Scenes from a Marriage (1973)

Director: Ingmar Bergman

After a couple years of trying, I managed to see the whole film. And I tried so many times…never managed to get over the first half. I feel a little bit proud of myself getting over this horror. As much as I love Bergman, I have to recognize that this is one of his most awful tries. Focusing all the drama on the universal white Swedish bourgeois family with no social network whatsoever, he manages to depict a gloomy world with no way out. Any outburst against the patriarchal matrix is repressed with fists and intellectual bullshit analysis. A feminist critique made by Liv Ulman’s character on her miserable condition finds no answer but pure violence. And the end is just sick: a return to the oppressive status quo, with a self-righteous husband and a submissive and dreamy wife, where past conflicts are seen as detached experience, a needed element for a “healthy” relationship. And all based on personal guilt and useless individual struggle, with no connection to an outside world that can face similar problems. I definitely not recommend this very long crap, especially if you are a Bergman enthusiast.

New musical for women only. Literally.

Jaweed Kaleema writes about a musical, Light for Greytowers, a film by an Orthodox Jewish group that is to be screened in Miami. Nothing outrageous so far, only that the so-called soul-stirring musical drama made by women and girls, for women and girls is really meant to be seen by women only.

The movie, which has an all-female, mostly Orthodox cast, was kicked out of the Jewish Film Festival in Jerusalem last fall when its producers asked that men be barred from screenings.

An Orthodox Jewish law called Kol Isha forbids men from listening to a woman sing. Rabbis disagree on whether it applies only to live performances, but Kol Nashama Performing Arts Conservatory, the Los Angeles group that produced the film, isn't taking chances. Gary Lund, Colony Theatre director, said he will comply with the group's request.

As you can see in their flyer for Miami, it is only for women. Robin Garbose, the director, needed rabbinical approval and a grant from the Jewish Community Foundation to make the movie. She thinks it will be well received by conservative Christian and Muslim mothers and daughters, who also "value modesty".

Compared to "The Color Purple," with its cast of strong black Southern women determined to live by their own rules, this musical sounds for me like another twisted patriarchal exclusion of women that celebrate their exclusion. The director explains:

"The power of the woman's voice is incredible," Garbose said. "Only when the Messiah comes will the men get to hear the women sing. I would like that to happen today, so I can get a good distribution deal."

I can hear the men singing in this movie also, without even seeing it.

Examined Life (2008)

After "Zizek!", Astra Taylor brings another hit movie. Somhow similar, in the sense of placing abstract complex ideas into space, connecting them to a location, "Examined Life" puts 8 of the most influential contemporary thinkers in their place, or more psecific, in the place of their ideas.

"Peter Singer's thoughts on the ethics of consumption are amplified against the backdrop of Fifth Avenue's posh boutiques. Michael Hardt ponders the nature of revolution while surrounded by symbols of wealth and leisure. Judith Butler and a friend stroll through San Francisco's Mission District questioning our culture's fixation on individualism. And while driving through Manhattan, Cornel West compares philosophy to jazz and blues."

Sounds fun to watch. And anyway Butler and Zizek are great on camera.

Forbidden Milk

I was about to write a post about Gus van Sant's movie. I thought it was kind of softish, but a good initiative of mainstreaming alternative heroes. A sort of low-fat Milk in a genre framework of melodrama. Nancy Goldstein wrote an article on it: highly informative for those who are not so familiar with Harvey Milk and the struggles in Castro district, supporting my suspicions on the cleaninng up of the story but keeping the movie close to the genre specific. And not to mention how Sean Penn could fit the sympathetic direction of a straightened movie about a gay politician. A good-old Holywood style movie for everyone to watch.

I didn't write this post only to see today while reading some Romanian news that a Romanian commission for classifying movies, part of National Centre of Cinematography (CNC) rated Milk with R (or forbidden under 18 in Romania). Andreea Tanase, Cristina Corciovescu, Tudorel Butoi, Oana Stroe and Vladimir Marin, the members of the commission, took this decision because there are some images with a hanged man, fellatio and, most of all, it's propaganda for a specific sexual orientation. I would love to see how they forbid all movies that fit the framework of propaganda for specific sexual orientations, all those lovely romantic comedies and so on (but of course the only sexual orientations that are forbidden are the non-heterosexual one) . We should not forget that we are talking of a state institution here that shows right-in-your-face homophobia with an obscene nonchalance.

The only reaction came from the movie distributor, RoImage: they contested the decision. Fucking great. Goodnight, Romania! I hope I'll never see your ugly face again! The only place where Milk is forbidden for kids under 18.

Sergiu Nicolaescu vs Edward D Wood jr.

First of all, who the fuck is S.Nicolaescu? Considered the worst or the best Romanian director of all times, he begin his career as an engineer so much in love with cheap American gangster movies that he started to make them. You can still observe in his old movies from 1960s and 1970s the good-old-engineer eye for perfect imitation. He loved moral stories and also big Hollywood epics. He found his way to support his projects by the Communist Party in charge, of course with some compromises, which are better seen in his later nationalist movies, following the political lines of the dominant discourse. This is enough for introduction, I am sure there is a lot of stuff on Sergiu online, if you want to get into his plastic universe. What I want to write more about is his last movie, from 2008, The Survivor. He manages to resurrect one of his dear characters from the 1970s, a leftist police officer that fights the interwar gangsters. Now the setting is changed, the police officer escapes the communist hell from the 1970s and ends up in Prague where he plays Russian roulette for survival. All the good-old characters are there, a wonderful occasion for our ragged hero to remember: Sergiu brings in all the possible clichés of an afternoon action American movie to support some local bias, anti-Semitism (the evil Jew that hunts his memories, the Jew that has no consciousness when he destroys lives, it’s all for the money, get it, right?), racism (the musicians are toys in the hand of the evil Jew, they are “the sentimental gypsies”, the one “good” and faithful Roma is a small thief, a motif for friendly plain racist jokes with no motivation in the script, just for Sergiu’s own racist pleasure I guess), sexism (women have no lines, they are undressed and killed, insisting on cock-teasing details) and direct assholism. Sergiu’s success at the box office is given by a nostalgia for state socialist symbols that lead the way for some contemporary bigotism. One last thing to mention: the script for The Survivor won the money from the Romanian state institution for cinema when the script for 4,3,2 by Mungiu was only on the 4^th place.

Nicolaescu and Wood share same hysterical obsession for their self representation in their movies: it is all about them, their current age when the movie is made, their bodily portrait, their small obsessions and fetishes. Ed Wood became a cult hero in the eyes of contemporary yuppies as something extreme: “he is the worst”, a source for humor, without paying attention at his extreme subversion of Hollywood cinematography, narrations and characters. By comparing the worst Romanian director to the worst director of all times, there are some significant differences to point out: while Edward D. Wood jr. brings forth nonlinear scripts that sound crazy, his Angora fetish, his homosocial buddies and personal drags, Sergiu comes with a strong reiteration of the most conservative version of the status quo with all its deadly elements. They are both sincere and they both talk about themselves with ridiculous cinematic poetics: that marks the whole distinction.

But more about Eddie in future posts, his book Hollywood Rat Race is on my very short list to be read.

My favs for 2008

I was thinking a lot lately for the highlights of last year, what happened and what changed. A lot of stuff but here are just some personal favorite items:

Favorite movie: Mein liebster Feind - Klaus Kinski by Werner Herzog - even if it was made in 1999, I watched it so many times in 2008 that i've learned most of the lines and had favourite parts for special moments. I anticipate that it will be a well-watched movie this year also.








Favorite performance: The Funeral by Péter Nádas, directed by László Bocsárdi, Comedy Theatre Bucharest, I've already wrote about this show here









Favorite album: Beirut – Gulag Orkestar from 2006 - happy to discover Beirut in 2008, it can change my mood in a second (maybe that's why I've listened it so many times) and then you cannot stop listening to it, you have to go for the whole album on and on.



Favorite art exhibit: Love, Erotica, Passion Exhibition in Prague - erotic themes in 15th to 19th century at the Clam Gallas Pallace in Husova Street. I hope they still have this exhibition. Well organized, wonderful possible explorations. The art pieces were taken from Prague City Archives, National Gallery and the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague. Amazing expressions of sexuality in so many twisted ways.

Favorite book: Mad Men and Medusas: Reclaiming Hysteria by Juliet Mitchell, from 2001 - this book made my life easier and gave me a lot of exciting ideas for my work and being-in-the-world (not only the academic one)









Favorite live show: CocoRosie at Trafo - a complete show: music, performing, costumes, images, interaction and Sierra and Bianca, I had it in my mind for so long.





Favorite moment of 2008: open rehearsal of Jehanne Complex, the idea that we actually did it, and there were people there to close the performing circle. A great experience all in all, it gave me a great feeling concerning theatre, my projects and what you can do with amazing people that you can meet in so many contexts but never like in a performing situation.

Tu Ridi (1998)

Directors: Paolo & Vittorio Taviani

based on two short stories by Pirandello, the challenge of this tough Taviani feature is the construction and how it works for the viewer. I've seen it twice because for the first time it really puzzled me in the sense of "what the fuck was that?!?!" Some people say it was just some Taviani pretentious bullshit, badly picking some shitty stories or oh! it was so poetic, it was such an exquisite image blah blah blah. You can avoid this movie in so many ways because it is so goddamn uncanny. But here is my long-thought-analysis: its difficulty or beauty stays in its technique. What they do here is quite classic: deconstruction in two. The brothers are splitting everything into two, the movie, the stories, the characters, reality, time, location and so on. The splitting goes to the level of a spiraling infinite and can make you dizzy at some point. But it's a fascinating exercise and so damn simple after all. Of course, being used with some narrative styles that follow strict rules and conventions, being realism or hardcore experimental, this uncanny diversion explodes in your face and you don't know what hits you. Highly recommended.

Pedar (1996)

director: Majid Majidi

Yesterday morning we watched an Iranian movie, Father (Pedar), directed by Majid Majidi in 1996. Looking around on the net afterwards I was surprised to only find positive and extremely praising reviews, since my experience of the movie was quite the opposite. The story is set in contemporary (I guess) Iran, and the overtly Oedipal plot revolves around 14-year old Mehrollah who goes away to work in order to support his widowed mother and three sisters, only to find her hastily remarried to the local policeman upon his return. Unwilling to accept the new man in his mother’s life as a father, in fact, unwilling to accept a man other than himself in his mother’s life, he unrelentlessly goes about harassing her and the new husband, with male ego outbursts that the director seems to admire as heroic, but that end up being pretty annoying for the spectator who does not have much investment in patriarchy. The storyline doesn`t have much else going for itself, it`s a back and forth between the policeman and Mehrollah`s masculinities, climaxing with the boy managing to steal the policeman`s gun (his gun, get it?) and making a run for it. In the end, quite predictably, the two are brought together by their constant chase and the cheesy ending suggests that Mehrollah will finally be able to accept the policeman as a father figure.
Now, this movie could have been done in a way that is actually meaningful and interesting, given that the theme offers a lot of room for giving depth to the characters and their circumstances. However this movie is made from a normative male perspective, anchoring itself in its biases and conditions uncritically, and presenting them to us as if they were universal values we should understand and sympathize with. Why should I be moved by a deeply patriarchal story in which the crisis is triggered by the absence of the father (an absent presence metaphorically, and literally in the photo that the boy is sporting around) and is solved by finding another male to fill in this position? The character of the mother is completely subdued, she is given very few articulate lines (her token appearances are marked by gasps, cries and tears), and seems to exist only as a pretext for more male existential angst . To be fair, the mother is not presented without a certain degree of condescending compassion, but her gestures and feelings are not conferred with the heroic, tragic dimension that her sons` are. For whom, of course, the challenge is even greater now that she is married to the representative of a very phallic institution, the police, that requires Mehrollah to bring out the big guns of his alpha male kit. In the end, it seems to me that this is movie is a game of whose dick is bigger, an obsession that is apparently not restricted to Western patriarchy.

Who is The Rapeman?

Elena pointed me this short notice on feministing.com so I've done a little research.

So, who is actually The Rapeman? on imdb.com at the trivia section we find out that the cartoons are based on "humorous Japanese manga (comic book) series, written by Keiko Aisaki, a woman." Like that can justify its content or make the male viewers safer in their pleasure of watching some nice rape scenes. It appeared from 1985 to 1992 in 13 volumes. Exploring its good marketability, Pink Pineapple produced nine Rapeman live action feature films between 1993 and 1996 and it was rapidly transformed into a cult manga/film fetish in the US.

The Rapeman is a classic super hero with a twist: a shy high school teacher by day he does "great justice" by night and of course has a motto: "Righting wrongs through penetration". His cases are solved by one method in making justice - rape and the "villains" are, picking randomly, a gold digger girlfriend, a boyfriend stealer, a lesbian wife, etc. Even more outrageous, if in the middle of a rape scene, the woman becomes unresponsive or expresses enjoyment, he uses special techniques such as "M69 Screwdriver" or "Infinite Loop" to apply more pain to the villain.

I was surprised to see after a quick search that all information that I could find is presenting the character in a positive light (except the feminist page from where I've started which doesn't say much after all). What for me is ultimately wrong, not having any doubt about it, it is read in a most sincere misogynistic way possible as fun and even ethical. As one guy says "once you get past that whole raping women thing he’s actually a really good guy." That is exactly the issue, how can you pass the "raping women thing"? Considered by its fans more like an intelligent twist on the classic superhero boring narration: " Only in Japan would this type of production be made - and thank God for it. RAPEMAN is a strangely fun and "charming" super-hero" mentioning again that the rape is always done for a good cause. One negative point noted by another reviewer: "Hard-core sleaze fans will probably be disappointed as RAPEMAN isn't nearly as "rough" as some of the older pinku material, but there is some nudity - and there's something that's hard to nail-down that makes this one a big winner in my book. I think the combination of light comedy and strange concept works..." or can it be that straight forward misogyny is simply entertaining? Another guy: "The plot of "Rapeman" may sound offensive for some viewers...In fact it's surprisingly funny and humorous. A perfect flick to cheer somebody up!" Somebody, anybody? If you are a rapist, i guess this is some really good fun.
Rapeman has the effect of even changing the whole concept of rape, you might become rape friendly after watching it: "Most people find the subject of rape a very strong, criminal and evil part of life. And they have every right to believe that way. Then there are other people who think rape can be used as a means of justice, a way to avenge rights and honor. Well, before this movie I always thought Rape was a weird touchy subject. Obviously there's some whacked out nut cases out there, hurting people and families for their own sick pleasures and some of these sickos will actually commit murder. But I also believed that the act of rape can be a desirous outcome for certain people. Well, the latter is tackled somewhat in a movie I'll most likely never forget."
By reinforcing some good/evil dichotomies and the cliche of punishing the evil ones, rape becomes a just method for bringing peace and order. Here is another fan: "People are getting hurt, and that is not right. Rapeman stands for justice, honor and peace. He will not stop until the bad guys get what's coming to them! The movie is believe it or not, warmhearted. It's full of humor, and has some nice sex scenes...they are actually rape scenes but they don't play out like rape. Which for me makes the movie that much better. I wouldn't be down with this if the rape scenes were reminiscent of Irreversible. It take an incredibly serious subject and makes it seem OK....for 75 minutes anyways. It's definitely one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen in a while. And I'm definitely looking forward to the sequels. Yup, that's right! 9 outta 10 for the amazing Rapeman." When rape is done for a good cause, hurray! Well, I don't really think so.

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971)

director: Roy Ward Baker

Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde is one of the goriest Hammer production. Set in a Victorian London with all the right ingredients including thick fog and English accent, the story goes in a very interesting direction.

We can understand the whole thing as a sexual difference story: Dr. Jekyll is a pheminst (a term introduced by Braidotti to name men interested in feminist discourse, being fascinated, puzzled and intimidated by feminist writing. They get in the discoursive game with a perversily provocative purpose: to claim the phalus once more, this time from within the feminist discourse.) This movie shows exactly this dark side of exploring sexual difference in order to "understand" women and to see "what is a woman".

In order to find an answer to his scientific research of what is a woman and what makes her immortal, in order to become immortal himself, Dr. Jekyll gets involved in some "queer business, sergeant - very queer."

His scientific interest in what makes sexual difference takes place in a very empirical way: he manages to find in his subjectivity something more than his subjectivity itself, a strange body at its very center: "Put a woman in your life and one day… you'll wake up and look in the mirror and see a changed man!" This is exactly the Lacanian extimacy, the stranger as an expression of the innermost intimacy (a woman in Dr Jekyll's case) or the Freudian das Ding. Dr Jekyll moves around the thing that is "in itself more than itself." The distance between the subject and das Ding is needed because as Zizek says das Ding is "too hot to be approached closely" and because of getting too close to das Ding "love for the neighbour necessarily turns into destructive hatred." Das Ding is not universal and has a particular place in the life of the subject and in Dr Jekyll's case appears from his interest in exploring and reinforcing a fixed dichotomous sexual difference from a clear masculine positionality. His interest in femininity and its secret for immortality, the object petit a, that is never shown on screen but its extraction is fatal, brings the horror and death of female characters. Getting back to Lacan, the motto for this movie can be: "I love you, but there is in you something more than you, object petit a, which is why I mutilate you."

One obsessive line appear in this movie:"You've got to do bad to do good, ain't ya?" But what does it mean? Even if it seems a simple horror B movie unimportant part of bad dialogue, it's meaning can move us further in the main argument: it is exactly the Lacanian thesis that Good is only the mask of a radical absolute Evil. This mask is "the indecent obsession by das Ding, the atrocious, obscene Thing." (Zizek) Good is just another name for Bad, a Bad with no particular, pathological status. Das Ding becomes indecently present, obsessive, a traumatic body, making Dr. Jekyll free from a pathological attachment to a particular worldly sexual difference that he imposes on his understanding of the world. Good is only a way of keeping a distance towards the evil Thing, a distance that makes it bearable. This particular distance is broken in this story.

What can I say after watching this movie, besides a personal increase of attention on deep obssesions and hidden das Dings, is just beware pheminists working on sexual difference, you never know when they might kill.

Pleasant Days (2002)

Director: Kornél Mundruczó

Kornél Mundruczó is one of my favorite Hungarian directors and I went to this movie with a big open heart, not to mention that my friend Gergo who took me there was completely ecstatic about his latest movie, Delta. But surprise! With my entire positive attitude, this was one of my worst experiences in a Hungarian cinema. This movie just doesn't work. I accuse the script, the actors and the director. The good image makes it better a bit but at some points you have the feeling that you are in a hip hop music video from Eastern Europe with all the urban clichés of dirt possible. Minimalism just doesn't work in all cases, even if I am a fan of this aesthetic. Without a strong plot, without strong actors that have something to show and some scenes to act, you can't make a whole movie. I've read somewhere that 3/4 is improvised and the director was pretty proud of that...I won't make a fuss out of it unless I want to blame someone else for my failure. And this is the perfect case that improvisation doesn't work all the time. Or we are not all Godards... But there is another big problem here: by making this extreme micro-realist experiment, Mundruczó falls into the trap of being a misogynistic author. What’s the purpose of all this? One can fairly say: abusing his women characters and his feminine cast in a pleasure of masculine domination. And that is done pretty well. A huge disappointment. I have to see Delta to wipe this bitter taste.

A Place in the Sun (1951)

Director: George Stevens

Filmed partially on Lake Tahoe, a place of nice memories for me, this old Hollywood movie, a box office failure but awarded with 6 Oscars, really pissed me off. The main character, George Eastman, is constructed as a modernist tragic hero from a Camus play (the movie is actually based on Theodore Dreiser's novel "An American Tragedy" from 1925, the title is pretty clear). Going deeper, the plot is based upon the true story of Chester Gillette, who murdered his pregnant girlfriend in 1906. He was tried, convicted and executed in 1908. The ghost of the actual victim, Grace Brown, is said to haunt the house where she lived in New York. Instead of a good ghost movie we have an awful discourse on how unrealistic it is to break your class and status barriers in trying to dream of something that you can never achieve. Conservative bullshit at its purest this movie tells you nicely to be happy with what you have and never try to get more. Unless you want to deal with your tragic guilt of breaking divine rules. And we all know that you don’t want to do that, wouldn’t you?

and i didn't say anything about the women characters that are the most stereotypical boring uninteresting figures i've seen for a while...

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

director: Andrew Dominik

An unexpected delight, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, offers an extreme cinematic interpretation of a Western story with well known characters. The narrative gets lost in an incredible exposure. The meta-cinematic discourse, brechtian to the core, that finds its climax in the scenes of the theatrical event of the shooting that rememorizes the scene that we saw minutes earlier, is constantly present. The characters of Jesse and Robert are constructed through a process of alienation. Brad Pitt is telling the story of Jesse James and we recognize him, Casey Affleck is an incredible presence, hysterically mimicking the Jesse construction in a dizzying myse-en-abyme. Dominik, the director, considers his film "a dark, contemplative examination of fame and infamy" and I can see that his examination goes beyond the Jesse James story into the acting method, character construction, narrative and cinematic expression. Dominik is making, in my reading, first of all an examination that gives new captivating film aesthetics that can chill your spine without taking you mind&body in the realist milieu. It transports you on a different path in the cinematic world, in the analysis of characters and images, sound and narration, in a complex process of reception. Dominik reveals the reality in illusion a la Zizek but this dark contemplative reality is much alive and fascinating than what the possible illusion without revealing itself can give you as spectator.

Man With a Movie Camera (1929)

Dziga Vertov in his Soviet fashioned outfit

Man With a Movie Camera

Vertov's 1929 film has a reputation similar to Citizen Kane in film studies as the most analyzed movie of all time. A brief prologue announces that Man With A Movie Camera will contain no intertitles, plot or theatrical devices—Vertov considered fictional projects untruthful and counter-revolutionary—and will be an attempt "at creating a truly international, absolute language of cinema based on its total separation from the language of theater and literature." Vertov created a landmark of cinematic history, reworked lately by the Soviet montage theory and the underground movies of the 1960s.

Vertov investigates the camera as a tool for controlling and shaping our perceptions of reality and perhaps reality itself: the film opens with a theater that is getting ready for spectators without human intervention. Vertov planned every shot, every cut, meticulously and Man With a Movie Camera is still an important work for film classes and visual theorists. The film shows a series of glances at modern Russian life, with the action moving from filmed scenes, to scenes of people filming, to scenes of film being edited, to scenes of an audience reacting to the film and back again with fascinating fluidity. The camera itself is detached and also the subject of the film.

The story behind Vertov's film is perhaps more interesting than the story itself. Vertov spent several years filming, then just retired to an editing room where he supposedly threw every technique he had at the print, just to see what would happen. What we have is a film without a naration that shows the possiblities of the cinematic language.

When Vertov places the word "experiment" in the opening credits, he opens up a great deal of speculation to the meaning of his images. He could be trying to tell us something in an ethnographic way about realities in Soviet Union, but he's already said he's playing with the art form, so how ethnografic relevant is the significance of a scene?

Despite numerous differences, a good comparison lies in Luis Bunuel's breakthrough avant-garde Un Chien Andalou. Both 1929 experimental films contain surreal imagery and were created for artistic purposes to explore new directions for cinema, and both have influenced filmmakers ever since. Although Vertov primarily wanted to explore the technological possibilities of cinematography and the visual medium, while Bunuel focused on shocking audiences with representations of dreams, they both converge with cinematic expression that forces audiences to form their own meanings from the wordless imagery.

animations for Oscar - changing face of cinematography

here is an article from NY Times that makes you wonder.... how did the enemy of Hollywood got inside the temple...

Science and Garbage (2003) by Pierre Herbert and Bob Ostertag

2003 - Pierre Herbert and Bob Ostertag perform together in Science and Garbage, a highly political Brechtian performance, where music and images are made out of coca cola cans and toy trucks, plastic toys like monkeys, frogs, penguins, soldiers, trains, tanks and planes, rubber ducks, apples, M&Ms, chips, lettuce and German newspapers. Sounds are created mainly by eating and drinking very close to the microphone and then looping and mixing them. Disturbing incredibly ironic, images of Bush and Iraqi victims are hunting the viewer, all in connection to trivial goods of a consumerist society.

Saraband (2003) by Ingmar Bergman

poate in asteptarea unei saptamani plina de filme pe care imi doream sa le vad si revad, dar pentru care nu am timp acum, revizitez aceste pseudo-cronici de vara trecuta si vreau sa gust putin din ce apare pe aici. sa ne intoarcem la un final. Saraband.

vintage Bergman: 10 capitole foarte bine portionate, un ritm controlat la sange, cadrele specifice, actorii bine cunoscuti, cursivitatea bine cunoscuta, static pana cand devine fascinant, 4 personaje care te tin in scaun pe toata durata filmului facut pentru TV.

Bergman isi incheie conturile si isi inchide lanterna magica. un film realizat la 86 de ani, dupa ce spusese in 1982 ca Fanny and Alexander este ultimul sau film. Saraband ramane filmul sa de sfarsit, un film de o sinceritate criminala si de o forta uluitoare.

un film despre nefericire sau despre dorinta de nefericire; mereu ne dorim ceva mai sus decat nevoia noastra primara de a fi multumiti, granita propriei fericiri devine granita unei patologii sociale.

cum ar spune un critic de film: Bergman - game over.

Querelle (1982) by Fassbinder

"But what's normal?"—Nono














Jean Genet este revizitat şi începe să prinda forta mai ales prin lentilele fascinante ale lui Fassbinder. Cel mai gay film din istorie. Şi cel mai lucrat, acelaşi univers feeric, acelaşi registru nonrealist, dar atât de aproape de noi. Viaţa de pe peliculă omoară viaţa. Filmul lui Fassbinder e mai viu decât orice alt documentar despre această lume ascunsă şi impenetrabilă a homosexualităţii din porturi, cu toate fetişurile şi clişeele sale.

Querelle, povestea unui marinar (Bruce Davis) ancorat in Brest, este un eseu suprarealist asupra descoperirii sexualitatii. Bazat pe romanul lui Genet, Querelle de Brest, filmul adreseaza diverse forme de sexualitate si iubire.

Brest este orasul in care nimic nu este ceea ce pare, Querelle fiind un film greu de privit si greu de inteles. Citindu-l pe Genet, imaginile se limpezesc si povestea devine familiara. Genet era un hot si un peste, gay iesit din closet si artist pe deasupra. Scrierile sale mizau pe confruntarea autoritatii morale prin atacarea sensibilitatilor audientei. Fassbinder imbratiseaza total punctul de vedere al lui Genet, scotand la suprafata un artist care s-a autodepasit. Acesta este ultimul Fassbinder, cel de dinaintea sinuciderii, bazat si el pe realitatile dureroase, pe lupta personajului de a depasi presiunea saraciei si a controlului social, ceea ce dezumanizaza iremediabil. Brechtian calculat, Fassbinder foloseste ingredientele magice foarte atent, exagereaza cu stil si isi gandeste in amanunt distantarea jocului actorilor, scopul ultim fiind critica politica prin intermediul produsului artistic.

Un atac concertat asupra conventiilor referitoare la identitatea sexuala asa cum apar in film. Fassbinder pare a-si repeta propria sa sinucidere in Querelle.

Supremul narcisist, Querelle isi foloseste propria sexualitate in manipularea celorlalti, seducand barbati si femei, scopul sau fiind unul extrem de dificil: propria anihilare. daca o crima e usor de realizat, asemeni unui sarut, sinuciderea este gestul maxim pe care Querelle il urmareste.

Il Vangelo secondo Matteo (1964)

regia: Pier Paolo Pasolini

Evanghelia dupa Matei, vazuta cinematic de un regizor militant ateu, gay si marxist pe deasupra. Totul ca parte intr-un dialog cu tinerii necredinciosi, propus de Papa. Pasolini nu incerca o ridicare in slavi, o glorificare a personajelor sale, e mai mult o incercare de a reda povestea neo-realist, pornind insa de la Evanghelie, ceea ce da si titlul, fara comentarii extratextuale, fara sentimentalizari si romantari. Faptul ca nu este povestea unui personaj, ci punerea pe film a unei scrieri, trebuie tinut minte de la bun inceput.

Mel Gibson a filmat The Passions in aceeasi locatie, un orasel italian foarte sarac. Desigur, cu o importanta diferenta de perspectiva!

Un film creat din imagini, aproape total lipsit de dialog, doar afirmatii rupte total de scenele anterioare, cu actori neprofesionisti (Isus e jucat de un student spaniol la economie pe care Pasolini il cunoaste accidental si ii ofera rolul), majoritatea personajelor sunt jucate de tarani iar Maria e jucata de propria mama a regizorului.

Pasolini descrie in mod poetic un radical nu chiar asa de oarecare, cu greu acceptat de orice societate, care trebuie sa dispara. Nu insista pe scenele dure ale povestii, pe partea transcedentala, ci pe programul politic.

Un film greu de urmarit, mie mi-a luat peste 20 de ore, multe pauze, reveniri, pauze etc. Austeritatea imaginii devine dificil de digerat in conexiune cu tematica atat de grea. Sentimentul meu final este unul neasteptat: acceptare a discursului religios, intelegere pasnica a demersului si dorinta de revedere a intregului film. As vrea sa il vad la cinema cu sonorul maxim. Din punctul asta de vedere, Pasolini face un imens serviciu nemeritat crestinismului.

Sartre i-a spus lui Pasolini dupa proiectia filmului in Notre Dame : Stalin l-a recuperat pe Ivan cel Groaznic, marxistii nu il mai pot recupera pe Isus. Aici sunt de acord: cred ca mesajul de stanga a fost recuperat pe o cale dibace de catolicism mai ales, cel putin la nivel estetic. Nu invers.

Weekend (1967) by Jean Luc Godard

un cuplu haituit de un cosmar care nu se mai termina, un film per se, film 100%, no reality whatsoever, genial, violent, scarbos, canibalistic si politic. emily bronte is literally burning!!!
apocalipsa dupa godard, ma gandeam ca filmul are 40 de ani, dar inca te mai sperie. revoltator si iritant. exact ce ai nevoie pentru o vineri dupa amiaza.

brechtianism pur, sfarsitul consumerismului, sfarsitul cinematografiei, postmodernism agresiv avant-la-lettre.

The traffic jam shows us a civilization that has gotten clogged up in its own artifacts. (Roger Ebert) si tot filmul e un traffic jam, lumea ne apare ca un cimitir de masini in flacari (personal: cum arati asta pe scena?)

the most peculiar odyssey since Gulliver's. They meet historical figures, they walk through scenes from other movies, they are casually raped, they see bodies set afire. This is a radical, bitter view of society, and Godard is at pains to dismiss any optimistic liberal solutions. (tot Roger Ebert)

culturalizarea maselor de tarani prin cantari la pian, discursuri sforaitoare in timpul mesei despre foamea din Africa, bucataria din final in care personajele sint mancate intr-o tocana care mai contine animale proaspat omorate, un univers atat te viu incat te sperie mai tare ca cel mai groaznic horror.

take a weekend!