|
SCREENING LOG
- 9/16-9/22, 2002
Back to 2002 Index
I watched FAUST, BATTLE OF ALGIERS, MIRROR, GABBEH, THE WEDDING
MARCH, CAT PEOPLE, AUDITION and STREET ANGEL.
I also briefly attended a conference on Iranian cinema held
in New York. I only had time for one session, "Iranian Cinema
and its Spectators", which featured two presentations. The
first was an analysis of Abbas Kiarostami's THROUGH THE OLIVE
TREES, examining how Kiarostami explores the act of seeing
in his careful use of point-of-view shots that allows the
viewer to inhabit several different points of view through
the course of a film. The clips that were shown during the
presentation made me REALLY want to see this film.
The second, and more provocative presentation, was by a Tunisian
filmmaker (I didn't catch the name) who had an interesting
appraisal of the success of the Iranian cinema and its effect
on the third world. First he mentioned several recent award-winning
movies from Africa and the Middle East, all of whose stories
center solely on children, a trend that he sees as being directly
inspired by Iran, for better or for worse. He praises Iranian
cinema as being a model for success, an amazing instance of
filmmakers working around the limitations of their countries'
censorship laws to make films of great artistic, cultural
and dramatic impact. This model has inspired filmmakers all
over the world; though the downside to this is that nowadays
you have every Tom, Dick and Hossein making a heartwarming
third-world movie about children, since that's what it takes
to be screened.
He also observed that one of the keys for the success of
the Iranian avant-garde cinema is because there is a very
popular mainstream cinema firmly in place. Because there is
such a mainstream, the avant-garde can be tolerated, since
they are under less pressure to represent their society in
all its token glory. Of course, the main reason that there
is a thriving mainstream cinema in Iran is because they have
blocked off all Hollywood imports. The pervasive influence
of Hollywood is a main reason for why most "third world" cinemas
have never gotten off the ground; not necessarily because
Hollywood movies are simply the best, but because Hollywood
corporations have had monopolistic control of theaters across
the world ever since the 60s. But this is getting into a matter
far too complicated for this single post...
He also made some juicy digs at Mohsen Mahkmalbaf and Theo
Angelopoulos, two examples for him of filmmakers who were
once very great and relevant, but over the course of their
career have developed a case of what he calls "Palme d'Oritis",
a compulsive need to make movies (KANDAHAR, ETERNITY AND A
DAY) that seem pre-designed to win festival prizes. I haven't
seen those films so I can't comment, but I find the sentiment
interesting. He concluded with observations about what he
called "the International Cinephile Mafia", a global network
of distributors, festival programmers and die hard film buffs,
without whom his and other third world filmmakers would have
no sustained support for their filmmaking, and yet whose sometimes
dubious tastes and demands can have a negative influence on
a filmmaker in catering to their tastes. It all leads to his
question of "who are 'third world filmmakers' making their
movies for?" a question that has no easy answers.
I bring all of this up as a follow up to what ali, Rigor,
sprockets, Local Hero and Antonious among others have been
discussing on and off for the past few months. It's just not
easy being a third-world filmmaker: not only do you have no
money to work with, but your films are expected to be relevant
to both your local audience and to an international audience,
and their interests are often at cross-purposes. It's hard
enough finding ANY audience when Hollywood films regularly
bombard your country's theater at the expense of local productions...
To paraphrase an old adage, "Might makes Sight".
The films I watched, in order of preference:
Street Angel (1937, Yuan Muzhi)second viewing
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0183828
A street musician, with the help of a motley gang of cohorts,
elopes with his secret girlfriend before her family can sell
her to a local landlord. This unknown gem is a wonder to behold,
like watching a nation awaken and discover itself onscreen:
a hearty mix of slapstick humor and shadow play, beautiful
musical montage sequences that predate MTV by 4 decades, biting
political commentary and vivid observation of everyday life
on the Chinese streets. It is as cinematically inventive and
socially purposeful as the Russian films of the 20s, the French
of the 60s or the Chinese of the 80s and 90s. Simply one of
the best films of the 1930s, from any country, and one of
my all-time favorites.
The Wedding March (1928, Erich von Stroheim)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0019558
Of the three von Stroheim films I've seen to date, this
one offered me the most immediate gratification; this story
of a bored rich prince whose romance with a lower-class girl
ends tragically features a scene in an apple orchard that
is one of the most magnificent visual expressions of romantic
passion I've ever seen; it practically upstages the rest of
the movie. What happens afterwards is worthy of the great
feeling of desire and hope for true love that von Stroheim
stirs up in his characters. The ending seemed a bit unresolved,
and to my understanding, when Paramount saw von Stroheim's
final cut they for some reason destroyed the entire second
half. What a shame; it seems that the films of von Stroheim,
not unlike those of his spiritual successor Orson Welles,
are just as famous for what we could have seen as for what
we can.
The Battle of Algiers (1966, Gilles Pontecorvo)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0058946
As I watched this immensely faithful though ultimately partisan
account of the Algerian independence movement through the
1950s, I couldn't believe that not a single frame of this
movie had not been taken from the documentary archives; this
is one of the most stunning examples of cinema verite I've
ever seen. Not only is it all an incredible re-creation of
events, with mass demonstrations and scenes of catastrophic
violence between Algerians and their French colonialist occupants,
Pontecorvo's in-your-face technique makes it all feel like
it's happening in the living moment, in all its danger and
drama. For the most part the film tries to capture the feelings
of both sides equally, though its pro-Arab leanings are never
in doubt (after all it was commissioned by the Algerian government).
Sometimes the film slips a little too easily and sordidly
into action movie mode (and you can see its gritty style in
every low-budget cop and terrorist movie made in the '70s),
but on the whole, this is the movie BLACK HAWK DOWN wished
it was.
Faust (1926, F.W. Murnau)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0016847
Take the first half of this film, and you clearly have one
of the greatest movies ever made: for a whole hour it seems
that Murnau's invention knows no limits, as he uses every
trick in the book to turn Dr.Faust's pact with the devil and
descent into hell into an overwhelming experience of dark
delight for the visual senses. But then Faust returns to earth
and the film becomes staggeringly mundane. Maybe Murnau made
his own deal with Mephisto and the hourglass ran out midway
through production. At least he renewed his contract in time
to make SUNRISE...
The Lodger (1926, Alfred Hitchcock)
http://www.imdb.com/Title?0017075
An early Hitchcock classic about a mysterious but seductive
houseguest who is suspected of murdering several blonde ladies.
Storywise it is the prototypical Hithcockian set-up, and the
climax is below his standard in both suspense and substance,
but there are some amazingly avant-garde effects on display
(shooting people walking from underneath, peculiarly disturbing
op-art titles) that place Hitchcock near the top among 1920s
silent artists.
Mirror (1975, Andrei Tarkovsky) second viewing
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0072443
I consider myself among the camp of the respectfully nonplussed
in evaluating this densely intensely personal journey through
memory and the world. The movie does no wrong for the first
20 minutes; from that point youÕre on your own. Some consider
this the purest manifestation of cinematic art, others find
it a terminal bore. IÕll happily take the middle ground on
this one: not all of it works for me, but there are some sequences
that are undeniably masterful and impossible to forget.
Gabbeh (1996, Mohsen Makhmalbaf)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0116384
I have ultimately mixed feelings about this sumptuously
photographed mythic tale of a carpet upon which is woven the
story of a nomadic family and their ill-fated daughter. No
doubt this looks gorgeous from start to finish, and there
are some lovely bits of lo-fi special effects worthy of Melies
to give the work a magical glow. Somehow I felt the movie
was trying to say something serious about female servitude
and the plight of itinerant people, but it got lost in a herd
of repetitive color-coordinated visuals. Maybe IÕll change
my mind if I see this again, but for now IÕll stick to skeptical
pleasure.
Cat People (1942, Jacques Tourneur)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0034587
Pioneering psychological horror tale about a woman who turns
into a cat when experiencing strong sexual emotions. The film
does wonders with shadows (those achievements are given tribute
by MinnelliÕs THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL), exemplifying the
adage that less is more. It remains very watchable throughout,
though it somehow never rises to fever pitch. Worth seeing,
but not as good as I expected.
Audition (1999, Takashi Miike)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0235198
Interesting premise: a widower tries to find a new love by
pretending to be a filmmaker and holding auditions for a bogus
movie in order to meet women. Sure enough, he finds a young
lady who seems to fit every docile ideal he has for feminine
servility, that is until she reveals her true self as the
Dominatrix from Hell. Not as abhorrent as FATAL ATTRACTION
with its rank exploitation masquerading as subversive feminism,
and certainly effective in a crude way. But this movie punishes
its hero (and the viewer, for sure), after goading both to
feel it wants them to feel. Nonetheless, somewhere in this
bloody mess I am tempted to locate a brilliant blend of Japanese
high art (Ozu) and low trash (Nikkatsu) Š only time will tellÉ
Back to 2002 Index
|
