My Favorite Films (Part I)

Trois Couleurs: Rouge (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1994)

It's hard for me to pick a favorite Kieslowski film but I have to go with "Rouge". Simply put, a fairy tale for adults.
                                  

Le Feu follet (Louis Malle, 1963)

I've never felt as gutted as when I saw "Le Feu Follet" for the first time.  An affecting character study!

Chameleon Street (Wendell B Harris Jr, 1989)

A Thoughtful and extremely hilarious exploration of racial identity. The fact that this film has fallen through the canonical cracks makes me rage!

In The Realm Of The Senses (Nagisa Oshima, 1976)

Relentless in its depiction of human sexuality's rawness, the film centers around two lovers who fuck each other to death.

There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

This is perhaps the most exciting film made in the last decade, with an amazing score (by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood) to boot!

A thought on "La Noire De..."

La Noire De… ( Black Girl ) is the first full length feature of acclaimed Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembène. Released in 1966, the film is considered by many to be the first film out of Sub-Saharan Africa to receive international attention. It received the Prix Jean Vigo for first feature… Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum places it on his “1000 Essential Films” List.
The film tells the story of Diouana, a young Senegalese girl hired as a nanny for a white family residing in her country. As they prepare to return to their native France, Diouana is asked to go back with them. Desperate to escape the limited horizons of her poor African village and ecstatic at the prospect of an adventurous parisian existence, she promptly accepts. Never could she have envisioned the tragic fate that awaits her in Paris….
Every time I watch "Black Girl", I'm always struck  by how much it is seemingly influenced by the French New Wave which is slightly ironic considering how much of a harsh commentary it makes on french colonialism and racism.

Breathless : A portrait of narcissictic youth.

"When we talked, I talked about me, you talked about you whereas we should have talked about each other"

This is my favorite scene in the film. The unusual long take gives the audience a respite from all the jump cutting.Michel and Patricia's narcissism is on full display and for the first time they finally understand what the audience has known along : they're doomed as a couple.

À Bout De Souffle (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)

Jean Seberg & Jean-Paul Belmondo 

It’s often said that a mark of greatness in any work of art is its ability to withstand the test of time. A bout de souffle certainly fits that bill.  Met with much critical acclaim upon its initial release in 1960, the film is still regarded as a masterpiece. How did a film made on a shoestring budget of $90k and shot in a record time of four weeks manage to acquire such lasting power? Godard told a British magazine he considered the film “as being the end of the old Cinema, destroying all the old principles.” It’s precisely that spirit of innovation that has resonated with cinephiles, ensuring the film’s place in the cinematic canon.

                 At the heart of the film lies a fairly simple story. A petty car thief kills a cop and goes to Paris to convince the girl he loves to run away with him to Italy. The possibilities for suspense are endless within this premise. In fact it’s not hard to imagine what the film would have been like had it been directed by older masters such as Huston or Carné. But the narrative’s (de)construction is one of the first indications that Godard isn’t interested in keeping up with the traditional rules of cinema. A bout de souffle watches like a series of interludes/sketches that are either unrelated to or don’t further the  plot: Michel’s visit to his friend’s apartment, Patricia’s interview with Parvulesco. The biggest of these pauses happens in Patricia’s bedroom. In a scene that clocks in at almost 30 minutes, nothing of significant importance happens. Michel and Patricia flirt, tease each other, talk art and make love. This focus on the non-essential is certainly counter-intuitive to the “old cinema” that retained its audience’s attention by leaving the boring parts on the cutting room floor. Godard, on the contrary, taunts his viewers with all sorts of mundane details. Everything happens matter-of-factly and detached, challenging our expectations of a film.

        In a essay for Cahiers du Cinema, fellow new waver Luc Moullet notes that the film’s protagonists both “possess a moral attitude hitherto unknown to cinema.” Michel murders a cop and shows no sign of remorse. He steals money from a friend, again with little hesitation. As for Patricia, her interest in Michel grows upon discovering he’s a criminal. She then turns around and betrays the man she claims to love. Interestingly, Godard’s amoral lens never allows for judgement of their immorality, thus leaving the audience ample room to like and sympathize with these characters. Even the film’s tragic ending doesn’t feel like a moral conclusion. Patricia doesn’t betray Michel out of moral duty but out of fear and cowardice. And Michel’s death is not the punishment reserved for the “bad guy” since he willfully chooses it . Breathless doesn’t reinforce the audience’s sense of moral righteousness like a traditional film might do.
           Godard also deconstructs the idea of film genre through the characters and the film itself. Michel has his roots in film noir without all the grittiness. He forms such a stark contrast to the lone brooding men of the genre with his playful attitude. He’s more of  a lusty teenager who plays at being hard. When he kills the cop, it is with a weapon found in the car. He doesn’t own a fire gun, just like The Maltese Falcon’s Sam Spade. But if with the latter it’s an indication of uber-masculinity that can defeat adversaries with bare hands, it reinforces the idea of a child play acting in the former. As for Patricia, her betrayal of Michel draws a kinship to the femme fatale archetype but she is neither cunning nor manipulative. The film itself is dark in subject matter but light in tone. As Michel dies, he makes “sour faces” and closes his own eyes, allowing for comedy to disrupt the tragic finale.
          But by far, the most innovative aspect of the film is the mise-en-scene. There particularly, Godard, influenced by German playwright Bertol Brecht’s ideas on audience alienation, deploys all the tools in his arsenal to create distance between the film and its viewers. Breathless can’t possibly be discussed without mention of the jump cut. Breaking film’s invisibility rules, its usage disconcerts the audience and constantly refuses submersion in film reality. It also creates a frenetic pacing which can be considered ironic considering the film’s focus on the mundane. Godard also uses extra diegetic effects (loud sounds, scrolling neon’s light foreshadowing Michel’s fate) to constantly remind the audience that it is watching a film. This relentless process of alienation gives the film, at times, the feel of an exercise of filmed ideas about how to make a film in a new fashion.
         In his book, The Films of my life, Truffaut said that the best films open doors and make the viewer feels as if cinema began with them. He was talking about Godard’s Vivre Sa Vie. But I think his statement equally applies to Breathless. It’s a film that impresses with its spirit that breaks from tradition to offer up endless possibilities for a new cinema.

The Tree Of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

The Tree Of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)

The recent release of "To The Wonder" has prompted me to revisit "The Tree Of Life". Distanced from all the praise amidst which it was released, the film holds up incredibly well. Still, it ought to be acknowledged that it's not an easy film to love or even get through. And for those who are not enamored with cinema as an art-form, it might not even be worth it.
              Answering to none other than his creative vision, Malick seems to construct his films in a shut-in vacuum, completely unaware of and refusing to pander to audience expectations. The film's structure may appears radical to the uninitiated viewer but it follows a blueprint that appears to be Malick's comfort zone : a plotless non-linear narrative sparse in dialogue where the characters take turns whispering pseudo-philosophical ruminations (as if they're the first ones to question the universe and unlock its mysteries). It' a method that easily grates and justly opens the films to derision (especially since said ruminations are usually overwrought, shallow, over simplistic and akin to religious proselytism). In the case of "The Tree Of Life" , the main saving grace comes via Emmanuel Lubeszki, the film's cinematographer who creates an unparalleled visual feast. It's easy to tune out Malick's dime store wisdom and take in the beauty of the images on screen. The scene of the earth's creation, scored by Zbigniew Preisner's Lacrimosa, is sure to go down in cinema's history as one of its most stunning moments.
                Thematically, the film examines, as the title would suggest, the origin of life, death, God, our reason for being here. Small feat, really! This exploration is done through Jack (Sean Penn) who as an adult is still haunted by memories of his dead brother. Jack reminisces about growing up in Texas, his fraught relationship with his father (Brad Pitt), the tender care of his mother (Jessica Chastain), playing in the woods with his brothers. Those memories are where the film truly shines. They constitute the most emotionally honest and moving evocation of childhood and early adolescence committed to film since Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Skillful editing packs further emotional punch by never allowing the film to get bogged down in precise details and by concerning itself with impressions and feelings, replicating the way evocation works in real life.
              Had the film narrowed its range itself with a man recalling his rites of boyhood (sexual awakening, initiation to violence, oedipal complex, ), I would have find it easy to accept the film's status as a masterpiece. But Terrence Malick is a grandiose filmmaker (some might say pretentious and egomaniac). He bit off more than one could reasonably chew within the length of a feature film. Hence, I will say that "The Tree of Life" is a complicated mess with a masterpiece hiding somewhere within.

PS In an era of small cinema , I ought to clarify that I don't hold Malick's expansive vision against him. We need more films like "The Tree of Life", "8 1/2", "Ugetsu", "The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover"......

Filmmaker Highlight : Claire Denis

Claire Denis

“I suppose I am interested in the variety of human life—how people live. I am most interested in individuals and how they respond to challenges or to difficulties, or just to each other. I am curious about people. So that’s why I do a lot of different things. The cinema should be human and be part of people’s lives; it should focus on ordinary existences in sometimes extraordinary situations and places. That is what really motivates me.”

 ” The cinema gives pleasure, certainly. But most of all for me, film-making is a journey into the impossible. When I make a film I have to be like a military commander, in charge of every strategy and tactic. But I never really know where we are going”

      Born in Paris in 1948, Claire Denis grew up in various African French colonies (the influence of which is strongly felt in her body of work). At the tender age of 12, a polio-ridden Denis moves back to France. There, she discovers a passion for cinema that would eventually led her to enroll in  at IDHEC (France's prestigious film school currently known as La Fémis and sporting notable alumni such as Louis Malle and Alain Resnais). Graduating in 1972, she goes on to work as assistant director for the likes of Jacques Rivette and Jim Jarmusch. That is until 1988 when Denis finally helms her debut full length feature, Chocolat. 
       Those seeking linear narrative and the catharsis of moral conclusions/happy endings need not venture into her work. Often opting for sparse dialogue, Denis instead lets her languorously lingering camera capture the body's movements to reveal eloquently truths about the human psyche. Her interest in the lives of African immigrants in France has caused detractors to level at her accusations of exotification. But this is a very shallow reading of a filmmaker who allows for the full humanity of her characters to unfold like none other. Judging by her limited recognition, it's fair to say that Denis' films are somewhat esoteric in nature. Still, they are a journey worth taking. 

Claire Denis : A Cinema Of The Body

• Chocolat / Chocolate (1988)
• S’en fout la mort / No Fear, No Die (1990)
• J’ai pas sommeil / I Can’t Sleep (1994)
• Nénette et Boni / Nenette and Boni (1996)
• Beau travail (1999)
• Trouble Every Day (2001)
• Vendredi soir / Friday Night (2002)
• L’intrus / The Intruder (2004)
• 35 rhums / 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
• White Material (2009)

 
     

Coming Soon

The Place Beyond The Pines 

I've been watching and re watching quite a few films over the past week. I'm hoping to have some write ups done on each of them by the end of the week!

Carnage

Blue Valentine

Paris is Burning

Cannes, May 68, The New Wave & Godard

Left To Right : Claude Lelouch, Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut, Louis Malle & Roman Polanski (Cannes 1968)

             Context for the above picture : It's May 1968. France is experiencing sociopolitical unrest as students and factory workers are striking and taking to the streets to protest the capitalist regime of  De Gaulle. This turmoil happens to coincide with the annual Cannes film festival. The revolutionary spirit doesn't spare Cannes as Godard, Truffaut, Malle and Polanski are holding debates to demand that the festival be cancelled as a show of solidarity with the protesters. After many filmmakers (Alain Resnais, Milos Forman, Carlos Saura) withdraw their films from competition, the festival is eventually cancelled.
            The events of May 1968 were to have a profound effect on Godard's career.   He embraced extreme politics and embarked on what his commonly referred to as his radical phase. This wasn't particularly surprising in that Godard had always been thematically the most socially and politically conscious filmmaker of the french New Wave : Le Petit Soldat (1960) depicted the franco-algerian conflict; La Chinoise (1967) was about a group of students holed up in an apartment and plotting a revolution. So, in the wake of May 1968, he teamed up with filmmaker Jean-Pierre Gorin and founded The Dziga Vertov Group (named after a famed 1920s soviet filmmaker). The collective's films were brechtian in form and marxist in ideology, moving away from auteur theory. I also happen to think they're the most unwatchable in his filmography.
            One Could make the argument that Godard's departure from the French New Wave cemented the movement's demise as a cohesive unit of innovative filmmaking. But to be precise, the movement had been on its last legs for a while. The films consistently flopped at the box office and the filmmakers had trouble finding financial backing. But Godard having been one of the most visible members of the wave, his rupture with the movement certainly marked the end of an era.
            I greatly admire Godard as a filmmaker and count many of his films amongst my favorites. Still, he always struck me as someone who tried to work out some bourgeois guilt (he's from a wealthy background) in his films. The smug and aggressive tone of his discourse is emblematic of the type of liberalism that perverts the quest for social justice into a self-congratulatory badge. What ripple have these esoteric works of art in the social sphere? Are they engaging in honest discussions that could further change? Isn't their inaccessible language preventing said discussions? Those are some the questions that always come to mind whenever I try to watch anything by The Dziga Vertov group. Some of Godard's detractors have always accused of him disingenuous. But the most surprising of these detractors was Truffaut, Godard's longtime friend with whom he spearheaded La Nouvelle Vague. In a letter  that marked the end of their friendship , Truffaut states : "The idea that men are equal is just theory for you. You don’t feel it. That's why you can't love love anyone or help anyone beyond throwing a few dollars on a table"......."You just want to play a role and it has to be a big role. I think the real militants are like cleaning ladies: it’s not pleasant work, it’s daily, it’s necessary. But you, you’re like Ursula Andress, a four minute cameo, time for the flashbulbs, a few striking quips, and, poof, you disappear, back to the lucrative mystery"
          Godard's post 1968 seem to be indeed the work of the man that Truffaut is describing. Still, Godard ought not to be discounted. Films like Breathless and Vivre Sa Vie  are testament to his genuine talent as a director. And it's easy to understand why his name has subsided in the western film canon.

Random Thoughts On Mumblecore

I recently came across this review for “Daddy Longlegs”, a mumble-core film I saw last year and promptly forgot about (It wasn’t bad just not particularly noteworthy). The article’s writer wasn’t particularly impressed with the film either, which led her to make some interesting observations about the mumble-core movement. I’m not sure I totally agree with her claims  but they do articulate to some extent  why I’ve never really fallen in love with any of these films. Here are some of her quotes :
“Part of the problem is that the filmmakers look to John Cassavetes as their cinematic father, inheriting his penchant for handheld camera, overlapping dialogue, and jump cuts. But they have failed to develop his depth and humanity. In a Cassavetes film, we had seriously flawed individuals and even if we couldn’t muster affection for them we could always see them as painfully human”
“But mumblecore is proving to be as reliant on conventions as the Hollywood system it claims to be rebelling against. But sometimes they manage to hide their cliches behind the tattered facade of shoe string budgets.”
“So the mumblecore disciplines do not seem to come to filmmaking from a passion for cinema but rather from a desire to document themselves. This narcissism is one reason I’ve found it difficult to warm up to the mumblecore movement.”
She’s generalizing and oversimplifying but I think she’s getting close to something here. I don’t think documenting one’s self necessarily is necessarily bad .After all, art has been about the need for humans to express and document themselves. But what happens when that documentation comes from a generation of people who upload pictures of their food on the internet? Isn’t it navel gazing for its own sake?
Also, I’d add that the singularity of perspective has somewhat bothered me about the movement. And it’s not even so much the singularity (since that is more or less the norm within the western artistic canon) but how weirdly solipsistic it is. For me at least, these films hardly ever manage to transcend their immediate milieu. I’m not even sure if that should be required quality for great art. But can it withstand the test of time otherwise? What do you guys think?

Céline et Julie Vont en Bateau (Jacques Rivette, 1974)

The film is a lesser known gem of the French New Wave. Rivette defies all expectations of film and the result is utterly mad and nonsensical. There really isn't much in terms of plot. Two women meet by accident and set off on a series of bizarre adventures. It's fantasy presented as mundanely as possible. Watching the film is akin to falling down a rabbit hole where logic has ceased to be important. It's a thrilling ride if you don't push too much for answers. David Lynch as cited this film as a major influence and anyone who has seen "Mulholland Drive" will immediately make the connection to "Celine and Julie". It's also interesting to note how differently from his "New Wave" peers Rivette's camera gaze upon women. They aren't looked upon for sexual gratification. Rather, they are allowed to be fully humans. I'm skeptical of applying the Bechdel test to determine fair gender representation in a film but "Celine and Julie" would pass it with flying colors. I can't think of a single other New Wave film this can be said of.
PS : The film was partly inspired by an Henry James short story “The Romance of Certain Old Clothes”. While reading the story won’t elucidate much of the film’s narrative, it does help follow along with the castle scenes.

Un Conte de Noël (Roubaix!), A film by Arnaud Desplechin (2007)

“Schizophrenic” is the only apt adjective I can think to attribute to Desplechin’s directing style. I have loved it in the past (Kings & Queen) but found it to be quite unnerving this time around. Still, the honesty and complexity of the characters kept me drawn in for the entire time. Not to say that the two and half hours of duration time were totally warranted , especially since I was left with such an unsatisfactory feeling at the end. This is a film that definitely requires multiple viewings. But for now, I will say that it’s an audacious, jumbled mess of an effort that frustrates in some most parts but shines in others…

On The Subject Of Biopics

Say no to biopics. They essentially dilute someone’s life by reducing it to facts (either taken out of contexts or presented without proper perspective). In a way, they are an extension of nefarious celebrity culture in which we force ourselves into the private lives of public figures. If we’re being honest with ourselves, is watching a biopic drastically different than perusing some tawdry tabloid mag. Don’t get me wrong. I understand how facts about an artist’s life can better inform our understanding of their work. But let’s not make a god damned movie about them. Genius work really stands on its own

Contagion (Steven Soderbergh, 2011)

Marion Cottilard 

“Contagion” is a fairly captivating film featuring more than adequate performances by its star studded cast. As it is too often the case in films with a large ensemble, the characters aren’t fully fleshed out nor are they onscreen long enough for the audience to really care about them. Soderbergh’s direction is for the most part clinical, although at times quite reminiscent of Fincher’s style in “The Social Network” (a feeling further enhanced by a score that could have easily been written by team Reznor/Atticus). It’s not at all a bad film but it’s one I’ll quickly forget about. 3 out of 5 stars

Stoker (Park Chan-wook, 2013)

Stoker is less a horror/suspense story and more a coming of age tale. An awkward young girl, aided by a seducing devil figure, embraces her nature. This somewhat cliché story still had the makings of an original film. Alas! This powerhouse of actors is completely wasted on a rather weak script. Whatever tension exists within the film is purely contrived by Chan-wook’s frenetic camera who just won’t let well enough alone. His overdone direction desperately scrounges for atmosphere (even when there is none) in every frame. The film is beautiful to look at and it’s interesting enough to retain interest for a bit. But by the time the end credits roll, I found myself shrugging my shoulders in indifference.  2/5

A Dangerous Method (David Cronenberg, 2011)

Cronenberg’s latest film is also one of his blandest cinematic offerings. Depicting the friendship and fallout between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, the film just lies there like a dispassionate lover,  only allowing its characters to go through the motions, which they do rather unconvincingly.
Jung and Freud are adequately portrayed by Michael Fassbender and Vigo Mortessen. But Kiera Knighley once again annoys with a performance that manages to be both dull and over-the-top. Vincent Cassel, in contrast, shines as Otto Gross but his screen presence is unfortunately limited to just a few scenes.
It should be said that “A Dangerous Method” has some of the most stunning cinematography I’ve seen in a film this year. But, it is also quite forgettable.
2.5/5