THE STORY OF A SILENT SIEGE : "BESIEGED / ASSEDIO"

A good friend whose opinions I greatly respect, once said that if there is too much “conversation” in a film it means the director is not able to tell the story with the camera – and thus is not a good director. I told him at the time, and still maintain that this is a touch too harsh. I think you can have “too little conversation” in some films, especially if the director is pretending at talents he really doesn’t possess. And then there is clever dialogue, witty repartee. I love the whole “tennis match” feeling you get from a really clever dialogue. But then again, there are some directors who are perfectly able to tell a story with minimal dialogue and maximum camerawork. I do not mean the minimalists per se, they are an entirely different kettle of fish. In this particular case, I mean Bertolucci. I mean, the guy is not a minimalist; the dialogue doesn’t go at one sentence every 20 minutes. Then again, any unnecessary dialogue has been removed. And this deeply emotional film has been told basically thanks to camerawork and shifts of lighting. This is why the man and the film deserve some serious respect – in my opinion anyway.
Shanduray lives with her husband Winston in an unknown African country. The country is, as is most African countries in political turmoil. And Shanduray’s life is turned upside down when Winston is taken into custody for political reasons. Unable to bear the stress, Shanduray escapes to Italy. She settles in Rome, finds a job cleaning a rather eccentric pianist – Mr. Kinsky’s- house and starts studying medicine. There is no way of finding out if Winston is still alive, Shanduray worries deeply about him but gets on with her life – or rather tries to. Her semblance of order is upset when Mr. Kinsky, unable to bear it any longer, confesses his love for her and asks her to marry him. Shanduray, shocked by the idea, tells him that if he wants to do something to make her happy, the only thing he can do is get her husband out of prison. On that retort, things seem to go back to normal… Or have they? Strange men begin visiting the house, and every day Mr. Kinsky is off somewhere selling some piece of furniture or another… What in the world could he be up to?
I know that we are usually more “struck” by films with big flashy special effects but that’s not all it takes. There are different kinds of “being struck”. This film touches ones heart with its closeness to real life. The minimal dialogue does not stick out; in fact chances are you won’t even notice it as such until you think about it afterwards. I mean think about it, if you are a person living on your own without too many friends, you don’t actually talk that much… So we have a completely realistic picture of Shanduray’s content if rather lonely life. And then there is the silence Mr. Kinsky, unable for the most part to give voice to his emotions except with the help of his trusty piano. The differences between the two characters are accentuated with their “signature tunes” (neither has one single tune). Shanduray loves listening to African music on the radio whereas Mr. Kinksy plays classical music on the piano. Like a lot of people suffering from unrequited love, Mr. Kinsky finds it hard to talk to Shanduray, even though technically she’s his cleaning lady. So the silences and the general lack of communication between them at times speak volumes. The lack of words however, does nothing to hide his silent desperation and then his quiet determination as he goes about his mystery duty. The other good thing about the film is that we are generally limited to Shanduray’s view of things. So, with her, and only when she gets the opportunity to do so can we speculate as to what on earth Mr. Kinsky is doing. Later in the film we do get a few “omniscient” shots – where we follow Mr. Kinsky around a bit – but generally speaking this is Shanduray’s film. And it is a film about the silent screams, the silent siege of feelings pressing themselves on her heart and soul… But that’s usually the way with feelings, eh? Sneaking off without so much as a word of warning… A deep and beautiful film, for those in the mood for something different.

FOOD FOR DEEP THOUGHT FROM "DOGVILLE"

If you follow cinema news even at a most basic level, I am pretty confident you will have heard of Lars von Trier. The man has a bit of a reputation. He started a Scandinavian version of the neo-realist movement (but then was the first to disobey his own rules) and makes films that can be described as “strange” at best, from The Kingdom (whose filming and editing makes it hard to watch for all but those with the strongest stomachs – and I don’t mean blood and gore, I mean jiggling about) to the deeply symbolic and philosophical “Europa” trilogy that will leave you wondering for months if you get carried away… The America trilogy was one of his newest projects and Dogville made quite a lot of noise at the time of its release. Quentin Tarantino (a favorite of mine as you know) called it one of the greatest films ever made. I don’t know enough about films to be able to make such a strong comment but Dogville is without a shadow of a doubt one of the films that has struck me the most. Therefore, I am really excited about sharing it with you this week… Now, what is this two and a half hour long masterpiece about? Well, Lars von Trier claims that the point of the film was that evil can exist in anyone, that anybody is capable of evil… I must say that’s a strong and scary point to make, and von Trier has made a dashed good job of making it…
Dogville is the name of a town. Well, you would hardly call it a town really… It’s just a small street with a small bunch of rag tag people living on it really. The only one with any high moral ideals is Thomas Edison Jr. His father is the doctor of the area, so he has the luxury of being able to pursue a career as a writer. His major project is to “educate” Dogville. And it is just on such a night; Thomas is getting ready to explain to the townsfolk that they don’t know how to “receive gifts”. The self-same night, a young stranger, Grace comes to town. Now, Grace is in a bit of a predicament. There are some dangerous men, gangsters after her so going back to the big city isn’t an option. However, there is no way forward either seeing as Dogville is on a dangerous mountain ledge. So, Grace must stay in Dogville, if she is to survive of course. Now, the good citizens of Dogville are not quite sure what to make of this. She is a fugitive from gangsters, can’t go to the police, and cannot speak about her past for her own safety. She is prepared to work, but what work is there to be done in their humble shacks? For Thomas Edison Jr. this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate his point and bring some morals to the town. So Grace, ends up staying. And with a little coaxing it turns out that there are some things to be done around Dogville after all, if Grace insists that is… Soon Grace has settled in, even getting wages for her labors… Until WANTED posters with Grace’s face on it begin appearing… The citizens of Dogville will, naturally, hide Grace. But they do not feel comfortable openly lying to the law. The price for Grace’s safety must go up… How far up it will end up, however, is anyone’s guess…
Dogville is a striking film in many ways. Not least because of the setting. Because there is no setting. The entire film takes place in what appears to be a large empty warehouse colored black. The houses, streets, plants and even animals are marked out on the floor with chalk. So, eerily enough, there are no walls. And in any one shot you can clearly see what is going on in the other houses (I found this aspect especially eerie not least because I often imagine or try to anyway, what is going on in other flats and other houses… In this world you can actually see it – we can anyway!) There is some furniture, but only the bare necessities. I mean, there are no doors on a lot of houses – the actors pretend to open and close invisible doors. There is even an invisible dog (you can, funnily enough hear him though). There is also no nature and no natural light. What light there is, is again not openly absent but the bare necessities. So, the one tool Mr. von Trier has to tell his story is his actors’ performances. A strikingly appropriate choice for a film intent on exploring the depths of the human soul…
And as for the exploration… Well, the argument as to whether or not we are all capable of evil or not do come up be it in philosophical contexts or day to day events… This film makes a remarkably clear point of proving this to be the case. I mean, if I told you the end of the film, out of context, you would probably not be able to understand how that happened. However, the slowly climbing tension, the enmity of the citizens of Dogville, an enmity that they themselves were not aware of at first that slowly seeps into the relationships and leads them all slowly, surreptitiously and inexorably to a rather horrible place… It’s that typical “we don’t like strangers round here” kinda small town hostility, so familiar from westerns, but multiplied and made real… More spiteful. At the very end, when the credits start rolling, von Trier makes a second point, superimposing Young Americans by David Bowie with a series of very striking photographs from impoverished American shanty-towns – towns just like Dogville - he makes the film into a commentary on the whole of American society… “Dog” ville, “Dog eat dog”, heartless capitalism and all that jazz… There is a lot more to say about the film but I’ll let you go on ahead and actually watch the film first…

AND A LITTLE EDUCATIONAL SOMETHING : RAIN OF THE CHILDREN

It has been a shamefully long time since a documentary graced these humble pages. The main reason for that is the fact that I simply don’t watch enough of them. But even though they are few and far between, I try to share the good ones as they come along. I mean, it is never too late to learn something new, right? Besides, Rain of the Children isn’t what you might call “didactic”. I mean yes, you learn a lot from it and it gives you a lot to think about but it mainly carries the spirit of storytelling. Oh yes. In fact, it combines two different stories to be precise. One is a history lesson, a fascinating story about the history of New Zeeland. And the second is a story of the present day, the effects of this history in the life of one old woman and her son. For the life of Puhi, the old woman in question, is not only closely linked with historical events of Maori history but are quite extraordinary in their own right… The best thing about the documentary is that the film maker Vincent Ward, who sees Puhi and her son Niki as family, doesn’t seek to “educate” or “give a message”. He merely attempts to honor an old woman who is dear to him and has now sadly passed away, and share the quite extraordinary story of her life.
Vincent Ward meets Puhi for the first time in 1985, when he is 21. A young and intrepid filmmaker, as far as I can understand it, he is touring round New Zeeland, his homeland, in attempt to discover something, without being quite sure what it is he is seeking. On his travels, he comes across Puhi, an old woman of over 80 years old at the time who lives with her adult son Niki. He ends up staying with them for two years, filming them during his entire stay. On hearing of Puhi’s death, he returns to the place where the extraordinary threesome first met and traces back Puhi’s life. During the course of this long and complicated story, intertwined, as I said, with Maori history, we learn a lot. About Maori history and culture, of course, but also about the strength of the human spirit, the effects of grief, the power of beliefs and much, much more…
The documentary is in effect a biography. And at first, we are slightly confused (I mean I was) as to why we were watching Puhi’s biography in particular. I mean, every life conceals a story, but why make a film about Puhi? What would interest us, people who didn’t know her at all? I was wrong in thinking this… First of all, the first half of the documentary. This was an eye-opener for me. I mean yes, we do basically know about how the settlers first came to Australia and New Zeeland. How the natives had no immunity to the European diseases and died in their thousands. How the “white men” (that would be us) took over the land. Try, if you can, hearing these stories in detail, from the natives perspective. Ward makes sure his narratives are objective: whenever possible the story is told using old photographs of the actual people and events and witness testimonies of people who were actually there, Puhi as well but not only her. Naturally, there are re-constructions too, but they are not the primary source of information. We meet the great Maori leaders, including the self-proclaimed prophet Te Rua. Seeing the black and white photos, and then sometimes listening to the people in those photos, Maori history comes alive.. And it ain’t pleasant folks. Steel yourself for that one. But then, when we arrive in due course to the present, Ward doesn’t give up his “sense of reality”. The effects of the various events in the first half of the documentary are narrated mainly with the aid of the footage of Puhi, filmed by the director during those two years they lived together. I will not go into details, because this is a voyage of discovery you really have to make for yourselves but keep the tissues handy. Even the director himself chokes back tears sometimes as he tells the story, a story obviously very important to him. And through the clear and honest narration of the film, we are drawn right into it. I mean, I know that generally speaking documentaries are meant to be “educational” in one way or another. But who said they cannot have emotion as well? Rain of the children will educate you in matters of the human soul as well as history. You will not regret watching it.

ESSIE SPEAKS OF FOOD OF THE SOUL...

No, no, no folks, I haven't taken up meditation. MUSIC is the food of the soul, remember? I mean, honestly, I can't remember who said that, but I remember someone did and that counts for something I suppose =)
So it's musicals this week. An iffy genre, some like it, some don't.So I tried to keep a very wide selection. For the lovers of the golden oldies we have Gene Kelly toe-tapping away, for those who think musicals are a bore we have Jean-Luc Godard's take on the genre (and believe me you'll be trying so hard to unravel this little baby you won't have time to be bored) and lastly an Oscar winning, world famous... Penguin. I bet you know who he is too :)

now settle back, open your ears and eyes this time and enjoy the show!

Essie

THERE'S NOTHING QUITE LIKE AN OLDIE! SINGIN IN THE RAIN

I’m not quite sure how I should describe this one. Of course we have all heard tell of “classical Hollywood”, right? Of course we have. Singin in the Rain is my idea of “classical – classical Hollywood”. You know how when someone says “picnic basket” we all think of that little wicker one with a red and white checked table cloth? That kind of classic. Or the brownies your Mom used to make. Now, you all have your own ideas concerning Hollywood. Some approve, some disapprove, some don’t really care. I personally respect all these views. But I can say, with confidence, that if you want to watch a fun romance with some wonderful, sparkling, all singing and all dancing numbers thrown in, Singin in the rain is the one for you…
In this little beauty Gene Kelly is Dan Lockwood a Hollywood actor (someone see a contradiction in there somewhere? Hehe) just at the end of the movies and the beginning of the “talkies”. That is the advent of sound in cinema folks. He is famous as part of a duo, his counterpart being Lina Lamont (Jen Hagen) an actress with whom he is linked in every way by everyone else but who he personally despises. Still, it is good for business, so while he does his best to make it in showbiz, he keeps the association as well. Until, that is he meets the love of his life, Kathy Seldon (Debbie Reynolds) a girl from the chorus line, by no means a big name in Hollywood but he mistress of his heart all the same… However there are storm clouds on the horizon. Sound may well mean the death of the career of his acting partner, and with his heart now in someone else’s hands as well, Lina will stop at NOTHING to keep her claws on what is “rightly” hers…
I have mentioned this before and I will say it forever and anon, we all LOVE films about showbiz. Realistic or not, it feels like a little peek backstage. And it may give us the “comforting” feeling it’s not what it’s cracked up to be, not really. But still we flock back to those movies. So I predict you will love this little showbiz number, and not just for its gossip value. Intrigue and flying claws are a-plenty but then there is the singing and dancing. By God, the numbers… They really knew how to do it back then… One word of warning is, that to the uninitiated, some of the number may feel a touch too long, but really I found them worth watching. Check out the comic numbers by Donald O’Conner who we see as Dan’s inevitable best friend and sidekick. One of the most believable and “real” sidekicks I’ve seen in a while that one… Anyway, for the dancing a last point is that Gene Kelly himself was the choreographer – and I secretly feel that he made them out to show himself to the best advantage but there you go. He kinda deserves it too.
I mean, others among you may remark that the film lacks, well… Substance. And it is true, it is a a-typical boy meets girl movie with good songs and dancing thrown in. A bit like candy floss - lovely but well, slightly pointless. Then again, there is nothing at all wrong with a bit of candy floss from time to time. If you want to unplug for an hour or two and toe-tap to some good old fashioned tunes, this is your fella!

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO MAKE A MUSICAL / "UNE FEMME EST UNE FEMME"

Yes, naturally we all know that musicals, music hall numbers are one of the staples of classic Hollywood back in the day. And that was precisely what directors such as Jean Luc Godard were criticizing back in the ‘60s. I don’t mean the popularity of musicals of course, but classic Hollywood and the lifestyle it stood for as a general rule. Directors like Godard tried to make their films “unfilmlike” if that’s a word at all. And the aim in doing that was to get the viewer to think about the film. Why a certain thing was done, what it stood for. Something, anything to jerk you out of the soporific state more commonly known as “getting in to a movie” and get us actively participating. That is why the films of directors such as Godard are often deemed unwatchable by most normal folk. I mean, fair is fair; sometimes you just want to unplug and relax. Actively participating in a deep and meaningful philosophical debate is not the first thing you want to do after a tiring day at work. However, there is wisdom in checking these films out from time to time, when you are in the mood for something serious. Not least because the results of Godard’s experimental style are not always boring /unwatchable (or both). Like this post modern musical, Une femme est une femme.
Angela (the rather dazzling Anna Karina who Godard would end up marrying) is a stripper. She has, however, dreams and hopes like other women. And one of them is starting a family. She is determined to have children soon, and her schedule is pushed back just a touch when the latest tests inform her that that very same day is her most fertile day to fall pregnant. Now she has only a couple of hours to convince her boyfriend Emile – but he doesn’t exactly look favorably on this idea that has been sprung on her. So she turns to her husband’s best friend Alfred (Jean Paul Belmondo) who does care about her but is still a little surprised by her offer – and besides there is Angela’s boyfriend to think of. So what will our heroine do? Will she be able to start the family she wants so much? Or will she have to wait until the next fertile date comes along?
Now, this is and is not a musical. Music features greatly in it, no doubt about that. But the characters do not actually break out into song (apart from Angela, who sings as she does her number on stage). It is nevertheless, and very openly, a salute crossed with a criticism of the genre. The storyline is funny when you get into it - and please note this film was made in the early sixties so what with one thing and another, it was quite brave to have the whole film about sex, getting pregnant by anyone at any cost (and that could be a poke at some storylines still knocking around today!). And even though the “non-diegetic” (not pertaining to the “film universe”) elements will jar with you from time to time, you will begin to find it funny after a while. A couple of my favorite quotes and examples are these : Alfred (Jean Paul Belmondo) is summoned to Emile and Angela’s flat after the couple have had a major quarrel. Emile wants Angela to ask him to go to bed with her if she’s so desperate and Angela is hesitating. Alfred listens for a while and says “I hope this is not going to take long, A bout de soufflé is on TV and I don’t want to miss it.” – A bout de soufflé is a film by Jean Luc Godard =). Another favorite is that when an actor is mentioned at some point in the film ( I forget who) Jean Paul Belmondo turns to the camera with a big grin and says “He’s a good friend of mine!” Things like that. There are a lot more I can think of but I’ll let you pick them up on the way. Now, this is not the usual way one watches a film but for me, it gave the impression that, I don’t know, I was part of the action. Sitting relaxing with friends, you know, that kind of ambiance. And I mean chatting, not just listening to a lecture – as it were. It’s a nice easy Godard if you want a soft landing into French New Wave. I mean, I don’t like everything I have watched that he has done, but this was a winner in my books.

AN LASTLY, A MODERN TWIST : "HAPPY FEET"

Ok, we’ve had the classics, we’ve had the off-the-wall versions, how about musicals today? I had a couple in my selection. And until I watched this one, for a completely different reason, I had a completely different film in mind to make up this trilogy. However, the more I watched Happy Feet, the more “right” putting it here seemed. I mean, it is an all-singing, all dancing extravaganza with a star cast this one… I mean, so what if the ones doing the singing and dancing are animated penguins?
Mumble Happyfeet (who borrows the voice of Elijah Wood) is a seemingly perfectly normal penguin. I mean, his father Memphis (Hugh Jackman – or the voice thereof) did drop the egg for a few seconds when he was incubating but still… His mother Norma Jean (Nicole Kidman) loves him all the same. But as Mumble grows, a problem emerges. A little-known fact about penguins is that they can sing. Indeed, they must sing. This is how they find their one true love; singing is what their society is constructed around. And Mumble cannot sing to save his socks. He can do something else, it’s this funny jigging around with his feet, but the older penguins do NOT approve of it. Besides, what with the great fish shortage, times are tough, there is no time or energy to be wasted on such frivolity. However, Mumble is determined. He knows in the roots of his claws that what he is doing is right. And that there is a way for him to somehow fit in and belong. Oh, and that he can figure out what is happening to the fish. Mumble is about to go on a voyage of discovery beyond his wildest dreams…
Even the most hard-hearted anti – animation – and - musicalist among you will not be able to resist this one. The songs are so skillfully chosen and so well performed that you simply cannot help toe-tapping and heck, even singing along. And the range of songs is just soo great that you are bound to come across at least one of your old favorites – I did! (Somebody to Love by Queen – I startled the entire household by spontaneously breaking into song; since I was actually watching the film on a laptop with earphones, it took some explaining afterwards not least because my level of singing is round about the same as that of Mumble, as anyone who was karaoked with me can testify). The themes are well-known ones. Society, change, being a late developer, not fitting in at high school (yes, penguins have a high school), finding your feet (ho ho) and, last but not least, (and rather unavoidably) the evil things mankind is doing to the planet and how we have to do something about it. So, Ok, you will not discover new worlds with this one. But it will sure as heck rock your world. I mean, pollution is an important issue, and as we are NOT doing anything about we should be reminded from time to time. As for the rest, well… We can all relate to each and every one of those themes on some level so we may complain that they’re classics but they are classics for a reason… In short, watching this film was some of the best fun I have had in a very, VERY long time. If you have somehow missed it, this is definitely one to catch up on…