A WORD TO BRING FEAR INTO ALL YOUR HEARTS: "NOSFERATU"

Ok, update on the personal front. I have started working even further back into film history. Having got my hands on some truly historic (from a cinematic point of view) works, I have been watching them eagerly and with fascination. Now, by historic I mean the firsts in cinema. And old. As in 1920’s silent films that constituted the various firsts of their kind. Now, these, I must warn you, are not the kind of films you would watch for ordinary cinematic entertainment – don’t expect to be swept up in the storyline or anything. Our generation, whose expectations from a film have become very much the same as those we have of a theme park, will be sorely disappointed by Nosferatu. You may even find F.W. Murnau’s film dating from 1922 comical. In which case, I strongly recommend you go watch a Mr. Bean film or an American Pie film (in my very humble opinion one of the silliest franchises invented by the way, but there you go), it will serve the same purpose and you won’t be being disrespectful. If, however, you are curious as to how we got to Avatar… If, for example you are a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer – or indeed any sort of horror film and are curious to see their great great grandfather… I strongly recommend you watch Nosferatu, which is a true work of art and piece of history, as it is the first horror film ever to be made…
The story is easily told, it is adapted from Braham Stoker’s Dracula. In the small town of Wisburg, lives Thomas Hutter and his beloved wife Ellen. One day, a letter arrives from Transylvania. Count Orlok has decided to buy a house in their small village and Mr. Knock the real-estate agent wants Hutter to go to his castle and get the count to sign the papers… Hutter, eager at the prospect of a windfall money-wise, sets off at once. But the small village close to Orlok’s castle is dark and trembling with fear and the castle is dark and foreboding… I wonder what adventures await Hutter within?
Now, needless to say, from many points of view, the film is very, VERY primitive… Number one, this is a silent, black and white film, so the acting is accordingly over-done in a way nothing our modern experiences have prepared us for. The characters and the storyline are simplistic (and sometimes hard to follow because of the deterioration in the quality of film!) and they openly show the prejudices of the day. For example, a book Thomas Hutter finds in the inn near the castle and takes with him, the “book of vampires”, states that “beasts sometime feel dangers men do not”. This is coupled by scenes of skittish looking animals, horses etc Hutter sees from his window but later,by his wife back in Wisburg hallucinating and feeling Hutter is in danger… Please remember that these were the days (or just after them anyway) when women were considered only a little better than animals in some quarters and very openly “inferior” to men… At the most optimistic, this can be interpreted as women being “emotional as opposed to intellectual, thus more open to feelings than thoughts” but still… As a woman, I didn’t find it pleasant. In the day though, it appears to have been considered normal…
Then, there is the technical side of it. First of all, camera movements had not been invented yet. The camera neither tracks, nor pans, nor rolls. It stands. We cut from one scene to the next. Closeups were also not invented yet. The closest we get to the actors is from the shoulders up, with the slight exception where Hutter discovers a bite on his neck (and assumes it’s mosquitoes – although the film had deteriorated so much I only figured this out later as he wrote a letter to his wife) and even that is not very close. Framing? Yes well, there is a bit of that but the angles and composition are so odd… One example – I couldn’t help giggling – was when Nosferatu (a vampire as you probably gathered) rises from his coffin. He is tall and imposing and… Half his head doesn’t fit into the frame… Yep, the frame cuts half his head off, something that would NEVER pass today but it possibly made the vampire seem more gigantic and scary in the 20’s… Not to mention shots seemingly from miles away with the character running from one weird point to another of the screen. What else? Well, you will have heard of filming a subject from a lower point to make it look imposing but there are bits this is taken to a fault (the camera, for all intents and purposes seems to be filming from the bottom of a well). The editing is positively sluggish in places with tons of footage we would consider completely superfluous today. ..
However, it is also a fascinating film. It is the starting point, what films started off as. Just watch the film and try and spot what is different from films today on a technical level and you will have greatly advanced your technical knowledge of films and editing. It puts everything into perspective. And, despite all of this, Max Shreck’s performance of Nosferatu is terrifying (for all that was lacking they knew a thing or two about costumes and make-up back then, he looks “positively evil !” as Mom put it) and for all their naïveté while in character Gustave von Wangenheim and Greta Schröder (Thomas Hutter and Ellen) along with the direction of Herr Murnau seem to be doing something right because you can’t help but get excited as you watch the film (not scared though). All you need is a little imagination, don’t expect to be spoon-fed the way we are today; back in those days people read a good deal more and could use their imaginations to get “into” movies with a good deal less then what we’re used to… Just as long as you read books as a kid, you should be ok…

A BITTER - SWEET RETROSPECTIVE : WILD STRAWBERRIES

I know, jumping 30 years ahead from Murnau to Bergman might be seen as a slightly larger jump in topics than usual; however ,I reckon you the faithful blog readers are pretty used to it by now… Besides, both films are shot in black and white – although they don’t have much else in common. Honestly, the idea when I started writing this was to not have a week’s update made up entirely of silent movies, thus a bunch of movies that seem to prove completely unwatchable to some… You might protest, saying Bergman is not your idea of a watchable film. True, he is a very Scandinavian director indeed. His films are imbued with a certain northern sense of sadness that is very difficult to shake. A lot of his films are (as far as I can tell) based on talking as opposed to action. The fact that they are usually in Swedish doesn’t help. But I find, with just a little persistence, you will discover true gems in his work. Just like wild strawberries.
Professor Borg is 78 years old. He lives alone with his housekeeper. He is quite a famous academic in his field and his small hometown reveres him as one of their most celebrated sons, a great philanthropist and generally speaking an honor to the town. Professor Borg, however ,is by no means the saint they make him out to be. Nor is he that much of a sinner. He is a rather egotistical old man, stuck in his ways and rather grumpy. He doesn’t want much in life and he doesn’t have much to do with other people – his own son included. One day, he must make a trip to Lund to receive honors for 50 years as an academic. The detour he makes to his old family home, a visit to his mother and a young hitch hiker who is the spitting image of his first, lost sweetheart bring bitter and sweet memories flooding back. Has Professor Borg made the right choices? Or will his memories be tainted with regret?
As I read up on this film, I discovered there is a connection between this film and silent cinema. The lead role of Professor Borg is played by Victor Sjöström, one of the most important directors of the silent age. The film also comes highly credited, Best Film at the Berlin Film Festival, Critics Award at the Venice Film Festival and Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. My festival guide calls it Bergman’s most humane film. I agree with this, but don’t expect it to be a happy film because of it.
The main theme of the film is loneliness. Even in families, between all the generations, between his mother and Professor Borg and not surprisingly between Professor Borg and his son there is a great coldness and lack of any feeling. Not because they do not care for one another but because they cannot seem to show it – or show it adequately. By the time Borg realizes this and tries to do something, his son is a grown man and it is too late for their relationship. Ewald (the son) is too deeply scarred by the legacy of loneliness handed down through the generations. Most things in life are learned in the family and loneliness is pretty much the same for Bergman. There is indeed a sense of the problem being handed down from his mother – a matriarch and mother of 10 children with no time for “nonsense” (now living alone having outlived all her children except the Professor and neglected by her grand children and their children). She hands her pain down to the wounded Professor Borg who has shunned all emotions for his own protection who passes this on to his son who wouldn’t know an emotion if he sat on one but knows the pain of their absence all too well… There is, however, some hope for Borg, especially in his newer connections. I found this resonated with me too. I am not 78 (far from it, thankfully) but I am also no longer a child and I too find that when the older relationships are broken, they are much, MUCH harder to fix. New connections on the other hand can always be founded on a stronger basis, using what we have learnt in the past. So it is with Professor Borg. It may be too late to change a lot of things, but we feel that he is not completely without hope.
The film is eerie with its closeness to life. In a lot of families, or shall we say for a lot of people, even though they may be surrounded by people (a large family, many acquaintances…) loneliness may set in very deeply. Especially (as, we will find out, is the case with Professor Borg) something has happened to alienate you specifically, hurting you so much you are forced to “fold in on yourself” for example… We can tell in a heartbeat whether we feel lonely or not, but how about what made us so? How much of it was us? How much of it was forced upon us? How much will we regret when the twighlight comes and we are looking back on our lives? Bergman ponders these deep questions with grace and style. You may finds bits of the film hitting a little too close to home but watch it all the same. Nothing at all wrong with a little bit of soul searching…

AN UNEXPECTED HITCHCOCK OR "THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY"

I picked this film strictly to lift my mood. I was in quite a foul mood as moods go and utterly unable to battle with, say, three hours of 1916 footage. Or anything on a par with that. I have endless respect for pretty much all kinds of film as you well know, however, there is a time and a place for everything and this was not it. Now, at first glances a film directed by Alfred Hitchcock doesn’t seem an ideal film to lift one’s mood. I mean yes, his brilliant thrillers can be cathartic, that’s a given, but uplifting? I agree with you. The thing is, I was keeping this little gem under my hat for just such a rainy day. It is a rare thriller – comedy by the great master. Now, I haven’t watched many Hitchcock comedies in my time (neither has anyone else seeing as he didn’t actually film that many) but I reckoned if we’re talking about Hitchcock, it has to be good. I was right.
It is a beautiful day in the American countryside. High in the woods, Captain Wiles – local of the small town nearby – discovers a body. Now, the problem is, the Captain , who is doing a spot of illegal hunting for his dinner, rather suspects he has killed him. The only reasonable course of action seems to be to bury Harry (whose name is revealed by a letter in his pocket) and pretend “he never happened”. Simple enough plan, no? Not quite. Along come a whole host of people, each and everyone knowing Harry and each and every one suspecting they might have something to do with his death. Although the only sensible course of action is to get rid of Harry while skillfully avoiding the town’s sheriff, this will prove to be easier said than done. What with romance flying through the air and complicating things and the necessity to bury – or unearth – Harry emerging almost hourly, the Captain’s quiet evening hunting will turn out to be more of an adrenalin rush than he may have expected. Not to say back-breaking…
I have always claimed that it is painfully difficult to marry genres so different as comedy and horror – or thrillers. The two are so different, if it is badly done the result is disastrous but if it is well done it is a beautiful, amusing symphony of contrasts. And we are talking about Hitchcock here fellas… This is one film where one becomes distinctly aware of the Hitchcock’s British roots. The humor borders on the rather more American slapstick (not least thanks to the “perfect prop” in the shape of Harry) but the humor is subtle, bizarre, ironic and very, VERY British. Now don’t scrunch up your nose just because I said British, it suits the case very well. After all, if we are going to laugh and be serious alternately, we cannot have huge comic gestures. There is the small matter of Harry, digging up the circumstances of his death, figuring out who killed him and whether the whole incident should be reported to the police or discreetly forgotten about. It is a subtle and witty film. Not least because of the acting talent. This is the film Shirley MacLane was discovered in, not to mention an appearance by John Forsythe as the Captain. In short, a truly brilliant way to spend 100 minutes. Save for a rainy day, it works!

THIS WEEK ON ESSIE SPEAKS : "BACK TO BLACK" WEEK

Haha, no, nothing to do with the Rolling Stones. Or Amy Winehouse. Nothing to do with music at all actually - the title is more down to free association than anything else.

You may claim that I am pushing things just slightly when I say this but the films above do have something in common I just can't place it. At least two are members of the film noir genre, famous members at that; Touch of Evil - directed by Orson Wells and The Third Man, adapted from a Graham Greene novel and directed by veteran director (who the younger generation may in fact never have heard of) Carol Reed (he's a man by the way, don't let the name fool you.) The last one isn't a film noir but a famous sporting film and a true story - Raging Bull. However, apart from not exactly being a happy film, it is also shot in black and white, the general mood and style are in fact close enough. So, I mean... Yeah... Maybe you should watch all three and then I'm sure you'll see what I mean... Honest... =)

happy viewing!
Essie

DEATH, INTRIGUE AND A "TOUCH OF EVIL"

A TOUCH OF EVIL
Well, we have spoken of Orson Wells acting; let’s get into his directing as well, while we’re about it. In fact, with A Touch Of Evil, I can go one better for you folks. Not only did he direct this film but he acted one of the leading parts no less. So there you go. If only I had another film of his close to hand, I could make it an Orson Wells week * sigh *… Anyway, moving on…
Now, this little gem of a film noir is the story of two policeman on two different sides of the border – in more senses than one. Vargas (Charlton Heston) is Mexican. He is in the Narcotics Bureau in Mexico and very well known for his tough stance on gangs. He has made many enemies among these gangs too, but this doesn’t stop him honeymooning in a small border town with his young and beautiful wife ( Janet Leigh). On the other side of the border, there is Quinlan. (Orson Wells). In charge of the border territory, Quinlan has a great reputation as one of the finest and most upstanding policemen that side of the border. But when Vargas witnesses a crime on the border and gets better acquainted with Quinlan’s methods of dealing with things, he begins to have his suspicions and decides to investigate the matter a bit further. However, finding proof and exposing this “veteran” policeman is no easy task. Vargas is out of his jurisdiction and Quinlan has a lot of friends in both high and low places…
There is a short “acknowledgement” at the beginning of the DVD I own. It appears that after Wells finished the film and handed it over to the studio, the studio decided the film needed “clarification”. So they set to work, cutting out certain bits, re-shooting and adding scenes. Re-making the film “in their own vision” as it were. Wells, quite rightly, was incensed by this and wrote the studio a 58 page memo detailing what they had to “change back”. The studio conceded to some things but still released the film with 30 minutes cut. The edition I have is “re-mastered”, attempting to create the film in the way Orson Wells envisioned it. I don’t know if this is the prominent version on the market now or if, in fact, there are two versions knocking around but if there are two, try and get the Orson Wells version. The film is a masterpiece in itself and if this was the version the studio wanted to “alter” I would like to know what they were drinking at the time. It’s like “jazzing up” the Mona Lisa. Well, maybe not quite, but similar spirit of things, anyway…
And as for the film, well… The level of tension spikes from the start and stays up all through the film right to the end. Wells, who put on a good deal of weight in his later years (a shame considering his dapper look in Citizen Kane) is brilliant as the overbearing Quinlan, who we often see in close-up low angle shots, making him look larger and more foreboding than any nightmare the imagination could conjure up. One needs a “bad guy” like that for our dashing good guy Vargas (Charlton Heston – who I had never actually seen in a movie before) to come up against. The problem is, this isn’t actually a classic Hollywood flick but an Orson Wells film noir so you can never be sure how it will end… And of course, with Wells’s clever play on sharp contrasts – sharper still because the film is in black and white – and the haunting score by Henry Mancini makes for anything but a “comfortable evening” when you watch this one, and yet time will fly, I promise you.
A little surprise is that we get to see both Zsa Zsa Gabor and Marlene Dietrich in small parts in the film (thanks to Wells’s wide connections of course). If you ever wanted a dark but star-studded film, well… It doesn’t get better than this…

TAKE ON THE WORLD WITH THE "RAGING BULL"

Ok, let’s go on star-gazing, and why not… Next in line, another classic. Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro with an Oscar ® winning performance and a heart-hitting true story in more senses than one. This is the true story of one-time middleweight champion of the world and controversial character Jake La Motta.
Jake La Motta (Robert De Niro) knows and cares for one thing in life. Boxing. Luckily he’s good at it too. Along with his brother Joey (Joe Pesci) who is his manager they have just embarked on a boxing career. Jake rises meteorically in his chosen field, there is nothing wrong with his boxing but his character… That’s a different matter. Stubborn and determined to do things (everything) his way and his way alone, La Motta is no good at politics of any kind and it is all Joey can do to keep his unruly older brother on the good side of the various “powers that be” that are interested in his career. But Jake will not be content with just being “a bit difficult”. Especially after divorcing his wife and marrying Vickie who is about 5 years his junior and very beautiful, what starts with slight insecurity about his young and beautiful wife will turn to obsession and violence. Despite the tumult going on around him, he gets his “title shot” and wins it too, becoming middleweight champion of the world. But with Jake’s already crumbling self-confidence fading fast and with Jake alienating contacts around him on a seemingly daily basis how long can he defend the title? In fact, how long can he survive at all?
I do realize that’s kind of a rhetorical question for anyone who knows the man’s actual life story but if you don’t (I didn’t) it is a question that springs to mind as you watch the film. Boxing is, of course, a destructive sport but La Motta carries the trend right through into his own life. And this makes the film – that is brilliantly made in all aspects – very, VERY difficult to watch… The actual boxing scenes may well send those faint of heart running from the room and as to the “Raging Bull” s antics outside of the ring, well, some of them may send you running too. Now, a note on the actual boxing is that Robert De Niro actually trained with Jake La Motta until La Motta deemed him fit to fight professionally. The fact that he has been able to observe La Motta for such a time and doing what he is best shows clearly in his performance – no wonder the guy won an Oscar®…
And as you can tell from the paragraph above – yes, La Motta does survive, if by the skin of his teeth. He quits professional boxing (I’ll let what he does take up remain a surprise) and gets over quite a few of his more “anti social” thought patterns. Though the film makes absolutely no bones about this being touch. There is an especially touching scene towards the end of the film (you can’t miss it) where Jake is questioning why things always seem to end up the way they do; for all his faults you can’t help feeling sorry for him as you watch… Reading up on his life I see that as of 2007 he has been married quite a few times ( I believe it was four in total) and seems to be living in New York to this day, aged 80 years of age.
Well, the film is a tough film about a very tough guy. And it’s quite possible that you will not find this film easy to watch. But I reckon it’s worth a spin, if not for De Niro’s stunning performance, because it’s the true story of one of the most intriguing “tough guys” in boxing…

SOLVE THE MYSTERY OF "THE THIRD MAN"

Ok folks, now, let’s do some star-gazing shall we? But while we’re at it, why not gaze at the stars of yore? I want to take you to watch a British film of particular cinematic importance now. It won a golden palm at Cannes and an Oscar ® for cinematography (a well-deserved one in my opinion but we’ll talk more of that later)… Sounds like I’m going to try and sell you sell you some arty film right? Wrong actually. Adapted from Graham Greene’s novel of the same name, The Third Man is about as exciting as it gets!
Holly Martens is a writer. He writes Western novels and is usually quite broke. In the days following the 2nd World War, he gets an invitation from his childhood friend Harry Lime, to Vienna. Vienna of the day is of course divided into four zones (British, French, Russian and American) and run strictly by the Allies. Harry, however, offers Holly a job (not to mention a plane ticket) and Holly is “stony broke” so he takes the offer and comes to Vienna. On his arrival there is a rather nasty surprise awaiting him. Harry appears to have died in a traffic accident a few days ago. Holly however, smells a rat. The few acquaintances of Harry’s that he meets are very evasive, the British Lieutenant Colloway seems to be trying to unearth something but he won’t come clean and as for Harry’s former girlfriend Anna, well she definitely seems odd… Albeit beautiful. Holly decides to really get to the bottom of the accident even though everyone tells him repeatedly to go home and leave well alone. Because there is the small matter of The Third Man… Who is he, where is he and why can no one neither prove nor disprove his existence?
The Third Man may seem quite nostalgic to some of you. It basically repeats the style of the post-war spy movies we know so well. And well, the plot in general doesn’t lack much from a spy movie. Intrigue, secrets, mystery, a brave young hero (Joseph Cotton as Holly Martens) and a beautiful dame… Not to mention an appearance by Orson Wells (purely as an actor here however, the film is directed by the famous British director Carol Reed). In these days of police flicks by the gallon, you may – like me – guess the “twist” in the plot way in advance, but I assure you it won’t prevent you from enjoying the film. I will go as far as saying that the chase sequence at the end (you know that every adventure film needs one) is one of the best I have ever seen. And, I do not want to give too much away for fear of ruining the plot but there is, in the second half of the film again, such a good play on shadows and light that I almost got up and cheered, much less give it an Oscar® . (Oh come on, doesn’t clever camera tricks excite you even the tiniest bit? No? Oh…)
And of course the whole crux of the film is black and white – of course – but also a matter of loyalty and where the heart lies. The heart doesn’t always automatically direct one to what is good and right, sometimes, well, it’s just plain complicated. And in this film, let me tell you, things get pretty damn complicated…
You know I told you about good quality “fun and adventure” films? This is a prime example of both quality and enjoyment. Think about it, you’ll be killing two birds with one stone; having a ball AND watching a classic… Go on… You’re sold, aren’t you?

THIS WEEK ON ESSIE SPEAKS : THE ART OF AKIRA KUROSAWA

Hi folks!

I hope you are all well and that summer has arrived in all its glory where you are too! This week on Essie Speaks, we do something we have never done before... Oh yes, I am quite the little innovator! We have had weekly themes of various things (and still do, regularly)but never before had a week dedicated to the work of one person. I will expand on this, actors, directors, and I think we will see more of the art of various artists in the weeks to come - I am rather surprised I only just got round to it in fact!
So this week, let's take a trip to the mystical orient and sample the genius of director Akira Kurosawa... I hope you enjoy reading (and watching) these as much as I did!

happy viewing,
Essie

MEET AN UNLIKELY HERO : "YOJINBO"

I now invite you to take a step back in time – in more senses than one. First of all, we are back in the ‘60s because we are about to “view” the work of master Japanese director Akira Kurosawa. As far as the storyline goes, we go back even further, to 19th century Japan. If ever there was a schism with day to day life ladies and gents, we are standing right upon it so to speak. Because this is what this film is, a little bit of fun and escapism mixed with a little bit of class and history.
Sanjuro (the charismatic Toshiro Mifune, one of Kurosawa’s favorite actors, for very good reason I might add) is a wandering samurai and a hired sword. He is a master swordsman and therefore in those troubled and dangerous times, unlike most people, he is able to do whatever he likes… On his travels, he happens across a small and very poor village. This little village is in trouble. The son of the old “patron”, who used to run the village, has broken away from his father with his two brothers and has started a rival gang of his own. The war of the two gangs is wreaking havoc on the poverty stricken villagers and the only person actually profiting from the whole thing is the undertaker. Sanjuro decides that this cannot go on and that he must put this mess to rights. Clean-up won’t be pretty by any means, but one thing you can be sure of, Sanjuro will use his own unique methods to do so…
I’m not sure if I even need to point out how much this film has in common with the genre we commonly call a “western” today. To the point that famous spaghetti western director Sergio Leone was greatly impressed by Mifune’s character Sanjuro. It’s all too familiar isn’t it though – at first glance, anyway? A lawless town, rival gangs – full, of course, of dangerous men escaping from the law – the people caught in the middle of them. The nameless tall, dark stranger arriving in town to put things right… Even the joke of the undertaker loving the whole thing can be found in Lucky Luke comics, as people old enough (i.e. me) can testify. Well, if you think you’ve seen it all before, look again. Yes, Yojinbo is a Kurosawa and a genre we have seen before, but by no means does it take itself too seriously. The opening credits and the upbeat music set the tone, and scattered throughout, there are subtle jokes, placed in a way so as to compliment the whole plot without taking it over ,in a way only Asian sensitivity can. I mean, if you ‘re talking about a film that depends so much on “believing” in the goings on (small matters like Sanjuro being able to kill 10 men in 10 seconds) if it takes itself too seriously, you end up just not taking it seriously at all. If, however, the film takes the mickey out of itself ever so slightly, things are sort of… You know, balanced out. The rival gangs and gang members are priceless in many ways and Sanjuro laughs openly at the absurdity of some situations, inviting us to do the same. Then, when our perspective is seemingly closer to his, we can forgive his killing 10 men in 10 seconds. He’s “our guy” in the film, we can cut him some slack.
In short, Yojinbo is a really fun adventure. It is also technically the film I should have mentioned BEFORE Sanjuro that I posted last week - Sanjuro is actually the further aventures of the character... I mean storyline-wise there is no harm in watching one or the other first but one should respect chronology whenever one can I feel - I appologise for the confusion anyway =)

A CLASSIC FROM A MASTER : "SEVEN SAMURAI"

This is one of “those” films really, isn’t it? I find it so hard to sit down and write about epics and really big time classics to the point that I have omitted some of them from the blog. One feels really put on the spot light when writing about a film so many people like so much. Not necessarily because one hasn’t enjoyed it oneself, quite the contrary. One is afraid of somehow “doing an injustice” to the film even if one means well. But I feel I must mention Seven Samurai. Samurai films have kinda died out these days… Well, not died out exactly but they have fallen, shall we say, in the list of popular genres. It is not one of my favorite genres, not by far, but I do believe it deserves a certain amount of respect, especially where the works of masters such as Akira Kurosawa are concerned. And where classics like Seven Samurai are concerned, I believe they deserve remembering once in a while. So, in the spirit of not letting the film gather dust in a corner, here goes…
We are transported to 16th century Japan. Being a farmer is tough in those days. One must work hard to get ones living from the earth. The rewards are meager but will help one get by, unless, of course, the bandits come. This particular village is in deep, deep trouble. A band of 40 bandits, armed to the teeth and able fighters have made a habit of “visiting” the village, usually just after harvest. They take almost the entire harvest – and sometimes more besides – leaving the poor farmers on the very brink of abject poverty. In their desperation they seek the advice of the “Old Man” of the village. “Find samurai to defend us” he tells them. “Hungry samurai, for we have nothing but rice to feed them with.” So four of the farmers set out to the city to locate the “hungry samurai”. The question is, will they be able to find samurai willing to risk so much for so little reward? And will the untrained, frightened farmers be able to get into shape and defend themselves from the attacks?
Ok, so needless to say the answer is yes, they do find people who agree to defend them. Seven people all in all (as you may have gathered). The seven will then come to the village, and train the villagers to fight, really, truly fight. The beauty of this film is indeed multi-tiered. First of all the seven samurai. None of them are stereotypes; each and every one has his own unique character and contribution to the team. The fighting sequences are, as you can imagine, quite savage. And the results are not always merely a joyful victory. But the entire film is laced with, well, first of all humor in the true sense (which makes sense to me, in life one can always find something to laugh at so long as you look hard enough – such is the beauty of life) and then, good humor. The good humor of the samurai who know what they are doing is right and who work tirelessly towards their goal.
And then, of course, there are the villagers. It is a very good study of human nature in general. And I am no expert on 16th century Japan but it is definitely a good study of people living in small, poor communities. They are, unwilling to learn, unwilling to accept new ways and “strangers” into their midst and very stuck in the ways of the past. Even the samurai they themselves begged to come are not worthy of their trust. One cannot entirely blame them either though; this comes with a tough life. The question is whether the samurai will be able to gain enough of their trust to train them for the battle ahead. And how well the farmers will do on the day of the battle…
Naturally all of the above can well be allegories of life. Including an attitude of apparent ingratitude seen in the will to throw oneself into life without looking back once the “bad things” have gone away. I will not say it’s ideal, but it is the way life is…

AN ADAPTATION - THOUGH NOT THE SORT YOU MIGHT EXPECT... "THRONE OF BLOOD / SPIDERWEB CASTLE"

Ok, so, this blog is a blog by a cinephile for other (potential) cinephiles. Not that you need any depth of knowledge concerning the cinema to read this blog, I have done my best to make sure of that… However, I do assume things sometimes. And I assume we have all heard of Shakespeare, right? Right. Phew. Now, the play I have in mind is Macbeth. But what, I hear you enquire, has that got to do with a week where the apparent theme has been the works of Akira Kurosawa? Well, the thing is I am not thinking of an exact replica of Macbeth, but an adaptation. By Akira Kurosawa. Into Japanese. There, that got your attention, didn’t it? =)
Ok, so I believe we all know the story of Macbeth, the story of Throne of Blood is exactly the same. Behold, long, long ago in medieval Japan, a good natured and valiant lord, Wachi, who fights for an overlord. He and his best friend are summoned to the castle one day to receive awards for outstanding bravery in battle and they are accosted by an evil woodland spirit. The spirit informs Wachi?? That he will one day rule the land. He tells Miki that his son and posterity will, among other predictions of promotion. The two friends are startled but are also determined not to take the spirit too seriously. Until its predictions start coming true that is. When Wachi goes home and tells his wife of what has happened, she takes the news rather differently. If he is destined to be overlord he must secure his position as soon as possible and by any means possible. Murder included…
Now I will not go on to the end on the off chance that some of us are not acquainted with the story of the play. But I am sure that those of us who are can see the similarities already. And the differences. The use of an evil spirit – commonplace in Japanese mythology I am told – instead of witches (nonexistent in Japanese mythology) is one small instance. The entire story, while kept the same (sometimes verbatim from the play – in Japanese of course) is tweaked and adapted to medieval Japan. It was interesting to see that the focus of the story had changed slightly in the adaptation too. Throne of blood is less the story of personal tragedy we see in Macbeth and more a warning against disloyalty and blind ambition. I’m not quite sure why this is the case, maybe having a profound personal story on screen would clash with Japanese formality of the ‘50s and ‘60s? Maybe Kurosawa was imitating some form of Japanese theatre? I say this because we notice a Greek chorus-like song at the beginning and end of the film spelling out the moral of the story for us. Maybe this kind of theatre would have to have a moral dimension to it? Maybe it was just Kurosawa’s personal decision. I’m not sure. All I know is, to give another example whereas Lady Macbeth is just a woman ambitious for her husband and for whom we feel sorry for at the end when she goes mad; Asaji, her equivalent in Throne of blood borders on being a monster. The way Kurosawa chooses to portray her – not just psychologically but the way she is physically shot in some of the scenes – is spooky, underlining the difference between her and her husband. She almost seems like the prolongation of the evil spirit egging him on. There are other, some quite major differences with the play too, but I have to warn you that you really shouldn’t expect %100 Shakespeare. As I told Mom repeatedly all through the film, it is an ADAPTATION. To JAPAN. Just sit back and enjoy the experience. If you are able to shed your prejudices you will enjoy it. At worst, you will find it interesting and that in itself is NOT a bad thing at all…

LET THE ADVENTURES BEGIN, HERE COMES THE "HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER"

I have the utmost respect for Clint Eastwood. I didn’t actually like him much in the past though. I don’t know why, possibly because I had fed off too much of the clichés and not seen enough of the real thing to pass proper judgment. Now, personality-wise I wouldn’t know… But as an artist, well… RESPECT (Ali G. style). I honestly started watching this film as a fortunate discovery of a Western in my almost endless archive. I have mentioned before I believe that westerns are sorely neglected by yours truly, not out of any malice but well… So many films so little time. It is a western, but not a typical western. That much you can be sure of. But the plot twist at the end is of such a grandeur that I won’t give you any clues as to what it is, but bear with it to the end… I have a sneaking suspicion you’ll be surprised…
Lago is a small, sleepy town, much like any other in the Wild West. It’s a mining town and the main hub of business is the Lago Mining Company. Until, one day, a stranger comes to town. He doesn’t say much but he’s one hell of a shot. He proves this by killing three men within half an hour of arriving in town and raping a woman too. The trouble is the three men just happen to be the three paid gunmen the town hired to protect them. And the stranger has killed them when they were needed the most: Three known bandits and scoundrels are due out of prison any day, and the inhabitants of Lago know full well they have a bone to pick with them. Having lost one means of protection but being faced with the toughest and best shot they have seen in their lives, they approach the stranger, offering him absolutely anything, as long as he keeps them safe from the three bandits heading their way… The stranger accepts. But the price he demands is both high and unusual. But then again, Lago isn’t really your usual little mining town…
First of all, credit where credit is due… Clint Eastwood (who not only directed the film but also plays the stranger of course) is one heck of a good looking guy. All through the film, he is exactly what we expect a western hero played by Clint Eastwood to be. Lean, mean, tough , quiet, rugged and good looking. What is really fascinating is the town. What’s different about this film is that sure, there are “baddies”. You know, the bandits fresh out of prison, ruthless men, with no morals. But the real bad guys in this story are not just “bad”. They are not “black” to Clint Eastwood’s white. They are simply very human. Very, very human indeed. Not that one approves of this sort of thing but one knows it happens. Notice how I’m bending over backwards not to give the plot away? =) Well, you may even guess what it is, it’s not exactly earth-shattering but it definitely gives the film a kick. I strongly advise you watch it if you’re into the genre. It’s worth about 50 spaghetti-westerns and definitely a classic for a reason.

FAMILIAR FILM, ORIGINAL SETTING: SANJURO

Some might point out at this point that, if we are talking about Akira Kurosawa, Sanjuro isn’t exactly his most famous work, even as far as samurai films are concerned. I will answer, I know. I was lucky enough to acquire a goodly number of the master’s works and I will be scattering them in my reviews of the coming weeks (so as not to inundated you in samurais. Mom and I seem to be OK with doing that, you may not be though… =)) I think we need to review this film here, at this point because it actually went on to influence a lot of spaghetti westerns in its day. And western lovers will find the theme eerily familiar. It is definately a slightly more “light hearted” side to Akira Kurosawa’s work. We will be reviewing “Throne Of Blood” (Kurosawa’s adaptation of Macbeth) and “Ikuru” that has become a modern classic among other things in the weeks to come. For now though, let us concentrate on the further adventures of Sanjuro.
After his first adventure, Sanjuro (again the quite brilliant Toshiro Mifune) goes on travelling. And on his travels he comes across 10 young samurais. Now, these young men are greatly distressed. There is much corruption in the area they live in, especially in the police department, and they want the governor – the uncle of one of the young samurai – to put a stop to it. The governor however, seems to be sitting on his hands, telling them to be patient. But then, partly as a result of their meddling, the governor is kidnapped by the corrupt officials. Sanjuro, who gets embroiled in the proceedings greatly by mistake doesn’t have the heart to leave the 10, well intentioned but very inexperienced young men to their own devices. He will take on the role of older brother and leader to the band. The “band” will not always be content of this, but Sanjuro being the only natural leader among them they can’t really refuse either. So, will they be able to find the governor and save him? Or will the corrupt police chief be able to frame the poor man for his own dastardly crimes?
This film is a completely different kind of film from Yojimbo, despite the many common themes in them. First of all, there are the samurai. The 10 young men mirror the two rival gangs in the previous film in many ways. They do not know how to act, they make often foolish mistakes. This, like the previous film, elicits a lot of laughs (it did from us anyway). But this is attributed largely to the youth of the samurai, not their stupidity or lack of capability like the gangs in Yojimbo. Then of course, there is the fighting. And you can hardly have a samurai film without fighting. But the circumstances are greatly different here. Tactics have to be in the foreground, they are 10 people against the entire police force. Sanjuro must use his wits to the end to help them free the governor. So, even more so than Yojimbo, suspense as to whether the tactic will work enters the play. And I must say some bits of it are nail-biting. And then of course, there is another psychological factor. We know that Sanjuro is a very, VERY good guy beneath his rather rough and ready exterior, but our “gang” don’t know him from Adam, so to speak. Thus the issue of trust and the lack thereof also comes into play.
But of course, there are spectacular fighting scenes, as usual. And as usual it is laced with that sophisticated humor – almost character comedy – I tend to associate with Asian films. Great fun to watch. So much so that I am going to research whether Sanjuro has any more adventures. I’ll let you know if I come up with anything…

THE NICEST "BAD" GUYS IN THE WEST : BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID

Well, all this “of beat” stuff is very well and good but I have to plug a classic western in there somewhere don’t I? Otherwise it’s, well… Sort of disrespectful, almost. Now, this is a classic but it still has a certain something about it. It’s back from the days when Hollywood was churning out more classics and less of the “just get bums on seats” stuff. And you are strongly encouraged to watch the film even if you aren’t usually a fan of the genre. There is a lot more going on than just baddies fighting goodies in this one.
First and foremost, our story is actually based on actual events. The title at the beginning of the film informs us that “what we are about to see is mostly true”. One can’t help but smile at the statement’s sincerity and I find it actually quite clever in that it sets the general tone of the film to perfection. The tone of course, is largely determined by its two stars; Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford). Butch is a charming and intelligent rogue who always has a plan; Sundance is the quickest and most accurate rifle in the West and between them they make an unbeatable team. You know the sort of thing; bank robberies, train robberies, the usual. They have a small gang to help them along and besides they are such truly nice guys that the population doesn’t mind helping them out now and again. But one day… One day they meet their match. Although the general population sees them as lovable scamps who commit a robbery or two here and there, bank managers don’t exactly share the same opinion. And one man’s anger and indignation will be the beginning of a desperate escape for our two heroes… One that will take them further than their wildest nightmares…
I haven’t watched enough films in the genre to be able to judge, but this MUST be one of the first films that formed the genre where you tend to sympathize with the bad guys instead of the good guys. I don’t mean they’re anti-heroes or anything; what I mean is that in actual life we’d be on the side of justice and the police, not the train robbers. I mean, same principal as, I dunno, Ocean’s 11. They’re all criminal’s for Heaven’s sake, why then do we root for George Clooney and Brad Pitt to get away (apart from the fact that they are both gorgeous that is). Well, looks do come into it up to a point here too. I mean, you’d have to have serious eye problems to consider Robert Redford (his youth at any rate) nothing to write home about and the same goes for Paul Newman (oh yes, the casting in these things is rarely random!). But in this case the twosome is more than just a pair of pretty faces. The characters are so real, so sincere, so funny… They may take money that doesn’t belong to them, but they have principals. I mean, they rob those big faceless corporations (or their equivalent in the past) not the common people. They treat the common people with respect (ok they’re no Robin Hood they won’t be SHARING the loot with you any time soon) but they are such well-meaning rascals your instinct is to laugh, shake your head and turn the other way while they make their escape. And with the relentless pursuit begins the nail biting ordeal that will pretty much go on to the end of the film.
I am tempted to comment on said end of film, but the main body of the film is just SO exciting I will refrain. I don’t want to spoil the excitement. However this I will say, if a film wins the Oscars® for Best Story AND Best Screenplay, well there’s usually a pretty good reason for it.

THE WORLD THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MASTERS

I have very little time possums, but I couldn`t possibly just log off without dropping you a line.

This week, we have the privilage of seeing the world through the eyes of master directors. Go over to Hong Kong for love, cross to Europa for war and while you`re there linger a while in France and go back to your childhood... Was it really as happy as you think?

The films this week mean a lot to me even though I haven`t the time to explain why... I sincerely hope they grow on you too...

Essie

FROM THE EYES OF A MASTER : WAR "EUROPA"

As we said, this week I will attempt to share my impressions of a few old masters I have had the good fortune of watching recently. Now, these are directors of truly world-class talent and depth, and I do not claim to be an expert on anything but I do seem to have acquired a fair bit now, which gives me the confidence to rattle on a bit about them. Take Lars Von Trier for example. Now, the first film I watched by him was actually the Dogville series. Marvelous, hard-hitting and truly original film. I then got into him and started researching, trying to dig up more of his stuff. Now, Trier is among other things, a master at editing. Now, editing, if you’re not actually looking for it so to speak, can rather feel like nothing too tough (and the basics are indeed not). What, you just lump the scenes together and that’s it, right? Well, although it can be done like that, there is also the fact that it isn’t so much what you say but the way you say it. And in cinema, the way you say a thing can actually change the entire “thing” – now that kind of editing, is tough indeed. Trier is a master of using technical tricks and novel ways of telling a story to convey feelings and messages – subliminal or overt. Europa is the third film in his Europe trilogy. True to style I have the first at home (I have actually watched it, don’t worry) but have never seen the second. I felt it was OK to go ahead with it; the aim of the trilogy is a description and critique of post-WW2 Europe. Now, admittedly I now feel I will have to watch the first one (Element of crime) with fresh eyes but Europa by no means suffers from not having watched the first two. It is a vivid description of post- WW2 Germany, not so much the physical description though, but the emotions… The picture painted is, I must say, a lot starker than the physical…
Leo Kessler is an American of German descent. He decides, after the Second World War, that the time has come to show some compassion to Germany, so he arrives in the country and under the patronage of his rather gruff uncle and begins to work as a sleeping car conductor on the trains. Leo’s aim is to do as much good as he can and learn about his country of origin but as he goes deeper and deeper into the country, learning about it and even learning to love it, he will begin to see that things are not all they seem. And that Germany is, in fact, a lot more complicated than he first thought it was…
Now this film of Lars Von Trier’s is celebrated as one of his deepest and most original, especially due to his examination of the subconscious. Firstly, one must know that Lars Von Trier is part of a group of directors who want to give a message with their films. He founded the Scandinavian Realism movement back in the day (a group that had very strict rules about how they filmed, basically from using only natural light to, in the same style as the Italian Neorealists, using the services of amateur actors). Now, much in the way of French New Wave, the aim of this group is to actually get the audience to “participate”. That is to say, you are not swept along in the story in a semi-hypnotic state (and Von Trier gives a very powerful poke to that state of spectatorship all through the film although I will not tell you how so as not to spoil the effect) but you are invited to remember it is a film and actively think about the message. Now, the problem with that genre is, that it tends to bore the general public to tears and beyond. (Tell me honestly how many of us have actually succeeded in watching a Truffaut or a Goddard from beginning to end? I haven’t tried yet but will in the weeks to come, check back to see if I do!) Lars Von Trier, very intelligently sits just on the cusp between this genre and an average exciting adventure film. And this is the toughest pose of all to pull off. I mean, the guy has very serious messages about the human mind and the soul to put across which he does, and he does it in a way that gets the audience “out of themselves” and begin to think, but at the same time there is a story to get caught up in, our hero’s life is in danger and he faces tough choices and you grip the arms of your seat and tremble as you wish the film would both go on forever and end your agony at the same time.
I’ll give you one example of the “message” bit though, to give you an idea. Now, the film is shot in black and white. But you will notice that parts of it are actually in color. “Why?” One can’t help but ask oneself. Well, if you watch them closely you will find these are moments of heightened emotion for the characters. It’s like in life, your day to day blends into the back-ground in a (black and white?) mass, while some moments, some important moments (important for you anyway) stand out in Technicolor (so to speak). Isn’t that a brilliant way of highlighting moments, adding to the emotion? You might remember this gimmick from somewhere else; it was later picked up on in another Hollywood film, Pleasantville (starring Toby Maguire and Reese Witherspoon). The two were modern day teenagers who get sucked up into a ‘60s TV show (long story) and the world is very reserved and black and white, but after the children arrive, the possibility of true emotion appears, and every time a character experiences true emotion(anything from sex to true sorrow) they become “colored”. Gimmicks like that… Politically speaking of course, I don’t think I need to go into the significance of the young naïve American going into war-torn and traumatized Europe brimming with “good intentions” and not much else… I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions there…
I can go on and on but I won’t, just watch the dang thing. Then watch it again.

FROM THE EYES OF A MASTER : LIFE AND LOVE "CHUNGKING EXPRESS"

Well, we started off in Denmark, now we jump half way around the world to Korean master-director Wong Kar Wai. Now, if you had this general impression of Asian cinema as being slow paced, philosophical or heavily action based (Kung-fu films) please think again. Chungking Express is an intelligent, fast paced- sometimes to the point of bewildering – and sensitive consideration of modern life. Life and love in general in fact. No big surprise that the name of the film comes from Chungking House, a massive labyrinth like shopping mall in Hong Kong (I have to say, I never checked to see if it’s actually real or not…). Much in the vein of Vive l’amour, confined spaces in modern life bring extraordinary characters together and adventures – real live adventures – take place…
Police officer 223 is not having a good time these past couple of days. He has been dumped by his long-term girlfriend and is having trouble getting over it. On the evening of his 25th birthday, he decides he must force himself to get over it so he goes to a bar and vows he will fall in love with the first woman who walks in. And the first woman who walks in just happens to be a drug smuggler who has recently lost a group of Pakistanis with whom she had made an agreement to smuggle drugs out of the country. She is now in deep trouble. True to form, officer 223 falls in love with her immediately, but this for him will be the starting point of many extraordinary adventures… Some of them life-changing…
What I love about some movies is the way that two completely unrelated stories and genres can be just mushed up together and actually make a meaningful whole. This happens many times in this film, and the number of times Wong Kar Wai has pulled this off is a true tribute to his talent. The entire film is set on parallel stories, only the stories change – keeping officer 223 as a constant as far as I can tell – to make first one extraordinary pattern, then another. In the first half we explore the underworld, then the young officer and his sadness and his (rather bizarre) ways of coping. Then it’s a love story – only not the kind of love story you’re thinking of, it’s complicated – and then it’s goodbye… But maybe there’s a hello just round the corner… Scattered throughout the film, thanks to a series of truly extraordinary but touching characters, are a series of weird thoughts and considerations on life, love and relationships. I watched it in the cinema, but after I’ve finished working on my blog I think I’m going to just check the internet to see if there are any sights were quotes are compiled, they are so good and so touching, I’m sure someone thought of writing them down…
Another small thing, I was amused to find out that this also seems – in a way – the granddaddy of the French hit film Amelie. I won’t go into detail but you have to be blind not to see the parallelism. You will get it though if I say, for example, that Wong Kar Wai will pick up the same theme in a future film, Empty House… I’m not quite sure what it is in Asian culture that makes the theme of two people living in the same house without one or both parties being aware of it come back over and over again… I guess, like I said before, it’s the very confined spaces flats and apartments are set on in that part of the world. People virtually live on top of each other without knowing a thing about each other, it is rather spooky when you think about it…
And yes, I do rather seem to have given a chunk of the second half away but firstly you don’t know how we get there from the first half, and secondly, there is no way you can unite these two halves and get to the ending, I’m sorry guys you’re just going to have to watch and see…

FROM THE EYES OF A MASTER : CHILDHOOD "LES 400 COUPS"

Ok, I’m chugging on with our “old masters” tour and I cannot help but stop at this film. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You saw the name, maybe googled it or remembered it thought “François Truffaut? French New Wave? You have GOT to be joking!” The general prejudice about this genre of films is that in a word, they are unwatchable. I do not deny that some of them probably are, I haven’t gone “deep enough” into the genre to know. In later years especially, the New Wave cinema aimed, with the techniques it used, to make the audience think – as opposed to getting immersed in the film in a semi-hypnotic state, the way you would watch a film on a Friday night for instance… The spectators who missed the “immersion” labeled the genre as “terrible, arty-farty and depressing”. Well, each is entitled to his opinion. My immediate opinion however, is that if you set aside the classics of Hollywood style movies we are used to and get to thinking about the smaller things, the details of a film, we will find true gems here. Take this film, 400 blows. First in the series made by Truffaut chronicling the life of Antoine Doinel (imaginary hero needless to say) is one of the best, most touching and most sensitively composed films I have had the pleasure of watching…
Based largely on Truffaut’s own troubled years growing up, Antoine Doinel, aged around 10 I would say, has a tough life. At school, his teachers are harsh – and seem to not like him very much. At home his parents work too much, fight the rest of the time and pay very little attention to him, except that is, to tell him to do chores and scold him. His only ally in the whole affair is his best friend and classmate René, whose parents pay little or no attention to him leaving him to pretty much do as he pleases in their large house… After a series of misunderstandings on all fronts, Antoine decides he is through with school and that he must go out into the wide world and make his own way… For him and René, this decision of his will have unexpected results – to say the least…
On the back of my copy of this film, there is a quotation by Truffaut himself: “Except for adults with bad memories, being a teenager seldom has good memories.” I couldn’t help but smile, oh yes, childhood and youth as an “age of innocence” when all was rosy… Nostalgia is a brilliant way to escape from day to day problems; however, the “happy” memories are seldom as happy as we would have them be…
In the case of Antoine for example, his teacher is a typical petty high-school teacher who sees himself as the monarch/tyrant of a little kingdom (the classroom) and thus must have an “arch enemy” (in this case Antoine. His parents are far too wrapped up in their own lives to take notice of him; the unfortunate series of circumstances leading to this state are also revealed throughout the film. Antoine isn’t particularly bad or troubled by nature; it is in fact the 400 blows he receives from left and right that make him so. Throughout the film we see many attempts on Antoine’s part to escape. Not necessarily do anything else bad but to escape, from school where he is miserable, from his parents, his condition… Being 10 however, his options are limited and his motives largely misunderstood.
You will, I am pretty sure, find yourself thinking back on your own childhood as you watch this film. There are many intelligent and touching little details on school-life that will come flooding back to you and that are lovingly dwelt upon throughout the film whether they actually have a part in the central plot or not… No wonder Truffaut, aged 27 and just having directed his first motion picture, wiped the floor with the opposition at the Cannes film festival with this one back in the day. It is the film that established him as a master and you would have to be blind to not see why, whether you like his later work or not…