his visual work. I don't think we'd bring up these shortcomings if the movie had a richer content in and of itself, but after all, the main character is absent in more ways than one. (There are several documentaries on William Burroughs, in which he like Charles Bukowski in Born into This is the dominant figure because plenty of footage exists. Don't get the idea I'm saying Burroughs was a nutcase...but of course he was out there...that's why the young people liked him.)

*Your description of Is Paris Burning? doesn't exactly make me want to see it, though there is still the fact of all those amazing actors in one place. Have never seen The Sorrow and the Pity, despite Woody Allen's frequent references to it. There are also lots of very long Russian novels I haven't read.

*Have not seen Inside Deep Throat and don't want to. The reviews have not been at all favorable, and the subject matter isn't appealing to me. Those other Deep Throats -- the political ones -- on the other hand, I'd like to know more about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
In the Realms of the Unreal at the Gateway Theatre

---

I find it just an "okay" movie ... see my comments here ...
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...?threadid=1205

I was deciding whether to watch, and saw it being listed as a top 10 here ... so I asked my friend along ... he was totally bored ... I felt so bad ...
(I guess there were too few good documentaries last year ... hee hee)
http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...+of+the+unreal

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Untold Scandal...

---

Hmmm ... I watched it quite long ago and wrote a review on the old foreignfilms.com. It has been deleted after the revamp.

Anyway, in simple terms, I do not like the new Korean version. It does not capture one's emotion nor the wit in the dialogues very well.

Hengcs' sole stated reason for finding In the Realms of the Unreal "just an okay movie" is that "it lacks any emotional connection". I thought of posting my comments on his thread but how can I argue with his not being moved. If Darger's memoirs about a childhood of extreme deprivation, and suffering at the hands of institutional authority did not move him, then so be it.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I was somewhat disapointed with this, which I saw at Film Forum during its opening showing in January, and I sense you were somewhat disapointed too.

I'm surprised you were somewhat disappointed because you listed the film among the best docs of 2004. My major objections boil down to: 1) the narration from "The Story of the Vivian Girls..." and the digital animating of the scenes he created to illustrate it were used by Yu past the point of diminished returns, 2) the abuse of the close-up when presenting art works whose major merit is found in their overall composition. Admittedly the size of the paintings posed a challenge to a filmmaker working with a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, but still, Yu failed to overcome this problem. 3) Once she had accomplished her stated objective of putting the viewer in the place of Lerner, once we had experienced Darger's legacy without intermediaries, I wish she had opened up the film by providing the perspective of those who have studied it, analyzed it, bought it, exhibited it, etc.


You omit mention of the fact that Darger apparently had one dear friend.

I probably forgot to mention him because this obviously dear friend didn't register with me as also a close friend. If I remember correctly they had meaningful contact in Darger's youth and minimal contact during the subsequent decades.

To say that those who knew him had little to report perhaps also understates things.

What was the point of showing interviews with churchgoers about where he sat during Mass? Others basically report that he was a loner who talked to himself using various voices, and once claimed to have been "raped by a 17 year old Italian girl".

I like you was also disappointed in the novel or novels of Darger

I didn't form a firm opinion about the 15,000 page novel based on portions read by Ms. Fanning but I found listening to these excerpts valuable and interesting only up to a point. The film states the novel is a highly derivative work, one that borrows liberally from others. Moreover, its length almost guarantees it's quite redundant and repetitive. I don't rule out the possibility that a good editor could turn it into something rewarding. Not into Burroughs though.

Have not seen Inside Deep Throat and don't want to. The reviews have not been at all favorable, and the subject matter isn't appealing to me.

The reviews have been almost uniformly favorable. Dargis is the one who comes close to a truly unfavorable review. On the other hand, the only truly enthusiastic review I found was on Entertainment Weekly. You know that if I deemed it a must-see I'd be trying to persuade you to watch it. Anyway, I'd predict you're familiar with 3/4 of the material (from other sources).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Hengcs' sole stated reason for finding In the Realms of the Unreal "just an okay movie" is that "it lacks any emotional connection". I thought of posting my comments on his thread but how can I argue with his not being moved. If Darger's memoirs about a childhood of extreme deprivation, and suffering at the hands of institutional authority did not move him, then so be it.

---

Maybe I am not as well versed in my English (being a non native speaker) and getting my precise message across. Often, I just want to keep my review terse.

Anyway, what I was trying to convey is: I think there is a major difference between "emotional connection" by virtue of what happened to the protagonist versus how a director managed to stir the emotion in its audience. The latter is missing from this movie.

To narrate/depict sad events in any movies is easy. To make the audience feel so is the tough part! In other words, there are many movies that try to tell sad stories -- but not many succeed. Not because there are NO sad/tragic events that happened ... but simply because the director did not succeed in making the audience feel so. It may be too presumptuous to blame the audience for being hard hearted or unemotional ...

Or maybe because I have read too many novels by Charles Dickens ... who did a much much better job at telling sad stories about poor boys ...

Or maybe because my own childhood is just as sad, if not worse ...

Sorry I missed these comments from Oscar addressed to me earlier. Okay, I put the Darger film in my Best List because it's an important -- and unusual -- topic and I think Yu did a good job. I don't believe that I have to love all the movies I put in my Best Lists any more than I think I have to love all the artworks I acknowledge as great in other media. We're pretty much agreed on the shortcomings even if I quibbled with you on a couple of your statements. When I think of recent documentaries that moved or involved me, like Touching the Void, To Be and to Have, My Architect, not to mention the politically involving ones like The Corporation and Fahrenheit 9/11, In the Realms of the Unreal fades out. Documentaries can be moving and wonderful and this one isn't. But it's still worth watching, and a must for anybody interested in the wilder fringes of art. I think by the way that there's enough from the novel to make a judgement and the idea of some poor editor trying to pare it down into something readable makes me shake my head. Better to lock him up for fifteen years like the guy in Oldboy.

Agreed, the animations are overused. But they are welcome. And closeups are also an essential part of bringing art to life on film when it's narrative and figurative. With more abstract art closeups are just showing you the brushwork.

Quote:

---

(Posted by hengcs:)
I think there is a major difference between "emotional connection" by virtue of what happened to the protagonist versus how a director managed to stir the emotion in its audience. The latter is missing from this movie.
.

To narrate/depict sad events in any movies is easy. To make the audience feel so is the tough part! In other words, there are many movies that try to tell sad stories -- but not many succeed. Not because there are NO sad/tragic events that happened ... but simply because the director did not succeed in making the audience feel so. It may be too presumptuous to blame the audience for being hard hearted or unemotional ...

---

This is a great point and I want to comment. Sometimes Oscar you like some others here seem to think that if the subject matter has a certain significance then we must be moved, but as hengcs is pointing out, it all depends on how the filmmaker molds the material into a film and how interesting a take he has on it. Needless to say, for example, Nathaniel Kahn had a relationship to his father Louis Kahn that he used with great effectivness in molding his portrait of the man and his art. One is moved by the work itself because the images Nathaniel filmed of Kahn's great buildings are lovely and fresh, but one is also moved by all the intensity and complexity of the personal reflections brought out in the voiceover commentary and the interviews with people in Kahn's life.

Come to think of it, Darger himself was a lot like the prisoner in Oldboy. But he never got out of his prison.

*Realms is certainly worth watching. I just wouldn't put it on an alphabetically-ordered best list next to The Corporation because of its numerous shortcomings.
*Hengcs' point you quoted is obviously right. It's my fault he felt he needed to make it. It's my fault my statement was interpreted to mean that given certain content one must be moved. My point is that I cannot argue with a person not being moved by something that had an emotional impact on me.

Sunday April 10th

It's exciting to have a dvd and a film in theatres to recommend.

1984 (1985) on rental dvd
I cannot understand how I could have missed this film during its threatrical run exactly 20 years ago. I had just met Cristi and she would have loved the shit out of it, with memories of totalitarianism still fresh in her memory. Written and directed by Michael Radford (The Merchant of Venice, Il Postino) and starring the perfectly cast John Hurt and Richard Burton (his last perf?). I cannot imagine a more perfect adaptation. As bleak and wrenching as it had to be.

Millions at SoBe Regal.
A PG-rated family movie directed by Danny Boyle from an original script by Frank Cottrell Boyce. You read right. The director of Shallow Grave and Transpotting and the writer of those angst-ridden Michael Winterbottom films (Butterfly Kiss, 24 hour Party People) have teamed up to create an imaginative fantasy full of whimsy and uplift. "One of the best films of..." and comparisons to The 400 Blows and Au Revoir les Enfants are perhaps undeserved . But cool cats sneering at the movie poster with a 7 year old's cute face on it and deciding it's beneath them are truly missing out.

Quote:

---

It's my fault he felt he needed to make it. It's my fault my statement was interpreted to mean that given certain content one must be moved. My point is that I cannot argue with a person not being moved by something that had an emotional impact on me.

---

We all have faults and your virtues far outweigh your faults on this site! My point was not so much addressed purely to this remark but more generally to assumptions you sometimes have evidenced over time in defending or attacking films you have seen. I think you like Howard sometimes assume more than I do that the subject matter makes or mars a film whereeas in my own judgements I try to focus more strictly on artistic merit, though my remarks on Sin City might be construed otherwise. Our differing on Ciudade de Deus and Kill Bill might evidence this difference. I see them as artistic triumphs. But I also admit I have actually said recently in the Sin City discussion that violence works well on film. I don't advocate violence. And I'm especially happy and moved when a film that I think has exceptional moral and philoosphical depth like Kurosawa's Ikiru is also an artistic triumph.

*I didnt' know that Michael Radford, whose Merchant of Venice I admire, made 1984 and also that Miramaxical triumph Il Postino! He's all over the map! I watched the film 1984 on video at the time, but don't remember being that charmed by it. However, I knew the book since adolescence, and am sick of it and of that aspect of Orwell's sensibility, so I'm not sure any version would have worked for me.

* "One of the best films of..." and comparisons to The 400 Blows and Au Revoir les Enfants are perhaps undeserved . You can say that again. But I didn't miss out on it. I simply found its organization chaotic, the whole film disappointing. Boyle too is all over the map. Shallow Grave and Trainspotting are good, I should say I think he has gone very slowly downhill for a long time (in each successive film his cinematic IQ seems to drop five points or so), while still engaging us by trying such a variety of projects and handling them each always very much in his own way.

I loved Is Paris Burning?.
It was written by no less than 9 people including Coppola and Gore Vidal, my current hero.

I saw a program on PBS called Masterworks that was an incredible glimpse into a brilliant mind on Fri.

He said something very true:

Interviewer: So if George W. Bush and John Ashcroft had been around in the early days of the Republic, they would have been indicted and then hanged by the Founders?

Gore Vidal: No. It would have been better and worse. [laughs]. Bush and Ashcroft would have been considered so disreputable as to not belong in this country at all. They might be invited to go down to Bolivia or Paraguay and take part in the military adminstration of some Spanish colony, where they would feel so much more at home. They would not be considered Americans- most Americans would not think of them as citizens.

Interviewer: Do you not think of Bush and Ashcroft as Americans?

Gore Vidal: I think of them as an alien army. They have managed to take over everything, and quite in the open.
We have a deranged President.
We have despotism.
We have no due process.




Sorry to distract from your landmark thread oscar.
I just felt like throwing some political claptrap in the mix...

*I enjoyed your post thoroughly Johann. I'm glad folks are getting the message that this thread like all others is meant to be interactive and that posts like Johann's are encouraged. What we've created here, gentlemen, is a community of sorts. It's importance is amplified by the fact that a lot of movie-watching nowadays is done in isolation due to technological advances and the nature of film distribution.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I think you sometimes assume more than I do that the subject matter makes or mars a film whereas in my own judgements I try to focus more strictly on artistic merit, though my remarks on Sin City might be construed otherwise. Our differing on Ciudade de Deus and Kill Bill might evidence this difference. I see them as artistic triumphs.

Not the subject matter but the treatment of its subject, and/or the underlying values a film conveys (consciously or not) and/or the implications of a given film's resolution. This constitutes one aspect of film appreciation, along with other equally important considerations involving aesthetics or artistic merit.
Regarding Ciudade de Deus (City of God): You'll find this title in my best of 2003 list as a runner-up because of its artistic merits (which I've described in detail before). But I would deem any review that fails to address inherent moral/value-ladden issues to be incomplete. I'm certainly not the only one on this site to apply the adjective "exploitative" to qualify it. That doesn't make it a bad film, or necessarily disqualifies it from my year-end list.
There are numerous examples of films of great artistic merit which I have found morally dubious or which go against values I hold dear. These would include: Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs, Midnight Express, and many more. Some of these got into my Top 10 films in spite of my views regarding their underlying values. I've discussed most of these films here at filmwurld before.
I try to avoid reading comments/reviews before I watch a movie but I couldn't help reading to find out what all that posting regarding Sin City was all about. Of course I have no opinions yet, but your comments and review seem to me to approach the film in all its pertinent aspects.


I simply found its organization chaotic, the whole film disappointing. Boyle too is all over the map.

Don't forget Millions when compiling your Overrated List at year's end. I liked it very much and audiences seem to be agreeing with most critics. For instance, a third of IMdb voters gave it a "10", and 420 out of 490 rate it a "7" or higher. I'm glad you watched it. If you didn't enjoy it so be it, but I'm afraid a lot of people won't give a "family movie" a chance.

I have been writing stuff and posting stuff about movies for hours and I'm tired, but thanks for taking the trouble to reply to my comments. I think this issue of morality and values versus other aspects of a movie is too subtle and complex for me to deal with it now. I take your point that you rated City of God high even though you disapproved of it. For you, that disapproval was an important part of your viewing experience, even though you somehow came out in favor of it as one of the year's best. I simply did not see the grounds of disapproval. The movie is based on an autobiographhical novel, isn't it? and the novel tells what happened in the life of the author. Are you disapproving of the filmmakers, or of the kind of life the people in the favelas were living during those decades? I assume y ou would consider Straw Dogs, Clockwork Orange, Midnight Express, also superior? I don't know. Clockwork Orange was, as I recall, condemned by Pauline Kael as 'appealing to the worst impulses in the audience,' or words to that effect. But ultimately she took it pretty seriously, as one would anything by a master of the caliber of Stanley Kubrick. Clockwork Orange is based on a novel by Anthony Burgess, which is effectively written in code, but as far as I could tell is pretty much what Kubrick gives us. So should we condemn Burgess? Or merely Kubrick for faithfully adapting a novel in which there is willful violence? Is the presence of violence in a movie a sign that the filmmakers endorse violence, or are they indifferent, or opposed? Do they have to come in and make an overt comment for their disappoval or detachment to be clear, or acceptable? Are we required to make moral judgments of the movies we see? Midnight Express is not such a work or art, but it's a ripping good tale -- so is the book, a true account, which the movie alters toward the end. I guess you are going on record against trying to smuggle hashish out of Turkey. Fine. But how do you feel about Turkish prisons? I find Taxi Driver has not aged well. I am not as big a fan of Scorsese as many are. I'm not a fan of Pekinpah either, even less so. Only A Clockwork Orange I would defend to the death; the others, I would even question the artistic merit of.

But all this would really require a big discussion somewhere else and who has the time?

I was only trying to define your way of evaluating films as different from mine; mine is simply more amoral, I guess.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Clockwork Orange was, as I recall, condemned by Pauline Kael as 'appealing to the worst impulses in the audience,' or words to that effect. Clockwork Orange is based on a novel by Anthony Burgess but as far as I could tell is pretty much what Kubrick gives us. So should we condemn Burgess?

Kael on A Clockwork Orange:

"The movie follows the Anthony Burguess novel closely yet the meanings are turned around. Burguess is clearly a humanist; his point is that of one horrified by the possibilities of a society turned clockwork orange, in which life is so mechanized that men lose their capacity for moral choice. Stanley Kubrick's Alex is not so much an expression of how this society has lost its soul as he is a force pitted against the society, and by making the victims of the thugs more repulsive and contemptible than the thugs Kubrick has learned to love the punk sadist. The end is no longer the ironic triumph of a mechanized punk but a real triumph. Far from being a little parable about the dangers of soullessness and the horrors of force the movie becomes a vindication of Alex, saying that the punk was a free human being and only the good Alex was a robot.
The trick of making the attacked less human than their attackers, so you feel no sympathy for them is, I think, symptomatic of a new attitude in movies. This attitude says there is no moral difference. Kubrick has assumed the deformed, self-righteous perspective of a vicious young punk who says: "Everything's rotten. Why shouldn't I do what I want? They're worse than I am." The movie's confusing_and, finally, corrupt_morality is not, however, what makes it such an abhorrent viewing experience. It's offensive before one perceives where it's heading because it has no shadings. In Los Olvidados, Bunuel showed teenagers committing horrible brutalities, and even though you had no illusions about their victims_one, in particular, was a foul old lecher_ you were appalled. Bunuel makes you understand the pornography of brutality: the pornography is in what human beings are capable of doing to other human beings"

But all this would really require a big discussion somewhere else and who has the time?

Pleas don't feel obligated to respond if you don't have the time. I am already quite appreciative of the time you've taken to engage me and exchange opinions. I won't go into detail about my objections to each film I mentioned. I could have listed many more films. The issues are complex and different for each movie. I'll just clarify that my issue with Midnight has nothing to do with drugs (when it comes to drugs I side with the Libertarians) but primarily with the implication that the only prisoner that matters is the American, not the thousands of unseen Turks subjected to the same barbaric treatment.

I was only trying to define your way of evaluating films as different from mine; mine is simply more amoral, I guess.

I wasn't trying to generalize about your way of evaluating films. I added a paragraph to my response to the first quote, regarding your take on Sin City, which maybe you missed because you were writing when I added it. I intended to post it earlier but a film on TCM was about to start.

Monday April 11th

Sherlock Jr. (1924) on TCM

Buster Keaton as a movie projectionist fascinated with detective work, but he's clueless when his rival for a girl's affection steals her father's watch, plants the pawn ticket for it in Buster's pocket and so disgraces him. Exiled from her house, he returns to the theatre and falls asleep during the showing of a mystery thriller. A long dream sequence develops in which he walks down the theatre aisle, up on to the stage, and into the picture. What transpires next constitutes the most inventive physical comedy sequences in the history of motion pictures. I have yet to watch the equally respected The General, but otherwise Sherlock Jr. is my favorite Keaton and one of my all-time favorite comedies. Dave Kehr's capsule review: http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movi...HERLOCK_JUNIOR

Does"Kubrick has assumed the deformed, self-righteous perspective of a vicious young punk"? sound like Kubrick to you? This is one of the most dramatic instances of the many ones where Kael, whom I so much admired and still admire -- though she seems to be regarded as passé by younger viewers and readers now, seemed completely off base. Gosh, comparing a movie like A Clockwork Orange with something like Oldboy or Sin City, it seems both incredibly tame and a great deal more moral. Do you buy Kael's interpretation of the differences between Burgess's novel and the movie? It's just her interpretation. I don't buy that Bunuel shows us "the pornograpny of brutality" (a then-hip phrase?) but Kubrick makes brutality somehow neutral or cool; it's clear that the young psychopaths in Clockwork Orange are in a bad way. So much of this is in the eye of the beholder. Pauline disliked Kubrick's movie and went back to the novel by Burgess to use it as a weapon against him -- as was only natural for her to do. What would Pauline say today about some of the violence in cartoon-based films? Perhaps I am becoming Pauline!

About Midnight Express, this is like your siding with Howard on the "limitations" of Zana Briski's excellent documentary of the photography class she gave to children of prostitutes in Calcutta: you damn it for not being a treatise on conditions of prostitutes in India, and you damn Billy Hayes for depicting his experience of a Turkish prison and not the experience of all the Turks who went through it. A man's experience is not invalid because he has come from a relatively priviledged society. I can't see how the account given in the book and movie is immoral, simply because it doesn't focus on the Turks. To tell one's own story is not in itself to imply that all other stories are insignificant; it is simply all that one can do. This is an autobiographical narrative, not a treatise on social conditions, just as Zana Briski's documentary is a description of her experience with children of prostitutes -- though actualy she has accomplished some very positive things for them and continues to work for them, inspired by a religious guru of hers -- and not a treatise on prostitution. Is that the trouble with Taxi Driver, that it isn't a treatise on young prostitutes or homocidal psychopaths?

You may not have been trying to generalize about my way of evaluating films (why not? Is that taboo?), but I was trying to generalize about your way of evaluating films -- only sometimes, obviously; a great deal of the time your descriptions of films are very neutral; though I don't think they tend toward the aesthetic as much as mine do, you do occasionally take a detour from social consciousness to see Pretty in Pink. I saw Guess Who yesterday, by the way. Just a silly comedy, of course, but much nicer than Sin City or Oldboy, and I believe Ashton Kutcher did get involved in the project with the aim of doing some good for race relations, at least he said so in his conversation with Brad Pitt in Interview.

I'm not endorsing Kael's choice of words, but I agree with her argument regarding ACO. She's certainly not the only notable critic who's argued against the film. A contemporary of hers who I consider a better film critic, Dave Kehr, hates it even more (http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movi...OCKWORK_ORANGE). I enjoyed McDowell's performance and other aspects, but ACO is, in my opinion of course, Kubrick's sole misstep. The fact that he is one of my favorite directors doesn't mean I have to idolize him and love everything he did. The fact that the adaptation follows the novel closely illustrates the freedom filmmakers have to affect meaning via mise-en-scene, casting, performance,etc.

Midnight Express is a totally different case because Oliver Stone's script, for which he apologized last year during a trip to Turkey, is loosely based on the novel. He excised everything having to do with the homosexual romance in the novel and any positive reference regarding Turkey and Turks. He privileged lines like "For a nation of pigs, it sure seems funny that you don't eat them" over and over. Billy Hayes has stated: "The film depicts all Turks as monsters. I wish they'd shown some of the milk of human kindness I witnessed". He loved Brad Davis's performance though.

We've discussed Taxi Driver and Brothels at length before (you seem to have forgotten my arguments though). But I'll state briefly that the latter fails to address issues that come up within the footage shown and the do-gooder is a bit too self-congratulatory; and the latter makes a hero out of a vengeful vigilante, builds an altar to weaponry, and contains a number of bizarre implausibilities. It's also a lot of fun to watch.

I strongly disagree when you stated that you're way of evaluating films "is simply more amoral, I guess". Your reviews of Spartan and Sin City, to name just a couple, evidence otherwise. It's equally incorrect to try to stuff me into a box that doesn't fit.

Tuesday April 12th

Angano...Angano...Tales from Madagascar (1989) on vhs
Award-winning documentary directed by Cesar Paes from Brasil, a co-production of France and Madagascar that celebrates the oral traditions and rituals of rural Malagasy culture. Angano...'s approach to ethnographic filmmaking is highly evocative and non-interpretative. There's no voice-over, only ancestral tales coming directly from Malagasy elders accompanied by quotidian scenes and lanscape shots, as well as recordings of elaborate rituals. I've had an interest in African music dating back to 1980 so the music produced on screen sounded quite familiar, but the Malagasy belief system and some of their rituals provided an unmediated learning experience. Watched it twice. This is one of many videos dealing with African culture released by a company called California Newsreel located in San Francisco. I hope my library has other similar titles.

I'm obliged to you for informing me about differences between the book and film of Midnight Express, at least as perceived by Stone and Hayes. I read the book and didn't see it as that different from the movie, though the gay sex was obviously airbrushed out of it, but if those differences are significant to others, I must honor that.

I'm not clear why Dave Kehr is deemed superior to Pauline Kael, but I mentioned that she is now out of fashion, and he still flourishes. Perhaps my admiration for Clockwork Orange does finally after all show that I have an amoral pure aesthetics streak as a film critic/fan. The idea that this is Kubrick's "sole misstep" seems to me absurd.

I guess I keep forgetting your arguments about Taxi Driver and Born into Brothels because they don't convince me. "The do-gooder is a bit too self-congratulatory" completely fails to gibe with my sense of the film. You're right on Taxi Driver, I was just stating what the logic of your position earlier seemed to imply you'd hold about the film, not what you had actually said. "Fun to watch"? It was once. As I've said repeatedly, as one who saw it then and has seen it now, I find it very dated, perhaps because there are so much greater terrors and terrorists afoot; the ending is absurd, ridiculously celebrates and excuses violence wihout ironic comment, and is a big success for Scorsese but nonetheless a serious misstep in a career that is almost nothing but blindly lionized missteps.

To go back to Kael and Clockwork Orange, it's rather careless argumentation on your part to say, "I'm not endorsing Kael's choice of words, but I agree with her argument regarding ACO. " Her choice of words is her argument and if you don't endorse it, don't quote it, and rely on your own argument. Since I began by saying this was a place where she particularly went haywire, it's odd that in a debate with me you should reply by quoting that argument of hers -- and then say that you "don't endorse [her] choice of words"! I don't either, nor do I endorse her argument. I recognize that others besides Kael (the admirable Kehr?) find Clockwork Orange to be a celebration of violence. If I admire it, perhaps you've misread my criticisms of Spartan and Sin City. I didn't say Sin City was wicked, I said it was brain dead, and though I commented on the racism of Spartan, my main criticisms were that it's cold, that it doesn't make sense, and that in general Mamet's simplistic techniques work on stage but not in films. I think my comments on Spartan are politically sensitive, but you may have read moral judgments into them that aren't actually there. Nonetheless, I'm not out to type you or to type myself; I'm just trying to make us both more aware of our ways of evaluating films, and how they differ.

You're right, I agree with Kael. It's the sentence of hers about Kubrick assuming the position of a "vicious young punk" that bothers me because it comes close to an attack on the filmmaker. I quoted her because I agree with her argument and because I was prompted to do so by your comment that ACO "was, as I recall, condemned by Pauline Kael...". By the way, Kael saved her strongest words of abject condemnation for Midnight Express (I can't find a more negative review in her collected works). Kehr over Kael is simply a personal preference, and no slight on Kael who was more influential, more widely read, and a good writer. Talking about good writers, I'm currently becoming acquainted with Manny Farber via his "Negative Space: Manny Farber on the Movies", a contemporary of Kael who retired from criticism 25 years ago to do "what comes natural, paint".
Going over my writings (journal, reviews,etc) I realize I only bring up these issues of values endorsed by a given film, or the ethics of its message, on the few occassions when it's relevant. It may seem otherwise because these few films ellicit unforgettable debates/exchanges.

P.S. I'd be interested in having you expand on your Sin City review comment re: the confused morality of its revenge, when is revenge morally sound?, etc. but perhaps it's not the time or the place.

Of course Pauline was extreme but it came from passion, love, and a strong background keen intelligence and considerable gifts of memory. One can and should admire her for all that without sharing her specific views and many of her reviews have perhaps dated as have the movies of which they speak. Midnight Express is like a roaring great read of a book, a great watch if you will, not really a great movie but a compulsively watchable one -- a real "experience." I used to read Manny Farber sometimes when he was writing for -- what was it? Some intellectual weekly or other, and I knew about his paintings, mostly of objects strewn over tables as I recall.

I didn't mean to imply that your views were not "relevant" to the movies you were talking about; they were "relevant" to you, but I think political correctness means more to you in general, in and out of the movie house, than it does to me. Taste and political correctness don't often mix, not for me. This is true of the issue of revenge that you bring up. When is it morally sound? Is that a question for film criticism? I would say that revenge works well in drama--the Elizabethans and Jacobeans had a genre of revenge tragedies; revenge partakes of the inevitability of tragedy wherein humans are the playthings of the gods. And hence it is dramatically and artistically a font of creative invention for playwrights, novelists, and filmmakers. Things just happen to work well in movies and in plays, killing works well, smoking aand drinking work well, they look good. The smoke looked so great in black and white movies with dramatic lighting. It's not a question of morality, good politics, or good health, it's a question of artistic expediency. A source of great energy, and of style. It's also a matter of working within tradition. Tarantino -- we have to mention him; Kill Bill I and 2 are all about revenge -- he uses it because it is a great plot organizer and because he is working within various traditions of pulp fiction and martial arts and macho good and bad guy movies, into which he has injected a healthy dose of feminine machismo. The morality is icing on the cake. But art is part of culture which embodies a moral system.

I think that's a nicely balanced, fair post, Chris. It's edifying to interact with you. The term "political correctness" has become overused in our society and it seems to mean different things to different people, but I think I understand your point, especially applied to the issue of taking revenge. It's a huge issue for me. I specifically disapprove of films that promote taking revenge by depicting characters that take that course of action and get satisfaction, either intrinsically or extrinsically. (This would not include explicitly violent films like Irreversible in which the opposite occurs). Part of the reason why it's a huge issue for me is that, I think revenge plays a part in people's support for certain policies and practices I abhor, such as the death penalty.

Wednesday April 13

Murderous Maids (2000, US release in 2002) on dvd

The murders committed by the Pepin sisters in Le Mans, France in 1933 have served as the basis of several books, plays, films, etc. This film was directed by Jean Pierre Dennis, whose previous theatrical feature was released in 1987 (Dennis had been working as a customs agent in the meantime). Many of the art works the incident inspired took a sociological approach to the material, some provided a Marxist analysis of the maids murdering their burgeoise employer and her daughter. Dennis based the film primarily on the book by Paulette Houdyer, which provides explications based on the psychology and upbringing of the sisters, particularly Christine's. She is played by Sylvie Testud, who won a Cesar for her performance here and has since earned a second Cesar for her performance in Fear and Trembling (see journal entry for Jan. 21st). The film is austere and extremely compact at 90 minutes, evidencing the director's narrative skills. The murder scene strikes a perfect balance, conveying the extreme brutality of the murders without being overly explicit. Ms. Testud's performance is a revelation.

The Corporation is my favorite film of 2004, along with Eternal Sunshine. This Canadian documentary was directed by Jennifer Abbott and Marck Achbar (Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and The Media) and provides an engaging, entertaining, edifying, multi-angle perspective on the world's dominant institution. Having presented the origins of the corporation and the ways in which the entity has achieved rights originally reserved for individuals, the filmmakers adopt the brilliant strategy of applying the diagnostic criteria used by mental health professionals and apply it to the behavior of corporations. After a variety of interesting case histories are presented, the conclusion is that were corporations actual persons, they would be diagnosed as being psychopathic. The film provides a forum to eloquent academics, economists, philosophers, political activists, and CEOs. In fact, the CEO of the world's largest rug manufacturer, a North Carolinian, emerges as The Corporation's hero. The breath of material covered here is astounding: the practice of corporation branding, marketing strategies, Big Business' control over the media and its growing influence on governmental institutions, the broadening definition of what can be considered private property; learn about how the residents of Cochabamba, Bolivia resisted corporate efforts to privatize their water resources, learn about the corporate plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt...A great deal of care is evident in the thoroughness and accessibility of the content.

The film has been released with 7 1/2 hours of extras on two discs. Required viewing for all my dependents. Even if you're a well-informed, politically-aware person, this film has something to teach you. At the very least, you'll make a switch to organic milk. (Canadians and Europeans don't have to because their governments don't allow their citizens to poison themselves).

You're kind as usual, which keeps our discourse flowing nicely. I understand about revenge, but films have to be judged on a case by case basis, and even revenge has its positive side as a deterrant, as do extreme punishments, not that I favor them; I'm about as liberal as you are.

I've seen Sylvie Testud in these and also the disastrous Aime ton père (with Depardieu father and son) in all of which she's an effective, but one-note actress.

It seems to me telling that The Corporation is your favorite for 2004 (next to the non-didactic Eternal Sunshine), because it is purely didactic, and briliant, and probably right, if one-sided -- but very dry. Emotionally Fahrenheit 9/11 effected me much more, I don't care if it's messy and rubbed people the wrong way, it moved me.

I know "politically correct" is an misused and overused and pejorative term but it's the best I can do as a shorthand to describe an influence on your viewing that I don't have.

My point of view seems to be different (unless this is just miscommunication), depite my politics being pretty close to yours, in my primarily looking in film for something that moves me emotionally and delights me aesthetically -- largely irregardless of the ideas involved; things like Christopher Doyle's cinematography in some Wong Kar Wai's movies -- ravishing aesthetically but not pretty-pretty. There's nothing politically correct about Wong as far as I can see (despite allegorical interpretations of references to the HongKong changeover in Happy Days, etc.); of course not about Eternal Sunshine either, but in splitting your Best of 2004 top title, you give such ideas strong preference.

*I wouldn't want readers to get the impression that The Corporation is my favorite film of 2004 simply because I agree with its conclusions. This is my favorite doc since Crumb. I've seen a ton of docs, particularly in recent years, a substantial percentage of them deal with political/social issues of importance to me. Abott and Achbar's film is in a class by itself. It's ingenious in conception and impeccably edited, with a script that manages to illustrate clearly a variety of seemingly complex concepts and ideas of universal import, through a mix of old and new footage with interviews of people who advance their p.o.v. eloquently, provides a forum to those who disagree with the directors' opinion, and incorporates segments that point toward possible solutions to the problems presented. It didn't feel "dry" to me at all; it's entertaining, edifying, level-headed, and avoids tendentiousness while maintaining its focus.
*I share your enthusiasm about Wong and Doyle. Counting the days 'til we can enjoy 2046 with a theatre audience.
*Not surprised you'd be familiar with Farber. I love his writing. Very personal, idiosyncratic prose style and approach to film criticism. The last essay I read creates a dichotomy between "White Elephant Art" and "Termite Art", which is the kind he favors. Extremely amusing, for instance, he refers to Truffaut as a "French Rube Goldberg" and his Jules et Jim as a "love-is-time's-fool film".

Thursday April 14th

The Goddess (China, 1934) on rental dvd

I have wished to watch a film starring Ruan Ling-yu since I first watched Stanley Kwan's Actress, one of my top 10 films of the 90s. It's a mix of documentary, biopic and making-of feature about the "Shanghai Garbo", the first Chinese movie star, who committed suicide at 24 one year after shooting The Goddess. Ruan plays a single mother forced by circumstance into prostitution to support her son. Her aim in life is to provide him with the education she never had, but her gangster pimp, her gossipy neighbors, her son's schoolmates' parents, hell, society in general seems to stand in the way. Ms. Ruan gives a wonderful performance. She is as talented as any of her contemporaries in the West. This dvd was made possible by the People's Republic's Film Archives, a Dutch film conservation fund, and folks from Ball State University in Indiana. It's the first film starring Ruan to be released on dvd anywhere in the world (according to the commentary). Incidentally, Maggie Cheung's performance as Ruan in Kwan's film introduced Cheung to the West ( best actress award at the Berlin Film Festival).

Friday April 15th

Put together my own double bill at the Miami Latin Film Festival taking place today through the 24th in Coconut Grove (where Deep Throat was shot :) Both films tonight belong to what Spanish crits are calling New Andalusian Cinema, films from new directors which attempt to reflect the particular idiosyncracies of Andalucia (where flamenco, Picasso, Murillo, Velasquez, and Lorca were born), particularly their unique speech patterns and salty jargon. Both films deal with marginalized characters, most specifically, male protagonists who are heroin addicts.

Astronautas

Daniel is a long-haired, 40 year-old taking the first awkward steps towards recovery from heroin addiction. He is following a 10-step plan to return to a life of normalcy. He feels like an astronaut on a mission to an unknown planet, forced to develop a routine and a new social life. Laura is almost 16. She's come looking for her brother, who no longer lives next door to Daniel. She claims he's all she has. After Laura sleeps two nights in the hall outside the vacant apartment, Daniel offers her breakfast and something clicks between the two. Daniel allows her to stay for a few days, and despite his apprehension, they develop a bond of mutual support. But how long can it last?
Writer/director Santi Amodeo has crafted a recovery drama interspersed with comic, animated interludes that provide foreshadowing and commentary. Amodeo seems to love music as much as his protagonist, in that the film score features infectious, rock songs co-written by the director. Astronautas maintains an optimistic outlook while being realistic regarding recovery from addiction and the couple's age-disparity.

15 Dias Contigo (15 Days With You)

This film from writer/director Chus Ponce will premiere in Spain next Friday. Isabel (Isabel Ampudia) is a woman in her 30s being released from prison. She vows never to steal again and manages to do so by cleaning storefront windows for tips and having meals and baths at a homeless shelter. Isabel's sole true friend is Rufo, a junkie with AIDS who seems to genuinely care for her. She gradually develops a friendship with a woman her age and an attraction for an amiable bartender. On the other hand, Rufo's life seems destined for a tragic ending. This tale of survival in the streets of Seville is surprisingly funny given the grim milieu, although to be fair, half of its humor would be lost in translation. Some will find Sebastian Haro's performance excessively histrionic, although Rufo happens to be a gregarious, witty and desperate extrovert. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Ampudia gets a Goya nom for her controlled, multi-faceted performance.

These sound great and the subject matter partly up my alley, though I'd miss linguistic details you can enjoy. What fun for you!

The SF Film Festival is coming the end of next week and I will go to some of them with the young man whose intense interest in movies has led his family to get me to help out taking him to things. So far I've agreed to five. Several of them are Latin American though he picked them for the story, not the culture.

Not much otherwise here, the last thing I saw was Agnès Jaoui's Look at Me (Comme une image).

Look at Me got a 3 1/2-stars review in the Miami Herald when it played at the fest. I passed on it to watch something else that had no US distributor. I'd like to know the titles of those five films and anything you want to share about the logistics of attending the SFFF.

I don't know what you mean by logistics exactly, but it has showings at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley, the Castro Theater in SF, the Kabuki Theater in SF (the main venue, a cineplex in Japan Town that works well and was where the New Italian Cinema Event is also held), and a theater in Palo Alto. We are just going to the Kabuki and one at the Castro. You can get to the Kabuki from the East Bay, El Cerrito, Berkeley, Oakland, via BART (the subway) by going to downtown SF and taking a bus, but we'll be driving over I think. Then you have to park but it isn't too bad near the Kabuki if you arrive early. It's harder to park at the Castro and the PFA in my experience.

The five films are:

Kings and Queen (Arnaud Desplechin, France)

Up Against Them All (Roberto Moreira, Brazil)

Saraband (Ingmar Bergman, Sweden)

Crónicas (Sebastián Cordero, Ecuador -- produced by Afonso Cuarón)

Into the Picture Scroll: The Tale of Yamanaka Tokiwa (Sumika Hameda, Japan)

http://www.sfiff.org/fest05/calendar/index.html

Thanks, Chris. The youngster clearly likes heavy fare/big themes. Saraband is as good as chamber drama can get. I like it more than Bergman's Autumn Sonata and Scenes From A Marriage. The French film was named Best Film of 2004 by a French critics group. I passed on Cronicas when it played here because it's having a commercial run. Apparently what's best about it is the performance from Damian Alcazar, which received jury awards here and at San Sebastian. The Japanese and Brasilian films sound interesting.

Saturday April 16th

Practically spent the whole day at Regal Cinemas in Coconut Grove. I took Dylan to a free screening from the Next Generation Film Festival, international films of interest to youth that travel the world (Italy, Albania, Australia, Poland, California, and Florida). We watched a South Africa/France/UK co-production called The Wooden Camera. Madiba and Sipho are 14 year olds playing by the tracks when a dead man and his luggage are thrown from a passing train. Madiba keeps the camera and Sipho keeps the gun they find inside the suitcase. While shooting around the city, Madiba befriends Estelle, a rich white girl who plays a mean cello. Both Madiba and Estelle have serious parental issues whereas Sipho gravitates towards criminality. The Wooden Camera won a deserved cinematography award at the Paris Film Festival, but the serviceable script falters towards the conclusion when it tries to cover too much ground. A few scenes of violence are presented with great restraint but the film would probably get an R-rating in the US because of language and drug use. The teen jury awarded The Wooden Camera the Glass Bear for Best Film at the Berlin Film Festival.

I returned to the theatre to watch a film from the Miami Latin Film Festival. El Lobo is a political thriller based on the true story of Operation Lobo (Wolf), the code name for a mole who infiltrated ETA, a Basque separatist organization, from 1973 to 1975. French-Spanish director Miguel Courtois acknowledges influences from Costa-Gavras (Z, Missing) and Jim Sheridan (In The Name of the Father) and manages to sustain the necessary rhythm while remaining faithful to the historical record. The film exposes the divisions and corruption within ETA and within the Franco government, during its last days. Eduardo Noriega (Open Your Eyes) as Lobo and the rest of the French/Spanish cast are fine throughout. What I found most interesting is the film's thesis that Fascist elements within the government saw ETA's terrorist activities as a way to justify their political positions and attempt to retain power after Franco's death. Ultimately they failed, and Spain became a democracy.

Then I watched Sin City at the same theatre, this year's most written-about movie at filmwurld. I don't see the reason for so much love/hate. An adaptation from a graphic novel, a compendium of borrowings from the film noir and action genres, tough 'n sexy guys and gals no one cares about except to look at, structure a bit clever here and there, excellent production values (especially the lighting I thought), human element buried beneath nihilism, objectification, and cynicism. I don't mind all that much because the fact that it's so stylized and other-worldly creates a buffer. I get the impression many people go to the movies with absolutely no knowledge of what's in store, based on the number of early walk-outs at this screening. (I would have posted in the film's thread but I don't think I'm adding anything to the discussion. Both arsaib4 and Chris Knipp wrote a lot of things that make sense to me.)

Quote:

---

human element buried beneath nihilism, objectification, and cynicism. I don't mind all that much because the fact that it's so stylized and other-worldly creates a buffer.

---

Maybe you can say that but you get through things easier than I do I guess; I found it hard to sit through. Perhaps you either should "mind that much," or should realize that you like it? My friend Jessica, who prides herself on watching anything, sometimes says she didn't "mind" a movie, which I always find depressing, even coming from her. Coming from a film devotee like yourself, I find it somewhat baffling; but if one can't take a stand, one can't. It happens.

Sunday April 17th

Hector beat the latest films from Almodovar, Amenabar and Saura at the Spanish Critics Circle awards in the following categories: best film, best director (Gracia Querejeta), best screenplay, best score, and best actress (Adriana Ozores). The film was produced by Elias Querejeta, Gracia's father and veteran producer of such masterpieces as Cria and The Spirit of the Beehive. Hector is not a masterpiece and I don't think it's better than Bad Education, The Sea Inside, or The Seventh Day. What I decry is the fact that a quality drama dealing with universal themes won't get stateside distribution because it doesn't have a "big name" attached to it. Hector is the rare family drama which draws you in immediately, introduces eight characters that feel and talk like real people, creates narratives around them that never feel forced and arrives at resolutions that are neither predictable nor illogical (although a voice-over summary at its conclusion was not needed). Hector doesn't break new ground but it's too good to be kept from American filmgoers.

Mouchette (1967) on PAL dvd

I don't remember watching a film that made me more sad than Robert Bresson's Mouchette. Not the type of sadness that forces cathartic tears but the one that creates an ever-tightening knot in your throat. It comes natural for me to understand behavior from the point of view of psychology, and I've been trained to do so. Bresson instructed his non-actors or "models" as he'd rather call them to be as inexpressive as possible, to give "wooden" performances. These models' delivery is monotonic by design, that is, whenever they speak. There is a long dialogue-less sequence in Mouchette that illustrates Bresson's austere style. The titular 16 year old rural girl performs chores at a bar (closeup of her hands), approaches the cash register, receives a few coins (close up) and hands them to his stern father outside (close up), walks to the town fair nearby and stands by the bumper cars where a stranger places a token in her hand (you bet), she exchanges glances and smiles with a young man whose car keeps bumping into hers, afterwards they approach each other tentatively and, just before either says a word, her father suddenly appears and slaps her. The effect is striking in that, given the characters lack of specificity and color, one is freer to project onto them. For Bresson, human behavior results from forces far deeper and less fathomable than are explicable by mere cause and effect. Most, if not all, Bresson's films end with the protagonist's death or imprisonment. What happens to his characters seems a matter of unavoidable fate, which is anathema in our American culture, but it's too facile to say Bresson's world view is deterministic.
So, given my nature, my education and my culture, Mouchette is a difficult film to watch. And perhaps, beside the obvious formal virtues and aesthetic beauty of his films, the cause of my deepest admiration for him resides in how far away from my comfort zone his best films take me.
It's also quite a challenge for me to write about them, most particularly, without discussing scenes that would give away aspects of the plot (although I'd respond to any comments). It would be unfair to take away from your sense of discovery for I presume that a film like Mouchette is bound to come your away in the future, if it hasn't already.

Quote:

---

it's too facile to say Bresson's world view is deterministic.

---

Why? Can you enlarge on that point? If Bresson's "world view" isn't simply deterministic, what is it, then? Why can't one call it "deterministic"? What is the more subtle, complex, less "facile" way that you propose of describing his "world view"?

I have not seen Mouchette.

I have seen
Les Dames du Bois de Bologne
Journal d'un Curé de campagne
Un condamné de mort s'est échappé
Procès de Jeanne d'Arc
Lancelat du Lac
Le Diable, probablement
and
L'Argent

I have a copy of Au hazard, Balthazar which I have not yet watched.

For all these films that I've seen (admittedly some of them years and years ago), I don't feel that I know much about Bresson. He is rather opaque, no doubt intentionally so.

The required woodenness of actors applies to Italian neo-realist films at times and made me think of a movie I love, Rossellini's Louis XIV: La prise de pouvoir. Your description also makes me think of Bruno Dumont, though I feel that his depressing and monotonous works are more pulsating with life, sexuality, and menace than Bresson's.

I have trouble liking filmmakers whose work is relentlessly pessimistic. Why emphasize the negative? I have done enough of that in my own life. Why not be life-affirming, like Renoir? Even a very sad film like Kurosawa's Ikiru is deeply life-affirming in showing how a life can be made useful, even at the end of it. (Of course Kurosawa is up and down, and hit a low point around the time of Do-des-ka-den.) This is my problem with most of the Iranian movies I have seen. However I'm more "culturally" as you would put it sympathetic I guess to French cinema, and I recognize that Bresson is an artist with a distinctive style whose work can be very powerful.

I also, frankly, have trouble seeing how filmmakers whose work is relentlessly pessimistic are not able to be described as "deterministic." I don't think it's going to seem fair to me to say as you imply here that a sense of "unavoidable fate," such as you say is conveyed by Bresson, however beyond somehow the reaches of "mere cause and effect," is anathema in our American culture, and therefore any negative reaction to the tendencies in Bresson's films (which I nonetheless to a considerable extent admire) is merely an example of my helplessly acting out a pattern of cultural "determinism."

I would suggest that all these characteristics of Bresson are the reason why serious film lovers in this country adire him so much: because he goes against the grain culturally and because he is "difficult." And this is also the reason why Lars von Trier is so admired.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
... When I think of recent documentaries that moved or involved me, like Touching the Void, To Be and to Have, My Architect, not to mention the politically involving ones like The Corporation and Fahrenheit 9/11, In the Realms of the Unreal fades out. ...

---

I also like these ...
;)
To Be and To Have, My Architect, The Corporation and Fahrenheit 9/11

I may not have made my distinction clear. I'm saying Fahrenheit 9/11 straddles the two types of documentary for me, because it's political but gets a gut reaction. To Be and To Have and My Architect are full of love and personality and intimacy and are docs with personal, emotional impact. Both of them are literally capable of making you walk out of the theater with tears streaming down your face. Moore gets some of that into Fahrenheit 9/11. The Corporation is brillliant, but cold and analytical and without any personal intimate feel. I was also very impressed by it because it's very well done and devastating in its way; but it didn't have the emotional impact of the other ones for me. It makes you think but it is incapable of making you feel, and hence it has a severe limitation where the heart should be, which is why I was surprised at Oscar's listing it as one of his two favorite films of the year 2004.

Still looking forward a response from Oscar on my Bresson post particularly re the issues of pessimism and determinism.

My Bresson experience as follows: 10 out his 13 features, most seen several times but Lancelot, The Devil, probably, and Un Femme Douce seen once, years ago, and no longer accessible for purposes of analysis and discussion (unless I was to read reviews/essays to refresh my memory). Every single viewing (including repeats of course) a unique, rewarding experience thus I'd take advantage of any opportunity to watch any Bresson again. Passed on the silent on TCM last night to watch Mouchette again, before bedtime. Extremely moved and affected by it. Hard to conceive the images and sounds and the feelings they arouse would ever fade from memory even if never watched it again. It was hard to concentrate on the film I watched tonight (brief comment later). Perhaps Mouchette is Bresson's tragic film. (Possible spoilers ahead, although you can't quite spoil it).

During the course of 24-hours, Mouchette is subjected to a variety of events that cause her deep suffering and humiliation. Of all the protagonists of Bresson's films, this not-too-pretty-or-smart rural teen seems to have less control over what happens to her. She has all the odds stacked against her. She is burdened by adult responsibilities she's not equipped to handle. None of her pain and suffering is self-inflicted, and little is caused by personal foibles. Mouchette is an innocent, not yet grown. She seeks help from her family and community but no one provides it, for one reason or another. At one level, the film represents Bresson's protestation regarding the scarcity of charity and compassion. She is humiliated, beaten, raped, belittled, burdened and ostracized. For Bresson, God and the afterlife are simple matters of fact, but his faith eschews the piety and hypocrisy of organized religion. Mouchette is seen stomping her feet on mud prior to entering the church, and walking out defiantlly during Mass. But after having exhausted all hope, she commits suicide by drowning. Mouchette is typical of many Bressonian characters that are primarily observed through their struggles, but her burden is heavier than the condemned man's imprisonment or the county priest's illness. And death is simply only a passing for Bresson. And the gorgeous choral hymn that accompanies her drowning can only mean she's achieved grace.

I think it's possible to interpret the narrative arc of this film as a deterministic one, much more so than any of the other 9 Bressons I've seen_deterministic in the basic sense, a view that denies the importance and significance of free will. But I think it would be a mistake to make this generalization based one possible interpretation of one film.

I know this doesn't address every query you made, but it's a start (assuming you want to further discuss a filmmaker that may not be to your liking.)

Monday April 18th

Sauvage Innocence (France, 2002) on PAL dvd

Phillipe Garrel, a 57 y.o. Parisian, has been making films for 40 years but none of them has had a commercial run stateside and none are available on video here. His films are rarely exhibited outside France, yet his critical rep is impeccable and there's nothing imposing about his autobiographical narratives. Sauvage Innocence is the first Garrel film I watch, so any comments beyond the scope of it are based on recent research. I took an active interest in Garrel after reading "Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia", a wonderful example of cross-cultural, interactive film criticism. His name is mentioned many times by several of the book's contributors. Adrian Martin from Australia states: "The arte povera of Cassavetes and Garrel gives me a quiet, clear, minimalist intensity. Their films herald some kind of primal, fundamental return to the body, to the body as the only remaining site of authenticity, of lived and verifiable experience, of sensation and desire". Being a Cassavetes fan, I was definitely curious. Having watched the film, I find Martin's linking of these directors to be apt. Sauvage concerns Francois, a young director who wants to make a film based on his ex-girlfriend, who died of heroin overdose. He wants to cast Lucie, his new girlfriend, in the role of Marie-Therese but he can't find financing. Lucie decides she cannot afford to pass on an offer to go on a 4-month tour with a theatre company. To hold on to Lucie and get the film made, Francois enters into a Faustian pact with a rich drug dealer. Shooting of "Sauvage Innocence" commences. Gradually the past bleeds into the present, as the spectre of Marie-Therese takes hold of both Francois and Julie, and the drugs that destroyed her exert their poisonous, pervasive influence. A notable film about the creative process lensed by the great Raoul Coutard, a searing indictment of drugs as a destructive and seductive power, a meditation on the past's impingment on the present.

Shame this is the only Garrel title at Nicheflix. Will have to find out if any of his other French dvds have english subs.

One thing I did accomplish while I was at Nicheflix was to have them buy a 2 DVD-set featuring Garrel's Sauvage Innocence and La Naissance de L'Amour (The Birth of Love [1993]). Hopefully the other one is still available. I do have Liberté, la nuit (1983) and J'entends plus la guitare (I Don't Hear the Guitar Anymore [1991]) on vhs but no subs. Perhaps the most comprehensive review of Garrel in English was done by Kent Jones in his early days at Film Comment. Try to get your hands on that if possible. He is one of those auteurs who'd probably prefer if his films aren't widely seen.

That's very kind of you. Birth of Love is now #3 on my queue, below two perennially rented-out Mizoguchis. I found Kent Jones' essay at sensesofcinema, along with a few others, last night. I respect your privacy, but I know Mouchette is an important film to you and would welcome any feedback regarding your experience with it.
P.S. Actually, your link takes me to an essay that's more comprehensive and detailed. Thanks.

This article is from Film Comment:

Sad and proud of it: the films of Philippe Garrel by Kent Jones

...I guess you saw it earlier before I reposted.

I'll have to put off a complete response right now--no time right at the minute. But I wouldn't at all say that Bresson is 'not to my liking.' He is to my liking and I admire his work very much. Even though the deterministic, pessimistic aspects bother me, he's still a remarkable director and I like the good ones. Of course that 'arc' isn't found in everything Bresson did.

More later. I'm also interested to learn more about Garrel.