FROM JAPAN : NORWEGIAN WOOD

So, I reckon we’ve covered pretty good distance as far as representing Asian art goes, Korea, Taiwan, murder mysteries (well, sort of) and deep art films. I seriously doubt I could get away with skipping Japan in this context though. What I seem to have achieved is, however, a double whammy. Not only do I get to present you with a rather beautiful and sensitive piece of Japanese cinema but also get to talk about one of my favorite Japanese novelists, nay one of my favorite novelists ever, Haruki Murakami. It is his novel Norwegian Wood that has been adapted to the big screen for our pleasure. Now, in the q & a session later on people enquired of director Tran Anh Hung “Why this book? It’s so unlike any of his other works, and not nearly as “visual” as them?” The director’s answer was simple : It was the first Murakami he had read. He had loved the book and decided not to read any other novels by the writer until later so as not to spoil the emotions he felt and wanted to convey with the film. I think this contains a beautiful lesson, not a lot of Murakami fans like Norwegian Wood (I was sort of so-so about it), mainly because it doesn’t match the “wild” imaginings and symbolism of his other novels. The lesson is that one should try and compare as little as possible, especially when it comes to art. If you start categorizing like that, you will miss the content of the artwork in hand, and although it doesn’t seem so from your biased standing, you might actually be missing one heck of a lot. Luckily, Tran Anh Hung, invites us to stop and ponder this story for a moment, and I for one am glad I did…
Naoko, Watanabe and Kizuki are three Japanese high school students. Naoko and Kizuki are childhood sweethearts; Watanabe is Kizuki’s best friend. Their lives are the lives of all teenagers, until that is, Kizuki, for some reason incomprehensible to the others, takes his own life. Both Watanabe and Naoko are utterly destroyed. Watanabe finds solace in flight. He moves to Tokyo, starts University, cuts all ties with his former town. He lives a pretty solitary life, he has trouble making friends and connecting to people after Kizuki’s death but he keeps himself too busy to notice. Until, that is, Naoko comes to town. They meet completely coincidentally and their common pain is still so fresh in both their hearts that they first become friends, then well… More than friends. But it quickly turns out that Naoko’s scars run a lot deeper than Watanabe’s. Watanabe truly loves her and is determined to stand by her unlike Kizuki who abandoned them all… At which point an original and lively young girl, Midori comes into Watanabe’s life. What will he do? Stick to trying to make the past right, or leave the past to rest and turn his face to the future?
I’ve never fully understood the connection of the story with the Beatles Song it gets its name from. I think I can feel the connection but find it hard to describe… You remember the line in the song “I once had a girl /Or should I say, she once had me?” It’s about… Well commitment to other people in a way. Belonging. And of course, in this case, figuring out where you belong and (in Watanabe’s case) who you belong with…
“The past” eh? We all have baggage in one form or another; very few lucky ones among us have grown up in a bed of roses. But in the end, we all have our own lives to lead. I mean, we have them. The question is whether we choose to lead them or not. In this case it’s the romantic involvement between Naoko and Watanabe, but we may feel a debt, as sense of duty towards someone or something in our past, and we may end up deciding to stand by that / them rather than move on. Whether or not this is a healthy attitude is questionable; in the story, even though Naoko and Watanabe truly have feelings for each other, one may wonder how much of it is in fact based on making each other surrogates for Kizuki. I say this even though the relationship gets physical; the fact that Watanabe is actually torn between Midori and Naoko does indicate after all, that there is a bigger slice of “sense of duty” concealed in his feelings than he may care to admit. I will not go into too much detail but I will tell you the story makes it quite clear which side it is on. I leave you to make your own choice… After all, it is a very personal matter…

FROM TAIWAN : VIVE L’AMOUR! – AIQING WANSUI

Ok, this is quite a heavy duty art film. Golden Lion and FIPRESCI prize at the Venice film festival among other prestigious awards. This being common knowledge, the showing at the film festival this year started out chock-a block. A lot of enthusiast but a few serious connoisseurs too, all settling down to watch a film one doesn’t often get the chance to see… Now, the film is a Taiwanese film, again I haven’t seen many of these either so I didn’t know what to expect. Neither, it appears, did my fellow spectators because from 15 minutes into the film onwards, there was an exodus to the door – right throughout the film (even 5 minutes before the end which I found rather excessive, I mean, after sitting through it for almost two hours you couldn’t take 5 more minutes? Seriously?). My point is this film is NOT for everyone. I find I am more able to watch films like this because I see them more as a job now – since I will begin actually studying them this fall – and I have trained myself not to get bored so easily shall we say. However, well, the film is almost a silent film. I mean, there is sound but almost no dialogue at all – a total of maybe 50 lines at the most in total, in two hours. Which is why half the audience ran screaming (well not screaming but the rate they were going I bet they felt like it) from the room. Be warned.
This is the story of three almost random individuals who “run into” each other in Taipei. May, a lady real-estate agent literally runs into Ah Jung, a street vendor, on the street. The two somehow take a liking to each other and May takes him back to an empty yet partially furnished flat for a night of passion. Little do they know however, that homeless sales-rep Hsiao Kang has got hold of May’s spare keys and set up there as his home. After May leaves for work the next day leaving Ah Jung at “home” with the keys, Ah Jung also thinks the house isn’t such a terrible place to crash for a few nights. So the bizarre trio starts using the house. At once. And completely unaware of each other’s presence. They will, of course unavoidably run into each other in the end, but will this actually help them communicate in any way? You will have to watch the film and see.
Taken in context and given the message the director wants to give, the lack of dialogue actually makes complete sense. Well, it’s big cities, modern life, and isolation. It’s living side by side with thousands of people without even addressing a word to them. Think of modern day apartment buildings. The flat in question here is big, very big, but if you think of small flats, I mean ignore the partition walls and doors, we live in the same amount of space with complete strangers for years and years without even knowing their names. The most basic things, the most basic desires go unsaid. Talk about “The Sound Of Silence”… But director Tsai Ming-Lang doesn’t paint a completely bleak picture. Little touches of wry humor, much like in real life makes one smile in spite of the bleakness of the general picture… I would describe them but I really don’t want to, the picture in the film is so complete of itself that taking one little piece out would really spoil the film.
Apparently the film divided critics at the time of its first showing 16 years ago, well I can see why. It’s hard to watch in more ways than one, but I would recommend you at least try if you feel you can cope with the lack of dialogue… It’s not as easy as it seems but you may well find it rewarding in the end…

FROM KOREA : MEMORIES OF MURDER

What makes a film original? Well, it’s not really just one thing, is it? Sometimes it’s a story, sometime it’s the performance of a certain actor or the decisions of an outstanding director… Sometimes it’s more than one thing… Take the Korean classic Memories of Murder ( Sal In Eui Choo Eok) . It’s basically the story of South Korea’s first serial killer – a true story. So, a common or garden cop-flick, right? I mean, more striking because of the fact that it is a true story we are talking about here, but all the same… The director however, it Bong-Joon Ho, one of South Korea’s great directors (we have written of him actually – check out the Host in our previous hosts). And this is a very typical, very Korean film… So when I said cop-flick if you thought of a “hard hitting cop” like Al Pacino or CSI (pick your favorite city) and I’m pretty sure a lot of you did so don’t deny it, you were wrong. Big time.
So, our story is set in a small town in rural South Korea. It has everything a small town out in the sticks needs, including a large factory (and a large population of workers) and a local police station with a few officials who consider themselves hard-hitting cops but who actually have never handled anything really tough in their lives. Murders are not unheard of, however when what seems “suspiciously” like a serial killer surfaces in their town everyone (including the police) is at a loss as to how to cope with the situation… The usual methods (yelling, lucky guesses, intimidation on various levels) don’t seem to be working when a young police officer, an expert in the field, comes down from Seoul to assist with their investigation voluntarily. He is not liked, he is not a “tough guy” like the detective in charge of the case, and he disapproves of the afore mentioned “tested methods” they like to use and he genuinely seems to think he’s better at the understanding this little town with his city ways… The thing is, as the case advances, it begins to seem in this last point he may be right… The thing is, will they be able to put their differences aside and get the killer off the streets?
What I like about Asian cinema – among other things – is the way there are various levels of different emotion and themes (as there usually are in Western films) but the way they are portrayed are so… Different. It’s just so subtle and, for want of a better word, graceful. For instance, in this serious and true story of a serial killer we find inserted a goodly strain of Korean style humor. The thing is, it is by no means inappropriate. Quite on the contrary, it gives a very appropriate picture of the small town officials trying to cope with an event the likes of which is rarely seen in rural Korea…

THEME OF THE WEEK : MASTERS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Hello everyone!

First of all I'm sorry for the change in adress and I hope all the regulars have been able to find me again. I can only say that I deemed the change necessary for various reasons and that it came almost as much of a surprise for me as it did for you... If, in this hassle we have made some new friends, I am happy to see you, pull up a chair and settle down!

Right, so what do we have to watch this week? Well, this week is basically a mixed lot. Only not quite. I decided to share with you three films from three master directors. You will almost definately have heard of them, you may or may not have favorable pre-concieved ideas about them and I reckon that if you haven't already, you should definately take a closer look at them. In short, from a cinematic point of view I think this week's films will provide you with an enjoyable challenge. I hope you like... Take it away maestros!

Have a good week and happy viewing!
Essie

FROM THE U.K : THE DRAUGHTSMAN’S CONTRACT

You may or may not have picked up on this but I LOVE British cinema. I love the use of wit over well… Everything else basically. Writing clever and exciting plots, really original plots are a talent and it’s something Hollywood is very good at. What doesn’t come out of Hollywood is wit. That’s what makes a lot of British films stand out from the crowd, and it’s what the British are, in my humble opinion, are good at. Peter Greenaway’s “The Draughtsman’s Contract” brims with wit. It is without a doubt one of the most intelligent and original thrillers I have watched in my life and believe you me, I have watched one HECK of a lot of thrillers…
We are transported back to the 17th century, to England. Mrs. Herbert is the wife of a rich businessman, Mr. Herbert. Mr. Herbert is the owner of a very large estate, and it is Mrs. Herbert’s desire to have drawn 12 sketches of the estate to present to Mr. Herbert. For this purpose she makes a contract with Mr. Neville, a master draughtsman. However, Mr. Neville is the best of the best, he thinks incredibly highly of his work and every line he draws comes at a price. Mrs. Herbert must pay for the sketches with money but with her body as well. Whenever Mr. Neville pleases. So, the contract is drawn up and Mr. Neville begins work on the sketches. He is pleased with the whole deal at first; having no doubt in his mind that he has got himself a good deal. However, is it really going according to plan? And if it is, according to whose plan? Mr. Neville’s or somebody else’s?
Now, you may or may not know that Peter Greenaway comes from a background of painting. This is very obvious in another of his films; The Cook, The Thief, His Wife Her Lover (one of my all time favorite movies incidentally) but more so here. There are many little clues and tips of the hat to old masters such as Caravaggio and Rembrant (I don’t pretend to have caught on to all of them). The compositions of the shots even, have a “painters” touch. And it is, on one hand, a film about painting by a painter, something fascinating to behold…
And then there is the main storyline. You may be conned into thinking yourself in a familiar realm. That of period drama and scheming aristocrats. You would not be exactly wrong, but you would be simplifying the whole thing rather a lot. First of all, although ample clues are available, it is VERY tough to get to the heart of the adventure a second before Mr. Greenaway intends us to get there… The drama, the tension unfolds slowly, gently almost, like the poor unfortunate Mr. Neville we are lulled into thinking we know EXACTLY what is going on and then… Wham! One of the best plots I have seen in a long time. And the wit doesn’t stop there of course. All through the film, long, 17th century, and very British sentences and stabs make the journey a sheer delight. If you get to watch it, please note the opening monologue concerning an anecdote about plums… I almost fell out of my seat laughing at it… =)

FROM SWEDEN : AUTUMN SONATA

OK, as I said, the festival gives one the chance not only to ogle at new productions but catch up on classics one may have missed in ones past. Now as you know, I am studying for a new career as a post-grad student in film studies and there is nothing more ample in my past that “missed classics”. The entire works of Ingmar Bergman, I am ashamed to say, feature prominently in this category. Thus, right at the beginning of the festival, I decided to set this right and took myself to Autumn Sonata by Bergman, among other classics you will find here this week. I usually like all art Scandinavian (a trait that gets me deemed “mad” by many friends and acquaintances) so I wasn’t nervous, merely curious. Bergman didn’t disappoint me. Turned out to be the little Scandinavian gem I always suspected it would be. I am on the hunt for the rest of his filmography as we speak.
So, what’s the story? Eva is the seemingly content wife of a vicar in a remote parish out on the Norwegian fiords. After hearing of the death of her mother’s “friend” (you can guess the reason for the inverted commas, right? Good.) she invites her mother (a celebrated concert pianist by the way) to stay with her and her husband for a couple of days. The mother and daughter will see each other for the first time in seven years, so there is much excitement on both sides. First there seems to be much rejoicing on both sides as caresses and questions are exchanged but before the first night is up the truth behind the veneer begins to raise its ugly head. There truly is nothing as complicated as “family ties”.
I don’t want to give too much of the “issues” (let’s go American) between the mother and daughter, simply because their slow unfurling is the backbone of the film. And I do not want to send you to a backboneless film – like a jellyfish, ugh… Anyway, so I will talk about the emotions the film left me with, or rather the impressions. Now, you may or indeed may not know that Scandinavian countries have a long (read ancient) custom of “story telling”. It survives today – if only barely – I was lucky enough to meet a Norwegian guy who was kinda training himself to become one a couple of years back but that’s a different story. Anyhow, the point is, this tradition makes a lot of their works of art like theatre (thing Ibsen’s plays for example) and film based heavily on dialogue. Take this film. I mean, there are “actions”, re-enactments and the conversation is broken from time to time, but the main part, the heart of the film is Eva and Charlotte’s (the mother) argument that goes on throughout the night and during which we see very little except the two speakers. The conversation takes place at night as I said so it makes the whole affair “dark” in more senses than one. And the content, well, it just gets heavier and heavier as it goes along. Plus it’s in Swedish in case, like my own beloved mother, you are “sensitive” about that. The whole thing is very tricky style to master and pull off that is unless your name is Ingmar Bergman. But even if you get it just right (which Bergman does, being Bergman) it’s definitely not for everyone. You will leave the film either feeling as if you’ve been hit by a freight train (as I did) or refreshed, because you fell asleep halfway (as did quite a few people in the theatre with me. Well, it was an evening séance) But I would take the gamble if I were you…

FROM RUSSIA : ANDREY RUBLEV

Ok, so, going to the film festival requires a certain amount of dedication. There are, of course, more “lightweight” participants, but for the more seasoned viewer there are more “challenging” options available. This is why, I believe, the selection this year was highly commendable, it was a very VERY good “spread” indeed. In this context, I saw this “little” classic by Russian directing giant, master Tarkovsky, and decided to go for it. Now, a word to the wise. Watching any film that is three and a half hours long in one sitting is a challenge in itself. Especially if it’s black and white and you don’t understand the language (easier to dose off you see). It’s more of a challenge if you’re in a cinema. You know, no distractions, not even a loo brake or a chance to stretch your legs. Add to this that the material you’re watching is, well… Tarkovsky. The experience was fascinating, but it’s not one I’ll be repeating in a hurry.
So what is the film about? Well, it is loosely based around the life of 15th century icon painter Andrey Rublev. Master Andrey, along with two companions, leaves the monastery where he has trained and lived for many years and goes out into the world. His aim is to hone his art as an icon painter - without leaving the religious “context” of course. However, once out in the real world, he finds the task is by no means easy. Especially in 15th century Russia, where infighting and Tartar hoards were plentiful…
The film is, admittedly VERY loosely based around Rublev’s life. It was, however commended the world over for its realistic portrayal of Russia in the middle ages. The thing with Tarkovksy is that his work is heavily symbolic, slow moving, with beautiful images conveying deep meaning, stuff you really need to think about. Personally I didn’t so much as understand but rather felt the meaning of some of the bits of the film… But the main theme is how Rublev slowly begins to lose faith, in more ways than one. The Orthodox Church (of which he is, as a monk, a part) is a massive force of the era, making free art all the more difficult. Rublev looses faith in everything; his art, the church even, Tarkovsky suggests at the very end, his own faith… It is clearly a very “anti-church” very possibly “anti religion – or organized religion any way – as well. You may not necessarily agree with all his messages, but you HAVE to admire the striking way Tarkovsky puts them across. And this is the cinema after all… Presentation IS half the game…
Now, there is one interesting aspect of the film that a good friend and I discussed on exiting (and walking around for about an hour trying to gather our wits and downing a couple of beers to get our brains working again). This film was filmed in Soviet times. And the Soviets of the time DID NOT like the film… So much so that they cut a total of 39 minutes of it. (Now don’t panic, three and a half hours is the total, uncut version, the film in total is NOT four hours long) But I was sort of surprised. I mean, the Soviets weren’t exactly hot on Religion, “The opium of the masses” and all that jazz, you know… But then again, we have to take it in context. True, apart from a few allusions, the film is anti religion, not politics. But, the church of the time was the major determining factor in politics at that time, as were the Soviets in Russia. Andrey’s loss of faith in the major “father figure” of his time, might easily be construed as a loss of faith in the Soviet system of the time. So really, small wonder they didn’t like it. The thing with Tarkovsky is, as you know, symbols. Stripped bare, it is the story of an individual against a mass, the artist against “the wall” (think Pink Floyd) no matter what the wall is… It’s one to be watched again and again to be properly understood, I plan to. Just possibly not all in one go…