Unspoken Cinema 2012 banner
Showing posts with label camerawork. Show all posts
Showing posts with label camerawork. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Review: The Wind Blows Where It Will

The Wind Blows Where It Will directed by Portland, Oregon, based director Kunal Mehra is rigidly constructed film, running slightly over three-hours, which demands the viewer’s attention. Holding fastidiously to a Bressonian austereness and its own wrought-out languidness TWBWIW, in the end, reaches a deep and resonant poignancy.

It’s a remarkably simple story. Philippe, a solitary young man, works in a small office selling blinds. He’s in a long distance relationship with Jeanne. She comes for a visit and tells Philippe she wants to breakup; no real explanation is given. Thus Philippe, already a quiet soul, must learn to live truly on his own; their rupture serving as an impetus to his silent and spiritual unraveling.

In essence TWBWIW is a intense character study and Mehra with monk-like patience trains his camera on the recondite Philippe excavating his internal struggle like a surgeon. The world Philippe inhabits is extremely minimal with a distinctive pace and mood. Mehra’s strength lies in his ability to slow to that pace, to listen the silences, to take the slow breathes, and reveal a depth of character rarely seen.

-Read whole the review here.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

fixed firmly on the object in view

"We must try to keep the mind in tranquility. For just as the eye which constantly shifts its gaze, now turning to the right or to the left, now incessantly peering up or down, cannot see distinctly what lies before it, but the sight must be fixed firmly on the object in view if one would make his vision of it clear; so too man's mind when distracted by his countless worldly cares cannot focus itself distinctly on the truth."
- Basil of Caesarea


cross-posted to Chained to the Cinémathèque

Friday, March 07, 2008

Tarr's universe

"Out of Tarr's universe"
A poetic look at the work of Hungarian film director Béla Tarr.
By Nadine Poulain (in filmwaves #34, Autumn 2007)

excerpts (my emphasis) :

[foreword]
"Instead of deconstructing Bela Tarr's films the following essay aims to capture the uniqueness and intensity of his work. Meaning and interpretation is left to the individual. Film as experience.

Endless rain
Mud's soft embrace
Gravity, weight, physical being
Black and white
or rather an infinite graduation of greys"
(...)
"Tarr's universe, where the story is bare, a secondary thing. It provides the structure for the subtle to unfold. Locations are equal to characters. We contemplate them, have time to become familiar with their peculiarities. Often we arrive at a location before the characters enter the frame, stay there after they have left. Temps mort, our breeding ground, has never been more alive. Scenery and natural elements tell their own stories, in their own time. Breathing still lives that sometimes get invaded by the characters. We do not have to follow, as they walk in and out. Off-screen noise, off-screen action, reminds us of the world beyond the frame. A camera that reveals, while at the same time denying. Attention is drawn to what escapes our gaze. It is self-conscious directing. The frame always also refers to what lies outside of it, to the subjective nature of cinematic reality."
(...) [describing the scene in Damnation with the couple in the room at the break of dawn] :
"Content with one frame, we rest. We become familiar with this side of the room, while we wonder how the rest looks, who the woman is. A reversed opening shot, leaving us in a state, where we cannot locate ourselves. We experience a slight tension from being denied, rather than exposed. The singularity of the shot refers to all there could be. It speaks of literature's great potential: to evoke.

The absence of the cut. Raw and unfiltered time. Our eyes travel over space that constantly opens up. We gain what editing takes away: the chance to find relevance and emphasis ourselves. Meditative, contemplative, demanding: the long take, cinema of continuity. Information, cut replaced by confidence in transcending the passive viewer position. We enter into a partnership, re-seeing and re-exploring. We feel the presence of the characters. Real life. People who are never more or less than a part of their environment. We get to know and understand them, through spending time with them and the world they are living in. In respectful distance, we observe. Slowly they reveal their personage."
(...) [describing Estike's journey in Satantango, the girl who tortures the cat] :
"To share silence, to become comfortable with the absence of words, it is intimacy that unfolds. Inner states are accessed through a detour. Her opaqueness does not burden us with outer manifestations. Immediate exhaustibility is denied, emotional involvement counterbalanced. This distance in reverse brings us closer to her, for it is from our own depth that we have to draw.

Tarr's universe, an intense and honest engagement. Sensibilities and interest for the banal, the every day, meditated through style. Visual pleasure. Immaculately composed, brilliantly photographed. A graceful camera. We come closer to life, while at the same time maintain a reflective distance.
Tarr's universe, where dark images alternate with light ones, become all the darker after the pale and misty. Where words are rare, not to be wasted. At times they follow one another, form a denseness that plays off the silence preceding and following. We glide through space, endlessly stalking, then motionless we rest. The dance of opposites. Impact in relation to the other. Each long shot establishes a sense of materiality, a temporal denseness. It emphasises the moment, concentrates on the singular. Action, sound and camera work in their repetition form rhythmical patterns. Caught in the drama of the moment, perception for change is heightened. The cut, a major event."
(...) [describing the music speech scene in Werkmeister Harmonies] :
"Then we travel back and embark on another journey around the head of the speaker. One circle after the other. Camera movement and speech take on a sense of materiality. What will happen next? when? We are caught in the drama of the moment, its monotonous denseness.
Restless we drift through space, soak up each syllable, just to rest motionless again, enjoy the silence after anew.

We are in Bela Tarr's universe, a convincing parallel world with its own laws, its own logic. A universe out of joint. (...) The creature of self-pity mankind. When it reflects upon its disgraceful nature, it cannot but burst into laughter. It is the one, which after all can retreat into detachment, can distance itself from itself. The mocking one, annoying and entertaining itself with its continuous mourning.
When one goes all the way into one direction, one comes out at the opposite end. Maybe? Is where bleakness becomes funny, misery turns into hope, self-neglect becomes a passionate embrace?

Tarr's universe, always detached, always respectful. One vision one idea, uncompromised. A bleakly comic reflection on the human condition. Polemic in its pessimisms, it is nevertheless democratic, for it invites us, engages with us on many levels. It is a somehow wholesome experience. A journey, rather than a moral lesson. Facing the worst of what we can be, we may be able to regain pride and grace, and if it is just for the fact, that we diagnose."
(...)

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Review Of Trilogy: The Weeping Meadow

Copyright © by Dan Schneider
Of the three Theo Angelopoulos films that I have watched, currently available on American DVDs, all have been truly great films. 1988’s Landscape In The Mist is a terrific tale of two children on an unattainable quest; 1998’s Eternity And A Day is a great film dealing with the complexities of imminent death; but, having just watched his most recently completed film, 2004’s Trilogy: The Weeping Meadow (Trilogia I: To Livadi Pou Dakryzei), I can honestly say, ‘There’s great, and then there’s Great!’ As excellent as the first two films are, this film is superior in almost all ways- from the camera movements and screen compositions, to the acting and character development, to the most basic elements of the picaresque story. Fortunately, many European critics agreed, and it won the 2004 European Film Academy Critics Award.
In some ways, this film takes the best parts of the work of Federico Fellini, Terrence Malick, and Michelangelo Antonioni, and stews them until they melt into a work only Angelopoulos could make. However, what separates Angelopolous films from most other films by even some great filmmakers, is his screenplays. This film was written by him, longtime Fellini collaborator Tonino Guerra, Petros Markaris, and Giorgio Silvagni, and even though- like the other films of his I’ve seen, this one is spare in dialogue, the story coheres because of the way the scenes are written to allow the actors’ expressions convey what words need not. And, like Yasujiro Ozu, Angelopoulos is a master of ellipses- never fully explaining certain things in a film, nor deliberately not showing the viewer things that would be standard in a more linear film.
A good example of this is when the orphan girl, Eleni (Alexandra Aidini), that Spyros and Danae (Thalia Argyriou) take in, as a foster child, after fleeing Odessa, after the Communist Revolution, and heading back to Greece, gets pregnant, in a scene that shows her as a teen, she is sent away for months to give birth to twin boys, and then brought home. Yet, we never know who the real father is- the old man Spyros (Vassilis Kolovos), or his unnamed son (played by Nikos Poursanidis, a good looking version of Jim Carrey- who is unnamed in the film- at least the American version, although is referenced as Alexis in many reviews). Similarly, after Danae dies, we see Eleni run away with the son, and hitch a ride with the musicians hired to play at the wedding. The adventures they have with the musicians makes a good portion of this film reminiscent of Angelopoulos’s own The Traveling Players, Fellini’s Variety Lights, and Ozu’s Floating Weeds. It is not until later in the film that we learn she actually did marry the old man, when he comes to take her back and soliloquies on a theater stage. Or, at least, that's what the old man claims.
This lack of information helps the film because it places the viewer in a position to desire to learn the truth, without passive acceptance- therefore involving the audience more, but it also helps the story retain itself in the viewer’s mind long after the film is done, for one has to question what was seen. And Angelopoulos strikes the right balance. Too much questioning and a viewer is bored. Too little questioning, and the viewer is not drawn in at all.
The film is not an epic, per se, although oftentimes films with large themes and purviews are called that. In fact, it is a highly intimate film that focuses basically on the life of one character, Eleni, from 1919 to 1949. Yes, it deals with big themes- natural disasters, refugees, political unrest, wars (civil and global), and smaller ones- out of wedlock pregnancy, possible rape, adoption, loss, death, but it does so with a poesy and grace that never feels forced. Although the film clocks in at 163 minutes, the patented long takes that Angelopoulos uses actually sears the scenes into one’s memory, so that the near entirety of the film impacts. There is no Hollywood quick cut blurring, just a focus on the moment. Yet, here, too, the director subverts expectations, for the scenes are not melodramatic, and the camera- while not as static as the famed tatami mat shots of Ozu, is never frenetic. There is a calmness of vision that dominates the storytelling, even when the actual canvas of the screen is filled with horror. Three such scenes are indelible. The first opens the film, with a voiceover by an unknown narrator (Angelopoulos himself), as a band of people, refugees from Odessa, approach the camera. Spyros speaks to someone across the river, but directly into the camera, and tells of his people’s plight. He seems to be the de facto leader- a fact that will resonate later in the film. He tells of the group’s escape, and that the little girl next to his son is not his- but an orphan who was found over her mother’s body. The camera then pans down to the river, and we see the reflections of the man, his wife, and the two children. We then hear the boy whisperingly ask the girl her name. She tells him, ‘Eleni.’ Then we get the film credits. It is a powerful foreshadowing of that character’s search to assert herself throughout the rest of her life, and the film.
The second scene is when Spyros, after finally tracking his son and Eleni down, dances with her at a beer hall political rally, then wordlessly drops dead after leaving them, knowing she will never return. Upon the young couple’s return to their village, to bury his father, there is a powerful scene of his casket being rowed on a raft (a scene which is echoed later in the film, when the river floods out the town and the refugees all leave on boats). The appeal to Greek history and myth is palpable, and leads into the final, and most powerful, scene. After the raft trip and burial, Eleni and the son return to the family home, the Big House of the village, and are confronted with the ghastly sight of their father’s sheep her all killed, with throats slit, and hanging from the branches of a large tree. Manifestly, they have not been ‘forgiven’ by the town for disrespecting Spyros by running away.
Many critics claim that Angelopoulos’s films are an acquired taste, but all that is required is attention, for once that is given, his mastery of the art rivets a viewer, even many of the most speed-addicted American filmgoers cannot help but be moved by the power, the sheer visual power, of the images Angelopoulos wields. He also allows more interactiveness by the viewer. Instead of cueing the viewer, at emotional moments, with simplistic back and forth cutting between close-ups, he lets the scene play out from a distance, so that two or more characters are in the same shot. One might be in darkness, or with a back turned, but this allows the actors to act with their whole bodies, and not overact with just their faces. Yet, because Angelopoulos distances the audience from false emotion, when he finally does do a closeup, the emotion has even more power.
This also allows the filmic poesy to take hold, such as in a scene where Eleni, thinking her lover is abandoning her to travel with a musical company, run by a man named Markos, that will tour America, runs off to a dock, and then begins dancing with a series of strange men, until Spyros’s son comes to take her home, and says he has not betrayed her. He says, ‘I betrayed you? That’s impossible!’ This is a true Fellini moment, manifestly brought to the script by Guerra, and it works, as does the later scene, when the son actually does leave her, for a boat headed toward America. She has been working on a red scarf, and after a tearful goodbye to her and the boys, he grabs hold of a loose end of the scarf, and it unravels from Eleni’s hands, as he is rowed toward the steamer, until the last bit of yarn falls into the sea. It is apt and eloquent symbolism for the audience knows that they will never see each other again. There are many such other scenes, such as possible dream sequences where the two boys, now of age, serve on opposite sides of the Greek Civil War. Their reunion evokes the Christmas legend of ceased hostilities in World War One. They then return to battle. This scene plays out in Angelopoulos’s meld of time, for it starts with Eleni and an old woman she knew as a girl, climbing up a hill where one of the twins, Yannis, was killed. Then, Eleni hides behind a dune, and the sons, in the past, take over- and even speak of their mother possibly having died in a jail cell for harboring one of the old musician friends of Spyros’s son, who was on the wrong side of the Civil War. When they part, we see Eleni again- with no cuts, no flashbacks, no blurred screen, and she weeps.
She then rows a boat out into the flooded remnants of her old town, to the gutted ruins of the Big House, and finds her other son- Yorgis, whose body is remarkably undecomposed, further suggesting that it is a dream, and weeps that he represents both of her boys. The film then ends on a shot of the water, the eternal that resonates politically and personally. Yet, there is no melodrama. There is a palpable sense of loss that the viewer feels, for Angelopoulos understates things. As example, when the aforementioned old musician, Nikos (Yorgos Armenis), is killed. In that scene, we hear him shot, then see him emerge from behind many drying white bedsheets, holding his bloody guts. Yet, as he struggles to walk, his bloodied fingers only lightly touch some of the sheets. It is subtle, and, with each step he takes, more blood is left on succeeding bedsheets. He then dies in Eleni’s and her lover’s arms.
This death is a contrast to the earlier death of Spyros, who, after spending the first half of the film stalking his wife and son- including a powerfully symbolic soliloquy onstage at a theater turned boarding house, dies in his son’s arm after confronting them at a political dance at a beer hall. He finally gets his son to play the film’s theme song, and dances with Eleni, until he wordlessly departs, then dies of a heart attack as he is leaving. In the hands of any other director, this would be melodrama- and it certainly is a contrivance, but because the rest of the film has such a sweep, this scene feels almost ‘normal’ because it is so small.
Then there is the aforementioned Angelopoulian ellipses, which weed out the events that most filmmakers would milk for melodrama. As example, most of the ‘big’ historical events, as well as the important familial events, take place offscreen, and can only be surmised. Since we know much about the historical events, and can easily fill in the blanks on the personal stuff, they are unneeded. The intimate is distanced by mid and long shots, while the large is ignored. Thus, we see the effects of such things as the escape from Odessa, Eleni’s pregnancy and childbirth, the son of Spyros in the New World, Word War II and the Civil War, nor he deaths of Eleni’ sons. Yet, the use of ellipses even extends beyond those employed in an Ozu film. As example, despite repetition of the name Alexis, for Spyros’s son, it is never uttered in the film. Also, we never know if Eleni actually ties the knot with the old man, or just jilted him. As stated, Spyros claims they were married in his onstage soliloquy, but we have no way of knowing whether this is true, and the reaction Eleni and the son get upon their return when Spyros dies could be for her jilting the old man. We also never learn whether the father of the twins is Spyros or his son. The reactions and words of Danae and her female friends suggest that it could be either the old man or the young one. If it is Spyros, was he a rapist and/or pedophile? Does he desire to marry Eleni to atone for his earlier violation? If the son, is the wonderful scene of him talking up to Eleni’s window, at night, as the camera pans up the wall for the majority of his speech, filled with clues, such as his inability to outright state he loves her? After all, he never calls the twins his sons, and they never call him father. Yet, by never settling the question, the film lets later scenes take on deeper complexions.

Then, after being sent away, to give the twins up for adoption, we never learn how Eleni and the son track them down, much less recover them from seemingly rich parents- and why would they turn over the boys, from their life of splendor, to live in squalor? Also, while the possible dream sequence between the two boys, in the Civil War, explains why Eleni is in jail, we are never sure, outside of that claim, and since the dream also hints Eleni is dead, the final scene, where Eleni finds Yorgos’s unrotted corpse at the Big House, could be a metaphor for her journey (across the risen river) to an afterlife as grievous as her lived life. But, who would be the ostensible narrator is not made clear.

Narration- whether actually voiced or just by visuals, is also a fluid thing. The opening narration by Angelopoulos has a God-like feel, but those letters from the son to Eleni, telling of his New World experiences, and those at war in the Pacific (where he dies on Okinawa), act much as the narration in Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line do, as some oversoul with a deeper knowledge. Possibly, the final scenes are of what the dead son sees of his lover, but this is only a possibility. That we are never told universalizes the tale and ending.
The DVD from New Yorker Video, has a good transfer, and unlike earlier Angelopoulos DVDs, there seems to be less complaints from critics. Perhaps they simply finally have gotten used to the fact that the Greece the director displays is not the sunlit Aegean paradise, but cloudy, misty, rainy, and shadow-filled. The aspect ratio is 1.66:1, and while the film has English subtitles, it lacks a dubbed track in English. There is an excellent half hour long video interview with the director, and a minute long theatrical trailer. There is also a small insert for the DVD that includes a print interview with Angelopoulos, an essay by him, and an abridged 20th Century Greek timeline.

The film’s cinematography, by Andreas Sinanos, is spectacular, from the long shots that follow characters from afar, to well-composed foregrounded scenes, to the uses of color throughout. The film starts with muted, almost sepia tones, and grayness, then exhibits flashes of color, here and there, while mostly staying in dark greens, blues, and browns. This heightens the grander moments, such as the bloody death of the musician in the white sheets. The use of water is also wonderful- from the film’s reflected shots at the opening, through the constant rains and floods, to the last shots overlooking the water- a far better use of imagery than a similar shot which ends Alexander Sokurov’s Russian Ark. In fact, the scenes of the flooded town were a set built in a high, dry portion of Lake Kerkini, which by March, would rise and submerge the set.
The musical scoring by Angelopoulos’s longtime collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, is solid, mixing folk songs with classical compositions, all in an understated manner- excepting a great scene where the son auditions with his accordion. Yet, several times in the film, there seems to be an odd noise- like jet sounds in the aural background of some scenes. Is this symbolism or a flaw? Even if a flaw, it is a very minor one, for aside from the aforementioned scenes there are numerous other great scenes in this picaresque film that coheres in the Negatively Capable way John Keats claimed great art works; such as when Nikos dances at night as a saxophone plays, or when Eleni, in fever, babbles on and on of the same things.

Yet, at the center of this great film is not only the ellipsis of information, but the ellipsis of self- the exile from everywhere, a theme that defines much of Angelopoulos’s work, even if it does not define his art, for that is always on target, and brilliantly wrought. The Weeping Meadow is no exception to that claim.

[Originally posted at Blogcritics]
--
Dan Schneider
www.Cosmoetica.com
Cosmoetica: The Best In Poetica
www.Cosmoetica.com/Cinemension.htm
Cinemension: Film's Extra Dimension

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

DVD Review Of Eternity And A Day

Copyright © by Dan Schneider

The 1998 film by Greek director Theo Angelopoulos, Eternity And A Day (Mia Aioniotita Kai Mia Mera or Μια αιωνιότητα και μια μέρα), is not merely another film about a supposed poet wherein the art of poetry and the act of poesizing are never on display. Yes, it’s true that, technically, neither are onscreen, but it is a superior film about a supposed poet wherein the art of poetry and the act of poesizing are never on display, for the film does capture the dead cliché of ‘a soul of a poet’ as well as just about any I’ve ever seen. It does it with imagery, and Angelopoulos’s patented long takes, but it does capture it, and exceedingly well. The film was not only directed by Angelopoulos, but he wrote the screenplay. That it won that year’s Cannes Film Festival’s coveted Palm D’Or shows that, sometimes, quality still counts.

The tale subtly weaves the past, present, and future tenses of a dying man, the bearded poet Alexander (Bruno Ganz, best known for starring in Wim Wenders’ Wings Of Desire, and the later Adolf Hitler biopic Downfall, as Hitler), as he muses on life a day before he is to enter a hospital for an unspecified ‘test.’ In this manner, the film is in the fine tradition of films on dying men trying top come to grips with their lives, such as Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru, and Ingmar Bergman’s Wild Strawberries. Yet, where the former film achieves its aims by balancing out the life of the dying man with that of a young woman, then turns the film on its head by dealing with the legacy of the man after his death, and the latter film evokes dread by displaying the subconscious memories of its lead character, Eternity And A Day splits the difference, as Alexander, after leaving his seaside apartment in Thessaloniki, after learning he has a terminal illness and must enter a hospital the next day, muses on a neighbor across the way who mirrors his taste in music, befriends a young unnamed immigrant Albanian boy (Achilleas Skevis) who is being exploited and slips in and out of his and others’ pasts by simply walking into them. Angelopoulos does not cut to the past. His characters’ pasts are extensions of their presents.

The six or seven year old boy is a vagrant window washer, of the sort common in large American cities, and, after a trip to the past while visiting his thirtyish daughter (Iris Chatziantoniou), and musing on his likely dead wife, Anna (Isabelle Renauld)- who appears as almost the same age as their daughter, Alexander saves him from a band of policemen who are chasing down similar boys. Yet, he cannot escape his own memories. At his daughter’s apartment, he does not tell her of his diagnosis, instead hands her letters written by his wife, her mother. As she reads them, Alexander walks out into the past- there is no cut, wipe, fade, nor dissolve to memory. All is eternal and all is connected. He simply passes through a door to her balcony, the camera angle changes, and he exits the door to his former seaside home, one which he, after his revery, learns his daughter and her lover have sold for demolition without telling him. Yet, we never find out why he and his wife split up, although there are hints that the man’s art, and fame as a writer were behind it. We never learn if she is still alive or dead, although dead is likelier.

We also never learn the truth about the little boy he befriends, either. At times the boy seems genuine, and other times he’s a scoundrel straight out of a Dickens novel. As in his earlier film, Landscape In The Mist, Angelopoulos’s child is trying to leave Greece. But, as with the children in that film, the way to Albania is not exactly an easy one, for at the snowy mountain border we see a very eerie scene of a barbed wire fence with what seem to be bodies (live or dead?) stuck to it. As the pair wait for the gate to open, they have a change of mind about crossing, when the boy admits has been lying about his life in Albania. The two of them barely escape a border sentry who chases them and make it back to Alexander’s automobile.

The boy’s perilous existence beings Alexander out of his stupor and self-pity, and seemingly re-energizes him in his love for a dead 19th Century Greek poet, Dionysios Solomos (Fabrizio Bentivoglio), whose poem he longs to finish. Yet, Alexander is still wallowing in the memories of his wife, and trying to find a new master for his dog. The old poet and the boy are connected by fear. The former over what lies ahead, and if his life has had impact, and the latter over what lies ahead in his- especially a perilous return trip to Albania where, as he explains to Alexander, the path over the mountains is lined with land mines, as well as men who kidnap street boys to sell them for black market adopters (as well as possibly the sex trade). One of the best scenes in the film occurs when the two of them take a bus trip and encounter all sorts of people- from a tired political protester to an arguing couple to a Classical music trio. They also look out the window as a trio of people on bicycles pedal by them, oddly dressed in bright yellow raincoats. The symbolism can mean any of several things, but the moment jumps out at the viewer.

Much of the film is superbly choreographed- such as an earlier scene, where Alexander pawns off his pooch on his housekeeper, Urania (Helene Gerasimidou), for the last three years. She is manifestly smitten with him, but is in the middle of a wedding party and dance between her son and his bride. The scene plays on until Alexander interrupts. He convinces her, leaves the dog, and then the dance and music, which had stopped, resumes as if nothing had halted it. But, the boy also has a key scene- one which is unexplained, but deeply poetic and moving. We see him in the ruins of a hospital, mourning another young boy, Selim, via a candlelight vigil, with dozens of other youths. What makes this scene work is that we see a possibly dying boy, not long before, and he looks like one of the street children that Alexander’s boy was in cahoots with. The repetition of Selim’s name, the candlelight, and the odd arrangement of the other children in the frame of the film make for a moment that stirs, even if the reason is not apparent, for we have no reason to care for this character, know nothing of his fate, and, in fact, the whole scene may be a dream of the boy, ruminating on his cohort, and wishing that he, too, can be freed from life via death. That all of this comes from a child adds to the pathos and depth.

The cinematography of Giorgos Arvanitis and Andreas Sinanos is brilliant- even if most of the film is shot in overcast or foggy days. Only the past seems bright and sunny. The takes routinely go two or three minutes in length, and conversations are never broken up into the Hollywoodish close-ups that tell the viewer what is apparent- who is speaking. Yet, the camera is often in motion about the action, moving around the characters, changing angles, perspectives, and sometimes moving past them. Sometimes this is to connect them to the past, while other times it is to show that there is existence beyond their ultimately small problems. A good example of this comes in a night scene where Alexander is driving his car up to a stoplight that is red. There, he just stops his car, and other cars have to go around him when the light turns green. The camera slowly zooms in to the front windshield where we see the poet dealing with his angsts. Then, the camera perspective changes, and we are looking behind the car, up at the light, now red again. Only it is dawn, and Alexander has spent hours, perhaps, at this light, now on a deserted street. Then, without warning, he runs the red light. The need for reflection, at any cost, could hardly have been better limned.

Of course, the length of most of the takes, with the shortest being longer than most Hollywood shots, means most speed-addicted American viewers will be bored by the film. Yet, can there be a better recommendation for such a work? And, despite the long takes, the 126 minute long film feels far shorter, and this is because each scene leaves an immense intellectual and emotional impact. It was written by Angelopoulos, longtime Fellini screenwriter Tonino Guerra ,and Petros Markaris. The scoring by Eleni Karaindrou is pitch perfect, as it never overwhelms nor guides the viewer beyond what the scenes’ immanent power holds.

The acting by Ganz is wonderful, and a textbook display of full body acting. In the modern scenes he moves slowly and with a slump in his bearing, while when he enters the past, he has alacrity and grace. It is stated, in online descriptions of the film, that Ganz’s lines were dubbed into Greek, but this presents little problem as there is not much dialogue, Alexander’s facial hair partially covers his lips, and many of the speaking scenes are from a distance or the back. Again, the conveyance of his emotional and psychological states is predominantly by bodily acting. The same is not true for the boy, and Achilleas Skevis gives yet another terrific acting performance for a European child actor. His face has hints of the American Culkin acting clan, yet he is far more subtle and expressive, and when he jokes to Alexander that ‘buying words’ on the docks may be expensive, there is an impishness to his glinting eyes that few American brat actors could capture.

The DVD, by New Yorker Video, is in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, and despite constant complaints from some critics that the transfer is bad, I think many are simply not taking into account that the bulk of the film is meant to be hazy. Yes, even the bright beach scenes are a bit muted, but without having seen other prints, it can easily be viewed as simply an extension of the director’s vision, or the lead character’s disposition being displayed visually. There are no noticeable flaws otherwise. The film is subtitled in English, but since Ganz’s voice was dubbed from German, why couldn’t the whole of this sparsely dialogued film have been dubbed into English? Unlike New Yorker’s DVD of Landscape In The Mist, this DVD does have a few features- such as a twenty-plus minute introduction to the film by Andrew Horton, a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Oklahoma, and author of The Films Of Theo Angelopoulos. Then there’s a ten minute long featurette called The Journey Through Time Of Theo Angelopoulos, which explains how the film’s long bravura single shot ending was filmed and what it symbolizes, as claimed by Angelopoulos. Then there are poetry selections by the real Dionysios Solomos (from the unfinished poem in the film), C.P. Cavafy, and George Seferis, as well as an eight page booklet featuring an interview with Angelopulos.

Eternity And A Day is another great film by a master of the art who has been sorely neglected in the United States. It asks of its two lead characters, Why am I always a stranger in exile?, and gives no clear answer, save to estrange the two of them from each other and themselves. The boy departs Alexander in the middle of the night, stowing aboard a huge, brightly lit ship whose destination is unknown. That the man allows this to happen speaks volumes on his own state of mind and his implicit understanding that the boy needs him far less than he feels he needs the boy. He is something the child needs to outgrow. The slow dissolve of the ship’s outlines into the black lets the image’s beauty ring in the viewer’s mind, and it is this beauty that hints of a happier future for the boy, wherever he ends up.

Alexander’s final estrangement is not as cheery, and comes as he enters his old home- the one his daughter has sold for demolition. He looks about, exits out the back door, and into the sunny past where Anna and other friends are singing. They stop, ask him to join them, then they all dance, and soon, there is only the poet and his wife in motion. Then, she slowly pulls away, and he claims his hearing is gone. He also cannot see her, it seems. He calls out and asks how long tomorrow will be, after he has told her he refuses to go into the hospital, as planned. She tells him tomorrow will last eternity and a day. The film ends with Alexander, back to us, mumbling in untranslated Greek (do we really need to know what he is saying at this point, anyway?) watching the waves on the ocean do what they do, for a long time. It is in moments like this that Angelopoulos reveals that, while he is the equal of the best filmmakers in the art’s history, such as Fellini or Bergman, he has more seriousness than the former, and a more profound empathy than the latter. Where that ultimately places him on the scale of the cinematic pantheon is to be argued over, but not the fact that he belongs. He and this film are that great.

[Originally posted at Blogcritics]

--
Dan Schneider
www.Cosmoetica.com
Cosmoetica: The Best In Poetica
www.Cosmoetica.com/Cinemension.htm
Cinemension: Film's Extra Dimension

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Satantango by Rosenbaum

Already cited in a previous post, The Importance of Being Sarcastic : Satantango, review by Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader, October 14, 1994, also in Essential Cinema) :

"(...) So far I could almost be describing a painting. But even though the action of Satantango covers only two consecutive fall days, followed by a couple of mordant epilogues occurring later the same month, this is a narrative constantly in motion -- at least in the way we experience it -- thanks to Tarr's elaborately choreographed camera style and respect for duration. Filmed in extremely long takes, the movie makes us share a lot of time as well as space with its characters, and the overall effect is to give a moral weight as well as narrative weight to every shot: as detestable as these people are, we're so fully with them for such extended stretches that we can't help but feel deeply involved, even implicated in their various manoeuvres. (This is somewhat less true of Tarr's two impressive previous features, Almanac of Fall and Damnation, in which Tarr's mobile long-take style is less tied to the characters' movements.)
When these grubby characters are indoors and relatively stationary, the camera tends to weave intricate arabesques around them, all but spelling out the allegorical spider web that the offscreen narrator evokes when describing the ties between these people. When they're outside and walking -- most often in the rain, and without umbrellas -- the camera is generally content just to follow or precede them across endless distances. Either way, the unbroken flow of the storytelling and our moral implication in the events are both essential consequences of the camera style, and conversely the formal beauty of that style is never less than functional to the film's narrative and morality."

Slowness and Alienation. Two CC characteristics.
Slowness of the camerawork and the characters movements, to get involved in their lives, to walk in their shoes, to share their mundane lives, to spend time with them, outside of a plot-driven intrigue.

"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. C'est le temps que tu as perdu pour ta rose, qui fait ta rose si importante. Les hommes ont oublié cette vérité. Mais tu ne dois pas l'oublier. Tu deviens responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as apprivoisé. Tu es responsable de ta rose." such was the fox' secret to Saint-Exupery's Little Prince.

CC places its bets on the duration of the relationship between the audience and the characters, rather than to rely on the explanatory dialogues and the action-reaction plots. Maybe these stretches of time, like Rosenbaum says, actually tame the characters for us, because we get to share their shameful intimacy, their less elevating moments, the instants when they are not "acting" to impress people around them. They become like neighbors, for the better and the worse, the familiarity and the disturbance. We become the new neighbors of these people.
I'm pretty sure the voyeuristic fascination for this crude mundanity works the same way Reality TV builds upon. We should investigate this uncanny similarity. The application of this fascination and the resulting familiarity evolving from this proximity is of course very different in CC. Yet the mechanism of familiarization seems comparable to me.

"Nevertheless, the way this film interfaces allegory with realistic detail may distract us from the fact its universe is brilliantly constructed, not merely discovered. Despite the apparent homogeneity of the godforsaken setting, the carefully selected locations are in ten separate parts of Hungary. (According to Tarr, the most "Hungarian" aspects of the film are its landscapes an its humor.) Similarily, the remarkable sound track, which has a tactile physicality and density, was created rather than found: practically all of the film was shot silent, and the dialogue and sound effects were added later. If the long takes, like the landscapes and the sound track, correctly convey the impression that Tarr is a materialist filmmaker, paradoxaly his materialism is arrived at through methods that in some ways are the reverse of those of Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, who tend to regard directly recorded sound as a kind of moral necessity."

Rosenbaum reminds us that the documentaristic realism of CC films location, opposed to the artificial studio sets of mainstream movies, might not be as close to real life as we imagine. He also mentions Tarr prefers the more photogenic fake rain to real rain. They immerse ourselves in a full universe, that is still forged with the traditional tricks of cinema. It's especially interesting to oppose Tarr to Straub-Huillet.
The films of Straub-Huillet are intellectual staging of literary texts, with stylized performances, captured in a spontaneous, direct, low-tech manner, with direct sound and raw nature. Tarr's technique is more artificial (his staging and camerawork requires a lot of preparations), but the mundanity is closer to dailylife, the scenes less intellectualized, the dialogue less literary (even if based on a novel), the plot less complicated, the staging less abstracted.
The versimilitude of the sound track is a moral issue for Straub-Huillet, but looks more artificial onscreen to the audience, because too rough, too crude. We notice that cinema requires hard work and sophisticated design direction to look natural onscreen.