Non-Euclidean Adventures in Mountain Climbing
Monday, April 18, 2011
April 19: The Mirror, Andrei Tarkovsky (1975)
Between Solaris and Stalker Tarkovsky made Mirror, a non-narrative, stream of consciousness autobiographical film-poem that blends scenes of childhood memory with newsreel footage and contemporary scenes examining the narrator’s relationships with his mother, his ex-wife and his son. The oneiric intensity of the childhood scenes in particular is so hypnotic that questions of the film’s alleged impenetrability dissolve under the impact of moment after moment of the most visually stunning, rhythmically captivating filmmaking imaginable. Tarkovsky’s evocative use of nature is at its most elaborate and accomplished in creating the dreams and memories that we are asked to share with him here. The archive footage of big events that have occurred within the narrator’s lifetime are presented with the contemplative detachment of events considered but not participated in, a contrast to the extreme intimacy of the memories. This is thanks mainly to the extraordinary use of music and poetry Tarkovsky accompanies these ghostly, distant newsreel images with. During the present day scenes – spats with his ex-wife, phone calls from his mother, chats with his son – the narrator is significantly never visible on screen, preserving the audience’s sense of existing only within his subjectivity. Margareta Terekova plays both the unseen narrator’s ex-wife and his mother in younger days. If ever a film embodied the concept of cinema as a recreation of the human thought process, Mirror is it. Not only is it Tarkovsky’s masterpiece, but it is one of the high points in the development of modern cinema. -- Maximilian Le Cain, Senses of Cinema: Andrei Tarkovsky
(Unsubtitled) Trailer:
Making the Mortal Immortal -- Ryland Walker Knight on Mirror, Reverse Shot
We celebrated each moment of our feelings as
a revelation alone in all the world. You were lighter
and bolder than the wing of a bird
flying down the stairs two at a time
pure giddiness, leading me through moist lilac to
your domain beyond the looking glass.
When night fell I was favored.
The altar gates were opened and in the dark there
gleamed your nudity, and I slowly bowed. Awakening,
“Be blessed,” I said, and knew my blessing
to be bold for you still slept. The lilac
on the table stretched forth to touch your lids with heavenly blue
and your blue-tainted lids
were calm, and your hand was warm. Locked in crystal,
rivers pulsed, mountains smoked, seas glimmered. You held
a sphere of crystal in your hand and slept on a throne. And
— righteous Lord! — you were mine. You awakened
and transformed our mundane, human words. Then did
my throat fill with new power and give new meaning to “you”
which now meant “sovereign.” All was transformed, even such
simple things as basin, pitcher — when, like a sentinel,
layered, solid water lay between us. We were drawn
on and on where cities
built by magic parted
before us like mirages. Mint carpeted our way, birds
escorted us and fish swam upstream while the sky spread
out before us as Fate followed
in our wake like a madman brandishing a razor.
* * *
Each cut is an event, a moment not simply to collide images but also to layer the collage of the film: picture and sound, married and abutted, proffering new sights, new landscapes, new emotions and new realities in light. Andrei Tarkovksy’s Mirror is full of such event-cuts, each defining or sensing the cohesive whole of the film, like its maker, as discrete moments hung together through time, however disparate and dispersed its instances, like his limbs, may seem. To whittle a life into a film, as Tarkovsky attempted, may be impossible. However, Mirror does not attempt a picture of an entire life: it offers metonymic moments of a life caught across a celluloid timeline. Mirror says we are each immortal, forever unbounded by the “robes of a skeleton” that “sheath” our bodies; therefore I find the defining edit of the film near its close when, abruptly, the narrator finally flies, unlocked and awakened, into the immortal, eternal life the film attempts to define and inhabit.
Fire and washes of light punctuate Mirror. A barn burns in the rain. Sun shines through a window prompting a precognitive order to open a door; as the door opens, the dark of the interior hallway is illuminated in a flash from above. A young girl holds a burning flint next to her hand and the screen fades to black. The narrator lets loose a bird and the film smash cuts to a sun-soaked field bled yellow above evergreens. This cut, from the bird escaping the narrator, the film’s frame, to the field, epitomizes the overlapping temporal spheres of memory and planes of reality Tarkovsky captures in Mirror.
Instead of simply reflecting, Tarkovsky’s Mirror refracts light through the prism of memory, itself a condensation of time. Each event—that is, each cut, each encounter, each memory flashed back or forward—in the film’s networked composite is skewed by the film’s narrator. This narrator is the camera, and the film. His face is never seen. We are denied an identifying reverse shot. We are simply presented with his point of view: the identification is our instantaneous assimilation. His disembodied voice, weathered and granular, presides over the whole body of the work. His body is the work: the film and the guiding frame of the film. Occasionally when reading poetry the voice-over registers differently than when heard talking to other characters from outside the frame, but it still sounds like the same man.
In fact, there are two voices: the poet-narrator is voiced by Arseni Tarkovsky, the director’s father, while the strictly first-person-narrator/character is voiced by Innokenti Smoktunovsky, the “first international Russian film star” (according to imdb.com), one of many point of view refractions. As identities merge in the film (father becomes son while mother becomes (ex-) wife and the son becomes his father in youth) they overlap in reality as well: the real father becomes the film star, and vice versa, incorporating their identities in the film, and its maker. Actors are reprised in different roles, dispersed across the film’s timeline. Their multiplied and simultaneous presence throughout the film (itself a series of memories and reflections) frames the film’s realities as connections arrayed by the time-bridging cuts. Mirror’s editing performs an odd alchemy of memory that proliferates identities as much as converges them. Like in a prism, or kaleidoscope, mirrors are everywhere in the film (adorning walls or registering in windows) forever multiplying realities and planes, forever furthering the refractive inward reflection, or meditation.
When the narrator throws the bird out of the frame, he (an extension of the film and metaphoric extension of Tarkovsky) throws himself out of his own film-narrative-present, collapsing Tarkovsky’s Venn-diagram construction of intuitive memory. However, a film cannot physically present all moments of time simultaneously, as the kind of idealized eternal return of immortality Mirror preaches of, or compile all the moments of a life, in the compact confines of a celluloid yarn. To compensate, Tarkovsky must rely on the rhymes and repetitions of his established tropes to trigger our own memories as we build the film, and bridge the timeline in our heads, collapsing the dialectic relationship between the screen and audience—which is the implied motive of its title. Just as we see the bird and the narrator in the field we see ourselves in the film—the first person point of view of the narrator becomes our point of view: in Mirror’s diffuse temporal sphere, past is present is future, each memory and each present moment of the narrator’s odd non-narrative—each forged image of the film—refracts its abutted, multiplied mirrors.
These mirrors act as frames—within the physical frame of the film as well as frames within framed memories. The amount of multivalent imagery is staggering. Mirror is convoluted to be sure, as one would expect from a labyrinth of memory, but, as a work of poetry premised on metaphors, coherence isn’t its main goal. The film is not a string of scenes, per se, but a thread of luminous moments of memory, each triggering and echoing one another, back and forth. Mirror’s best moments are poetic leaps through time, jumping between memories just as they are triggered by unique sights and sounds, like the layering of poems over images, which marries visual with literary literacy—stream-of-consciousness meets Cubism. Mirror wants to look at each affective event independently of its surrounding refractions but also all at once—to look through the prism but also see the prism as a whole. Angles cut light across an array to project a composite picture anew. Such is the leap of the smash cut from bird to field.
We are in a room whose opposite wall is a mosaic of mirrors, silver squares set at oblique angles to the camera as to only reflect pure light, not more images, with each pane housed in an ornate, handcrafted frame. The narrator is lying sick in bed, perhaps, it is guessed by his caretakers, because of a strep throat. His voice is failing, falling apart. As his present voice is disassembling, it prefigures (and echoes) the poet-narrator’s voice—an elderly rumble that, in its pouring out of words, links and forges images. According to the doctor present in the room, it may be a case of emotional disintegration caused by a recent loss: “A mother, wife or child dies suddenly and a person wastes away in a few days.” There are two women in the room, whom we have seen previously in the film as possible phantasms of the narrator’s relatives (or as his spiritual and hereditary caretakers). One informs the doctor, “But no one died in his family.” The doctor thinks aloud, offers, “There is his conscience, his memory,” which spurs the woman to ask, “What does memory have to do with it? Is he guilty of something?” The other woman quips, “He thinks he is.” Finally he speaks: “Leave me alone.” Memory is everything to him, to the film.
The narrator’s body is hidden from view at first behind a folding screen (another framing device, surrounded by the framed, framing mirrors on the wall). After the exchange recounted above, there is a cut to his bare-skinned torso with the camera already panning down his body along his right arm, along the bed. Next to his leg, just past his hand, a bird lays on its back, its right foot twitching. It, too, appears near death. The narrator takes the bird in his hand and says, “Everything will be alright.” He holds the bird, moves it around in his hand, shifting his arm, and says, again, “Everything will be—” before the camera jolts up, ever briefly away from the bed, to capture his opening hand as it enters the bottom of the frame, releasing the bird, which, appearing healed, flies up out of the frame: we cut—to a washed out horizon the frame bisected by an evergreen forest, separating the yellow-white glow of the sky above and the brown-and-green land below. The deathbed scene is gone, eclipsed by this new reality, this new landscape, this new sight—transcended, even, through the temporal bridge of the cut. Then, as the camera pans across the horizon, and the golden green begins to dominate the frame, we come to recognize the landscape as the pastoral country setting that opens the film and operates as its locus: the narrator’s grandfather’s house. All memory spurs on and on from here, and then back again and again. The narrator’s metaphorical death by way of a resurrected bird is a return, a transformation, a rebirth.
Mirror conflates the differing temporal planes of reality all at once, always, perpetuating life, making the mortal immortal. After the horizon shot becomes a long shot of the locus house, the camera zooms out and cranes down past a fence (which featured prominently in the first scene between the mother and a flattering, wandering doctor) to find the narrator’s mother and father laying in the plush green ground of nature’s carpet. The transformation of the cut links the narrator and the bird’s rebirth with this return to the past, equating the narrator with the land of the locus house, the house itself and his parents: he is present in them all. Then the father asks the mother, “Do you want a boy or a girl?” The mother smiles, flits her eyes about the frame, inhales and glances shortly into the camera’s lens (that is, the gaze of the narrator, and the frame of the film) before turning away from her husband and the camera (or her son and husband) to look back upon the house herself and we cut again—the house providing another event-cut transformation of time, of selves, of locations, of recognition.
Mirror’s subsequent finale presents one marvel of instantaneous collage editing after another, but the cut to the field that spurs the final, freefall to the past is the most impressive leap. The edit after mother looks away from the camera refracts a desire, or wish, into a premonition of herself tending her grandchildren and Mirror, like her, and like its narrator (its frame and its primary node), goes in both temporal directions at once. The resultant sight is her fictive future and her son’s fictive past as an uncanny composite in light, just as the bridge from the bird flying free (of the frame, of death, of continuous life itself) to the field of the past merges time. Edits part the discrete memories, yet, as parts of the whole, the memories are paired as sovereign mirages working in tandem, as one. This film exists as an idealized domain beyond time, beyond mortality. To watch Mirror is to step into it, and live unbounded in time, if briefly, until it ends.
* * *
I trust not premonitions and I fear not omens. I flee
not from slander nor poison. There is no death.
We are all immortal. All is immortal. Fear not
death at seventeen nor at seventy.
There is only reality and light.
There is neither dark nor death
in this, our world.
We have reached the beach and I
am one of those who pull the nets in when
immortality arrives in batches. Live
in a house and it will not crumble. I will summon
a century at will, enter
and build my house in it. That is why
your children and your wives all share my board, the table
serving forefather and grandson: the future is decided now.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
April 5: Brazil, Terry Gilliam (1985)
Terry Gilliam's Brazil is one of those films whose enduring reputation is based at least in part on events surrounding its stormy distribution history. Taken at face value, Brazil is a stinging, Strangelovian satire of the power of the bureaucracy in an Orwellian landscape. The vision is clearly Gilliam's; his penchant for striking visual flourishes and dark comedy have seeped into the fabric of the narrative, but it's not the strongest story he has worked with. Plot-wise, Brazil is rather hum-drum and derivative; its energy and appeal derive not from its thin characters or their actions but from the world they inhabit. Take away the controversy and the very public squabble that surrounded Brazil's U.S. release and it would likely have gone down as a middle-of-the-road title on Gilliam's eclectic filmography.
Brazil was Gilliam's first true post-Python movie. The final movie made by the troupe was The Meaning of Life, which hit screens in 1983. For Gilliam, being released from Monty's coils represented an opportunity to spread his creative wings. Brazil's dark humor owes much to Python but the absence of the Python regulars (except Michael Palin) marks this as something different. The film is at home with the two Gilliam-directed features to bookend it: 1981's Time Bandits and 1988's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. All three movies have similar sensibilities, but Brazil is by far the darkest of them. In fact, until Twelve Monkeys, it was the darkest thing for which Gilliam had been responsible.
The movie focuses on Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), a mid-level worker in the massive bureaucratic engine that dominates the film's world. Sam is as meek as they come. He submits to his petty, tyrannical boss, Mr. Kurtzmann (Ian Holm) without a struggle. In his dreams, he is a great hero, flying high in the clouds, rescuing a damsel in distress, and battling a giant samurai. But in reality, he's just another cog in a spirit-crushing machine. Sam's life changes when he discovers an error in the records: an Archibald Buttle was taken from his home, tortured, and killed. However, this "Buttle" should have been "Tuttle," a suspected terrorist. When Sam visits Buttle's wife to deliver a refund check, he encounters Jill Layton (Kim Greist), the girl from his dreams. By pursuing Jill, who may be targeted for elimination as part of a scheme to cover-up the Buttle/Tuttle mistake, Sam puts himself at risk. He further endangers his position when he meets the real Tuttle (Robert De Niro) and helps the man avoid detection.
Brazil is full of twisted, odd sequences and tangential subplots. There's Sam's mother (Katherine Helmond), who is obsessed with the illusion of youth that plastic surgery can provide. Sam's friend, Jack Lint (Michael Palin), is a loving family man who just happens to make his living by torturing and killing people. And there's the vindictive Spoor (Bob Hoskins), who has been brought in to fix a broken air conditioning unit in Sam's apartment and is determined to make life a living hell for poor Sam. These and other elements of Brazil seemingly unrelated to the primary narrative emphasize the kind of world in which events transpire while at the same time sounding a cautionary note about the direction in which modern society is moving. Ida's vanity points to an obsession with physical perfection at all costs. Jack's smiling ability to ignore the suffering he causes is echoed in the face of every CEO and politician who protects his position without consideration of the consequences to others. Then there's the paperwork, where every act requires a signed form in triplicate with a stamped receipt. That's not science fiction; it's reality.
Brazil transpires in two realms: the light, airy fantasy world of Sam's dreams and the dark, dreary "reality" where he spends his days. Gilliam's penchant for breathtaking visuals is most strongly evident in the dream sequences, which are interspersed throughout the movie. On the other hand, Sam's reality has a '40s noir feel. Some sequences are shot to recall images of Humphrey Bogart on the hunt and one character (Harvey Lime) may be named as an homage to The Third Man's Harry Lime. This is sci-fi noir - a view of what the 1980s might have looked at viewed from the perspective of a 1940s filmmaker. Orwell's influence is not entirely unexpected since Brazil was in pre-production during 1984.
Viewed in its 2:22 entirety, Brazil is a fascinating, visually interesting satire of life in a world where paperwork has gone berserk and Big Brother never stops watching. At its heart, it's not the most original idea, but Gilliam's approach infuses it with freshness. But it's ultimately a downer, and that's where the problems for Brazil began. Universal executives viewed Gilliam's cut and decided it was unsuitable for release. In their opinion, it was an "art house movie" and they wanted something with more public appeal. So they went to work on it, eliding about 45 minutes, substituting alternate takes, adding some deleted material, and re-editing the entire thing into a version that has since been dubbed as the "Love Conquers All" bastardization. Gilliam rejected association with the studio edition, and Universal refused to release Gilliam's sanctioned cut. Stalemate.
The full "Battle over Brazil," as it was dubbed, is more complicated than what can be related here, but it came down to a public war of words between Gilliam and Universal's Sid Sheinberg, with both men preferring escalation to backing down. In the end, Gilliam triumphed by arranging a series of unauthorized screenings for Los Angeles-area film critics. They responded by naming Brazil 1985's Best Picture. Embarrassed that a film he was holding from release should be thus honored, Sheinberg let Gilliam's version of Brazil see the light of day. However, the cut of the film sold into TV syndication was the "Love Conquers All" edit. Both versions are available for home viewing and it is instructive to watch them and see how much a movie can be shaped in the editing room.
In casting Brazil, Gilliam chose primarily low-profile but talented character actors. The part of Sam Lowry had been written with Jonathan Pryce in mind and the thespian responded with a nuanced portrayal of a mousy man who desperately wishes he could be heroic. Sam is by turns pathetic and sympathetic and makes for an intriguing protagonist because his most dramatic moments occur only in his mind. American comedienne Katherine Helmond adds a dash of mad humor to the role of Ida. Michael Palin uses his likeability to emphasize the duality of Jack - loving husband and father in one scene, slick information-gatherer in the next. Ian Holm essays Mr. Kurtzmann as a typical bureaucrat - wielding no real power but acting tyrannical nevertheless. If there's a failure in Gilliam's casting, it's Kim Greist, who doesn't click as Jill. Her performance is uninteresting and she never seems like much of a "dream girl," although maybe that was the point. (Gilliam reportedly had trouble casting the part and, after filming was complete, was dissatisfied with Greist's work, so he pared down her screen time in the finished version. She has more scenes in the "Love Conquers All" cut.)
Then there's Robert De Niro. De Niro provided Brazil's star power, and fought alongside Gilliam for its U.S. release. This was a departure for the actor in two ways. First, it was a rare non-starring appearance. Although De Niro has more screen time than Jim Broadbent and Bob Hoskins (both of whom had small parts), he is by no means the film's star. In addition, there is comedic edge to his character. While De Niro would eventually embrace comedy in the late '90s, this was 14 years before Analyze This. His work on either side of making Brazil: Once Upon a Time in America and The Mission. Nevertheless, despite being cast against type, De Niro has a field day with Harry Tuttle and the gamble works.
Many Gilliam aficionados rank Brazil as the director's second or third best non-Python project (in the mix with Time Bandits and The Fisher King. It represented an important stepping-stone in Gilliam's career and an equally important moment in Hollywood's history: one of the rare times when a director stood up against the system and won a victory. During its initial theatrical release, Brazil was far from successful, grossing only $6.5 million (which barely covered Universal's costs in owning the U.S. rights). Over the years, however, this has become a cult classic, beloved by film buffs not only because of its increasing relevance to the society in which we live but because of the story behind the story. Brazil can be enjoyed without knowledge of the behind-the-scenes circumstances but the rich irony of the parallels between Gilliam and his fictional creation, Sam Lowry, add a layer of appreciation to the project that it otherwise lacks.
Review by James Berardinelli from http://www.reelviews.net
Monday, March 21, 2011
March 22: Fantastic Planet, Rene Laloux (1973)
Review by Lawrence Russel from http://www.culturecourt.com/F/anima/FanPlan.htm
Fantastic Planet (1973) dir. Rene Laloux writ. Roland Topor and Laloux (based on the novel The Savage Planet by Stefan Wul) cine. Lobomir Rejthan and Boris Baromykin graphic design Roland Topor graphics: Joseph Kabrt (characters), Joseph Vania (backgrounds) music Alain Goragner
"Our planet Yon possesses a single satellite, Fantastic Planet. We utilize this uninhabited planet for meditation. Yon is divided into several ouvas. Two of the ouvas, Strohm and Yaht are natural and symmetrical...."
This peculiar work is frequently dismissed by North American viewers as primitive, lacking the technical sophistication of fluid movement animation and integrated foreground/background isometrics. Yet this allegory of human regression and rebirth which uses the speculative fiction convention of symbolism by scale (the human Oms are the pets of the giant transcendentalist Drogs) demonstrates a psychological sophistication and art tradition that moves beyond the infantile animations of Disney and the American method.
The Oms have self-destructed on their planet Terra and are now in a Stone-Age state on the planet Yon. The domesticated Oms live in the Park, the wild (outlaw) Oms live beyond the walls in the forest. The status quo is quickly established in the opening sequence, where a giant blue finger flicks an Om woman and her baby down the slope like a bug. The woman is killed and her baby is later discovered by two strolling Drogs, Tiva and her father, a member of the Drog ruling cabal. Like the Pharaoh's daughter finding and adopting the infant Moses, Tiva takes the baby home and inadvertently educates it during her subliminal Info lessons.
It's a world of continual irony, based upon a reversal of fortune as elementary as that in Planet of the Apes, but in this instance showing human development in polar opposites: where we have come from (the wild Oms) and where we expect to evolve (the mystical Drogs). The human experience is expressed in both master and slave, thus the expected historical progression of revolt, war and political settlement occurs.
While there are many amazing scenes and graphic whimsies along the way, the climax on the Fantastic Planet itself is the most interesting. Escaping "Omization" (gas extermination), two Om rocketships make it to the satellite that orbits Yon and find giant headless torsos standing like the forgotten effigies of a lost civilization on a Daliesque plain. This is the "Fantastic Planet", a conjunction for Drogs everywhere in their galaxy, a place for mating and reproduction. Drog youth navigate to this rutting field of the demi-gods in glass spheres that float like spore bubbles and attach themselves to the shoulders of a statue of the appropriate gender. The statues then begin to dance in pairs, a ritual that allows these astral beings the necessary physicality for reproduction and the continuation of their species.
In danger of being crushed, the two Om ships open fire with their ray guns and wipe out the mating couples... causing a parallel chaos back on Yon, where the Drog elders are in telepathic contact. Faced with disaster, they immediately open negotiations with the Oms and peace follows, based upon a New Order: an artificial satellite (state) called Terra (in honour of their ancestral planet) is launched and henceforth both cultures are free to progress in harmony but with independent spiritual sky-cults.
"...contrary to what one may think, the needs of graphics do not necessarily correspond to the needs of movement... consequently the American school ties drawing to animation... the European school to graphic imagery... Americans a taste for curved lines, quick movement and comedy, as well as an emphasis on character. In Europe, the emphasis on graphics favored the straight line, slow movement, fantasy and a lesser emphasis on the psychology of individual characters." (Rene Laloux)
This reinvention of the Egyptian/Israelite mythology (combined with the more recent experience of the European Jew with the Nazis) uses the color blue as a symbolism for the astral consciousness for the Drogs and their sky-cult allegiance to the Fantastic Planet. While the micro world of the Oms is scaled to the organic topography of root tunnels and plant forests, it is also as bizarre as the interior of the human body, with roving creatures that resemble organs, and where red is the color of fear.
The graphics are obviously drawn from the tradition of gallery painting, compositions structured in terms of stasis, two-dimensional space, and the symbolist artifice of the surrealists. The sub-text is driven by history and politics, the text by dream and expressionism.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
March 8: Pierrot Le Fou, Godard (1965)
"One of Godard’s greatest achievements, this pulp-noir anti-thriller has been described as cinematic Cubism Shot in dazzling primary colours and loaded with references to literature, painting, other movies and pop culture, Pierrot Le Fou is, amongst other things, about the struggles of the artist, Vietnam, and the death of romance." -- from The Nouvelle Vague: Where to Start by Simon Hitchman
The Nouvelle-Vague: Where to Start : An amazing resource on new wave film which I recommend glancing at before the movie
After abandoning his wife at a Parisian party, bored Ferdinand (Jean-Paul Belmondo) flees his bourgeois existence with his babysitter and ex-lover, Marianne (Anna Karina). Taking it on the lam to the south of France, the couple becomes an existential Bonnie and Clyde, battling gunrunners, gas station attendants, and American tourists as they come face to face with their own roles as characters in a pop-cultural landscape. A profound turning point in Godard’s cinema, Pierrot le fou recalls the gangster cool of Breathless and Band of Outsiders while also pointing towards the increasingly essayistic, apocalyptic visions of Two or Three Things I Know About Her and Weekend. -- Janusfilms.com
Saturday, February 19, 2011
February 22: Grey Gardens, Maysles Bros. (1975)
“He always compliments me on the way I do my corn.” -- Little Edie
Links:
Review in the San Francisco Chronicle
Official Grey Gardens website
Trailer:
Clips:
Links:
Review in the San Francisco Chronicle
Official Grey Gardens website
Trailer:
Clips:
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)