BACK TO THE MYTHICAL ORIENT : "POETRY / SHI

I hate burying you all in depressing films the way I seem to be this week, but the seconda entry of the day will be another sad one… Add to that the fact that Poetry is actually a Korean film; you will understand why I kinda feel bad about it. What I like a lot about Asian cinema you see is that the emotions portrayed in the films are not “filmified”. You know what I mean, joy and happiness tends to be all engulfing and sadness devastating and destructive in movies. In Asian cinema however, everything is more… Well dignified. Sadness, negative emotions tend to be weighty and striking but the character will not be “engulfed” in it. The smaller tell-tale signs wrench our hearts, which is closer to real life in my view than the other approach. That is why Asian films tend to touch me more than Hollywood style movies – on an emotional level anyway… But I appear to have launched into the commentary already, let’s get the storyline first…
Mija is 66. She lives in a small town in South Korea with her grandson, Wook. His mother has left him with her and has moved to the city after her divorce, Wook and Mija have a “typical” grand-mother – grand-son relationship, even though they are not close. Mija is getting old, her memory is beginning to fail her (the doctor tells her she has to have a full check up in case it’s something really serious and Mija will get round to it one of these days…), she works part time assisting an old man who is half paralyzed because of a stroke to keep the little family afloat. In the spirit of doing something for herself, she starts taking poetry classes – with the aim of writing a poem herself… However ,upon the heels of this little experiment will first come her test results then the revelation of a devastating secret… Whether Mija will be able to cope with these shocks and whether she will be able to finish her poem – or even start it – is what we will find out as we watch the film…
No wonder this film won the award for best Screenplay at the Cannes film festival. The story has so many dimensions and subtleties… First of all, as I was discussing in the first paragraph, there is the emotion. The film is dominated by intense sadness but this is balanced out and made more real by Mija’s attitude to it. Like most people of her generation – especially in that part of the world – she puts a good face on it. Does not let go of her dignity. She searches desperately for a way out and for poetic inspiration – as possibly another symbol for escape – but does it with her head held high. It’s the little things that alert us to how she is really feeling. Mind you, there is one scene in the second half of the film that some viewers may find slightly offensive, but I didn’t mind it. Even a “difficult” situation like that is handled with the spirit of the film and in fact comes completely naturally with the story…
Another thing I really liked a lot about this film is the way the director and scriptwriter constantly play with the concept of knowledge. It’s a matter of not knowing whether or not someone else knows a given thing and not just between the characters; the story “plays” with us the spectators as well, so we are never quite sure when this quiet, dignified little film is going to throw us another curveball, keeping us on our toes, in a sense, right until the end.
My verdict? Tough to watch without a doubt, but it broadened my horizons… Put it on your “to watch” list…

WHO SAID YOUTH SUFFERS IN SILENCE? : I KILLED MY MOTHER

I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. I do not approve of people directing movies then starring the lead in them. There are some exceptions to the rule, but it generally doesn’t work. This film, however, is an exception. Written and directed by 20 year old Xavier Dolan from Quebec, Canada – who also plays the lead – I’ve killed my mother took the Cannes film festival by storm last year… One can’t help but see why. Now, the film is very, VERY far from being easy to watch on a lot of counts. But if you can stomach it to the end, you will have to admire it’s honesty in the way it undertakes its chosen subject. It is, incidentally something we all know a bit about. Basically, it’s about being a teenager.
Hubert is 16 years old. And he hates his mother. His parents are divorced, Hubert lives with his mother and sees very little of his father. School is OK but boring as a general rule. The one truly good thing in his life is his boyfriend Antonin, whom his mother knows absolutely nothing about. Hubert looks around, he analyses and observes. He even tries to take a few steps towards his mother, to get their relationship back to what it used to be when he was young. But they just can’t seem to manage what Antonin and his mother – who are the best of friends – have done. No matter what they try, they seem to descend into bitter shouting matches; will Hubert and his mother push each other too far? Or is there actually some hidden way of reconciliation that the two of them can’t seem to see?
Now, we have all been teenagers. And I’m ready to swear that about % 80 of us have had screaming matches with our parents. Watching Hubert and his mother lay into each other at the smallest provocation is sometimes painful to watch but this is probably because it hits so close to home. Surely remember that period in your life when your Mom and Dad couldn’t do a thing right? They had their noses in everything, they didn’t understand, they limited you, they hated your friends, you hated your parents – or at least that’s what you told them loudly at every possible opportunity. Hubert takes out every single growing pain he has out on the only parent he has in his life : his mother. His mother on the other hand has a tough time taking care of the house and her sick mother and sometimes Hubert is just unbearable. So there is a lot of yelling and not much communication, Hubert, who by the way, has no problem at all about his sexuality, doesn’t even tell his mother that he is gay… And yet… If we say that blood is thicker than water there is a reason for saying that… All through the hate Hubert all but screams from the roof tops, there is a palpable love between mother and son. The affection is always there, they evidently do care about each other very much, they just… Can’t find the way to express this affection. So what’s the way forward? Time? An intervention from Hubert’s father? Talking to Hubert’s school teacher? Sending Hubert to boarding school? You will just have to watch the film and figure it out together with them…

"MEPHISTO" : ART TURNS THE MIRROR ON ITSELF

We all love it when art turns its eyes in on itself, right? I mean, maybe not all of us, but a lot of us do. I think it’s a part of being enthralled by showbiz, enjoying it so much. Much like a child taking apart its favorite toy to see how it works, I LOVE everything “behind the scenes” from theories and ideologies of scripts to the smallest screws on the camera’s tripod. I think this is the case for a lot of cinema lovers to a greater or lesser degree. And the kind of film / book / whatever that shows the “dark” side of showbiz, how catty people can become and how “bloody” – metaphorically of course but sometimes physically – the struggle for the limelight can become. If not our curiosity, it’s our instinct to gossip… Such a film is Istvan Szabo’s film Mephisto, though of course it takes place in the ‘30s, so the actors are not those of the cinema but the theatre, but still, the principal is the same.
Meet Hendrick Höffgen. He is an actor in Hamburg in the late ‘20s, and a reasonably good one if not the best. His ambition, however, outstrips that of all of his colleagues. He dabbles with left-wing views, does his best to score the part, has a colorful love-life with his negro mistress Juliette, in short all seems well in his life. It is not enough however. Höffgen marries, enabling a move from Hamburg to Berlin and to a more prestigious theatre through his father in law’s contacts. He truly seems to be in his element when the world is turned on it head. 1933 comes, and the Nazis come to power. A lot of Höffgen’s colleagues sense there are bad things afoot and leave the country, Höffgen has ample opportunity to do the same, but then… Well he has a few contacts left in Berlin. What if he could use them to get friends in even higher places? What if this change of regime means not a halt but a faster rise to even higher places? Höffgen is willing to take the chance… But how high – and how far – is he prepared to go?
I loved this film for two reasons. First of all it is a WW2 film with a different perspective. We all know about the horrors committed in concentration camps, and we are all disgusted with everyone who stayed, supported the regime, carried on drinking and dancing as if nothing was happening. But we shouldn’t be so disgusted that we cannot even look at them. These people merit a close look, closer than some in fact, appearances can be deceiving.
And the picture Höffgen paints is particularly fascinating. If there is one word to describe him, it is naked ambition, if he sees a way that will take him forward; he will take on the role (on stage or off) and charge on ahead. If you ask him openly, his actions are almost always somehow justifiable. It is, I also feel, a very good metaphor for the “careerists” of today, in today’s capitalist system; you know the type, doing anything, making and breaking friends, using connections to get to the top, putting a different spin on the same words depending on who they’re talking to, you know the type… I am not saying that they are as bad as people collaborating with Nazis of course but watching Höffgen, you will see a lot of things that strike you as familiar, especially if you have worked in the private sector. In short, a fascinating film on human psychology, still strangely relevant at any time and with anyone who is principally led by ambition.

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…

ÜÇ MAYMUN / THREE MONKEYS

Now, I am fully aware that the film I am about to review is a supremely “niche” affair. This is a Turkish film by one of the most famous Turkish directors Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Now, as a person I honestly don’t know the guy. As a director one either loves or hates him. Well such is the case for most of his tribe – he’s a minimalist. Now don’t get scared by terminology, you know the kind of film I mean : Minimal dialogue, minimal camera action, minimal special effects if any. Editing is merely a means to go from one scene to another, in short there is very little of a lot of things to the point that it’s surprising there is a “resulting film” at all. Add to that the fact that in quite a few of these films symbolism features quite heavily and the resulting concoction can prove “unwatchable” for a lot of people. I sympathize: I am one of these people. Most of the time. I am also open to change and new information which is mainly why I try my best to attend seminars, classes and the like concerning different areas of the cinema it was during one of these classes that I was introduced to a novel way of looking at the film. Now, I am VERY far from being an instant convert to minimalist cinema but after being introduced a new point of view to the whole affair I decided to try and express my emotions on the matter to you all and see if I could get you to give a go as well.

The story is that of a driver, a modest man and the personal driver of a local politician. One night the above – mentioned local politician has a traffic accident, killing a pedestrian. The elections are approaching and he doesn’t want to “dirty his name” so he asks the driver to take the fall for him. He will pay good money, take care of his wife and son… The driver is a poor man – and accepts. Life in his little home goes on pretty much as usual until his son fails his university entrance exams. Ismail – his son – doesn’t want to re-study he wants to buy a car and be a shuttle driver for a local school. Since the mother doesn’t work and the father’s employer is their only means of support she goes to him for the money even though she’s pretty sure her husband would not approve. The local politician will not only give her the money but professes that he will “do anything for her”. This will have devastating results on each member of the small family…

Now, the thing to bear in mind while watching this film is that it is the story and the story-telling that is in the foreground here. Nothing more, nothing less. Even the story itself is not that original. That’s why I only recommend this film for those of us who actually enjoy the technicalities of a film (and like I said I am not necessarily one of those people!) What is original – and what jars about this film – is the fact that a lot of the theoretically key moments or “big events” of the film are actually shown on screen. We are led up to them and then we focus on the results, leaving the larger part of the work to our imaginations. The other thing I like about minimalist cinema – or rather the examples of minimalist cinema I have actually liked – is the closeness to real life and real people. The story, the surroundings the acting… For all the world you are in a lower middle class household in Turkey not a film set. It gives one the spooky feeling of eavesdropping – this is a little odd but also connects with the voyeur that exists in all of us. Admittedly, being a “new convert” I still find some of the sequences “too long”. Especially since “action” as we are used to is at a minimum and the whole affair is above all psychological. However, if you feel like something different, this is a good quality example – with , I hasten to add, no symbolism. I also want to add that the guy didn't get chosen best director at the Cannes film festival for nothing... Recommended for the adventurous…