Hiroshima mon amour: Time, the destroyer of memory

Alain Renais has created a masterpiece on philosophical issues of time and memory. A film that even when is seen today 50 years after it’ s creation remains ever so powerful and painfully true.
A French woman –an actress-goes to Hiroshima to do a film on peace. There she meets a Japanese architect with who she has an one night stand. Soon both of them realize that their erotic adventure is more serious than they first thought and they become increasingly bonded. The woman relates to the man her first love affair. When she was young and while France was under German occupation, she fell in love with a German soldier who was killed. Her home town and parents considered her a traitor. They shaved her hair and locked her in the basement. Later on her parents gave her some money and told her to leave her hometown.
The film moves back and forth in time according firstly to the newsreels that demonstrated the destruction of Hiroshima and then according to the memories the woman narrates. The love affair between a French woman and a Japanese man unites the enemies of the Second World War proving that fifteen years later old animosities have faded away. Moreover through the different ethnicities of the heroes the spectator has the opportunity to witness how two completely different cultures were affected by the story of Hiroshima.
As the film being filmed in the actual film Hiroshima mon amour is a story that advocates peace, through the demonstration of the destruction that the war brings. The film works in a much more complicated and significant way than just transmitting this almost placid message.
Both the woman and the man are symbols of a tragic loss. She is the symbol of a private loss of love. He is the symbol of a public loss of life and faith in science and humanity that the town of Hiroshima represents.
The movie demonstrates the power of time over memory. The architect and the entire world should always remember the tragic example of Hiroshima but as time goes by the memory of the events fade. In the same a way the intensity of the first love and the pain of losing her lover is progressively forgotten by the woman. The film proves that no matter how important or how intense some things are in our lives time has an enormous power in corrupting memory and feelings. In the end we are left with empty stories and symbols that have lost all the emotional correlations that they should have. Unfortunately in the end all we can do is just remember those empty symbols and mechanically- with no true feeling- connect them with their true meaning.

Η τεχνική εξέλιξη της κινηματογραφικής τέχνης και ο συμβολισμός των μέσων της

Α) Lumiere: Οι αδελφοί Lumiere θεωρούνται οι πατέρες της κινηματογραφικής τέχνης. Η πρώτη κινηματογραφική προβολή έγινε στο Grand Cafe στο Παρίσι το 1895. Η κάθε ταινία είχε διάρκεια περίπου δέκα λεπτών. Η κάμερα ήταν στατική και το όλο θέμα ήταν τραβηγμένο από μία οπτική γωνία. Επρόκειτο δηλαδή για μονόπλανα.
Τα έργα αυτά παρουσίαζαν σκηνές καθημερινής ζωής (Εργάτες φεύγουν από το Εργοστάσιο) , τοπία από άλλες χώρες (ταξιδιωτικά) ή ακόμα περιείχαν την αφήγηση ενός μικρού σκηνοθετημένου αστείου. Τέλος, κάποιες από αυτές κάλυπταν ειδησιογραφικά νέα. Σε αυτές τις περιπτώσεις ο κινηματογραφιστής σπάνια ήταν παρών στο γεγονός. Συνήθως το αναπαριστούσαν και το κινηματογραφούσαν στο στούντιο (το ναυάγιο του πολεμικού πλοίου Maine Στον Αμερικανικό –Ισπανικό πόλεμο). Οι θεατές γνώριζαν ότι αυτό που έβλεπαν δεν ήταν το πραγματικό όπως δεν ήταν πραγματικές και οι εικονογραφήσεις των γεγονότων στις εφημερίδες της εποχής.
Β) Οι ταινίες του Melies: Ο Melies βρίσκεται στον αντίποδα των αδελφών Lumiere. Οι ταινίες του ήταν φανταστικές. Εισήγαγε για πρώτη φορά το σενάριο, τους ηθοποιούς και τα σκηνικά. Γύριζε ταινίες σε στούντιο. Ήταν επίσης ο πρώτος που ένωσε διάφορες σκηνές ώστε να δημιουργήσει μια ιστορία. Εφάρμοσε ένα πρώιμο μοντάζ ενώνοντας τις σκηνές μεταξύ τους αλλά και για να δημιουργήσει τα πρώτα κινηματογραφικά εφέ. Το Ταξίδι στη Σελήνη είναι η πιο γνωστή ταινία του. (A trip to the moon -1902)
Γ) H σχολή Brighton: Η αγγλική κινηματογραφική σχολή εισήγαγε στην κινηματογραφική τέχνη τα διαφορετικά πλάνα. Με το μοντάζ ένωσε πλάνα μακρινά και μεσαία ώστε να δώσει περισσότερη λεπτομέρεια και πλούτο στην αφήγηση μιας ιστορίας
Δ) Οι αμερικάνοι σκηνοθέτες Porter και Griffith επινοούν και θέτουν τους πρώτους κανόνες της κινηματογραφικής τέχνης, συζητώντας ταυτόχρονα το πως ο θεατής εκλαμβάνει ένα κινηματογραφικό έργο.
1. Porter: Ι. Το πολύ κοντινό πλάνο
ΙΙ. Οικονομία Χρόνου. Δεν είναι απαραίτητο να παρουσιαστεί η πλήρη δράση στον θεατή. Εάν ο θεατής δει τα σημαντικά στιγμιότυπα της δράσης μπορεί μόνος του να συμπληρώσει όσα δεν έιδε.
ΙΙΙ. Η αίσθηση της συνέχειας από πλάνο σε πλάνο είτε μέσω της κίνησης των ηθοποιών είτε με τη δημιουργία νοητών αξόνων (π.χ. του βλέμματος)
2. Griffith: Ι. Η κάθε σκηνή αποτελείται από πολλά διαφορετικά πλάνα. Τα μακρινά πλάνα χρησιμοποιούνται για τον προσανατολισμό του θεατή σε σχέση με το χώρο και τη δράση. Χρησιμοποιούνται συνήθως στην αρχή και το τέλος μιας σκηνής. Τα μεσαία πλάνα είναι τα πιο συνήθη και δημιουργούν τη συναισθηματική σύνδεση του θεατή με τους πρωταγωνιστές. Τα πολύ κοντινά πλάνα είναι πιο σπάνια και δίνουν έμφαση. Προκαλούν το ενδιαφέρον του θεατή για κάποια λεπτομέρεια.
ΙΙ. Εφέ μετάβασης από πλάνο σε πλάνο: 1. το απλό κόψιμο (cut) είναι το εφέ που περνά συνήθως απαρατήρητο από τους θεατές. Σηματοδοτεί ότι από το πρώτο πλάνο στο δεύτερο δεν έχει αλλάξει τίποτα. Ο χρόνος που έχει μεσολαβήσει είναι σχεδόν μηδενικός. 2. dissolve (το ένα πλάνο διαλύεται αργά μέσα στο άλλο) Ο Θεατής όταν βλέπει αυτό το εφέ καταλαβαίνει ότι ανάμεσα στο πρώτο πλάνο και το δεύτερο έχει μεσολαβήσει κάποιο, μικρό συνήθως, χρονικό διάστημα. Πολλές φορές έχει αλλάξει και ο χώρος. Η μεγάλη διάρκεια ενός dissolve σημαίνει συνήθως ότι έχει περάσει μεγαλύτερο χρονικό διάστημα. 3. Fade out/ Fade in (το σβήσιμο του πλάνου σε μαύρο- μαύρη οθόνη- εμφάνιση του πλάνου από μαύρο) Ιδιαίτερα έντονο εφέ. Η μαύρη οθόνη σηματοδοτεί κάποια διακοπή στην αφήγηση. Με αυτό το εφέ τελειώνει κάτι και αρχίζει κάτι νέο. Το Fade out/ Fade in σημαίνει ότι έχει περάσει πολύς χρόνος και ότι συνήθως έχει αλλάξει ο τόπος.
ΙΙΙ. Τα εφέ μετάβασης και η διάρκεια των πλάνων δίνουν ένα ρυθμό στην ταινία. Σκηνές που αποτελούνται από πλάνα μεγάλης διάρκειας χωρίς πολλές εναλλαγές στο είδος του πλάνου και εμπεριέχουν περισσότερα dissolve από ότι cut είναι αργές σκηνές. Προσφέρουν στον θεατή το χρόνο και τη δυνατότητα για στοχασμό. Αντίθετα, σκηνές με μικρής διάρκειας πλάνα, συχνές εναλλαγές και απανωτά cut έχουν γρήγορο ρυθμό και προκαλούν ένταση στον θεατή.
ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΗ: Οι κανόνες αυτοί ισχύουν στο κλασικό στυλ κινηματογράφησης. Πολλοί όμως σημαντικοί σκηνοθέτες τους ανατρέπουν και τους χρησιμοποιούν με εναλλακτικό τρόπο ώστε τελικά να εξυπηρετήσουν καλύτερα την κεντρική ιδέα του έργου τους.
Ε) O ήχος ήρθε ως τομή στην κινηματογραφική τέχνη. Δημιούργησε πολλά προβλήματα και επέβαλε τις δικές του λύσεις. Οι άνθρωποι του κινηματογράφου μέχρι τότε είχαν μάθει να στηρίζονται σχεδόν αποκλειστικά στην εικόνα για να αφηγηθούν μια ιστορία. Ο ήχος κατηγορήθηκε ότι μετέτρεψε τον κινηματογράφο σε μια κονσερβοποιημένη θεατρική παράσταση. Σήμερα πολλά έργα δεν εκμεταλλεύονται πλήρως τις αφηγηματικές δυνατότητες της εικόνας ρίχνοντας το βάρος στους ηθοποιούς και στους διάλογους. Ωστόσο ένα πλήρες κινηματογραφικό έργο οφείλει να εκμεταλλεύεται σωστά όλα τα εκφραστικά του μέσα (την εικόνα, την φωτογραφία, το χρώμα, τον ήχο, τη μουσική, το μοντάζ κτλ κτλ) με στόχο να εκφράσει καλύτερα την κεντρική του ιδέα. Η ιδέα αυτή πολλές φορές δεν έχει άμεση σχέση με την ιστορία που το έργο αφηγείται (π.χ. την ερωτική σχέση ενός ζευγαριού). Με αφορμή την ιστορία μπορεί να διερευνά μια άλλη γενικότερη ιδέα (π.χ. πως ορίζεται η ισότητα ανάμεσα στους ανθρώπους)

Brighton-Mary Jane's Mishap


Straight Cut


Dissolve


Fade out/ Fade in

Επιστροφή....come back?

Η ακαδημαϊκή-κινηματογραφική χρονιά που κοντεύει να τελειώσει ήταν πολύ περιέργη και πολύ απαιτητική. Οπλισμένη με την απόφαση να τελειώσω επιτέλεους και πάση θυσία το διδακτορικό το έριξα στη συγγραφή. Συνέβη λοιπόν το εξής παράδοξο...γράφοντας συνέχεια για τον κινηματογράφο και διαβάζοντας για τον κινηματογράφο σταμάτησα να πηγαίνω κινηματογράφο. Το γεγονός αυτό το αντιμετωπίζω με μεγάλη ανησυχία γιατί το "να πηγαίνω σινεμά" ήταν πάντοτε η αγαπημένη μου ασχολία. Ερωτήματα όπως: αλλάζω; μεγαλώνω; μετατρέπομαι σε τηλεοπτικό σκουπιδοφάγο; ποια είμαι; κτλ κτλ άρχισαν να έρχονται στην επιφάνεια. Οι φίλοι μου προσπάθησαν να με παρηγορήσουν λέγοντας ότι όλοι περνάνε κρίσεις κατά τις οποίες εγκαταλείπουν ΠΡΟΣΩΡΙΝΑ τις αγαπημένες τους ασχολίες και μετά επιστρέφουν με ανανεωμένη όρεξη.Χμμμμ το ελίπζω αλλά δεν ορκίζομαι κι όλας οτι έτσι θα συμβεί. Ακόμα πιο ανησυχητικό βρίσκω το γεγονός οτι από όλες τις ταινίες που παίχτηκαν μόνο μια μου προκάλεσαι αρκετή περίεργεια να πάω να τη δώ...το Reader. Έχω την αίσθηση οτι η χρονιά δεν πρόσφερε και μεγάλες συγκινήσεις και έργα εντυπωσιακά. Παρακαλώ εαν κάποιος έχει να προτείνει κάτι το πραγματικά ενδιαφέρον να το καταθέσει άμεσα. Θα το καταβέσω (και θα το δω) σαν φάρμακο μπας και γλυτώσω από αυτή την αντικινηματογραφική ασθένεια που με ταλανίζει ένα χρόνο τώρα περίπου.
Επειδή αυτό το blog πολύ το αγαπάω και νιώθω άσχημα που το έχω αφήσει να βυθιστεί μέσα στους τόνους της άχρηστης πληροφορίας και του νεκρού υλικού που κυκλοφορεί στο internet λέω σταδιακά να ανεβάσω τα μαθήματα που παρέδωσα φέτος στους "πολίτες" της Ν. Ερυθραίας με θέμα την Ανάγνωση της Κινηματογραφικής Εικόνας. Θα τα χτενίσω λιγουλάκι να είναι ευπαρουσίαστα, θα τα ντύσω με βιντεάκια και εικόνες για να είναι πιο ελκυστικά και θα τα κατεθέσω στη βορά των λογοκλόπων (εναντίον των οποίων όλοι με προειδοποιούν) του ιντερνετ. Παρακαλώ περάστε και απολαύστε κατα το δοκούν!


Come Back?
I am sorry my English speaking friends but this section will be written in Greek. This year passed and I didn't go to the cinema nor I saw the new films. Instead I wrote my phd on cinema (D. Cronenberg). I also completed a series of lessons on how someone can interpret a film. I am thinking of publishing these lessons here. Unfortunately they are all written in Greek. In this way i will relive the blog and eventually I hope tha I will find again the time and the energy to write about the films I watch whether are new or old classics.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford: Why America treats thieves and murderers as heroes?

It's been ages since I saw this film. Time is the best test on a film's quality. If after some months a film has still a intense impression on you then it had something to offer. On the other hand, if it has faded away completely it wasn't worth seeing in the first place.
The only thing that I remember from "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is a golden atmosphere and good acting from the leading actors.
In Greece it got rather enthusiastic reviews and some were even saying that it managed to renew the genre of western. But was it really a western? Instead of gun shooting and action scenes the film relied mostly on scenes that explained the tensions and the relationships between the characters. Its’ pace was slow. The shots were majestic in an effort to resemble Fords masterpieces. The acting was intense. Still the film didn't manage to over pass the level of mediocre-acceptable.
The story is already known to most western funs or American history lovers. The strong elusive thief Jesse James is betrayed and killed by one of his own Robert Ford. It has been presented in film over and over again. It had its appeal when we were children. In this film a story that is a teenage (at the most) action story is supposedly presented in an adult way. And that is the problem. We are supposed to be taken in by the tragedy and the drama of the life and death of Jesse James and see him as a hero. Is that possible for a healthy adult? How can one seriously identify with a thief and a murderer? Of course most of us can identify with James Bond or with Ocean's group of thieves. In these examples, though, we are never encouraged to take the films seriously. We are there just for the fun. We indulge in a fantasy world where everything is sparkling and ingenious and we can even be above the rules of society. Sometimes we have (for example the Bond films) the limp moral justification that we are fighting against evil. Other times we are thieving just because we are clever enough (thieving is not as bad as murder in any case). In the Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford though the story is supposed to be taken seriously. The realistic scenes, the great acting, everything in the film leads us into taking a serious adult stand towards the story. Then the film presents murderers as heroes and tries to introduce us to a code of honour that is above society and human life. How can this work? Unfortunately American history and culture has learned to glorify a code of honour between men that justifies murder (if there is a proper moral cause or if it is against some Other or if the murder is clever enough to remain uncaught and become famous). Why though should we accept this unchallenged.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a well executed technically film. It is an attractive package with a problematic soul.

Cinema Gossip: Atonement dress

If one has read my review on the Atonement will probably remember how much I loved the green dress that Keira Knightley wore at the "notorious" love scene of the film. It seems that iwas not the only one that felt that way. Recently I discovered that the dress was auctioned and sold to the highest bidder (Lauren) for 46.000 $. Now if someone wants this dress but is not willing to pay quite as much one can always got to a store that copies the dress and sells it. Some how, though, it doesn't look quite the same does it? I guess you get what your money is worth since it costs only 238$. The strange thing is that the film will probably be completely forgotten in a few years time. On the other hand it seems that the dress will be remembered since it had such an

impact. I can visualize it standing in fashion or costume museum and no one will recall who the hell was the young and beautiful Keira Knightley.

Juno; humour on serious stuff, my cup of tea

It's been months since I saw Juno (and since i wrote on my blog too but lets skip that part). Recently, however, someone bought me its soundtrack. The music reminded me vividly the film.
Juno is a film about a problem that seems to rattle America: teenage pregnancy. The film however instead of portraying a dramatic situation it takes the subject lightly and presents it with a great sense of humor. Juno is a teenage girl that decides to try sex with a friend. She is not in love she doesn't even have a boy friend she is just curious about sex. When she discovers that she is pregnant she tries to get an abortion. She is too afraid of the doctors to do it and she decides to give berth and the give the child for adoption to another couple. This is truly a modern film. There is not a single trace of conservatism in this film. Parents instead of freaking out and lecturing prove supporting and understanding. The friends do the same. Juno manages to live all the period of her pregnancy in a protective shell formed by the couple that wants to adopt the child, by her parents and her friends. If voices of prejudice, conservatism and religious hysteria appear in few instances are treated by the film with such contempt that are easily stumped out.
The direction of the film is subtle and efficient. There are no ingenious shots and intricate camera movement. On the other hand colors, cuts and camera views serve perfectly the story with it's lightness and optimism. The film leans heavily on the young actress Elen Page. She does an excellent job and supports the clever script of Diablo Cody. In X-men where she appeared she was at the least mediocre in her role. Here, though, the film offers her the opportunity to prove that she can be a great actress.
The film chooses to look only on the bright side of the situation no mater the few setbacks it presents -just for the shake of suspense. Some can say that it is naive and over optimistic. The tragic effects of teenage pregnancy have been discussed in so many other films and even more soap operas. This film chooses to say to a teenager that: ok! you made a mistake and you are pregnant. This is not the end of the world nor the end of your life. You can still have a life a future and dreams. It chooses to teach not through fear and terror but through humor compassion and intelligence. And that is an achievement.

Michael Clayton : An honest film

Michael Clayton is definitely not a masterpiece, nor a film that will reside in your mind forever. Since it is over two or three months that i saw it myself I can testify that the images have faded away. Even more the details of the case are easily forgotten. Still Michael Clayton is a film that has good intentions. An interesting script, good acting, honest even if not singular directing. It is a small film that keeps you interested , leaves you satisfied and most important of all does not insult your intelligence.
The hero, George Clooney (now here is an actor and an aspiring director that has managed to gain my respect!) is a lawyer in a big firm called the "fixer". He never goes to court but does all the little dirty jobs that are needed for out of court settlements. His life is a mess. Single father with a brother that gabbles and owns money to the wrong people. He is called in a case where a friend lawyer has suddenly abandoned their client and started helping the adversaries. When his friend is murdered he become entangled in a story with big company interests and he also becomes a target. In the end he manages to entrap the leader of the conspiracy, to turn her over to the police revealing the truth.
Big international companies pray on the poor and the weak in order to gain profit. This is the meaning of the film. If you consider the film as an expose I would say that it not very interesting or shocking as it should be. Most people are already fairly suspicious about big companies. We already know how most of them function and how they buy their way out of trouble. The film though manages to bring something fresh into the topic. Michael Clayton is not a hero that decides one fine day to take up big interests and bid companies and find justice. He is a little man working within this corrupt system. What is interesting here is that this little man that could easily have been bought with a career opportunity rises up to the occasion only when he is cornered and his life is threatened. This is much more realistic and thus interesting than an idealistic hero that fears no consequences and rushes on only in order to get to the truth for the greater good. Still this little man which has no respect from others and he feels no pride for himself manages to pull up a scheme and get the truth and justice. Even if he only does it to protect himself he finds a dignity in the process because that he realizes that he can bed only so far, that there is a limit that he will not cross. Michael Clayton is a common man and function as a regular man would do. He acts heroically when he can do nothing else. This is what makes the film an honest effort and a film with its own even small value.

Comment1: Many films have been done on the same subject. Three examples Erin Brochovits, Syrianna, and my personal favorite Constant Gardener

Comment2: Once more I am in a position where I have to apologize for neglecting my blog . I will try to make amends. Thanks for your patience

Oscars : Everything is about glamour

Two years now that I am writting this blog I ' ve never mentioned Oscars. It seems so pointless to me. I dont usually agree with who wins the award of best film or script or best actor. People who read this blog have probably understood that i have my own criteria and that I am not so pro for Hollywood. Don't take me wrong. Hollywood can do a film technically perfect, but that doesnt necessarily mean that it will also be interesting. Moreover I think that the Academy is all about Hollywood. Rarely a minor film reaches the nominations and the awards. To make things worse even through the Hollywood film that will get there the Academy usually awards the more conservative ones. Under these circumstances Oscars have become a mere curiosity for me. They dont even function as the starting point of a discussion any more. All my friends that are into films agree with me on this point and if everybody agrees where is the fun to the argument? As a result I am not bothered even to find out the results. Usually my frind John who is more into gossiping informs me a few days later on. When I get a sunday newspaper and there is womans' magazine along with it I get to admire the gowns of the celebrities. In the end that is what the Oscar celebration is for me a glamorous fashion show.
For those that still want to know the results of the Oscar awards here is the link in the imdb:http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2008/oscars
the official site is : http://www.oscar.com/ And for those who wish to see the fashion side of it the official site of oscars has covered that aspect too. http://oscar.com/redcarpet/ Enjoy!

The Atonement: Hollywood epic as usually is glamorous and meaningless

Hollywood can produce technically perfect pictures. Great acting, lustrous directing and photography and even a good script make a film that easily can be watched but can it really move you or even touch you. These films have no peculiarity, are perfectly balanced and therefore are heartless.

Atonement is one of these films. It has everything going for it. An interesting script from a book that is already famous. A tragic love story, a misunderstanding that complicates everything, a war to make things even more dramatic and still the script doesn’t manage to get you really involved. Directing is well done. It even has an interesting idea. In the beginning it shows the story form the point of view of both sisters. In this way it is very clear from the beginning the tragic confusion that spears the narrative of the film. On the other hand, it might have been a more compelling film if everything was not thus so well explained. If for example we watched all the film through the point vies of the little sister. I this way there would be a small mystery on why the elder sister is so much in favor of the man. Is she in love with a rapist, how can that be? As the little girl grows up and gets a better understanding of the situation the spectator would come to understand the truth with her. In this case though Keira Knightley would have a far smaller part and those who went to see the film just for her would be heavily disappointed.

All actors have done an excellent work and that is probably the most important plus of the film. Vanessa Redgrave as the elder Briony (younger sister) proves that even few minutes are enough for an actor to prove himself. Saoirse Ronan is also very good, even her competence has been overstated due to her youth. Still there too many scenes during the film that the actors have a mesmerized look on their faces. First the young Briony, then Cecilia confronting the tragic events and then again when Briony realizes what she had done. You don’t notice while watching the film but when remembering it you come up with too many scenes that different actors have the exactly same blank expression on their faces. Considering this I can only reach the conclusion that it must have been some guide line given form the director. To say nothing more it was a directing that ruined some parts of an overall successful acting.

In conclusion Atonement doesn’t manage to take the extra step that would carry it from being another without spirit Hollywood film to the grand epic (like the English Patient) that had ambitions to be.

Comment:

I am in love with the green gown that Keira Knightley wears in the most crucial scene of the film. It was dress that advertised the film all by itself. On the other hand, if you end up commenting the dress in a film, the film is probably a lost cause.

My Blueberry Nights: the aesthetics of city blues and jazz

A film by Kar Wai Wong is always stylish. Is it also meaningful though?
After the gorgeous In Mood for love and 2046 he is coming back with My Blueberry nights. This time he distances himself from the aesthetics of his origin and manages to create a completely different atmosphere .My Blueberry nights is actually a stylistic tribute to jazz and blues. The story is about a girl who finds out that her boyfriend is cheating her. Since she can’t imagine her life without him she leaves New York to travel around America working as a waitress in various places in order to forget him. Before starting her trip she meets a guy that owns a coffee shop. She talks to him confessing in him and they become friend. The guy falls in love with her and waits her to return. In her trip she sends him postcards describing her adventures and the people she meets. In her trip she meets people who in a way are the embodiment of various feelings. Arnie is obsessed with a woman that doesn’t love him back. Sue is becoming the personage of guilt and remorse. Leslie is a trickster that doesn’t believe in sincerity. The protagonist manages to define herself by contrast to others. She chooses who she wants to be by comparing herself to the people she meets. In this way she chooses not to base her existence on someone that doesn’t love her back and not to loose faith in people. In this way she manages to resolve the issues that drove her to this adventure. She mends her heart. A year later she comes back ready to start a new relationship with the owner of the coffee shop that awaited her. The story is menial an excuse to develop the blues atmosphere. The dinner shop wit the painted glass, the often shots of the lighten train. The night aspects of the city and the noise of a busy city are emblems of a jazz aesthetic. , The characters of the film like the alcoholic policeman, the Vegas gamblers also contribute to the blues-jazz atmosphere.
The film is well shot and it has a distinctive atmosphere and images. This great advantage makes the film interesting and saves it from its somewhat banal story. It is a small cute film that you can easily watch. Some shots are so beautiful that manage to mark your memories. It lacks though all the grandeur of a good script. Not exactly without a point but also not exactly with a meaning either.

Comment
It is not a lucky coincidence that Kar Wai Wong chose Norah Jones as his leading lady. A jazz –blues singer and composer for a Jazz blues film

American Gangster: A gangster film that even if it bears the signs of the directing mastership of Ridley has few things to offer

A black man manages to import the purest cocaine from Vietnam and sell it in America. His enterprising spirit and the teaching of his old boss (the previous black mafia chief) help his ascend to the higher levels of the social ladder and to gain the status of the most important gangster of America. His organization combines elements of both Italian mafia and crime in the black ghetto. From one hand he bases his works on his family as Italians do, and he claims territories as smaller criminals do. In the end he is discovered and arrested by an incorruptible policeman. He decides to cooperate with the police and help bring to justice not only his fellow criminals but also the corrupted policemen.
Ridley Scot manages to build a film that is fairly interesting even if it is not arresting or special. The spectator can easily watch that film even id he doesn’t really get involved in the story. The script is well enough written, coherent and with good character building but with no twists and turns and no big surprises. It remains rather flat throughout the whole duration of the film rendering rather slow. Both leading actors, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe do a really good acting job and this is one of the serious plus of the movie
In Ridley’s Scot mob film the super gangster the chief –surprise, surprise-is black. Would any one believe that racism could effect the preconceptions about a gangster? It actually does. Somehow no one would expect the biggest gangster to be black. In American film black are small time crooks they are not into organized crime. Italians as (supposedly) more sophisticated are specialized in this. The Denzel Washington character even if is a major drug dealer and a ruthless killer somehow is presented in a light almost positive. He follows the American ideal by being hard-working, inventive, loyal to family and friends, humble and in some peculiar way even just. After all these good elements the spectators are pleased to find out that the cop that arrested him and made a deal with his ended up defending his in court and getting him out of prison sooner that the court had decided in the first place. How can a gangster a killer can end up as a persona that the spectator can relate to and sympathize with is a thing beyond my comprehension.
All and all American gangster proves that even a great director and two actors don’t always make a great movie. The delicate balance of a masterpiece or even of a great movie is hard to achieve.

The Orphanage:Juan Antonio Bayona does a horror film that mixes beautifully the tricks of the horror tradition and the twists of modern films.

As usual I read the reviews about this film before going to the cinema and as sometimes happens this was a mistake. The critics were very enthusiastic about his film and praise was freely given. As a result as soon as the film finished I felt a disappointment. I had expected too much. Many times before I have claimed that a good film stays with you getting stronger by day. In the case of The Orphanage I realized that my initial disappointment was false. The next two days after the film images kept creeping on me and surprising me. Then after a week it finally faded not into a haunting memory but into at least to a fond one.
What makes a good horror film? Most of all and above all its atmosphere. In a nightmare what scares people is the feeling in the air. When one is trying to explain what made him uncomfortable in his nightmare he finds it difficult to explain. He usually has to result to the phrase: “you had to be there”. Orphanage manages to create threatening pictures of simple incidents and built up the anxiety of the spectators. The first sequence of the film is not only very cleverly shot but is an ingenious motif that is repeated at one of the most terrifying and intense scenes of the film. Nothing is more innocent than a children’s play. Still Juan Antonio Bayona manages to transform it into a sinister experience. The children play a game that is known to all the nations of the world. Someone is counting and the others are moving. When he stops counting he turns to look. The others must stop and remain completely still. This goes on until one of the children approaches enough to touch the child that counts. The he runs and the counting child must catch all the other children in order to win. In the first scene of the film a small girl is counting on the bark of a tree. The other children are approaching but the director keeps then out of frame. In this way the spectator doesn’t see who is approaching until the very last moment and the anxiety keeps increasing. Later on the grown up heroine plays the game with the ghosts of the children. She counts and in the beginning she can’t see her playmates. As noises are heard the spectator knows that the ghosts are there. Counting over and over again she and along with her the spectator sees the dead children approaching. We are forced to keep our breath since we know that in the end the ghost will have come close enough to touch the heroine. This touch is something that the spectator completely intoned with the heroine both wishes and dreads. A child’s play takes a whole new meaning. In many scenes we see and hear the wheel squeaking and turning. This image of a child’s’ toy emphasizes the lack of children in the yard, their absence firstly and their supernatural presence later on.
The images are intense but they are not entirely new. They belong to the long tradition of the horror film. In the Nightmare of the Elm Street, for example a kids’ song about the boogie man of the dreams takes a terrifying meaning in world where Freddy Cruger stalks the dreams. In Fritz Lang’s M the balloon a toy again becomes the symbol in the begging of the kid’s presence and then of it’s disappearance and murder.
Other tricks up Juan Antonio Bayona’s sleeve are the chilling scenes. A door is banged on the fingers of the heroine making her finger nails break and bleed. Even if this is a minor wound most people reflexively find this incident disgusting. The deformed child with the covered head is another fear factor. Killers and paranoids the cinema has taught us that are freaks heavily deformed usually masked. The car accident and the sudden death of the strange woman are used to provoke a shock to the spectator.
The new thing in the recent horror films is that the power that traditionally is threatening proves to be not only innocent but even helpful and sympathetic. Dead people and ghosts are not the threat as seen in Sixth Sense or the Others. The gravest threat and the source of evil are people. Beyond death there seems to be no hatred and no wish for revenge only a different set of rules. Orphanage is following this new lead proving that a stupid incident and not the ghosts of the children leads to the devastating end.
When someone analyses the ways the director used to create the atmosphere he realizes that orphanage takes advantage of the usual ideas of the horror genre without really offering something new. Even its twist and turns are something fairly used in the latest horror films. On the other hand it has a clever script, great actors intelligent directing a terrifying atmosphere and arresting images. Asking for more than that might just be avarice. I might just as well admit it: Some times over education spoils all the good old fun.
Comment:
Favorite phrase and scene: Unos des tres, tocca las pares

The phenomenon of Cinema Series

With the opportunity of Golden Compass I want to discuss a new cinematic phenomenon: the series. The return Of Jedai was probably the first film that didn’t have an ending but prepared the spectators for the next episode. Nowadays, there are more and more series on the screen. The three films on middle earth (The Fellowship of the Ring, The two towers, The return of the King) seem to have created a new trench. Now we have the MatriX trilogy, Narnia, Harry Potter, Golden Compass, Xmen and so on. These film are a little bit different from the James Bond Series or the horror series of the 80’s (Nightmare on the Elm Street). They were conceived from the beginning as series. Sometimes the film does not have an ending. Spectators have to wait for the next film to have a satisfying end. On the other hand James Bond or horror series got a new episode only because they were successful in their first attempt. They were not preconceived as series. Moreover these films have an ending even if it is an open one that will allow some continuance. I wonder how the film companies decided to take the risk of creating a film with no ending. Didn’t they think that the spectators would be annoyed? I remember someone telling me that he chose not to see the trilogy of the ring until all films were finished and out so that he could see them all together. Since then though I have heard no other complaining about the no ending thing.
Series offer a sense of security. When you go to see a film you take a risk. I am not talking about the risk of not liking the film you chose to see. The more grievous risk is whether this film will make you comfortable or create an anxiety. Will you be able to take it in and handle it or will it unbalance you more than it should? In a series you have a feeling of security. More or less you know what you will see. You are already familiar with the heroes and the situation. There is no risk involved. It is like getting your old slippers on. They are comfortable and warm and cozy. An episode is already safe and familiar but has the advantage that will offer something new, a development on the same old story. You don’t have to take any risks. You don’t have to make the extra effort to get to know the character and recognize them. You don’t have to invest emotionally into them all over from the beginning.
On the other hand art (and cinema is art) should be dangerous so that there is some edge and clarity at the experience it offers. And there are so many different options, characters to get to know, new experiences to live through fantasy and film .Why should you stuck to the same over and over again? In film you are already on the side of the security since it’s the hero that suffers the consequences not you. You have the chance to live his experiences without any real suffering. Why would the extra safety net of the series be needed? Is our world so exhausting emotionally that we don’t manage to do even that: invest in different films with various characters and plots? Do we need the safety of security provided by series and even remakes? The big brains of Hollywood have found the new lure. We go to cinema in order to get re united with people we already know facing the problems that faced the previous year and the year before. Then we complain that our daily life is repetitive and dull. Isn’t that strange?

The Golden Compass: if you "need" to see it wait for the dvd

Philip Pulmans’ trilogy imitates the style of Tolkien and Lews. It is only logical that after transferring Middle Earth, Narnia and Hrry Potter’s world into the screen some Hollywood brain would discover the trilogy of the world. I wonder who will be genius enough to remember Jordan’s Wheel of Time (12 books hopefully) or Kind’s Sword of Truth (9 books). In this way spectators will be able to watch cinema series for the rest of their lives.
I am the first to admit that I have read all these series of epic fantasy and even more and that I will be the first to be tempted to see them on the screen even if I know before hand that the film won’t be good. This is the case of the Golden Compass. I knew that the film would be bellow mediocre but somehow I couldn’t resist seeing my fantasies and the images of the book alive. I am so angry with myself for being such an obedient victim of –a not so clever- marketing but here it is.
The film was all covered with a golden dust that supposedly managed to create the magical atmosphere of the book and raise the admiration of the spectator. Well not really! If everything is golden the result is not magical just kitsch. The scenario was coherent and slightly interesting only for those that had already read and liked if not loved the book. Great actors like Nicole Kidman do as always their best. They manage to render some credibility in the whole effort but little more.
In conclusion next time I feel an urge for junk food I will try to restrain myself and watch the film on tv. Such films find their way into dvd or tv channels quite soon.

Persepolis: An adult cartoon worth seeing

Persepolis narrates the story of a young Iranian girl. By telling her story it also narrates the recent history of the Iranian country. Iran from a liberal country has ended up as one of the more strict non-liberal muslin countries. And who is to blamed about this development? The west! Bravo!
Don’t get fooled by the fact that Persepolis is a cartoon. The film has nothing childish into it. The script rapidly explains the recent history of Iran so that the spectator can understand the weird twists and turns the life of a little girl takes. She begun her life in a liberal, influenced culturally by the west environment. She gets into her teens and the regime has grown strict, religious and totalitarian. The freedom of speech is withheld, her favorite uncle gets executed and she buys the new Airon Maiden album at the black market. As she can’t stop being rebellious, her parents sent her to Europe. She is an underage political refuge and she has to face all the misconceptions that the “superior” Europeans have for her country. Even more she is a teenager that tries to find her place in the world.
The nice thing about the script of Persepolis is that it proves that even in the most difficult situations human don’t stop being human. Wars and dictatorships do not make the typical problems of a teenage woman more menial. Beside the fact that she had relatives killed by the regime and she is a refugee, she still has to accept herself, fell in love, have her heart broken and face many more mishaps in the process of growing old. when she returns to Iran the government is more totalitarian than ever which forces her into a wrong marriage and then into a divorce. As a result she has to leave her country once more.
The bad thing about the script is that it is trying to convey too much in a too little time. As a result the spectator is not completely immersed into the film. He\she doesn’t identify with the girl that even if she has to face all the problems that most people face while becoming adults.
Two phrases have stuck into my mind from this film. The heroine says that even if two wars and a dictatorship in her country didn’t manage to kill her a simple banal thing like love almost did. This phrase manages summarize all the meaning of the film. In one of the last scenes of the film her parents tell her to leave Iran for a second time. Her mother tells her that she forbids her to ever come back. Iran is not for her. When she says that, she knows that she will never see her daughter again. She still has the courage to offer her daughter the most precious gift, freedom. Leaving your country and being a refugee, means leaving back the people you love. In Persepolis the protagonist has done exactly that.
Persepolis script is strong and intense because it has much to say. On the other hand if someone expects to find the exquisite perfection in the technique of design that characterizes the films of Disney or Dreamworks or Pixar will be severely disappointed. The design of Persepolis is coarse. In its simplicity however, manages to become enchanting. The plastic perfection and the illustrious pictures of the American cartoon would probably not fit this darker and much more adult cartoon and people should realize that before criticizing the lack of quality in design. All and all judging back on the films that I have seen since the beginning of the film season I would say that Persepolis is probably one of the most interesting films. Even if it has its weaknesses it remains an amenable effort and a worth seeing film.

An Apology

I feel the need to apologise to the (probably few) people that are reading this blog. Even if I still go to the cinema and watch films it takes me a really lot of time to write about them. So I have seen Persepolis, The Golden Compass, The orphanage, My bluberrry nights but I have not managed to write my opinion on any of these films. My only excuse is that I have started writting my phd. And I have given up my day job. As a result the only thing I do day after day is writting on my computer about films. Imagine now that I want to take a break from that! What should I do now? Lets write some more on my computer about films! Well you see my point! Still I kind of miss my blog and after of two years that i am writing it, it has become something like a "project". I am thinking that if i keep doing this in some years time i will have written all the reviews of the films that i will have seen. It will be quite something! Besides some read these reviews and amazingly enough think them usefull. Having paid such a compliment how can I ever let you down. Therefore I solemny swear that i will try to write my reviews more on time. Stay tuned and thanks for all your patience.
yours'
Helen

Elisabeth: the golden age. Even the greatest actor needs a good script in order to perform his\her best

Cate Blanchett goes back to the role that made her famous. Unfortunately what is proven by the Elizabeth: The Golden Age is that even an actress of the magnitude of Cate Blanchett needs a challenging script in order to be able to create a masterpiece.

The film describes the era that Elizabeth ruled England. Spain tries to conquer England but Elisabeth manages to save her country. In the previous film the spectator watches the course of life of the queen. In the beginning she is an innocent girl optimistic and full of life. When she becomes queen she had to conform to her new role. As the film goes on the queen sacrifices everything to the well-being of her country. She abandons her innocence, the love of her life and eventuality her femininity. She starts as a woman and she ends up a symbol. In the latest film though, the queen has already made her choices and sacrifices. Even if she is temporarily tempted by a man and his exploits to the New World she knows that she can’t have the man and live her love. In other word the main character does not evolve at all in the duration of the film. The film is slow and pointless failing to convey any meaning. An effort has been made in order to cover the complete void of meaning. Elizabeth in few scenes is presented as a defender of freedom of believes and thinking. She say that she will not condemn and punish her subjects for their beliefs but only for their deeds. Later on when the Spanish ships approach the English coast she declares that they carry the Spanish inquisition and along it the mysticism of the dark ages. The whole film though fails completely to sustain this idea. These two scenes seem to have been added later on just to justify the purpose of the film.

Besides the great costumes and pictures the film is slow with no meaning and completely unimaginative. Too bad for Cate Blanchet. Maybe next she will choose better and make us all talk about her for another time.

Control: a film mostly for the funs of Ian Kertis and a merely interesting film for the rest of us

Control

Control is a film on Ian Kertis the singer of Joy Division who killed himself at the age of 23. Ian Kertis is described as a charismatic persona, a modern poet. On the other hand is a troubled figure awkward and strange. He suffered from epilepsy and he had seizures. His illness and his romantic problems eventually led him to suicide.

The film begins at a critical turn of the protagonist’s life. Even though he has promised to his wife that he will leave his mistress he isn’t able to do it. As result his wife tells him she is divorcing him. He is afraid to go on a tour abroad and he feels the pressure of performing on stage more and more heavily. He speaks to himself and admits that he has lost control. The film then goes back to the past reveal how the weird young man manages to seduce his friend’s girlfriend and eventually marry her through words, lyrics. From this point and on the life of Ian Kertis spins faster and faster and eventually it derails to the morning he suicides. He marries, he has a child, he forms a group, he makes a record, he finds a mistress, he becomes famous and eventually dies at the age of 23. A whole life in such a little time. The film tries to justify his suicide. It presents him as a genius bordering madness.

The script and the editing of the film manage to create a narrative that is interesting and keeps the attention of the spectator. The actor Sam Rilay who impersonates Ian kertis manages to imitate incredibly well all the awkward almost spastic body movement of the famous singer. The greatest though advantage of the film is the beautiful and well balanced images that break the limits of cinema and reach the aesthetics of artistic photography. The selection of Black & White film instead of color enhances this impression even though it could be interpreted as an easy way of creating an artistic effect.

Overall the film is a worthwhile effort. A fun of Joy Division would have every reason to be enthusiastic. The film presents in a interesting and artistic way the life of Ian Kertis. As for the rest of us Control is an interesting film a good attempt but nothing really exhilarating.

Lust:Caution

Ang Lee is a director with a rich resume. He has tried to direct films of completely different style and genre and every time he succeeds in creating a film that is over the usual mediocre Hollywood movie. Sense and Sensibility was an interesting well made Era film, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon an enchanting fairy tale on Chinese myths and war arts and Brokeback Mountain a revolutionary western. When one is facing a director of the past of Ang Lee one has to expect much from his newest film.
In his last attempt Ang Lee tries to make neo-noir. Lust:caution is on the Chinese Civil War. A young student is recruited by the revolutionists in order to seduce and help in the murder of one of the interrogators of the regime. She manages to become his mistress and gain his trust. In the end though she fells in love with him and warns him. He is forced to order her execution.
The film became infamous before even its first screening due to the audacity of its love scenes. In reality the scenes were not so provocative. They might join eroticism and violence but many other film have already done this in a much more provocative way.
These scenes are a necessary part of the film since its real subject is sex. Many people believe that sex can be separated form feelings. Ang Lee though doesnt seem to share this opinion. His protagonist implores lust and sex in order to trap a man. Even though in the beginning she hates him in the end she fells in love with him. Pleasure and sex manage to create a bond between them that she didn't wished for. She wishes to use sex to trap and by sex and lust she is trapped herself. Therefore Lust is a dangerous weapon it can always backfire bonding you to your enemy.
The photography and the synthesis of the image is quite impressive. It proves that Ang lee is not a random director. The aesthetic pleasure that the spectator can derive form the images though does not cover the fact that the film is slow and too long. It's all meaning and purpose could have been conveyed in a less time.

Eastern Promises: Cronenberg goes soft?

I expected with anticipation the new film of Cronenberg. After watching its trailer some months ago I imagined that Eastern Promises would be an exceptionally good film. I though that it would successfully combine high aesthetic with dark materials and the usual audacity of the director. Besides that I have to admit that I have a soft spot for both Viggo Mortensen and Naomi Watts. However, when you go to watch a film with high expectations experience has proven that you always get disappointed.

A young girl arrives at the hospital during the shift of Naomi Watts. She is in labor and dies given birth to a baby girl. The nurse Watts finds the mother’s diary written in Russia and tries to discover the relatives of the girl in order to give them the baby. In the diary are written details of the Russia mafia operating at London. The nurse is big trouble but to her rescue comes Viggo, the driver of the mafia who aspires to be accepted in the mafia family as a true member.

Eastern Promises seems a very mainstream film. Both main actors manage to create two characteristic individuals. The whole story is very ordinary and very non Cronenberg. This film could have been made by another director. Its’ aesthetics are very well thought. Only an accomplished director would be able to achieve the great pictures and the dark and cruel atmosphere that envelops the whole film. Still it lacks all the extremity and audacity of images and ideas that we are used to get form Cronenberg. No atrocities, no sexual pervasions, no provoking of our tolerance. There is only one scene that reminds us the extreme gore that Cronenberg used to implement in his films. In the hot baths two men attack to kill Viggo. He is naked and vulnerable but still manages to win this brutal battle. The violence of this scene is extreme. At the same time the scene is much eroticized since the actor is completely naked. Violence and eroticism is a strange combination that spectator might find both appalling and strangely attractive. This mix though is something that Cronenberg would find interesting and choose to do in one of his films.

Only some hints on the second level of the film prove that Cronenberg has remained consistent and true to his usual obsessions and ideas. Tattoo is the first motif that the spectator can recognize as Cronenbergian. The members of the Russia mafia stigmatize their bodies narrating their personal history. When Viggo is interviewed in order to get accepted in the inner circle of the Russia mafia he stands naked before the leaders. They read his tattoos and ask him several questions about his past and family. Scars on the surface of our body are signs left from our past. They prove our history: our illnesses, our accidents and other incidents of our past. Here, the tattoos are used as scars that prove a man’s past and therefore his identity. In this way Cronenberg hints that our body forms our personal identity. Identity is the second real Cronenbergian motif that we find in this film. But does the body form our personal identity for real? No! As usual Cronenberg has created the perfect set up for his spectator. Bringing forward with such intensity the body which was the theme of his older films (the films before ExistenZ) manages to hide his true intention and surprise his spectator. Viggo’s body always very present on the scene, naked, strong and highly eroticized does not define actually him. It lies for him. His true identity is proven only in the end of the film when we realize he is an undercover cap. The paradox is that the mafia believes the story that is revealed by Viggo’s body. Then chooses this same body in order to lie and trick somebody else. Why would they have such a strong believe on something that they know that can be manipulated in such a way?

Cronenberg seems to declare that our body does not form our identity. Nor does our past (A History of Violence) neither does our family. Identity is not something given, he says. It is a personal choice and it can be changed. Of course there is an issue here. In the last scene Viggo has taken the place of the leader of the mafia. He sits at the same table where he used to sit sipping down his drink in exactly the same posture as the previous leader. If personal identity is so flexible and has nothing to do with our physical presence, past or family, how easy is it to loose your identity and without realizing to become someone else, someone you didn’t even like in the first place?

For another time I am forced to make compensations. Eastern Promises might not be the raw shocking fresh and weird material that Cronenberg used to produce in the first decades of his career but it still is a good –even if not great film- that remains within the sphere of the ideas and philosophical questions of its’ creator. Cronenberg gets older and he might get softer but as Truffaut would say the worst film of an auteur is always better than the best film of a simple mainstream director. In other words even if I am not totally satisfied by Eastern Promises (or Lynch’s Inland Empire for that matter) I still can not reject a film that hides some serious thinking and ideas behind its surface.