Cinema Talk

Not one of Melville’s better efforts, but still decent enough. It never really sheds it’s film noir sensibility which prevents it from becoming anything genuinely great. Instead, it works as a well-crafted piece of escapist entertainment. It drags on occasion but that is more than likely due to my inexperience and lack of interest in film noir. If you’re a fan of Melville and the cast (which includes a cameo by a young Phillipe Nahon from I Stand Alone) then this is a must. At the same time, don’t expect any high art, it’s purely “time-passing” entertainment, but pretty good at that.

Recent released from prison, Maurice Faugel attends to some unfinished business, which means killing an old buddy, Gilbert Varnove. Back home, he is visited by Silien who provides him with some tools for the robbery he is planning. Silien is actually a police informer and the robbery ends up being a bust, which results in the death of a police officer. Maurice escapes, at least for the time being, and Silien (for whatever reason) is brought in for interrogation. Maurice is placed back in prison, and Silien escapes to reunite with an old flame, Fabienne, who helps him frame the officer’s murder.

There may not be a purpose in pointing out flaws here, since by default, the film’s plot-driven, one-dimensional characterization is enough to ride it off completely. But taking it as mindless entertainment, it still has some problems. For one, the plot, essentially is too complicated. Not to mention that almost every dialogue sequences is shamelessly expositional and seem to go on for far too long. Perhaps these are just elements of every “film noir” but they are still intrusive, even when not taking the film 100% seriously. On the positive side, this is a bit more humorous than Melville’s norm, which would indicate that perhaps he isn’t taking this 100% seriously, either. The film is quite a bit of fun, but it’s frustrating knowing that Melville is a director that is capable of doing more. At this point in his career, he had already done plenty of light film-noir homages.

At the risk of sounding trendy, cliche, and stupid, it seems like Pedro Costa has become the recent film festival favorite. This is my first encounter with his work and I’m quite impressed, but also befuddled. The later brought on more by intial reaction to the film than the film itself. It’s a minimalistic (cliche count: 2 now) but also romantic film reminiscent of Herzog, Tarkovsky, and (as a result) Carlos Reygadas. Yet, the actually viewing experience was pretty unique. There’s a heavy, ponderous feeling but the film moves along so viscerally almost like some bizarre hallucination. My restless state probably helped out a lot but still, this is pretty crazy. At the moment, no clear cut decision has been made.

Leao, a construction worker, falls into a coma which leds him to Mariana, a worker at the hospital in which he has been placed. He is discharged and forced to go back to Cape Verde, but he is still unconscious so Mariana tags along. Unfortunately, no one is there for his return and Mariana is forced to find her way around town. Eventually she stumbles upon the hospital and afterwards, she wanders around town meeting a wide variety of characters. Leao awakens and in spite of many obstacles, the two try to start a relationship.

The film’s opening sequence is absolutely stunning. Droned out humming accompanies footage of volcanoes errupted, which is then followed by a close-up of many faces. Simple and perhaps pretentious on paper, it’s an absolutely perfect introduction into the Costa’s world. The rest doesn’t quite live up to this great sequence and it does sort of drag at some points. I mean, after all, the main character is comatose for the first half of the movie! That said, this is really quite an impressive film and it’s probable that Costa has improved upon it. Plus, I’m sure another viewing of this is needed if only to clear up my head. For now, it’s a technically proficient odd romance that definitely fits my cinematic ideal.

A major staple of the Finnish New Wave and also, most likely a result of Finnish hippies getting their hands on a camera. And yet, I couldn’t help but totally love this. It’s quite an achievement for the film to shed it’s “gee shucks, look how silly and self-reflective we are” image (a la the overrated Daises) and become such a oddly moving masterpiece. Considering it’s ambitions, which are quite large, it’s not perfect per se, but it does capture everything that cinematic capabilities could do up to that point in time. Similarly, there are some minor narrative-related flaws but ultimately, they don’t taint the wonderful visuals. A wonderful film with some self-indulgent excess, but I guess most great films technically have some of that.

The “plot” revolves around two urban intellectual couples, both of which are going through awkward stages. Santtu, who tends to become the film’s main character, is going nowhere with Riita, a seemingly naive girl with dreams of marriage. Timo is a bit more carefree (and in all truth, a bit annoying at times) and is in a relationship with Leena, a quiet girl with severe emotional damage. All four take a trip into the forest and with a little help from alcohol, fun times are had. Bored by his current relationship, Santtu soon takes an interest in Leena, which is for the most part what the film is centered around.

There’s a few silly lapse of simple logic that damage my overall admiration for the film, such as the really bad musical interludes, which are on occasion, sung by the actual characters. Dumb scenes like that further advance that Daises-esque silly sensibility that I’m not extremely fond of. There’s another really just terrible in which Timo and Santtu reenact how they meet that just oozes smug self-conciousness. In fact, the Timo character is sort of annoying and wasteful: a giraffe shaped goof ball meant to provide comedic relief. Thankfully, his role in the film is downplayed considerably.

I’d go as far as to say that everything else in the film is perfect. There are some sequences that ultimately try to push the film into a “lighter” realm, but the amount of poetic images is just simply too overwhelming. There’s actually more than a few signs of that weird Herzog-type surrealism. A perfect example being when the farmers chase that pig around or when horses randomly run around in the forest. The attention towards textures is pretty much unheard of in 1966, with a few small (and equally great) exceptions. The accusations of a Godard rip-off seem completely off-base since the visual style is built upon a completely different focus. Sure, there’s some Godard style editing, but for the most part, this is a completely unique aesthetic. Like Bertolucci’s great Before the Revolution, it’s a product of Godard’s influence, but one that is not limited to his boundaries.

For what it’s worth, I also quite like the relationship setup of Santtu and Leena. He is a alienated rebel, and she’s reserved but deeply hurt. I guess I’ve seen such things enough in cinema to classify this as a relationship “structure” that I’m quite fond of. It certainly doesn’t hurt that whenever they are together, the film produces it’s most poetic moments, i.e the scene where Santtu touches Leena’s face. Their scenes also seem the most non-physically dramatic. There’s a type of complexity in both of them that prevents them from articulating their feelings, an Antonioni touch you could say. Though again, it should be reinforced just how unique this is compared to the other art films of the time period. It’s a shame the Finnish New Wave is so underexposed. Judging only from this film, it’s a movement that may not be as defiant as the new waves in Japan or France, but in all truth, probably more substantial. Whatever the case, this film is just really fantastic. More people should see it.

I’ve voiced my indifference to Akira Kurosawa on here before, most notably in my review for The Idiot which had, until now, been my favorite effort from the man. Similarly, I’m not too big on film noir, either. Yes, shadows and hats are nice but the genre seems to be built almost entirely around exposition. And yet, Kurosawa doing noir is really fantastic. Drunken Angel is far from a perfect movie, mind you, but it maintains the good intentions of The Lower Depths and The Idiot, while still resulting with something a bit more distinct and personal.

One night, Doctor Sanada is interrupted by Matsunaga, who claims to have a nail in his hand. Sanada realizes that Mastunaga is most likely a yakuza, or in his own words a “hooligan.” This theory is proven when the nail turns out to be a bullet, a discovery which sparks a passive-agressive conversation between the two men. Eventually, the topic of tuberculosis is brought up and Mastunaga is convinced to get checked for it. Doctor Sanada suggests therapy right away, which leads to a very complicated relationship.

The above description pretty much sidesteps all the specifics. Rest assured, this is not a “bonding” movie but more just a examination into the two main characters lives, their differences, and their similarities. This sounds like a simplification in characterization but the characters themselves are quite deep. Especially when you compare them to Kurosawa’s usual “good vs. bad” technique. It seems that instead of having separate beings to symbolize good or bad, he had both good and bad exist inside both of the characters in Drunken Angel. I suppose it helps that the performance are better than one usually expects from Kurosawa, but in all honesty they are still a bit too expressive for my taste. The argument could be made that they have a campy charm, but that couldn’t be said taking the rest of the film into account.

This is probably Kurosawa’s best looking film as well. If not, then it’s certainly his most “visually interesting.” The swamp located in the middle of town has a particularly enigmatic feel to it and acts as a perfect set piece for the film’s transition sequences, all of which are highlighted by very atmospheric music. I suppose other noirs create this type of feeling, but it tends I guess it just becomes irrelevant when your film is so focused on plot development. Drunken Angel is distinct and stylish but still contains something beyond the superficial coolness. There is now right and wrong here, this is just people. Sure, it’s dramatic, even for it’s time, but it represents Kurosawa at his most honest.

Chantal Akerman’s career occupies a very secluded space, perhaps shared only with Tsai Ming-Liang and Jacques Tati. This is fitting, I suppose, considering the inner seclusion felt within all the characters in her universe. The overall mood obtained in her films is much different from Tsai and Tati (just for reference, there are more similarly rigorous directors), though. Tati (perhaps only reaching this “group” with Playtime) is above seemingly all else, interested in observing potential comedic material. Tsai works with this too, but the humor coexists with a more poignant and/or painful string. Akerman is just plain bleak for most of the time. Humorless tends to imply a negative connotation but in this particular case, it completely works. In fact, it makes the  small glimmers of happiness seen towards the end that much more rewarding.

Anna Silver is a film director who is out of town, somewhere in Germany, to introduce one of her films. She is lonely so she picks up a business man. Despite his very tender and caring approach, she eventually rejects him. He invites over the next day before her train ride home. She accepts, but after their meeting, their relationship is over. At the train station, Anne happens upon an old friend, Ida. It is revealed to us that Ida is the mother of Anne’s one time fiance  and she desperately wants to see her son and Anna back together. She meets a curious man on the train, spends the night with her mother, and eventually meets up with Daniel, her lover and Ida’s son.

While there are some long stretches that eventually seem to lead nowhere, most of the film is based around non-dramatic occurrences in which pieces of Anna are revealed. Calling this a character study would be an understatement since each scene is presented almost like a vignette and each scene is like a part of a puzzle that when fully put together, makes the movie. Okay, so perhaps I am reading into it a bit too much? Well, if it seems that way then it’s just proof of how useless words are when describing this film, and also how ineloquent I am as a writer. Whatever the case, the depth Akerman attributes to her protagonist is quite remarkable.

The acting obviously plays a big role in making these character so engaging. Even when they occasionally ramble on, they at least do so in a manner that feels sort of spontaneous. When these “rambles” do occur, Akerman makes it a habit to have the camera linger on Anna because the viewer should be concerned with what the words do to her, emotionally, rather than what the actual words mean. Perhaps this is why the film is so talkative in comparison to the other Akerman films that I’ve seen. Within all of her meetings, Anna remains fairly reserved but still so captivating. It is not easy to get use to the excessive dialogue but it still serves a purpose that isn’t completely limited to exposition. Instead, it’s role is much more profound, providing an opportunity for Anna (and the audience) to reflect on life.