Cinema Talk

It seems that, once again, everyone is either praising or condemning Carlos Reygadas. Despite his long list of “cinephille-approved” influences, which he wears openly on his sleeve, he is seen as some as an overeager naïve man wanting to provide a bunch of Tarkovsky references. In other words, he is a snobbier version of Quentin Tarantino. Make no mistake; these assessments are completely false, especially in the context of his latest effort, Silent Light. A huge leap forward in maturity for Reygadas even though the film itself is not without some outstanding faults.

The narrative borrows heavily from Dreyer’s Ordet (which I have yet to see) which gives plenty of ammunition for Reygadas’ critics. Considering how influenced he is by directors such as Herzog and Tarkovsky, I have a hard believing he actually cares about the “plot” of his films. In its very best moments, Silent Light is a visceral and poetic examination of family life. All the images that are captured tend to lean on the “ugly” side at least in a superficial sense, but within their sensory-driven context, they are undoubtedly beautiful, not unlike the images in Harmony Korine’s Gummo. In fact, one of the film’s greatest sequences features the children taking a swim in a nearby pond; many visual cues are taken almost directly from Korine’s film though there are obvious connections with Tarkovsky’s Zerkalo as well. The way in which Reygadas has crafted his film is perfect and is innovative in its own right, despite all the aesthetical comparisons he is likely to receive. This is a film that hopefully, people will look at, and see it as a huge technical inspiration. It is a concoction of Tati deadpan humor and Ozu playfulness, all presented in a manner reminiscent of Terrence Malick. Such comparisons are not intended to downplay the originality of Reygadas’ work because I have yet to see a film that is as visually astute as this is.

With all of its cinematic innovations, Silent Light falls on its face when it comes to drama. The visceral, spontaneous, and wordless sequences work perfectly but things begin to drag when more conventional “character-building” tactics are used. In all honesty, all the relationship stuff here is uninteresting. Are we suppose to even care about this preist and his wife is she even someone that Reygadas intends the audience to have concern for? In other words, why don’t we have more sequences like the tracking shot of the priest walking the grass? That is far, far more profound than some B-movie-esque relationship turmoil that is sprinkled into the film accordingly. It seems almost that every scene in which a conversation takes place, it loses its tone. It’s like if Herzog threw in a sequence where someone talks about their sadness in Even Dwarfs Started Small. This shift in tone is overwhelming.

In the end, these problems don’t outweigh the film but they do indeed dilute all of its innovations. I feel obligated to reinforce just what a splendor it is to watch this film unfold, in a visual sense, even if the dramatic stuff is forced. Cinema, like all arts, is constantly progression and Silent Light represents a huge leap in cinematic capabilities. To describe the film’s opening sequence would give away too much but rest assured, you’ve seen nothing like it before. Breathless wasn’t the greatest movie ever, but the introduction of jump cuts changed the face of cinema. Even though such a comparison is over the top, I see Reygadas’ film going down a similar path.

Bardem’s film will more than likely gather more than enough critical responses amounting to nothing more than Antonioni and/or Hitchcock comparisons, and rightfully so. For all the technical similarities with the great Antonioni, there’s a silly plot contrivance reminding one of Mr. Hitchcock. It should go with out saying that this is a bit of a mixed bag. A minimalist thriller could work as a categorization but then what becomes of the terrible Twilight Zone-y music. If one is looking for something Antonioni-esque than they have to accept the fact that the film is built more on occurrences than it is on character psychology. Similarly, if one is looking for a conventional mystery film, they’ll find something a bit more aesthetically complex. A decent movie, but the less believable elements are overwhelming; no matter how well they are photographed.

Maria and Juan’s affair hits a bump, figuratively and literally, when they kill a cyclist in a car accident. With no witnesses in sight, they flee, to avoid leaking their relationship to the public. However, they quickly develop overwhelming feelings of guilt. When a family “friend” begins to act suspiciously around Maria and Juan, feelings of paranoia set in with the couple. It seems that Maria can never get quite back on track with her home life. Meanwhile, Juan’s gig as an assistant professor is creating more inner friction. Eventually, both reach their breaking point but both deal with it in a different way.

Once again, Lucia Bose is a joy to watch. It is unfortunate that I have yet to stumble upon a truly great film featuring her but still, her presence is enough to engage even the least attentive of viewers. I will admit this film ultimately becomes too bogged down in plot details. An irritating scenario considering there is so much more room to flesh out the characters. However, we never get to know them beyond their initial reaction to the murder. There are attempts at being “deep” but it ultimately is just an excuse for melodramatic non-sense. On the other, such stuff is downplayed for most of the film’s running time but at the expense of completely unnatural writing. The dialogue is simply far too expositional, expressive, and frequent to feel true. In other words, this is sort of like if Eric Rohmer made a detective movie. Okay, maybe not that bad. Most of Bardem’s “cinematic” elements are more than admirable, especially considering that this predates Il Grido by two years. Still, this is a far cry from the “real thing.” With that said, I would like to take the time to commend Criterion for their efforts in releasing a, shall we say, “classic” film from Spain. Hopefully, within the next couple of years, more will be made available.

Not feeling my usual talkative self lately so I’ll just provide a little rundown of what happened, in terms of film watching, this weekend.

Badlands (Terrence Malick, 1973) [rewatch]

Still the most easy-going of all of Mr. Malick films, but probably the least emotionally rewarding. Calling it simply escapist entertainment is a bit too harsh, but I can say that it felt that way by the end. Malick has always had an approach to characters that isn’t necessarily complex, but instead, something more fleeting and poetic. In this case, this flashier fleshing out of characters is not fulling developed. At times, the film crosses the line to a plot-driven sensibility if only for the overwhelmingly simple set-up. This is all meant in relation to the man’s other films which are more abstract, more profound, and more ambitious. Don’t get me wrong, I love Badlands, always have and always will but it does feel a bit more empty compared to the type of films I usually watch. Perhaps the humor is just a bit too much? Odd to think that Malick is seen as a humor-less pretentious maniac nowadays. I found myself laughing more often than I did on previous viewings.

Malu Tianshi / Street Angel (Yuan Mu-jih, 1937)

A neat little romantic comedy with aspirations to be something socially relevant but the result is a film whose tone shifts far too frequently to comprehend its own intentions. Xuan Zhou is captivating and exudes an ethereal beauty that one would expect from a young actress in an old Chinese movie. This is a perfect representation of the film as a whole. On it’s own term, it is a fun little film trying to say something profound. Instead, its age creates an almost perverse type of poetry, a film that is cooler to talk about than it is to actually watch. Deep and complex, but inherently so.

Asfalto (Daniel Calparsoro, 2000)

After a long string of older, gloomier films, it was nice to sit back and watch a newer shakycam thriller/love story from Spain. It’s pretty much impossible to avoid comparisons to Mean Streets, Cyclo, and so on but it does pretty well alongside such company. The main attraction here is (probably) the beautiful Najwa Nimri, who one may remember from Julio Medem’s messy, contrived, and overly-symbolic Sex and Lucia. She’s great here, and maybe even better in Medem’s otherwise laughable effort. A neat little fucked up romance and drug film rolled into one, but its nothing overwhelmingly great.

Not quite as gritty or accomplished as Jean Gabin’s cinematic collaborations with Marcel Carné and Jean Renoir, but still a fine film nonetheless. Certainly the theatrical setting dates the film considerably but it is still far more subdued and downbeat than Renoir or Carné’s work. In a way, one could argue that it is more cinematically advanced, perhaps even a precursor to Antonioni’s cinema. In fact, there’s a lot of things that will remind one of Antonioni’s Il Grido, which came out two years later. Just like in that film, this is ultimately a bit too tragically structured to be an overwhelmingly deep experience. Still, it is a very fine film and Gabin is, as always, amazing.

On Christmas Eve, two exhausted truck drivers take a break from their long trip at a local diner. They want and need sleep, but the diner manager is a far more festive mood. He keeps them up, and Jean, the older of the two drivers, falls for the waitress, Clo. Despite the short introduction, they become acquainted. Jean comes back home to a trouble home life. His wife is constantly nagging, and his teenage daughter drives him crazy with her ambitious dream of becoming an actress. The only thing that keeps him going is his two younger sons, and the short meetings he has with Clo. Eventually, their affair hits a roadblock and Clo simply needs more than five-minute meetings. The two plan to run away together and eventually, succeed but this leads to another problem.

Time doesn’t seem to slow down Gabin at all; he’s just as charming here as he is in his earlier performance. I’ll admit that the similarities to Angelopolous’ The Beekeeper (lonely old guy falling in love with a younger, more energetic women) does set some high standards. Of course, this film isn’t really in the same ballpark but it is somewhat of a precursor to Angelopolous, as well as to Antonioni, as previously mentioned. There’s nothing technically extravagant, but Verneuil does craft his film with a very subdued style which does lend some the film some of its funniest moments.

Perhaps I’ve watched one too many “classic” French films in the past couple of weeks, but I have to admit that I am getting tired of the convention that something really bad has to happen. In all of these films, it seems that the main character struggles, overcomes said struggle, and then ends up in an even more tragic scenario. The exception to this rule is Carné’s Daybreak, which seems to get bleaker and bleaker with each passing moment. I’ve said it before, but I really think it is Gabin that makes these films relevant. Without him, they’d be contrived and silly. This film is all of that but of course, the performances do lend a depth that may not have even been intended. A tragic love story that almost accidentally has something profound to say, but still it is a very good film.

A convincingly suspense story that is, at its core, a really great examination of a messed up relationship. It shares more similarities with Night of the Living Dead than Faces, sure, but even the suspenseful aspects of it are engaging. Some of the camera work is a bit gimmicky, especially during the cringe-worthy flashback sequences, but for whatever reason, none of that ever really bothered me. I’ll always prefer a less intrusive (in terms of plot) look at relationships, but for what this is, it is really great. A nice surprise, to say the least.

A communist official and his wife return home late one night from a political dinner to find that their house has been broken into. The power is out, but only at their home. In the house next door, light is easily detectable. Eventually, it is deduced that they are being spied on. The uncomfortable situation is only made worse by recently surfacing marital issues.

As said before, this does run the risk of being quite silly at times, especially during the gimmicky POV flashback sequences, but it amounts to something substantial by the end. It certainly helps that even the most contrived of plot elements are presented in a deadpan tone. Despite the seriousness of the situation at hand (the subject matter lead to a twenty year ban) it’s actually quite funny most of the time. The humor is sincere, though, and often leads us to a more harrowing sequence. It’s not overwhelmingly great, which perhaps explains how troubling it is to articulate my thoughts, but it is a very good film.