OF DEMONS AND MONSTERS - OF (TECHNO) GODS AND MEN... "THE SARAGOSA MANUSCRIPT"

I was warned when I got given this DVD. I was told that it contained stories within stories, within stories and that soon I would have no idea what the f.ck I was watching. That stark (ehm) warning and the fact that Bunuel declared it one of his favorite films meant that I went in for it prepared. I often stopped in my head and retraced my steps in the plot to make sure I wasn’t completely lost. I strongly advise you do the same because yes, in places the story does get as convoluted as you currently imagine it does. I mean come on. Bunuel liked it. That has to tell you something (if you have seen any of Bunuel’s works that is. If not, he is one of the surrealist masters of the 20^th century).

The story starts off simply enough. We start with two enemy soldiers fighting in Saragosa finding an old manuscript. The presence of the manuscript seems to enchant them, political and military divides are put to one side and they begin to read. The manuscript seems to be the story of a Walloon Captain during the Napoleonic wars, Alfonse van Worden (coincidentally one of the ancestors of our two initial narrators but little is made of this plot turn. Well, the number of loose threads that DO get tied up, I reckon I can allow them one). He passes through Saragosa and, crucially, a little place called Venta Quemada on his way to Madrid on an important mission. His local guides beg and plead with him against going through Venta Quemada. Ever since two prominent bandits were hung there, ghosts and demons have been regulars there every night. Alfonse, however, is a soldier with no time for this nonsense, so he just ploughs on through. This, he quickly finds, may have been a serious mistake.

We are plunged into a surrealist adventure populated with mystics, ghosts  and demons. We meet fellow travelers on the way and exchange stories, we exchange stories of stories and dart down little paths that seem to lead into darkness or nowhere in particular until… Oh yes. The Saragosa Manuscript is not quite like anything you have witnesses.

Now before you get further please be warned. This is a 3 hour long film, with a convoluted surrealist plot, in Polish. As you can see, it truly presents a plethora of potential problems for the casual viewer. This little film (well, I say little but actually… ) does, however, present a true treasure trove for those who brave it. I personally was prepared and pre-warned so, like I pointed out, I was keeping good track of who was telling who, what. But even so, the film does offer the occasional moment to recap, where the very confused van Worden simply has to stop and retrace his own steps. Van Worden (Zbgniew Cybulski) is the typical everyman. He starts off as a typical young soldier, brave and ambitious and with an eye for beautiful women. All these, however, turn on their heads and become his downfall. For, as we all know, the ambition and hotheadedness of youth are among the things most easily used and abused by the wily. Especially if the wily happen to be demons and evil spirits. I mean not that I would personally know this but yeah. Ok. Moving on.

I love the way the delicate way the storytelling is organized in this film. And I mean, this is a film made in 1965 with all the technological means of the time; it fills me with inspiration as to how you could, with more advanced special effects and such like, make a so much more intricate pattern than that drawn out in the Saragosa Manuscripts. But then again, we don’t have films like that anymore. Because, quite honestly, who these days has the time to watch a three hour film in the first place much less one with intricate multiple stories within a story that you actually have to make a considerable personal effort to follow (at one point the story is 5 levels down. As in the manuscript tells the story told by Alfonse who heard it from a third, who heard it from a fourth who heard it from a fifth and we change locations to watch the story “live” at every single change of narrator)?  I mean, I’m not going on about the fact that this structure is rare in the first place, it naturally is. The problem is that you couldn’t get that kind of project even the vague hope of a green light these days. Then we have things like the “short shorts” offered by a popular tv network in the UK. Four – five minute versions of daytime TV programs for “those with limited time”. Err… What? I mean, only a decade ago we were lamenting that TV was limiting attention spans and killing old fashioned story telling. Now TV is suffering lethal blows from its very own machination. And I mean, can we blame JUST TV? It’s the way we live today. Smartphones are a big one. We are constantly “turned on” to the goings on online, constantly in the firing line from our bosses or the “pushy” social media networks. Even if we have the resolve to turn off the phones or put them on silent we can’t really concentrate. We know there are “things” happening whether we are looking or not. And FOMO (fear of missing out) slowly invades our concentration and our daily life. We no longer “naturally” have the time to meander through the labyrinths of the Saragosa Manuscript, we need to get out our GPS and find the quickest way out because we have urgent emails to reply to, and cat pictures to “like”.  

I don’t own a smartphone. But I am finding I spend more and more time glued to my laptop. Wifi is becoming a serious “need” – my mother’s house does not have wifi and sufficet to say that my three week visit here is turning out to be… well interesting from that perspective. No doubt, when I finally join the smartphone bandwagon, I will be as glued to it as everyone else. But as someone who has a genuine old fashioned slice of “life offline” still in their hands, all I can say is that something is really and truly changing. It is inexorable and like most change, it is not necessarily bad, it is just the way things are now. But still… I think we’re going to miss old fashioned storytelling if it actually vanishes completely. If we actually notice it’s gone, that is. 

"A FEW DOLLARS MORE" - COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH!

I’m getting slightly hooked on these westerns. I really am. I totally see why there is a whole bunch of people out there who watch the old classics ad nauseam. Oh don’t worry; I won’t be subjecting you guys to the same treatment. But a few of the good ones will crop up in the blog now and again. The ones that are good, cinematically relevant you know… I kinda started watching Sergio Leone movies mainly because Quentin Tarantino is a fan (yes, I’m sad. But you see, Quentin Tarantino is a guy I am a MASSIVE fan of so I was curious. Plus Sergio Leone isn’t exactly an obscure character no one has heard of so I wanted to see what the fuss was about). Anyway. I now know what the fuss is about. I will attempt to convey said reasons.

We are, once again in the Wild West. When men were men and only those with sharp wits but even sharper shooting skills could survive. There are many ways you could use your wits and gun to live, and one of them is bounty hunting. And the bounty hunting stakes sky-rocket one fine day, when an infamous bandit and gang leader, Indio, escapes from prison. Munco (Clint Eastwood) and Colonel Douglas Mortimer ( Lee Van Cleef) cross paths and swords (well, guns) when they both start chasing the same man so an uneasy truce is formed between these two lone wolves. But as the chase continues deep into the heart of the desert and loyalties are tested over and over again, one thing begins to become painfully clear: Only one of the bounty hunters is actually after the bounty. The other one has a slightly different agenda ready for Indio.

I am actually pleasantly surprised by these films over and over again. We are – or at least I am – slightly prejudiced into thinking these “old” films are rather simplistic. They don’t have any special effects – but this we already knew – and they don’t have any “depth” in the story. You know, black vs white. Goodies vs Baddies. It HAS to be boring, right? Well, no. Not really.

I mean yes, it’s true, a lot of these films are “black and white”, but this is still often an occurrence, especially in mainstream cinema. It is a plain and simple fact that, for all our snobbery on the matter, we enjoy it. We want to cheer the good guys and boo the bad guys, get all worked up, but deep down know that the goodies WILL prevail in the end. When worded like that, that just sounds like an incredibly boring idea.       But this film appeals straight for our heart strings so cleverly, you just… Get sucked up. Besides, it is not a simple matter of good overcoming bad”. Firstly, this is the Wild West. Everyone is CONSTANTLY double crossing everyone else. You have to be constantly on your toes to follow the shifting alliances and you can never quite guess which way the plot is going to swerve next… Plus, there is the matter of the definition of “good” and “bad”. In this instance, Indio is as bad as bad can be. But the “good”… Well… I mean, to my mind, Clint Eastwood is automatically “good” but is he, here, in this instance? He is, basically, killing people for money. Ok I grant you, they are “bad” people but still. He is dangerously close to being a hired killer. And then there is the fact that he is very clearly quite selfish – in that he is out to protect number one – and ONLY number one. I mean, this being Clint Eastwood, his charisma carries him but still. Oh and by the way, you have NO idea how impressive Clint Eastwood is in a western role until you have seen it. No wonder he never quite drops the act (I mean I’m sorry but it IS true). As for Lee Van Cleef – the archetypal western villain – he seriously gives Mr Eastwood a run for his money as far as charisma goes. And that is really, REALLY saying something.

In short, if you need a whirlwind of cathartic emotion to whisk you away from your day to day troubles, Sergio Leone is your man, again. Highly recommended.               

THE THINGS WE GET UP TO TO MAKE A LIVING... "A FISTFULL OF DOLLARS"

I have, I believe, recently mentioned that I do not watch as many westerns as I should. It is of course up for discussion what “should” and “shouldn’t” be watched, but I pride myself in having more than just a passing interest in cinema. This is why I feel it’s a tad bit shameful I don’t know more about a genre that was the backbone of the entire art form at one time, not to mention the creator of so many sub-genres and cinematic traditions later on.  Hence, I have been a good girl, and have begun to properly research the subject. Now, am I influenced by the fact that Quentin Tarantino (yes, yes, him again) is such a fan of Sergio Leone in my choice? Yes. Unquestionably so. His films, starring Clint Eastwood and giving us so many moments and conventions that became cinematic staples later on are cinematic classics that should be watched though. Mind you there is a lot more than just duty that attracts me to this film. I know I moan on and on about originality and thinking outside the box but still. There is something very comforting about a simpler world, goodies vs baddies – both very clearly black and white, with the goodie winning out in the end. Mind you, in a fistful of dollars we can’t exactly call our goodie “white as snow” ethically speaking but hey…  At least there’s nothing complicated about who you’re meant to back… ;)

The beginning of the story is familiar to all, even to those of us who are complete foreigners to the genre. A nameless, sharp-shooting stranger rides into a little town close to the Mexican border. It is high noon and the town is shrouded in a deadly quiet, all but the coffin maker who always seems to have his hands full… The town is torn apart by the in-fighting of two rival families, both planted firmly on the wrong side of the law and both hell-bent on becoming the one and only masters of the town. The rivalry is all-consuming and the two gangs have no consideration for the consequences of this fight to the town. Our hero (Clint Eastwood), has other plans. He will play double agent, playing one family against another to make himself a wad of cash… And maybe, just maybe he might be able to do some good for the good folk of the town too. The stranger must be careful though. He walks a very dangerous path where one wrong step could cost him his life…

Well, first and foremost we are very much in the domain of comfort films ladies and gents. But you knew that already. It’s Clint Eastwood. It’s a western. You know how things are going to go down. It is a brilliant combination of “raah” moments and adventure, peopled with some of the badest baddies  you could possibly imagine. And, even though you may not be a huge fan of Clint Eastwood’s style – some are and some aren’t you know – you have to admit, here, it’s brilliant. The stranger has to keep his cards very close to his chest and not give a single shred of thought and emotion away as he negotiates the minefield that is the gang relations. But the true mark of a good director comes through here too because in with all the stuff we “know and love” is mixed a truly nail-biting story. We get caught up in it so very easily, and credit where it’s due, you have to admire the stranger’s shrewdness in playing the two families against each other (or in this case, the shrewdness of the scriptwriter). The story takes such twists and turns that it you never fall into the lethargy of knowing the “goodies will win in the end”, simply because you are never %100 sure what our hero is exactly up to. Well that and the fact that he does not really seem to be your common or garden “good guy”.  I mean, are we %100 sure  he “wins in the end”? You’re in for a jolly good adventure with this one, fellas. It’s the kind of film that makes you understand why kids were so obsessed with playing cowboys in the heyday of these films… If you’re looking to get away from your day to day life for an hour or two and go on an adventure from your front room, this is the fella to go for ladies and gents. And given the almost desert-like quality to the British weather at the moment, a rather fitting adventure at that. 

THE PLACE TO GO WHEN YOU GET THE MEAN REDS! "BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S" – THE MOVIE!

If you recall, I have actually reviewed the book this is adapted from on the blog (click here!). I was dubious as to whether I should or shouldn’t put it here a second time but then I watched the film and realized something: They are literally two different works of art! I didn’t know what to make of this discovery (not that it’s anything too extremely new for anyone further immersed in the cinema than myself of course). Honestly, if Audrey Hepburn wasn’t such a DELIGHTFUL, no scratch that, PHENOMENAL Holly Golightly I would write the film down as a “disappointing Hollywood makeover”. As it is, well, the whole thing is based on a novella – not even a book – and OK artistic license is an acceptable thing but still… There is such a thing as too much of a good thing: S
The story is basically the same as the book. A young writer called Paul Varjak, his neighbor the inimitable Holly Golightly and her crazy life and her nameless cat (poor nameless slob). (The cat is second only to Audrey Hepburn in the film as far as artistic achievement is concerned in my humble opinion). ..
There are, however “little” additions and “subtractions” from the film. Here, Paul Varjak is the “kept man” of a rich and married decorator lady (in the novel, he’s just a starving writer). Naturally, the fact that he is torn between his true love, Holly and his “patron” make a nice Hollywoody twist but I found it slightly pointless and stale. A lot of the action is thus based around the patron – Ok, I get that it has to be “tied in” and it makes it very convenient; HOWEVER, there is nothing at all forcing them to squeeze the film into a shorter timeline, they might have let it flow a tiny bit longer… What else? Mag Wildwood is almost completely axed from the film (she has one short appearance and that’s it). Joe Bell’s bar is axed. Oh and just incidentally, the end of the story is completely and utterly turned on its head. I need to check and see whether Mr. Capote was alive at the time this was filmed (my common sense tells me probably not) but I would be fascinated to find out what he made of this…
“Then why on earth” I hear you exclaim”are you reviewing this in the first place? I thought we had agreed you only wrote about things you liked…” The thing is, I did like it. It’s great. It’s sweet. It’s worth watching for Audrey Hepburn and the cat alone(The film was nominated for 3 Oscars one of which was Best Actress so I'm not alone in thinking this. The other two nominations were Art Direction and Writing. It won a further 2 Oscars - Best Song and Best Music). If you haven’t read the book, you will LOVE it and think I’m mad. It’s a lovely, quintessentially 60’s Hollywood film. (Infact the director, Blake Edwards is also someone you probably actually know. If the name doesn't seem familiar he directed most of the Pink Panther films!) However, if you read the book and enjoyed it, just… Think of it as a different work of art all together… Then you should be all right…

UP FOR SOME REAL TIME TRAVEL ? TRY "TAKING WOODSTOCK"

Woodstock. Were you there? Do you wish you were there? I sure do but it was waaay before my time. Now that was a revolution. And as stories go, it doesn’t get much truer than that. Well, did you ever stop to consider how Woodstock came about? Because with an event like Woodstock one tends to put it in the same category as the forces of nature, magically appearing on its own so to speak… However as magical as it may have been the Woodstock music festival had its beginning rooted in very solid reality had VERY real organizational problems and by all accounts one would have trouble believing some of the characters involved were real off the screen…
Such as Elliot Teichberg. In the beginning Mr Teichberg had nothing what so ever to do with Woodstock. He is an interior designer and painter (well, friends and family buy his paintings) and a gay rights activist in New York. His parents run a small motel in The Catskills. Well they try to – their attitudes have scared off all the customers… With foreclosure looming Elliot has no other option but to go back to White Lake to somehow save his parents. But the situation is pretty dire and Elliot is getting pretty desperate until Elliot happens to see a news item in the local newspaper… A three-day music festival was going to be organized in the next town. Something pretty damn big and impressive. However the townspeople had (successfully) run the organizers out of town fearing a “hippie infestation”. Now Elliot has in his possession one permit for a music festival (he organizes the town’s festival every summer), an empty motel (a little run down but ideal for a H.Q for the organizers) and a neighbor, Max Yasgur who owns a dairy farm with HUGE fields (and we can all guess what THEY were used for)… Elliot communicates this fact to Michael Lang, the organizer of the festival and low and before he knows what’s happening, millions (literally) are on the road to the Catskills for three days of music peace and love…
Taking Woodstock is HANDS DOWN the sweetest film I have watched in a long time. But with a master director like Ang Lee at the helm, how can one not expect a show? Mr Lee literally transports us to the heart and soul of the festival. The best thing about it is that on slight inspection, the film is pretty full of what could be called “clichés”: 60’s clichés, hippie clichés, small town clichés, even a few Jewish clichés (I have to put a disclaimer here and add that what starts out as seemingly an amusing oddity takes a rather serious turn at the end of the film – but I’m not giving away anything, watch and see) The thing is, these are so beautifully managed they are not caricatures or clichés but little things that convey the very soul of the festival… That is why the film portrays the “spirit of the 60’s” so well, with complete honesty, openness and simplicity – to the point that it feels like time travel! The characters are naturally taken from real life but they are so well portrayed that you can’t help sympathizing and empathizing with them all almost immediately. I especially enjoyed watching Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin) and Jonathan Geoff as Michael Lang.
Some bits in the story made me laugh out loud. Yes, there is some nakedness… Ok, a lot of nakedness… But when I say nakedness I mean just that – naked people. NOT what you were thinking… Ok there are drugs – but come on for God’s sake, it was the 60’s! It was Woodstock!! And don’t dismiss it as something that will fall down the generation gap – you’ll love it. Word of honor.