Archive for June, 2012

AWAARA (Raj Kapoor, 1951)

June 24, 2012

Opulent melodramatic trash from India, not quite redeemed by a progressive social message, Awaara (The Vagabond) is saddled with too much story, and infantile, convoluted story at that, and interrupted by witless tunes and listless dances. Deep from the bowels of Bollywood, and testing the heroic endurance of the audience, the film does boast a few advantages: sweeping black-and-white cinematography by Radhu Karmakar, a few razor-sharp cuts, and a few gritty looks at Bombay’s impoverished underbelly. A young thief, on trial for stabbing to death his smarmy criminal mentor, is contextualized via flashback by the route he has travelled that has trapped him in a sordid, hopeless social environment. Although atrociously “acted,” particularly by producer-director Raj Kapoor as the young thief, the movie has its moments, including some fine and some half-baked flourishes of silent-film expressionism—but not a sufficient number of such moments to break the monotony of the silliest, most farfetched narrative in creation. At least all the musical numbers should have been expunged, resulting in a halved length that’s easier to sit through. This indeed may have been done for the film’s original U.S. release, which is half the total length.

The love story between reunited childhood friends would have benefited from the dropped music most of all.

Embarrassing: Closeups of eyes of two of the characters that presume to show resemblance because they are father and son provide no such evidence, even though the actors themselves are father and son!

Indeed, much of Awaara seems a strenuous attempt to prove one thing or another.

MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (Jerzy Kawalerowicz, 1960)

June 23, 2012

Think of the gorgeous, austere Matka Joanna od aniolów as the sequel to Ken Russell’s The Devils (1971), with the seventeenth-century historical material transplanted from Loudon, France, to rural, dry, frozen Poland. Father Urbain Grandier has already been burned alive for allowing his manliness to incite the repressed sexuality of nuns at the parish convent; now, Father Jozef Suryn is the fifth priest to visit to perform the necessary exorcism to relieve the mother superior of the eight demons in possession of her and thus also “free” the other nuns who (with a single exception) mimic her hysterical, blasphemous antics. Suryn will fail; seduced by Mother Superior Joanna’s bemused smiles and her plea for sanctity, he will fall in love.

The opening image of this black-and-white masterpiece, like much else in the film, initially perplexes. In folds of darkness, what is that globular whatever we see at a distance?—an anachronistic light bulb perhaps? It turns out to be the shaved dome of Father Jozef’s head as he enlists God’s help, in prayer, for his mission. Visually, communicating with God thereby dehumanizes the priest; upside-down images of their faces will similarly dehumanize residents of the convent.

In approaching this film, it is well to keep two facts in mind: Jerzy Kawalerowicz, who co-wrote it (with Tadeusz Konwicki) and directed, was of Jewish ancestry and was, himself, an avowed atheist. (Kawalerowicz died in 2007.) His gaze on these priest and nuns is, therefore, exceptionally clear-eyed and, at times, grimly funny. In the room where the sisters’ clean white habits drape over parallel clothes lines, forming a kind of maze, Joanna self-flagellates in the prescribed manner, lightly and symbolically, while Jozef whips himself ferociously, his bloody, onanistic frenzy contributing to the breeze that causes the hanging habits to sway provocatively. At the last, believing he has dispossessed the woman he has come to love, Jozef is convinced by a distorted image of himself—God or Satan: take your pick—to take a lethal ax to two stable grooms, thereby maintaining himself in the grip of the demons, keeping them busy, so they do not take re-possession of Joanna: a warped, and wonderful, parody of Christian sacrifice. Ultimately, Kawalerowicz is whacking with an ax the whole notion that Jesus took our sins upon himself. Even more intriguingly, we are haunted by something that Joanna earlier said to Jozef: “When Satan leaves me, what if he takes possession of you?” In this context, demonic possession looms as a dreadful parody of grace.

This black-and-white film leans on diffuse grays, perhaps suggesting the dust we are always poised to return to. (There is plenty of dust in the film as well.) However, the white of the habits, along with the priesr’s dark garment, stands in sharp contrast; and in one unforgettable shot, the only thing that appears black—bereft of all light, that is to say—is the crucifix in Jozef’s outstretched hand! The stunning cinematography is by Jerzy Wójcik.

There is a curious meeting between the priest and the local rabbi, with the former hoping to learn from the latter the nature of sin. (“What am I doing here?” Jozef asks before entering the rabbi’s hut.) Perhaps “demonic possession,” or sinfulness, is merely human nature, the rabbi almost playfully suggests; but all the play is gone when he stridently confronts Jozef with their shared identity, their shared humanity, their shared nature despite Christian persecution of Jews: “You are me,” he tells an uncomprehending Jozef, whose Christianity has convinced him that he, himself, is superior to some Jew. Kawalerowicz has had a little fun here by casting the same actor, Mieczyslaw Voit, as both the rabbi and the priest.

Stark and powerful, and absolutely essential, Matka Joanna od aniolów is irredeemably brilliant. It closes on a muted closeup of a gigantic tolling bell: a symbolical silencing of the Church. The film won for Kawalerowicz the Jury Special Prize at Cannes.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

CORIOLANUS (Ralph Fiennes, 2011)

June 20, 2012

A reciprocation of inflexibility between the common people—a mob of plebeians—and Rome’s scornful military titan, Coriolanus, results in the latter’s downfall following his pursuit of a twisting course that finds him allying himself with Rome’s enemy to wreak vengeance against Rome for turning against him and banishing him: this is the overall movement of William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus, a difficult play that John Logan has adapted, and pruned, to accommodate first-time director Ralph Fiennes’ updating it from ancient times to the media-swooning present in a politically backstabbing urban state.

Fiennes, a former Hamlet who had first played Coriolanus on stage about a decade ago, cast himself in the lead with moderately effective results. (Fiennes’ best film acting, in what remains his best film, is as disturbed Dennis Cleg in David Cronenberg’s brilliant 2002 Spider.) Nevertheless, his updating of the play is no stunt. In an interview with Time Out Fiennes has explained: “[The play is] contemporary in lots of ways, about politics and war. All the shit going down in the play—people dissatisfied, authoritarian leaders, political manipulation and politicking—this is the world we live in. . . . If you strip away the difficult passages, you’re left with a dynamic, visceral tragedy. It doesn’t take any prisoners. It has no lyricism. I like that. I’m attracted to that toughness.”

Indeed, Fiennes has made a film that is bereft of any lyricism. His Coriolanus unfolds as correlative to a series of blows: rough brief shots, including verbal sparring and brutal combat, all recorded by aggressive handheld cameras. Barry Ackroyd’s superlative color cinematography is cold, merciless, stony/metallic.

A warrior since the age of 16, Coriolanus considers little and especially lacks political deftness; he is as much machine as human being. In part this is by design—his mother’s; although he is constantly rebelling against her influence, he duplicates her fierceness and implacability. Vanessa Redgrave, in an unusual role for her, is magnificent. She won the best supporting actress British Independent Film Award and was also the choice of the San Francisco critics.

Fiennes has made a ferocious film. If it somewhat peters out toward the end, Shakespeare here is also somewhat to  blame. The same thing happens with the play. One person’s “tragic inevitability,” you know, is another person’s “predictability.”

Coriolanus is from the United Kingdom.

PEASANT WOMEN OF RYAZAN (Olga Preobrazhenskaya, Ivan Provov, 1927)

June 17, 2012

An actress in tsarist Russian cinema, Olga Preobrazhenskaya turned to directing in the new Soviet Union; Babi riazanskie, her fourth film, is her most enduring piece of work. Highly plotted, it is a trivial melodrama, set a few years before the revolution, that at the last, post-revolution, slides into a momentous feminist message.

One of its two major narrative components finds Anna, a peasant girl and orphan (shades of D.W. Griffith!), in love with a boy, Ivan, whose father also has an eye for her. When his son, who by this time is married to Anna, leaves home to fight in the First World War, the farmer rapes his daughter-in-law, who commits suicide upon her husband’s return and rejection of her after seeing her illegitimate child. The other narrative component involves Ivan’s sister. Ironically, the shame that destroys Anna humanizes—redeems—her father-in-law, and the overwhelming closing shot finds Anna’s sister-in-law, the baby in her arms, advancing proudly into the Soviet future.

Those who insist that Preobrazhenskaya eschews propaganda in it plainly view this film with eyes different than mine; but the film is all the better for its patriotism and propaganda. It is, of course, unfortunate for the Soviet Union that its record of gender equality did not fulfill the thrilling hopefulness that Babi riazanskie conclusively expresses.

On the other hand, the film is different from other Soviet silents on another score: while farmwork is extensively shown, no nobility is attached to it. Work is simply work in this film. The fact that Anna’s childbirth isn’t at all depicted may also be related to this unusual matter-of-factness.

The final tragic scenes, including Anna’s spectacular drowning, which interrupt a host of celebratory outdoor activities on a Christian holiday, demonstrate Preobrazhenskaya’s bravura skill at editing. But perhaps my favorite cut occurs almost at the outset. The film opens, in the spring of 1914, with a lyrical shot of birds sparkling in a tree. We are introduced to Anna when she steps outdoors. Two quick, poignant shots show the bird-filled tree again and Anna’s delighted reaction. Lovely girl; lovely filmmaking.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

THE WALLS OF MALAPAGA (René Clément, 1948)

June 16, 2012

Jointly from France and Italy, a key work of postwar European psychology, René Clément’s Au-delà des grilles (literally, Beyond the Gates), in Italy known as Le mura di Malapaga, beautifully fleshes out a highly melodramatic scheme of past, present and future in order to portray, combinately, European trauma and uncertainty. It won the Oscar as best foreign-language film (despite what Wikipedia currently claims, its languages are both French and Italian), and Clément took the directorial prize at Cannes.

Having killed his wife, Pierre Arrignon has fledFranceby boat to elude the police; he meets, in Genoa, Cecchina, a 12-year-old girl who “adopts” him to assuage the loneliness inflicted by her household’s paternal absence. With good reason, Cecchina’s hardworking mother, Marta, is estranged from her husband, who stalks and intimidates her. She and Pierre slowly become a couple, arousing Cecchina’s jealousy, but sparking fierce loyalty and love from her when the police are closing in. Ironically, what inadvertently dooms Pierre is Marta’s decision to try to hide her night of love with him from her daughter.

In its original form, the cunning script was written by Cesare Zavattini, Suso Cecchi d’Amico and Alfredo Guarini, the last of whom also produced; from there, Jean Aurenche and Pierre Bost adapted it, translating some of it into French. The film blends elements and atmosphere of pre-war French poetic realism and wartime and postwar Italian neorealism. The former movement reflected the gradual shrinkage of free Europe under Hitler’s aggressive thumb, the loss of the continent’s soul, and the fear and despair attending all this, while the latter movement homed in on anti-Fascist and working-class struggle—social and political difficulties. Clément’s blend of styles representing both movements—one wonders whether he was familiar with Luchino Visconti’s magnificent, moody Ossessione (1942)—symbolizes the degree to which the postwar European present lugs the hefty phantom of Europe’s recent past.

And here is where reviewers who fault Jean Gabin’s performance for being indifferent themselves falter. Leaning on his earlier roles in the 1930s for Julien Duvivier and Marcel Carné (think Pépé le Moko, 1936, and Le jour se lève, 1939), Gabin has his Pierre sleepwalking in both their pasts—the actor’s and the character’s. And Europe’s. This combinate “past” executes Pierre’s fate when the law snatches Pierre out of Marta’s arms, with the added irony that Marta herself has unwittingly contributed to this outcome. Marta may theoretically possess self-determination, but this is an illusion; there she is, ultimately, as heavily “determined” by the past as is Pierre, dooming their love and  future together. Marta—Isa Miranda’s stupendous performance won her the best actress prize at Cannes—does her best to bring together what she imagines to be, and indeed may be, her competing roles as mother and a woman-in-love. She ends up torn between the pasr that Pierre represents and the future that her daughter represents. At least Cecchina may prevail; but note that her strong feelings for Pierre may instead generate a trauma that blights her entire life.

Ensuring its original critical success, the film was perhaps most admired for the fine and atmospheric realism that attends its setting: Genoa’s actual tenements and crowded streets. Louis Page’s black-and-white cinematography, in which dull grays deliberately dominate, is essential to this environmental portrait. Moreover, we watch as this environment contributes to Marta’s profound falling in love—and to the moralism of reacting neighbors that they mistake for morality. The absolute realism of Miranda’s depiction of a community restaurant waitress reminded me of Carole Lombard’s brilliant enactment of a waitress in They Knew What They Wanted (Garson Kanin, 1940). Clément’s use of nonprofessionals in a swarm of roles finds Miranda and Vera Talchi, who plays Cecchina, blending right in.

But what has obscured the quality of this film over time? Perhaps a want of thematic interpretation has resulted in the assinine conclusion reached by some that the aspect of poetic realism “cheapens” or “undermines” the aspects of neorealismo and documentary. Perhaps, also, a much more famous (and notorious) film, Stromboli (1949), the first of Roberto Rossellini’s collaborations with Ingrid Bergman, has eclipsed, in turn, the reputation and even the existence of Clément’s thematically related film. I, myself, prefer the Rossellini—but, then, I would prefer almost anything by Rossellini to almost anything by Clément. However, one cannot live by Rossellini alone.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB INLONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers