I watched this movie because I'd like to develop a deeper understanding of contemporary French Cinema. It also stars Kristin Scott Thomas who I adore. I've seen several of her movies and she is referred to as the "Ice Queen of British Cinema" on Amazon.com. In this film she changes from her usual role as Aristocratic Bitch to corporate, bourgeoios bitch. She plays the role admirably. Yet, I must admit I was happy when she was murdered.
The film was not all that great in terms of aesthetics, narrative structure, or even acting. The film is a straight forward murder -suspense film. The second half of the film turns into something like CSI that you would see on American television. There is contrast between the present and the past by presenting the past sequences in black and white, which was aesthetically simple. Perhaps thats what the director was going for.
For it's lack of technical sophistication, it did have plot twists, I didn't see Scott Thomas being murdered half way through the film. I was surprised. So, the writing was somewhat fresh. Yet, there was a slew of other movies released around the same time as this one, so, perhaps the themes were too trendy. It was enjoyable to watch corporate employees competing with each other and the drama that emerged between Scott Thomas and the lower employee. It taps into the feeling of corporate employee angst against a higher-up. This was the most compelling part of the film. I enjoyed watching Scott Thomas manipulate Sagnier. She really has the bitch role down.
It wasn't too compelling and I would have liked it too be more intense. It was a good film but it degenerated into too much like a TV show.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Review of Weekend by Jean-luc Godard
This was the latest Jean-Luc Godard movie I've watched. During the viewing I thought to myself numerous times, "do you want to be the next Jean-Luc Godard?" I dismissed the thought as myself being stuck in a time warp. Perhaps in the 1960s I would have entertained the idea Now, perhaps, the director to be like would be Lars von Trier? In my case it would be. I really like von Trier's films. Yet, I also really like Godard's films. This created a contradiction in my thinking about why I watch films from Godard who is a French New Wave director, and von Trier who was part of the Dogma 95 movement which characterized the New Wave as a dissipating current, that only lightly washed upon the shore of Global Cinema. I think von Trier and the Dogma movement give to little credit to the French New Wave. It did have an impact for a few years at least. Yet, I'm drawn to new currents in the Cinema, so I think it would be naive of me to give too much credit to the New Wave.
I think watching French New Wave films like Godard and Hiroshima Mon Amour and also being a big fan of von Trier has created a situation where I feel like I have to choose between the two. It's either French film or Danish/German film. Von Trier was heavily influenced by the New German Cinema, so perhaps, that is why he thinks the French New Wave has lost significance. Well, I'm no politician and I'm no ideologue about any film movement or any Nationalist film preference. I view film as an art form. To be studied and analyzed in terms of it's qualities. I like films of quality and I will continue to watch as much quality film as I can no matter where or when its from.
On to the film. This film was chaotic and anarchic. I'm no Godard scholar like Richard Brody from the New Yorker, but this film shows where Godard was in the late 1960s. It has several long politically radical monologues which reflect the current debates in French society over neo-colonialism in Algeria, Africa and the Middle East. These long political tracts along with the shots of the highway, car crashes, dead bodies, and directionless narrative depict a film which clearly goes against the classical Cinema. Ebert.com says this was Godard's best film. Perhaps that is right. It is either Weekend or Breathless. Breathless is the big, path breaking hit, Weekend is a reflection of late 60s France. At the crucial point of the film, the two main characters are looking for a ride. It is one of those typical Godard moments when he stops the films action and pulls the viewer in to ask themselves, where is this movie going? What's the purpose of the film? He does it in Pierrot Le Fou and he does it again in Weekend. It also happens in Breathless when Jean Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg are in the hotel together. Doing nothing, aimless, the film stops, the narrative action slows down and the questions come to audiences mind; where is this film going? What is the point of the film? In Breathless there is a resolution, yet what it means is not clear. Same thing happens in Weekend.
Perhaps it is asking a deep existential question about the meaning of life. What are we supposed to do with life? Is life directionless like the actors on the screen? And what are we going to do about it? Where do we find meaning? Fulfillment?
I was teaching about ideological hegemony through movies in the Cinema class I teach. Watching Weekend caused me to reflect on the lecture I gave. Godard questions the dominant ideology of French Imperialism that circulated in France at the time. Clearly he was radically questioning the continuance of French involvement in Africa and the Middle East. He takes direct opposition to the French government exposing it as Racist and Imperialist. The New York Times critic said it was overt diatribe that audiences should have walked out on, yet, perhaps because I'm a historian, I enjoyed it. One of Godard's best.
I think watching French New Wave films like Godard and Hiroshima Mon Amour and also being a big fan of von Trier has created a situation where I feel like I have to choose between the two. It's either French film or Danish/German film. Von Trier was heavily influenced by the New German Cinema, so perhaps, that is why he thinks the French New Wave has lost significance. Well, I'm no politician and I'm no ideologue about any film movement or any Nationalist film preference. I view film as an art form. To be studied and analyzed in terms of it's qualities. I like films of quality and I will continue to watch as much quality film as I can no matter where or when its from.
On to the film. This film was chaotic and anarchic. I'm no Godard scholar like Richard Brody from the New Yorker, but this film shows where Godard was in the late 1960s. It has several long politically radical monologues which reflect the current debates in French society over neo-colonialism in Algeria, Africa and the Middle East. These long political tracts along with the shots of the highway, car crashes, dead bodies, and directionless narrative depict a film which clearly goes against the classical Cinema. Ebert.com says this was Godard's best film. Perhaps that is right. It is either Weekend or Breathless. Breathless is the big, path breaking hit, Weekend is a reflection of late 60s France. At the crucial point of the film, the two main characters are looking for a ride. It is one of those typical Godard moments when he stops the films action and pulls the viewer in to ask themselves, where is this movie going? What's the purpose of the film? He does it in Pierrot Le Fou and he does it again in Weekend. It also happens in Breathless when Jean Paul Belmondo and Jean Seberg are in the hotel together. Doing nothing, aimless, the film stops, the narrative action slows down and the questions come to audiences mind; where is this film going? What is the point of the film? In Breathless there is a resolution, yet what it means is not clear. Same thing happens in Weekend.
Perhaps it is asking a deep existential question about the meaning of life. What are we supposed to do with life? Is life directionless like the actors on the screen? And what are we going to do about it? Where do we find meaning? Fulfillment?
I was teaching about ideological hegemony through movies in the Cinema class I teach. Watching Weekend caused me to reflect on the lecture I gave. Godard questions the dominant ideology of French Imperialism that circulated in France at the time. Clearly he was radically questioning the continuance of French involvement in Africa and the Middle East. He takes direct opposition to the French government exposing it as Racist and Imperialist. The New York Times critic said it was overt diatribe that audiences should have walked out on, yet, perhaps because I'm a historian, I enjoyed it. One of Godard's best.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Jules and Jim by Francios Truffaut
I was not impressed by this film. I thought the 400 Blows, Truffaut's smashing New Wave success was much better. The story isn't a very strong one. It merely accounts the love lives of a romantic triangle. There isn't much sex, perhaps because of censors? Then it merely rolls over into WWI, shows some stock footage that has been widely viewed, and contributes very little to the film's narrative. The story is slow, which I don't mind so much, but there is little dramatic intensity. Only at the end with some very feigned actions sequences is there any dramatic tension. It gets really campy when the woman in the love triangle tries to kill one of the men with a revolver. Where does the pistol come from? It just appears out from under a pillow. Then is easily taken away. The action does not build up to any resolution. It happens all too quick and resembles some type of crappy student film.
Perhaps the most substandard aspect of the film was the voice over narration. I know that Truffaut may have been trying to go against the traditional screenwriting rule that you show and don't tell. Yet, it comes off very badly. There are a few sequences when it sounds like poetry, but for the most part it does little but attempt to link the story together haphazardly.
I was looking forward to this film. A French love triangle. It was hailed on the back of the DVD cover as one of Truffaut's best films. It was also called a major cinematic event. I was dissappointed. It had nothing like other New Wave films had. The new aesthetic style of Godard's Breathless with it's Jump Cuts or the displays of Parisian artistic life like in Cleo 5 to 7. Or even the intensity and childhood troubles displayed in Truffaut's 400 Blows. It was a lifeless film that lacked any dramatic action.
Perhaps the most substandard aspect of the film was the voice over narration. I know that Truffaut may have been trying to go against the traditional screenwriting rule that you show and don't tell. Yet, it comes off very badly. There are a few sequences when it sounds like poetry, but for the most part it does little but attempt to link the story together haphazardly.
I was looking forward to this film. A French love triangle. It was hailed on the back of the DVD cover as one of Truffaut's best films. It was also called a major cinematic event. I was dissappointed. It had nothing like other New Wave films had. The new aesthetic style of Godard's Breathless with it's Jump Cuts or the displays of Parisian artistic life like in Cleo 5 to 7. Or even the intensity and childhood troubles displayed in Truffaut's 400 Blows. It was a lifeless film that lacked any dramatic action.
Review of Hiroshima Mon Amour
Hiroshima Mon Amour was a very well done film. I heard about this movie from reading Larry Turman's book So You Want to Be a Producer. In the book Turman emphasizes that a producer should have taste and tenacity. Hiroshima Mon Amour is a clear example of taste. It is set in Hiroshima after the nuclear attack. It centers around the brief, but intense affair between a married French woman and a married Japanese man. The story is short, but poignant. They are only together for a matter of days, but each is smitten so much that neither wants to leave. The Japanese man begs the French woman to stay, but she says that she must go.
The first fifteen minutes of the film are the most intense. At first it is unclear what is happening in the movie. Then, gradually it is revealed that the two lovers are in embrace over a montage sequence that shows the dead and affected by the atomic bombing. I was taken aback by the footage. It showed all types of humans mangle, burnt, and dead. I kept wondering when, or if we were going to see the lovers. For the first sequence of the film the two lovers are not shown.
It is only after a significant amount of time has elapsed that we finally see the two lovers. The movie clearly depicts the horrors of war, but what does the relationship between the two lovers symbolize? Why would a Japanese man and a French woman come together? And for what purpose? The film does little to explain why these two come together. There is little exposition. It is only after the first hour of the film that we learn of the French woman's past. Her love affair with a German soldier and the ostracism that she received from her parents and fellow citizens.
Resnais is portraying the difficult relationships that are forged out of war. I think he is showing how the relationship between the French woman and the Japanese man is doomed. I think the film shows that they are star crossed lovers. Why they got together to begin with is unknown and their parting is heartbreaking, but somehow inevitable.
This film caused me to develop sympathy for Japan. The images of the nuclear bombings and the French woman's refusal to stay in Hiroshima with her lover, caused me to think that Japan was mistreated at the end of the war. Why were nuclear bombs used on Japan and not Germany? Furthermore the French woman's rejection of the Japanese man's overtures of romance reveal that she is, at least, unsettled with being with a Japanese man. Yet, they are married, so perhaps it's a matter of staying married rather than splitting up.
Hiroshima Mon Amour was part of the French New Wave of films. It was, to my knowledge, one of the first films to call into question the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think there was a film that dealt with the destruction caused by the Americans before Hiroshima Mon Amour. I saw a documentary film which dealt with it in detail, but that wasn't until well past the 1960s.
Very good film. Aesthetically disturbing with a good story.
The first fifteen minutes of the film are the most intense. At first it is unclear what is happening in the movie. Then, gradually it is revealed that the two lovers are in embrace over a montage sequence that shows the dead and affected by the atomic bombing. I was taken aback by the footage. It showed all types of humans mangle, burnt, and dead. I kept wondering when, or if we were going to see the lovers. For the first sequence of the film the two lovers are not shown.
It is only after a significant amount of time has elapsed that we finally see the two lovers. The movie clearly depicts the horrors of war, but what does the relationship between the two lovers symbolize? Why would a Japanese man and a French woman come together? And for what purpose? The film does little to explain why these two come together. There is little exposition. It is only after the first hour of the film that we learn of the French woman's past. Her love affair with a German soldier and the ostracism that she received from her parents and fellow citizens.
Resnais is portraying the difficult relationships that are forged out of war. I think he is showing how the relationship between the French woman and the Japanese man is doomed. I think the film shows that they are star crossed lovers. Why they got together to begin with is unknown and their parting is heartbreaking, but somehow inevitable.
This film caused me to develop sympathy for Japan. The images of the nuclear bombings and the French woman's refusal to stay in Hiroshima with her lover, caused me to think that Japan was mistreated at the end of the war. Why were nuclear bombs used on Japan and not Germany? Furthermore the French woman's rejection of the Japanese man's overtures of romance reveal that she is, at least, unsettled with being with a Japanese man. Yet, they are married, so perhaps it's a matter of staying married rather than splitting up.
Hiroshima Mon Amour was part of the French New Wave of films. It was, to my knowledge, one of the first films to call into question the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't think there was a film that dealt with the destruction caused by the Americans before Hiroshima Mon Amour. I saw a documentary film which dealt with it in detail, but that wasn't until well past the 1960s.
Very good film. Aesthetically disturbing with a good story.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Review of Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris
I first saw this move in Highs School. I was a big fan of Marlon Brando. I wanted to study all of his films; The Wild One, Streetcar Named Desire, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Last Tango in Paris, anything the local library had in store. This was how I discovered Bernardo Bertolucci who has become one my favorite filmmakers. I have seen several of his films, The Conformist, 1900, and The Last Emperor.
The first time I saw the film I was confused about what was going on. The story is so open ended. It just starts where it starts. There is no introduction or establishing shots, there is no backstory. Brando and his lover just meet in an empty Parisian apartment. From there they engage in an amorous love affair that is interspersed with dialogue, mostly in French, that gives some backstory. Yet, we are mostly left in the dark until we learn that Brando's wife has committed suicide. That is the turning point in the film. It is also where Brando shines as an actor. His performance in that scene is intense, perhaps, as Roger Ebert, says, it was his best work. It is a great scene.
The film delves into bourgeous conceptions of relationships. Brando's young lover is also engaged to be married. Yet she doesn't seem so passionate about her future. Brando's wife had committed suicide so, I think Bertoluccis directly criticized the bourgeous notion that marraige is ultimately a happy experience. That settling down always ends happily. That marriage is an end in itself.. In the movie the two lovers do not exchange names or personal information. It is a purely erotic love affair uncomplicated by past experience. I think Bertolucci makes a statement that our love affairs, our sexual relations, become too complicated by bourgeous conceptions of status, age, etc. I think Last Tango in Paris is a criticism of romantic relations that don't seem based on romance at all.
Perhaps I'm wrong. It's a complicated film. Technically the film is beyond reproach. The jazz soundtack is fabulous. Starraro's cinematography is fantastic as usual. The tracking shots, the shots of Parisian rooftops, and the shots of Brando's lover are all very enticing and keep the viewer entertained. And, of course, the love making scenes are erotic depictions of sex that is free of pretensef. The "butter scene" is strange and unforgettable.
This film caused a lot of controversy when it was released. Bertolucci had just come of off 1900 which was not well recieved. It was hailed as "pornographic." It took Bertolucci sometime before he did another film that reached the gravity of Tango. Certainly it is unrivaled as a film that is erotic, emotional, and frank about sex. Nagisa Oshima, the Japanese New Wave director, experience similar problems with his film In the Realm of the Senses. It took sometime for movie makers to make such controversial films which pushed the boundaries of accepted taste and skirted the censorship laws to not be deemed obscene.
The first time I saw the film I was confused about what was going on. The story is so open ended. It just starts where it starts. There is no introduction or establishing shots, there is no backstory. Brando and his lover just meet in an empty Parisian apartment. From there they engage in an amorous love affair that is interspersed with dialogue, mostly in French, that gives some backstory. Yet, we are mostly left in the dark until we learn that Brando's wife has committed suicide. That is the turning point in the film. It is also where Brando shines as an actor. His performance in that scene is intense, perhaps, as Roger Ebert, says, it was his best work. It is a great scene.
The film delves into bourgeous conceptions of relationships. Brando's young lover is also engaged to be married. Yet she doesn't seem so passionate about her future. Brando's wife had committed suicide so, I think Bertoluccis directly criticized the bourgeous notion that marraige is ultimately a happy experience. That settling down always ends happily. That marriage is an end in itself.. In the movie the two lovers do not exchange names or personal information. It is a purely erotic love affair uncomplicated by past experience. I think Bertolucci makes a statement that our love affairs, our sexual relations, become too complicated by bourgeous conceptions of status, age, etc. I think Last Tango in Paris is a criticism of romantic relations that don't seem based on romance at all.
Perhaps I'm wrong. It's a complicated film. Technically the film is beyond reproach. The jazz soundtack is fabulous. Starraro's cinematography is fantastic as usual. The tracking shots, the shots of Parisian rooftops, and the shots of Brando's lover are all very enticing and keep the viewer entertained. And, of course, the love making scenes are erotic depictions of sex that is free of pretensef. The "butter scene" is strange and unforgettable.
This film caused a lot of controversy when it was released. Bertolucci had just come of off 1900 which was not well recieved. It was hailed as "pornographic." It took Bertolucci sometime before he did another film that reached the gravity of Tango. Certainly it is unrivaled as a film that is erotic, emotional, and frank about sex. Nagisa Oshima, the Japanese New Wave director, experience similar problems with his film In the Realm of the Senses. It took sometime for movie makers to make such controversial films which pushed the boundaries of accepted taste and skirted the censorship laws to not be deemed obscene.
Review of Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac I and II
Nymphomaniac was one of the most perverted films I've ever seen. It has totally changed by perception of Charlotte Gainsbourg. I saw her in Science of Sleep where she played a middle class young woman looking for love. In Nymphomaniac she is a sex obsessed woman who is totally revealed. She delves into levels of perversity that shock bourgeous audiences sense of morality and decency. Yet, that's what makes the film so interesting. It is a depiction of one girl's sexual escapades from her early youth until adutlhood. The concept of the film is controversial by it's very nature. The film was only released in limited theatrical and online. I bought it online through amazon.com. Nymphomaniac, like other films has been part of a trend of "hot at the Art House." With Nymphomaniac and Blue is the Warmest Color sex films have returned after a long hiatus from mainstream culture. Back in the 1970's there were some films that challenged conventional sexual relations. Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris and Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses are two of the most well known films from that period.
Nymphomaniac is a straight forward story. The first part is told in flashbacks. The second volume catches up to Gainsbourg when she is and adult. I was somewhat distracted during my viewing of the film. I suppose it's because of the controversy that surrounded the release of the film. I talked about it with some of my colleagues from where I teach and there was a resounding rejection of the film. I was even called a "perv" for mentioning it in the class I teach. Still, I resounded to watch the film and judge for myself.
The strongest part of the film is the story. And what makes up the story are the sex acts. They shock, they jar the viewer out of complacency, and force you to consider the utter depravity that the heroine of the film lives in. She goes from one sexual encounter to the other, having sex with too many partners to keep track of. At first the nude scenes are erotic. The sexual encounters are arousing. After many scenes with many different partners the heroine is depicted as a dark character with no remorse, guilt, or regret about her behavior that falls outside of accepted bourgeois society. When she finally goes to sex addiction counseling, she tells the group that she is not a sex addict, but a Nymphomaniac. And that she "loves her desire." She is so defiant. She refuses to change. Which makes her a paryha. An outsider who can't get a grip.
I have to say that the most provocative scene is the train scene where Gainsbourg and her friend are competing to see who can sleep with the most men. The sequence is very well done. The shots, the dialogue, all of the actors have British accents, and the girls are dressed in their "fuck me now clothes." The eroticism of these scenes is compelling. It draws the viewer in and leaves them reminded of their first experiences with romance. Young, lustful girls, on a slow train in Denmark, perverted as it may sound it certainly caused shorten breaths and longing gazes at the images on the screen.
The film is further complicated after von Trier made his infamous comments that he was a Nazi. This was his first film since his controversial statement. It cannot be entered into competition at Cannes because von Trier has been banned from the festival which I think is a bit harsh of a sentence. Yet he still has other film festivals to show his films. This controversy came up again and again when I brought up the film at school. I think it created a negativity about the release of the film which caused people to see more of the politics of his statement rather than the artistic expression of his film.
I'm biased though. I'm a huge fan of von Trier films. Ever since I saw Europa I have studied and watched von Trier's films. I have also studied the Dogma 95 film movement and have watched several other Danish films. I think he is a great director. Perhaps the best of his generation.
Nymphomaniac is a straight forward story. The first part is told in flashbacks. The second volume catches up to Gainsbourg when she is and adult. I was somewhat distracted during my viewing of the film. I suppose it's because of the controversy that surrounded the release of the film. I talked about it with some of my colleagues from where I teach and there was a resounding rejection of the film. I was even called a "perv" for mentioning it in the class I teach. Still, I resounded to watch the film and judge for myself.
The strongest part of the film is the story. And what makes up the story are the sex acts. They shock, they jar the viewer out of complacency, and force you to consider the utter depravity that the heroine of the film lives in. She goes from one sexual encounter to the other, having sex with too many partners to keep track of. At first the nude scenes are erotic. The sexual encounters are arousing. After many scenes with many different partners the heroine is depicted as a dark character with no remorse, guilt, or regret about her behavior that falls outside of accepted bourgeois society. When she finally goes to sex addiction counseling, she tells the group that she is not a sex addict, but a Nymphomaniac. And that she "loves her desire." She is so defiant. She refuses to change. Which makes her a paryha. An outsider who can't get a grip.
I have to say that the most provocative scene is the train scene where Gainsbourg and her friend are competing to see who can sleep with the most men. The sequence is very well done. The shots, the dialogue, all of the actors have British accents, and the girls are dressed in their "fuck me now clothes." The eroticism of these scenes is compelling. It draws the viewer in and leaves them reminded of their first experiences with romance. Young, lustful girls, on a slow train in Denmark, perverted as it may sound it certainly caused shorten breaths and longing gazes at the images on the screen.
The film is further complicated after von Trier made his infamous comments that he was a Nazi. This was his first film since his controversial statement. It cannot be entered into competition at Cannes because von Trier has been banned from the festival which I think is a bit harsh of a sentence. Yet he still has other film festivals to show his films. This controversy came up again and again when I brought up the film at school. I think it created a negativity about the release of the film which caused people to see more of the politics of his statement rather than the artistic expression of his film.
I'm biased though. I'm a huge fan of von Trier films. Ever since I saw Europa I have studied and watched von Trier's films. I have also studied the Dogma 95 film movement and have watched several other Danish films. I think he is a great director. Perhaps the best of his generation.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Comparison of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago and Luchino Visconti's Senso
I thoroughly enjoyed both of these films. They are "old skool" films. Yet they reach a level of dramatic intensity that is unrivalled in contemporary Cinema. Both deal with doomed love affairs set during times of intense political crisis. Doctor Zhivago during the Russian revolution and Senso during Italy's war with Austria.
In both films the love affairs turn bitterly sour leaving viewers with feelings of emptiness. In both of these films politics disrupts the love lives of innocent people who can only act within the tumultuous times that they live in. Revolution, war, treacherous, greedy characters who are only out for themselves pervade both narratives. I am reminded of Kamorovsky from Zhivago and the Austrian soldier from Senso. Kamavosky abuses Lara and is a totally corrupt character. The Austrian soldier manipulates and devastates the Italian Countesa. She is willing to give him money and her devotion. Only in return he ends up with a prostitute. Using her money to abscond from military service and live a libidinous lifestyle.
In both films the despicable characters are exposed as unscrupulous. Kamarovsky moves to Siberia and is never heard of again. The Austrian soldier fairs worse. The Italian Countess turns him and is executed for lying about his ability to continue his military service.
Both films were made during a similar era. David Lean was at the height of his powers making Zhivago after Lawrence of Arabia. Visconti was hailed as part of the neo-realist movement and went on to make several films.
I've returned several times to Zhivago. There is something irresistible about the bittersweet end, but the continuing vitality of the Lara poems long after Yuri's death speak a message in direct opposition to Stalinism. Furthermore, it's indictment of Stalinism at the time of the thaw during the Khruschev premiership gives the film added political potency. The shot of Lara walking off to her imminent dissappearance against a giant poster of Stalin is one of the great shots David Lean ever did.
Senso may not have the romantic bittersweetness or the grand political message. Yet does have the ethnic conflict between Austrians and Italians writ large. From the film we see the worst of how the Austrian army behaved and treated it's subjects with arrogance and disdain. The innocent and naive character of the Countess creates a deeply sympathetic feeling for her. She is torn between what she thinks is true love and the aspirations to independence of Italy portrayed through it's revolutionaries. In the end she is deeply dissappointed. We are left with disenchanment. At the end of the film little has been resolved. The Countessa like Italy is in deep emotional anguish unable to free itself from it's oppressors. Yet, the Countesa, like Italy fights for revenge and freedom.
Great films by great directors. Both deal with historical periods and deep questions of political meaning. Can you change human nature regarding Zhivago and freedom and how to attain it in Senso. Both were grandly staged with production values that make them two of the best films of their era.
In both films the love affairs turn bitterly sour leaving viewers with feelings of emptiness. In both of these films politics disrupts the love lives of innocent people who can only act within the tumultuous times that they live in. Revolution, war, treacherous, greedy characters who are only out for themselves pervade both narratives. I am reminded of Kamorovsky from Zhivago and the Austrian soldier from Senso. Kamavosky abuses Lara and is a totally corrupt character. The Austrian soldier manipulates and devastates the Italian Countesa. She is willing to give him money and her devotion. Only in return he ends up with a prostitute. Using her money to abscond from military service and live a libidinous lifestyle.
In both films the despicable characters are exposed as unscrupulous. Kamarovsky moves to Siberia and is never heard of again. The Austrian soldier fairs worse. The Italian Countess turns him and is executed for lying about his ability to continue his military service.
Both films were made during a similar era. David Lean was at the height of his powers making Zhivago after Lawrence of Arabia. Visconti was hailed as part of the neo-realist movement and went on to make several films.
I've returned several times to Zhivago. There is something irresistible about the bittersweet end, but the continuing vitality of the Lara poems long after Yuri's death speak a message in direct opposition to Stalinism. Furthermore, it's indictment of Stalinism at the time of the thaw during the Khruschev premiership gives the film added political potency. The shot of Lara walking off to her imminent dissappearance against a giant poster of Stalin is one of the great shots David Lean ever did.
Senso may not have the romantic bittersweetness or the grand political message. Yet does have the ethnic conflict between Austrians and Italians writ large. From the film we see the worst of how the Austrian army behaved and treated it's subjects with arrogance and disdain. The innocent and naive character of the Countess creates a deeply sympathetic feeling for her. She is torn between what she thinks is true love and the aspirations to independence of Italy portrayed through it's revolutionaries. In the end she is deeply dissappointed. We are left with disenchanment. At the end of the film little has been resolved. The Countessa like Italy is in deep emotional anguish unable to free itself from it's oppressors. Yet, the Countesa, like Italy fights for revenge and freedom.
Great films by great directors. Both deal with historical periods and deep questions of political meaning. Can you change human nature regarding Zhivago and freedom and how to attain it in Senso. Both were grandly staged with production values that make them two of the best films of their era.
Review of The Leopard by Visconti
Visconti's The Leopard is a historical epic with some action scenes but comes across as a slow moving depiction of mid 19th Italy. Set in the time of the risorgimento, it shows the conflicts both physically and ideologically between the revolutionaries and royalists. Lavishly decorated and shot, it is grand, but falls short with any intense conflict and is largely dialogue driven with plenty of discussion of the future of Italy. There are long discussions about the place of Italy in the Modern World, about the future of the Italian government, what form it would take, who would be in charge, and where would the nobility fit in. This centers around the major character of the film, Burt Lancaster. He plays an old aristocrat who does not adjust well to the changing political climate of Italy. There are several shots of Lancaster staring off into space or deeply gazing at himself in the mirror as tears stream down his face.
In the final sequence of the film a huge staging of a ballroom dance, Lancaster feels out of place. He feels to old and dispossessed to happily take part in the festivities. His face is stone, his emotion is total alienation. He drifts through the party like a ghost. In the final shot of the film he walks down a nameless street in an Italian barrio. Perhaps he has become like the street, just another person in Italy without any priveledged status.
This was supposed to be one of Visconti's best films. And in some ways it is a great film. I was interested in it to see how the risorgimento is depicted in film. In the beginning I was pleased there were grand battles with soldiers fighting for the republic against mounted calvary men fighting on the royalist side. Yet, I became bored with the film during the dance scenes. There was also a romance that emerged during the film which was also hard to believe. It was an arranged marriage and the lovers were just too passionately in love.
I was looking to this film to compare it to other Visconti films like Senso. Unfortunately, I was somewhat dissappointed. The Leopard is not as good as Senso. It doesn't rise to the dramatic intensity that Senso does. There is no conflict. The Leopard is too much atmosphere and not enough substance. In another blog post I will compare Senso to Doctor Zhivago, the much praised film of David Lean.
In the final sequence of the film a huge staging of a ballroom dance, Lancaster feels out of place. He feels to old and dispossessed to happily take part in the festivities. His face is stone, his emotion is total alienation. He drifts through the party like a ghost. In the final shot of the film he walks down a nameless street in an Italian barrio. Perhaps he has become like the street, just another person in Italy without any priveledged status.
This was supposed to be one of Visconti's best films. And in some ways it is a great film. I was interested in it to see how the risorgimento is depicted in film. In the beginning I was pleased there were grand battles with soldiers fighting for the republic against mounted calvary men fighting on the royalist side. Yet, I became bored with the film during the dance scenes. There was also a romance that emerged during the film which was also hard to believe. It was an arranged marriage and the lovers were just too passionately in love.
I was looking to this film to compare it to other Visconti films like Senso. Unfortunately, I was somewhat dissappointed. The Leopard is not as good as Senso. It doesn't rise to the dramatic intensity that Senso does. There is no conflict. The Leopard is too much atmosphere and not enough substance. In another blog post I will compare Senso to Doctor Zhivago, the much praised film of David Lean.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)