Kunst: Scinnema !

A FILM ON MODESTY

[NOTE: This film was available on Mubi platform, after watching it and feeling great exciting, I decided to write a review to be sent to Mubi’s “Notebook” section. Although it was kindly rejected, I’m going to give it a new try by bringing it out here. I hope you enjoy as much as I did]

Due to its long extension, the review  will be released in four posts.

Part One

Modesty is a word that is present in the entire film. Although the meaning of it may seem too obvious, it is worth to remember it has many meanings, however two of them are crucial in this review. The first one is related to an attitude of self-confidence or proud not excessive. We can see this meaning in Alice’s behavior and the way the whole plot of the film is told. The second definition indicates a size or amount of something that is not very big or great. As usual, political agendas or policy programs tend to be pretentious and big-scale work that requires a lot of resources. The goals are more important than inputs or intermediate process or resources. No matter how much is invested or how many resources are spent all for sake of the results. Almost always we do not take in consideration the impact of resources we used, or if the goal has a negative effect. At first, the visionary ambition of the mayor’s agenda was focused just on the goals until Alice gave him a new perspective on how to rule a city. So, those two definitions will help us to pay more attention and try to understand many of the ideas showed in the film.

Indeed, watching the film twice pays off. Either if you watch it for the first or second time, you may notice there are no outstanding but good enough or precise performances, the camera and photography are not in the spotlight but they help to tell the story. As a matter of opinion, the reader can agree or not that the dialogues are the film’s core and stand out over the script. What follows is a comment about the dialogues and its relationship with the characters, and the reflections from this.

Let’s start by talking about the lead character: Alice Heimann. For a long time, she has studied and devoted herself to philosophy. Is she a philosopher? Not according to her own words. She has taken some courses and taught philosophy but she doesn’t consider herself a philosopher. Not explicitly mentioned but at least in philosophy, the fact that someone has studied or got a higher education degree does not necessarily imply that she will come to be a thinker or she will live according to the old “Greek” concept of philosopher lifestyle.

No one can doubt the film is abundant in information but let’s try to organize them. First, there are many conversations. Characters talk about not only their lives and their own issues but also life, work and ideas of thinkers, writers and philosophers. Second, characters come from various and different paths of life which have shaped their lives, perspectives and opinions. Taking in mind the previous idea, it is challenging to have a coherent and comprehensible thread between a myriad of characters and voices. One way to sort it out is through someone who has the will to reflect and be open. That person is found in Alice and other characters.

Philosophy is requested by the mayor rather than trend therapies as he stated. Moreover, it can be useful to make out the interactions. Dialogue and conversation have been important throughout the history of philosophy. One lead figure in ancient Greece was Socrates, and what was known about him and told by Plato is that he liked to ask people. Asking was one of his most powerful weapons. When someone asked Socrates about something, he replied by rephrasing it or asking underlying ideas. This could lead to an endless round of questions with the ultimate goal of helping the person to be awaken or be aware of what has been discussed. Maybe, the answer could be found in oneself.

Throughout the interactions, Paul and Alice start to know and learn from each other as well as viewers do about both of them. Paul is the elected left-party candidate that rules Lyon, an important city in France. Although he has worked in the advertising area, most part of his life has been devoted to politics. Age is not an issue to Paul; despite being an older adult he still keeps his vision with bits of idealism: we can see it when he clearly said that he believes in the virtue of fighting for social issues and the endless development of human wit. He is practical, principled, self-confident and he strives to improve things. However, everything is not so rosy, besides his lack of ideas, he has sacrificed his marital life to dedicate himself more time to his political career and activism. Thanks to the discussions with Alice, he questions his assumptions and realizes the rhythm of his work, remembers the responsibility to be a government worker, colleague and member of a political party. He can look back again to the values he embraced in the past.

We have previously described Alice but let’s talk more about her. She is back in her country after spending time studying and teaching overseas. Working for the state, particularly, in the municipality is a completely distinct environment compared to academia, a place she knows very well and feels comfortable. Alice is quiet and reserved, just trying to do her job and not involving in activities or in meetings with many people unless the job requires. Thanks to her sensitivity, sincerity and ability to discern, Paul can appreciate things in a different or new viewpoint. It’s curious to highlight that even when she has a vast knowledge of philosophy -a field that addresses many topics-, she doesn’t know what to do with her time -the job is an occasion to forget the feeling of emptiness-, what to want, and finally, what is the purpose of her life -if it may have one. This feeling is not unique to her: In an occasion, Alice reunites with her friend from university, while they are chatting and catching up, they laugh at their own issues and worries. After watching this, one may wonder if it happens to every philosophy student.

In brief, older and vast experienced Paul has a more defined path to follow but he starts to feel the lack of energy and the ideas are slipping through his fingers. The clever but low-profile Alice has a very narrow experience that apparently has been exhausting for her. Now, she got the chance to do something different and we see her willingness to deal with unpredictable tasks. Despite both being different, they share the value of openness in the sense of thinking and discussing and they allow themselves to be impressed, basic attitudes to keep learning.

Another important topic is related to work. Why? We can identify a more evident commitment and passion to work, its individual and broader impact and how it is achieved in three characters: the mayor, Delphine and Xavier.

Are Paul’s good intentions enough to enhance the welfare of people? Can people really verify what the mayor is doing and the efforts he is putting on? Not really. In real situations, people wonder those questions. In somehow, in the film two characters look for answers: Xavier and Delphine. Xavier is the owner of an old printer. His passion and admiration for the old printing process led him to invest in a business to help revalue it. Unfortunately, new business strategies are a tough opponent to beat and Xavier’s initiative proved to be unprofitable and hard to sustain. Trying to find a solution, he looks for the municipal help and he feels frustrated and disappointed with its answer, that he needs to adapt to a new reality, ignoring his longed-for dream. The municipality does not even seem to care about his project and probably, this lack of support makes him believe that politics are useless.

Delphine is a controversial and strong-willed character. She is the wife of Gauthier (once romantically interested in Alice). Her work is extensive and has covered many artistic disciplines. Now, her art project focuses on the consequences of climate change on earth and its living beings. Her approach is catastrophic and somber. Her work tries to reflect this but her desire goes beyond it. She is also trying to get an opportunity to talk with the mayor to demand him to act, a real engagement. After much pressure on Alice to arrange a meeting with Paul, Delphine realizes that he does not understand her so she feels bewildered. But that’s not all, later she suffers a mental breakdown. Although as viewers it is common (not always true) to repel troubled or uncomfortable characters, let’s try a better approach to her. She is very determined on whatever project she does. We must be careful not to take Delphine as a cliché character of what an artist is. Her long-term vision of art as a mean to become aware of global warming and its effects contrast with the worries of politicians that she labels as short-term issues. She thinks artists are one step ahead of the current affairs.

This outer image of her and her upbringing in the upper class (which undoubtedly biases her view and position) does not have to distract us to observe how the level of her engagement affect her mental health. While her husband accompanied and comforted Alice, he tells Alice, in a very understanding and thoughtful manner, what happened to his wife. Delphine has a strong bond with truth, and this makes her to switch from lucidity to crisis. Gauthier wonders if madness leads her to see the truth or if the truth gets her crazy. Xavier and Delphine embark on a lone mission, each one with their goal. Both try to fight against the world or something that surpasses them (the market and the political world, respectively). Maybe naively, they rely too much on their individual effort. Their passion and dedication must be so strong that people do not understand them and they end up being marginalized.

Nowadays, the society is divided due labor force specialization which has its advantages as well as pitfalls. The work and education specialization not only atomizes society in little islands of people but also challenges them to effort and discover ways to establish communication, to create a common language to understand each other. The answer does not need complex solutions rather it is found in a simple and basic one: the willingness and capacity to actively listen, to be more open and to try to be empathetic. Are these values too much to ask for? Well, in the film we see that Paul and Alice are talking, discussing and sometimes arguing but they are also striving for understanding. Both are eager to leave their comfort zones and they achieved it through talking. What started out as a working and professional relationship ended up as a long-term friendship.

The film left me questions and perhaps the viewers feel that too. Let’s group them by topic. Politics. What is it like to work into a political/governmental environment? Would it be so disappointing as how we see here? How challenging would it be to achieve our goals? Would we be able to see the outcomes of our effort? Would the outcome be easily perceived by common people? Does the policy program help to everyone in the same way? Who is excluded from that? Next topic, on specialized and technical professionals. Is the discovered/created knowledge being delivered appropriately to politicians and to general people? Does the rhythm of the work/discipline give enough time to reflect about the process and consequences of what is being investigated? Do professionals tend to overestimate or underestimate common sense of people? Do professional and general people usually exchange ideas? Or do they have the means to dialog? Do they really know that current issues and problems need alliances and multidisciplinary views to be solved? Most likely, the battle of each individual ego does not lead us to a resolution but to a situation we will regret.

Lastly, on philosophy. In these days, is it useful? Why would it be important to study philosophy? There is still a cliché about people that study philosophy (it also applies to arts), do they seem disconnected from reality? Do they care more about unrealistic things? Is their perspective too abstract? In fact, philosophy is a huge field in which there are some parts that have a more practical and applied knowledge than others. Who would invest in philosophy education? Maybe Alice’s work is one possible answer. Philosophy can give us the chance to think, to value past thoughts and discussions and still wondering what life would be like. How would we like to be in the future?

To conclude and tying up loose ends, it’s worth saying that even though the film covers a lot, it is not pretentious in its intentions or it does not have a desire to show off. From my perspective, it’s just a modest film in which modesty can be a value that can help us to achieve and reformulate that longed-for human growth and progress.

TITLE: Alice et le maire

YEAR: 2019

DIRECTOR: Nicolas Pariser

LENGHT: 103 min

WHAT IS LOVE AND HAPPINESS?

The work of Agnès Varda is a cinema of compositions, shots and frames. Her past as photographer gave her elements that help to create unique manners to tell stories. I think they give a dramatic layer maybe in an attempt to move the public attention or empathy for the plot to somewhere else for a while. The use of colors is present throughout the film not only the primary ones (blue, red and yellow) but also others, some of them according to the season. We can see them at the beginning when we see the close-up of sunflowers and a family that walks out-of-focus dressing in colors that fits with summer. Then, at the end, the new family are dressed in fall season colors. The composition is very much present in this film, some scenes are presented like if they were still-life paintings, integrated into and reflecting daily-life activities. Some scenes are created linking various frames, one of them it’s the making-love scene which presents in a delicate way the perceived love not focusing into eroticism or sexual arousal but into the connection between the couple through the touch, exploration and contemplation of bodies.

One way of understanding this film is taking into account the perspectives or mindsets of time. Released in 1965, Le Bonheur is situated in the years of sexual freedom: where social and sexual rules were defied (as the concept of marriage, intercourse before marriage, woman sexual empowerment, the view of sex beyond biological reproduction and so on). Bearing in mind that, the film sets the transformation of an idyllic traditional young couple marriage into the failed attempt to integrate a mistress into their relationship. Happiness is almost present across all the characters, there’s a sense of joy of living. The idea of “love is in the air, everywhere I look around” illustrates briefly the plot accompanied by some of Mozart’s pieces until the act of falling in love of the husband with another woman. François, the husband, continues in approaching to Émile, the mistress, without remorse for hurting her wife, Thérèse, or destroying his family just let himself be carried away by his feelings. It might be seen that he is trying to coexist harmoniously these two relationships (his family and his lover): he doesn’t want to lose neither his wife nor the lover.

All things seem to be good until he decided to tell the truth to his wife -first using metaphors and then go straight to the point-. Thérèse didn’t understand at all but she’s is persuaded by him that the love for her is still alive. The breaking point comes when the wife is founded dead because she drowned. It’s not explicitly stated by the director why she got drowned, it’s the public that have to draw conclusions from the development of the plot and some clues. The loss of a loved one is grieved by the husband and other relatives. There’s no a defined mourning process and while this happen, he proposes to the lover to be her new wife who accepted. After a new family is born, the novelty is the new mother, the other members are the same. Happiness come back again and wraps it all up. Adultery is not the central topic in the film but is present and it may have elicited an outrageous reaction in audience due part to the softened way in how it is approached. Inevitably a question arises: is this ease up way just fictional, own of the attitudes in French culture, Europe or Western society?

Nowadays, we have more elements to inquire in further detail about the film. Was there an intention behind the film? What was it? There are many angles to consider. One of them is the masculine role represented by François. Although most of the characters are satisfied with their life, the main source of happiness seems to comes from men and how they convey that feeling towards women who in turn strive to give happiness too. In some way it’s like “if he’s happy, I will be too”. One could question this by pointing out the happiness in a nuclear family does not necessarily come from rather than a male figure that is also husband but a female figure or a wife in the case of matrimonial arrangement or family members. Again, I think it’s possible that the affair or adultery is not the key topic in the film. From my view point, what really matters is the bond between François and Thérèse, the conscious care and attention it receives from both. Despite the naïve honesty of Francois in which he reassures his wife is agree with his proposal, he misperceived her apparent acceptance. Talking and understanding couple issues is not as simple as it’s showed, it requires time to process it. Considering this, we can guess that Thérèse only accepted to please him but in fact she couldn’t manage at all so she decided to take her own life.

Thanks to fruitful discussions, new thoughts arose, maybe not original but an old idea that seems too evident that some of us can overlooked: the sexism. And the reason why it could have not been paid enough attention might be our attitudes towards this. Let us not be surprised that it might be regarded as “normal” or even worst as “natural”. In the film, there are a man and two women, not a woman and two men. This is an important difference that could changes public’s reaction. The question that falls under its own weight is: what is more tolerated? It’s possible that Varda’s witty insight let her bring in this issue through a satire. In what sense a satire? It’s easier to observe and digest a topic as long as it is not confrontational or aggressive and that is what we can see in Le Bonheur: everything seems to be perfect and full of jubilee. There’s a harmony in characters, coexistence, colors, clothing, even music.

Agnès Varda’s films are audacious and bold, some of the topics treated are polemic. A few last questions remain to be answered. Is there an attempt to give a moral lesson? It depends how the film is understood. No explicit statement of complaint is found; however, there could more than one message suggested based on the hints we discover through the film. Does Le Bonheur question moral values? What sort of values are being examined? Beyond these questions it’s crystal clear that Varda invites us and share with us a refreshing and curious view of daily life.

TITLE: Le bonheur

YEAR: 1965

DIRECTOR: Agnès Varda

LENGHT: 80 min

¿QUÉ HAY DETRÁS DE BILLY WILDER?

“Movie-wise, there has never been anything like ‘The apartment’.

Love-wise, laugh-wise or otherwise-wise!”

 Este breve ensayo tiene como fin analizar una parte de la filmografía de Billy Wilder a partir de tres de las más de sesenta películas que realizó. Estos filmes son “The apartment”, “Some like it hot”, y “Sunset Boulevard”. Lo que viene a continuación se estructura más o menos de la siguiente manera: un recuento biográfico del director, la caracterización general de las películas mencionadas, la habilidad artística del director y el trasfondo del guion.

Con pocos años y con una palestra de filmes, Dolan se ha atrevido a dejar, al menos parcialmente, el ritmo melodramático para internarse en el suspenso psicológico. Giro arriesgado para alguien que tiene poco tiempo en la producción y dirección de películas. Tom à la ferme es una adaptación a partir de una obra teatral. El ambiente escénico del teatro ha podido ser trasladado a escenarios reales donde predominan la naturaleza, el campo y la granja.

Suspenso y drama van de la mano a medida que la historia se despliega. La trama comienza a vislumbrarse en la caracterización del personaje principal de Tom, un muchacho de cabello rubio teñido, con una ondulación rebelde y que viste un atuendo desafiante. Mientras el protagonista va trazando algunas líneas con un marcador de color azul en una hoja de papel, se puede percibir una mezcla entre ansiedad, desesperación y amargura. Quizá estas emociones pretendan reflejar algún tipo de pérdida, en este caso, de un ser cercano y querido. 

Tras este breve lapso, la trama se vuelva algo sombría. La falta de comunicación o escasa fluidez por parte de los habitantes de la granja (Agathe y Francis) con el recién llegado da paso a una atención asfixiante. Agathe es la madre a quien el dolor por la muerte de uno sus hijos la tiene ensimismada, desconectada. Francis, el otro hijo vivo de ella, trata de preservar a toda costa la burbuja que hay entre él y su madre, evitando que otros (incluido Tom) se involucren en esta dinámica materno-filial. En caso Francis perciba que alguien quiebre esa regla, no dudará en hacer uso de su brutalidad física para mantener las cosas como están. 

Xavier Dolan crea suspenso a partir de la interacción entre Tom y Francis. Tom, uno de los personajes en duelo, va en busca de recuerdos y memorias sobre su novio visitando la casa en la que se crió. Francis es el chico frustrado quien, producto de la burbuja madre-hijo, parece haber desarrollado una escaza capacidad para socializar con personas ajenas a su entorno. El director aprovecha efectivamente las características de estos personajes, el contexto y los sentimientos alrededor de la muerte del Guillaume (el novio, el hermano) para generar una atmósfera ambigua y formas de vínculo poco claras. 

A pesar de que Tom sigue el juego a Francis, un descuido de éste permite que su rehén emprenda la fuga. Se escapa no sólo de las manos de Francis, sino también de la familia Longchamp. Resulta extraño que Guillaume haya pertenecido a esta familia. El formato del movie-road es usado como recurso de apertura y cierre en la película quizá como señal de tránsito, dejar que las cosas pasen, dejar que la vida siga su curso. 

TÍTULO: Tom à la ferme

AÑO: 2013

DIRECTOR: Xavier Dolan

DURACIÓN: 95 min.

Cuando la película comienza, uno puede percatarse como el título emerge de forma enfática: Akira. La pantalla es ocupada por una gran tipografía de un color rojo intenso que podría ser el preludio de la trama a descubrir. Lo que sigue son algunas reflexiones en torno a tres elementos latentes, a criterio de quien redacta, en el filme: creencia, evolución y reconstrucción, las cuales pueden ser hilvanadas en dos expresiones: La creencia en la evolución y la creencia en la reconstrucción de Neo-Tokio.

Después de un evento catastrófico, Neo-Tokio se ha rehecho como una ciudad imponente que deslumbra. La urbe es un actor más en la película y esto se ve en cada momento de la película. La historia se desenvuelve en escenarios que claman por sobresalir o no ser ignorados. Este Neo-Tokio no partió de una nueva tabla rasa, borrando su historial previo, sino que se ha reconstruido sobre las llagas de los miembros que la han habitado, de los que la siguen habitando, y de aquellos que recién la habitan. La visualización y atmósfera post-apocalíptica es omnipresente en cada rincón de esta metrópoli. Como ejemplo, las industrias han impregnado y dotado de nuevos elementos físicos a la ciudad por medio de fábricas, tuberías, túneles, conexiones y demás. Da la sensación de ser la nueva naturaleza. Otro elemento importante son los edificios altos y enormes que están aglutinados, y que parecen competir entre ellos por regir o gobernar desde allá arriba con su inmensidad a las personas, y que vistas de la altura se ven minimizadas, son seres meros entes microscópicos. Habitantes de Babel, así podrían ser nombrados los residentes de Neo-Tokio: una ciudad cosmopolita donde cada individuo es un nuevo mundo. La ciudad es ese esfuerzo (fructífero o no) por querer unir a la población atomizada por sus peculiaridades.

¿Quién es Akira? La respuesta a esta pregunta revela, también, las reflexiones propuestas sobre este filme. Desde el lado más científico, Akira es la máxima expresión de la evolución, tema que es y ha sido objeto de estudio, tanto desde querer saber de dónde se partió hasta dónde se puede o va a llegar. La renuente objetividad de la ciencia se ve envuelta por la “creencia” de sus partidarios de que la humanidad llegará a un alto grado de evolución/desarrollo máximo por parte del hombre. Detrás del aparente gobierno que rige la ciudad, la sección científica trata de resolver el misterio de un personaje de nombre Akira. Bajo la tutela de un científico se conduce el  proyecto del mismo nombre, obteniendo como resultados cambios significativos que ocurren con su paciente, Tetsuo Shima. Son estos hallazgos que obnubilan al investigador, quien además se exalta de emoción al ver como la energía del individuo puede ser vista y representada en un aparato que puede ser controlado; más tarde se percatará de que no es factible tamaña quimera científica.

Desde el otro lado de la ciudad, Akira es percibido de diversas maneras. Dentro de ellas, se aprecia a quienes lo consideran como una leyenda urbana o un mito, otros creen que es un enviado divino y están a la espera de la paz que traerá a Neo-Tokio. El estado actual de la ciudad es de una especie de anarquía donde cada individuo busca sobrevivir como de lugar bajo los medios que estén a su alcance: algunos, mediante la protesta; otros, mediante la vida clandestina. Lo anterior puede ser tomado con la razón principal para que sea necesario el cambio, no solo de la parte más visible o externa de la ciudad, sino también un cambio interior en las personas que habitan la ciudad. De ahí que puede decirse que el filme plantea la restauración del orden vital, donde el hombre conviva armoniosamente con los suyos y con su entorno, donde no haya conflictos. Pero para eso, es necesario que se recuerde lo que ha pasado, para que no se vuelva a caer en un estado apocalíptico. Kaneda, Kay y el coronel, personajes sobrevivientes, representan esa esperanza reconstructora de un futuro mejor para Neo-Tokio.

La idea del desarrollo humano y de los límites de su ambición por alcanzarlo ha rondado por la mente de la humanidad desde tiempos tempranos. En los últimos 60 años, el anime o el manga japonés han sido parte de las herramientas artísticas bajo el cual se han expresado estas ideas. Si bien Akira generó un impacto que desbordó más allá del entorno oriental, películas anime previas como “Nausica en el valle del viento” ya daba indicio alguno sobre los temas mencionados, y otras posteriores como “Evangelion” intensificarán aún la temática.

TÍTULO: Akira

AÑO: 1988

DIRECTOR: Katsuhiro Otomo  

DURACIÓN: 124 min.

Quién es quién dejó de escribir?