Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn swiss cinema. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn swiss cinema. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Sáu, 10 tháng 4, 2015

PARTLY CLOUDY

Clouds of Sils Maria is essentially three different films, and each one in order is a little bit less interesting. But for a while there, for maybe the first 25 minutes or so, it seems that Olivier Assayas has done it again, knocking out a fascinating character study of life in a constantly plugged-in, celebrity-addicted world, and he does it in what I'd call the most unexpected way possible: by putting his whole first act on the shoulders of Kristen Stewart, late of the Twilight franchise and unlikely to ever outlive the memories of all of us who in those days thought she was just the worst thing.

Unlikely, but it's not impossible, not if she keeps up to at this level of ambition with directors and scripts. Her performance in Sils Maria is the best work she's ever done, and better still, a top-shelf performance by the standards of any actor in any movie. She plays Valentine, the highly-competent twenty-something assistant to middle-aged international movie star Maria Enders (Juliette Binoche), and for that first 25 minutes, the movie is all about her: the juggling of phone calls and calendars, the emotional massaging, the steely mama bear attitude she adopts in relationship to the much older but also much more tetchy and destructible Maria. It's vintage Assayas, anatomising the behaviors and attitudes of technology-driven life, just abstract enough and set in a series of heightened, unreal locations (a seemingly endless train, a glamorous but oddly empty hotel in the Swiss Alps) to avoid seeming like blunt docudrama. And Stewart is our marvelous host through this world, storming through the plot while letting her character's unexpressed emotions linger there, for us to engage with or not as we see fit.

Unfortunately, it becomes clear before too long that this is not the actual film that Sils Maria wants to be. In Switzerland, reeling from the death of her onetime mentor and most beloved author Wilhelm Melchior - she was in town to accept an award on his behalf, before suddenly forced to serve as centerpiece of a memorial service instead - Maria is approached by ambitious pan-European theater director Klaus Diesterweg (Lars Eidinger) with a gimmicky offer: he wants her to play the part of the older woman in Melchior's psychological drama about female homoeroticism that was, 20 years ago, the starmaking role for Maria on both stage and screen, when she played the younger woman. Appealing to her vanity, her sense of history, and her sense of obligation to the newly deceased author, Klaus convinces her to take the part opposite self-destructive, scandal-prone Hollywood starlet Jo-Ann Ellis (Chloë Grace Moretz). And so Maria and Valentine head off to the Swiss valley of Sils Maria, there to study the play in Melchior's own home.

The film that Sils Maria becomes with this development is a hell of a lot less interesting, on account of being a hell of a lot more conventional in its themes about a middle-aged actress confronting herself aging. But even more because, completely uncharacteristically, Assayas's screenplay decides right about now that we are incredible idiots who need to have things explained to us, and so for more than an hour as Maria and Valentine run lines, and Maria hates herself and the universe while Valentine explains, with increasingly little patience, why Maria is beautiful and a genius, the film just plain starts grinding.

It is built on a series of metaphors, mostly in the script but some in the way that Assayas and cinematographer Yorick Le Saux film the Alps and the beautiful home where Maria tries to find her character. And these are not, in the main, very complicated metaphors, nor very original metaphors, neither of which is really all that big of a problem. No, the problem is when Assayas rumbles along and then has his characters deconstruct those metaphors right before our eyes, explaining in small words, and a lot of them, that playing the character she's always thought was a pathetic and weak forty-year-old waste of flesh is making Maria confront her fear of being pathetic, weak, and forty. And the even bigger problem is that Assayas doesn't just do this once; he does it over and over and over. If all you did was remove the scenes explicitly telling us things that other scenes already explicitly told us, you'd cut out 20 minutes of the film in the blink of an eye. There are even meta-layers of this same problem: the script to the play Maria's rehearsing is hard for her to play because it's so overt with its themes. And then she and Valentine start to discuss how those too-overt themes are also the themes of Maria's life, which makes it even harder for her to deal with how overt they are.

It's still better than the aneurysm that the film has when it enters its protracted epilogue, around the day of the final dress rehearsal, and it ceases to be about anything at all but protracting itself out to ruinous, suffocating lengths. But I would not want to spoil things. There's plenty to feel disappointed in throughout that whole middle (the ending, meanwhile, makes me feel outright hate more than simple disappointment).

Stewart and Binoche are both good enough (Binoche less so: when the script is that specific about what's going on in the character's head, it makes it harder for the actor to do much discovery on her own) that the film is still worth seeing, though I concede that it's more an obligation than a pleasure at that point. And while Assayas's visual storytelling isn't here at the level it is in, say, Summer Hours, where camera movement is a function of character psychology and the visual representation of places trumps the screenplay in communicating the meanings of the film, he still shows some of the old talent for crafting leading images; the positioning of Valentine and Maria in the frame does better work of indicating the slithery conflict between the two women's psychologies more craftily and convincingly than anything in the lumpy script. Still, "there are reasons this isn't bad" is hardly a ringing endorsement, and for all its intermittent strengths, it's hard to think of Clouds of Sils Maria anything better than a compelling failure.

5/10

Thứ Năm, 5 tháng 2, 2015

THE 2014 LIVE-ACTION OSCAR SHORTS

Oscar season means many things to many people, but one of the best is that, thanks to the folks at Shorts HD, it's the only time all year that most of us have even the smallest opportunity to see short films on the big screen And that is something I look forward to every year with enormous enthusiasm. So without further ado, allow me to dive right into the matter of the five films nominated for Best Live-Action Short, and now screening here and there throughout the country, in advance of a VOD run sometime soon.

"But Tim," you are undoubtedly about to ask (irrespective of the fact that I do not live in your computer & cannot hear you), "you're such an animation buff. Why aren't you reviewing the animated shorts?" Well, don't forget, while I'm merely a lusty, amateur animation buff over here, I'm actually a professional animation buff over at the Film Experience. And that's where you can find my thoughts on the other slate.

Aya (Oded Binnun and Mihal Brezis, Israel / France)

If I have it right, this is the current frontrunner to win in the eyes of most pundits. And I won't claim that I feel unmixedly good about that - it's one of the weaker films of a generally strong slate. That's less because of anything specific it does wrong, and more because it's simply not very focused or thoughtful about how it wants to tell its story: at 40 minutes, it's not only the longest of the nominees, it's also brushing against the Academy's definition of "short film" rather recklessly. Nor are all 40 of those minutes used to equally good effect. There's a lot of time spent on conversations that are a bit more indulgent than they frankly need to be.

The titular Aya (Sarah Adler) is waiting to pick someone up at the airport when she's mistaken by a Danish scholar named Overby (Ulrich Thomsen) as his driver; she refuses to correct him until miles into their drive to Jerusalem, at which point he doesn't seem to care much. The film eventually reveals itself as a parable of dissatisfied people seeking new connections, but it relies an awful lot on a kind-of twist ending to make most of that clear, which leaves a lot of scenes of talking about nothing in particular, all set in the front seat of a car. There's goodness and insight within the film, though it needs to be ferreted out of the bloat, and the characters who always feel a bit more like screenwriting conceits than psychologies. 6/10

* * *

Boogaloo and Graham (Michael Lennox and Ronan Blaney, UK)

Can't have the Oscars without darling children getting into light scrapes while something serious burbles on unseen in the background. "Something serious", in this case, is the Troubles; the 1970s Belfast-set film manages to wedge in a late scene involving a political prisoner and the violence of the region that is all the more garish for how much the film otherwise has not the smallest interest in the political or social ramifications of its setting. And boy, was I ever ready to go harsh on it.

But then, as darling children movies go, Boogaloo and Graham - named for the pet chickens given to a pair of young brothers (Riley Hamilton and Aaron Lynch) by their father (Martin McCann) in a fit of poor judgment - has the benefit of actual darlings, with just enough snarky spike in their personalities that it's not just the cloying sitcom nonsense it so readily could have been. Its insights into human behavior are trite, and the punchline at the end - if that's the word for something so calm and subdued and philosophically Irish - suggests that the film doesn't really know what it's trying to be about, either. But as a snapshot of a quirky family, it has its pleasures, even if it is undoubtedly the weakest thing here. 6/10

* * *

Butter Lamp (Hu Wei and Julien Féret, France / China)

Okay, we're starting to get to the really good stuff. Once again, we have here a film that doesn't announce its meaning until the final moments of the final shot, but in this case, it's a much more effective strategy, allowing the film to build up a sense of mystery along with its rather effective charm. We find a rarely-seen, but constantly chatting photographer (Genden Punstock) positioning groups and individuals from a Tibetan village in front of his portable backdrops (the film camera adopts the perspective of his still camera throughout: nothing but static frames with people staring into the lens, and it gains a weird energy as a result as it goes along), creating touristy snapshots of these people in towns, at religious sites, standing atop the Great Wall of China, and at Hong Kong Disneyland.

The latter two examples specifically foreshadow the film's ideas about the forcible homogenization of the Tibetan people into whatever the Chinese government says they have to be, but the bulk of that work is done by the modestly ominous suggestions of the final shot, which lands with a thud in the silent space left by the chatting and laughter of the rest of the film. For it is awfully funny, looking with its unforced observational candor at people being uncontainable messes no matter how badly the photographer tries to choreograph them. In truth, the whole thing is a bit concepty and editorially heavy-handed in the last moments, but the implicit humanism of the whole thing is so affecting that I can't really complain. 8/10

* * *

Parvaneh (Talkhon Hamzavi and Stefan Eichenberger, Switzerland)

I have a suspicion that I should find this to be corny bullshit, and yet somehow, it really works. Teenager Parvaneh (Nissa Kashani) is an Afghan refugee living in Switzerland, and she needs to send some money back home. The trip to Zurich to find a place to wire the money is daunting, but it's the easy part - Parvaneh's papers and age mean that she can do no such thing, which means she must hunt around for a kind stranger. The only one she finds is a slightly older punk, Emely (Cheryl Graf), who agrees to help for a small fee, but the store is closed by the time the girls get back there. On the spot, Emely proposes that Parvaneh should pal around with her and they can go back in the morning. In the meantime, it's a night of music, clubs, flirting with boys, and finding out that the two have a lot in common.

Clichés don't come any mustier, but the Euro-realist style and incredibly laid-back naturalistic acting on display help enormously to make Parvaneh seem more insightful and raw than it sounds. There's no sweetie-pie fun going on; the whole time, Parvaneh seems slightly dazed and alarmed at the speed and danger of life in the urban West, compared to her safe, rural enclave of fellow refugees, and though the connection she makes with Emely is clearly important and unprecedented, the film doesn't pretend to have solved The Immigrant Problem. Bless it for that.

Anyway, the acting is sharp, Kashani especially, and while the style is a bit Dardennes-light, director Hamzavi wields it with canny discipline for when it can heighten the narrative vs. when it can serve to accentuate the moments in between narrative. I would never want to see this as a feature, but it's a pretty thoughtful 25 minutes. 8/10

* * *

The Phone Call (Mat Kirkby and James Lucas, UK)

The other frontrunner, and I rather think the best of the five (though Parvaneh comes close). It's a sterling example of something that could never work so well except as a snug, 20-minute short: set up a single situation, play it out, get the hell out of there. Heather (Sally Hawkins) works at a virtually empty crisis call center, and she picks up early one shift to hear a very sad man identifying himself as Stan (Jim Broadbent, never seen). At first trying simply to cheer Stan up, Heather teases out after a few minutes that he's just taken a lethal dose of pills, having wanted to kill himself ever since his wife died. And he's not calling for help, but simply to have company while he drifts off into death.

It's an acting showcase: director Kikby rather sensibly understands that a film which consists of almost nothing other than a phone conversation in which we never see one of the two participants needs to have an immovable rock on the visible end of the line. The Phone Call would wither and die without having somebody that Kirkby could point his camera at for minutes, confident that whatever is happening on her face is bound to be interesting, and Hawkins is that somebody. She has to build a character using hardly any backstory, and then communicate a desire to be sympathetic, a steely determination to save Stan from himself, and flustered panic that she is by no means equipped to deal with this situation, and she does all of this so well that it doesn't even register as acting; the film gets to skip right ahead to the part where it asks us to consider what it would be like to be Heather, tossed into this horrible situation; but also to be Stan, that sad and empty. It's a lovely portrait of mental states in turmoil, concise and streamlined and driven enough that the lack of flash doesn't register till it's all over. 8/10

Thứ Ba, 20 tháng 1, 2015

EVERYONE POOPS

It is easy to first focus on how Goodbye to Language is yet another film in Jean-Luc Godard's late career collection of essay films describing morality, culture, the state of modern Europe, how cinematic images produce and limit meaning, because that's what it is. It's not at all unlike a remake of his last feature, Film socialisme, in fact, only with a different form of moviemaking technology being turned inside and broken (prosumer cameras there, prosumer cameras and 3-D here), and less of a focus on audience-punishing impenetrability. And even that's not saying much, given that Film socialisme is about as impenetrable as anything Godard has made since the beginning of the 1980s.

The danger of over-emphasising that, though, is that it pulls attention for how disorientingly fun and funny Goodbye to Language can be, though I concede that one has to meet the film much more than halfway for that to be true, and even then it's a kind of fun that's certainly only for a very self-selecting audience. Although it has fart jokes, and not even, like, heavily abstract, theoretical fart jokes. Jokes wherein the punchline is, if a person is saying something very serious and philosophically impenetrable, it is funny to show them talking while gaudily foleyed-in wet farts play on the soundtrack.

While I think that the film has a plot - in fact, I think it even has a twist ending - trying to go back over it is grounds for nothing but a headache. Like most of Godard's "narrative" films in the last couple of decades (as opposed to his pure essay films), it's made up a series of vaguely united vignettes, during which complicated, self-referential conversations about theory play out between people who may or may not be capable of acting in other contexts, but really only serve as props here. The academics in the audience might be horrified by what I'm about to say, but I think the trick with most late Godard is to let the dialogue happen and catch what one can, but not really worry about working it all out. Not, at least, the first time, and while I look forward to spending many long years with Goodbye to Language, I've only seen it but the once, at this point. So if this is a bit of a thinnish review - well it will be, there's little doubt of that. But hopefully enthusiasm will count for the lack of depth.

The chief charm of Goodbye to Language is its interrogation of how cinema works in the age of digital media production, movies shot on phones and screened in tiny windows over the internet, and of course, 3-D. This overlaps a bit with Film socialisme, but where that was an angry work, trying to break the new medium, Goodbye to Language is a good deal more playful, trying to push the new technologies into extreme corners to find out what happens there. Even the politically and morally laden dialogues have a certain self-aware winking quality that makes this, at any rate, much more watchable than much of the director's recent work. It's still fairly pessimistic - that title didn't just come along out of nowhere, and it has exactly the implication of "goodbye to language, because pop culture has murdered you and the possibility of meaning along with you" that it seems to - but Godard's pessimism has been married to exhilarating cinematic experimentation at least as far back as Week End.

Not everyone would sign of on the word "exhilarating", I am sure - it's an inherently divisive movie - but for myself, I was delighted by Goodbye to Language fare more often than not, certainly more than I expected to be. Aye, delighted; with the giddy amazement of a baby looking at a Christmas tree. There are too many different things happening in the construction of the film's images for it to be pinned down to "the main idea", but one of the strongest ideas is to challenge digital 3-D as a medium and meaning-creating element, finding out what happens in its extremes. The most celebrated moment involves a long shot during which the two cameras capturing the image are split off the rig holding them in the correct relationship to capture a realistic 3-D image, each going one direction to record entirely different actions before being reunited. It's a spectacular moment, as viscerally dumbfounding as anything in the glossiest effects extravaganza, with different goals, of course - it's a basic Godardian gesture in reminding the viewer that movies are made because of cameras, that cinematic images are inherently fictitious constructions which are reconstructed in our minds as movement - and it's an experiment whose time had long since come. It's hardly pleasant, trying to reconcile the fact that your two eyes are seeing completely incompatible images, but it is pleasurable in its way, and makes stronger claims to seriously investigating how movies work than anything else in the year, or the decade, or probably the century.

But just because it's the film's most famous moment, doesn't mean it's the only great gesture in that direction. Later on - I wonder if this even deserves a spoiler warning, since I was surely excited to see it unawares - two static shots of still lifes are overlaid in much the same way, with each eye receiving totally different information, and a few moments later, the same two shots are combined using normal editing techniques, so both eyes receive the same flat double exposure. Comparing and contrasting the way that the two experiences work in the eye and in the brain is at least as telling as that first amazing break when the 3-D image splits.

Mostly, the film's struggle with imagery is of a much simpler sort: exaggerated moments of objects poking way the hell into the audience's space, making it impossible to look at the screen without your eyes watering slightly; nude bodies positioned in space to be as distracting as possible; hoary gags about objects interrupting three-dimensional space to interrupt what we want to be looking at, which are frequently nude bodies. Without being so angry about it as to turn into a provocation, the film invites us to consider how meaning can be swallowed by visuals, how words can be turned into buzzing noise that doesn't connect to image - goodbye to language, and goodbye to film language, in effect. With its nods towards YouTube culture in the preponderance of cute animal footage and low-res images breaking into digital blocks, and its implicit demonstration of how easily we can be distracted by a barrage of disconnected stimuli, it's an indictment of the shortened attention span of the 21st Century that also panders to that attention span, and not, apparently, in an ironic way.

It is a self-contained contradiction: it wants us to have constant fun while demanding at every step that we think about how terribly shallow it is to want to have fun constantly; it's a critique of dehumanising politics and culture that openly finds the dog to be the most interesting character. It's capital-A Art made by an angry old man, driven by a constant bro-ish fascination with "wouldn't it be cool if...?" moments. Most importantly, it's the single film I have seen from 2014 that most actively tries to find a new language for filmmakers to inhabit, and honestly, it might be the most consistently captivating one as well.

10/10

Thứ Hai, 23 tháng 6, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1948: In which post-war existence is the subject of much concern and soul-wearyness

The caveat first: throughout this Hollywood Century project, I've been using a definition of "Hollywood' that limits us to films produced solely on money contributed by Los Angeles-based movie sturdios, or by independents working in the shadow of Hollywood. I'm now making a big exception for the first time, to accommodate 1948's The Search, a co-production between MGM (the most Hollywoodish of all Hollywood companies), and Praesens-Film of Zurich. A Swiss-American co-production shot mostly in Germany might be a dubious inclusion at best in a series like this, but I think it's justified on the grounds of what the film represents in a broader sense: how the American film industry sought to cope with the much smaller globe that had come out on the back side of World War II, and America's position as a newly-minted political and military leader, with a population of citizens who had in the recent past been unflaggingly isolationist (not to mention that, as time wore on, it became ever more clear that those citizens were much happier thinking about U.S. power and influence than in giving a damn about the people who lived in all those other countries for whom the U.S. claimed to be a leader).

It's one of the earliest attempts by any American film production company to work alongside a foreign studio, to take part in the great flowering of international cinema that was beginning to make itself felt in the post-war years, and to present to American audiences perspectives and stories that are explicitly European - not the Europeans who'd come to the States and absorbed themselves into the national culture there, retaining just enough of their native personalities for future film scholars to have fun teasing out the French and German and Hungarian and other influences on the films they made in a full naturalised idiom; the Europeans who'd stayed, to continue developing the cinema of Europe. And this consciousness of America's and American film's position within the world at large is reflected in the story of The Search itself, which is all about how the torn-apart slurry of Europe had to be redeemed by an international effort, with Americans throwing in with many other countries to under the damage of seven years of brutal fighting.

It is, in short, a film that finds the most lavish, indulgent company in Hollywood seeking for meaning somewhere in the ruins of the post-war world; Hollywood humbling itself in order to explore the role that America and Hollywood might play as time went by. And indeed, European-U.S. collaborations would become a great deal more common in the years to come, though typically in the form of U.S. film crews touristing their way through the photogenic places that continent made available, rather than following The Search and financing a predominantly native production looking to fuse the styles and impulses of American and continental movies.

For this is exactly what happens in The Search, from a script largely by Swiss writers Richard Schweizer and David Wechsler, with a largely Swiss crew, but with direction by Fred Zinnemann, who'd been in Hollywood for a decade at that point and was about to explode in prominence in the '50s. Though of Viennese extraction, Zinnemann was a fully assimilated filmmaker even by '48; while The Search possesses nowhere near volume of the sinewy, masculine sentimentality that marks virtually all of Zinnemann's prominent later films (including High Noon, From Here to Eternity, The Day of the Jackal, and the misbegotten film version of the musical Oklahoma!), it prefigures his impulse for giving the audience what we want, telegraphing emotional arcs maybe a little too bluntly and making it too clear that we are going to Feel Feelings. But it also prefigures the best of Zinnemann's visual sensibility; his keen sense of where to end the frame and how much distance at any moment to keep between the viewer and the character. And it showcases a skill with young actors exercised nowhere else in the director's career, but that puts us back on the European side of the equation; films about kids being generally a lot more important (and better) on the east side of the Atlantic than on the west.

The kid in question is Czechoslovakian Karel Malik (Ivan Jandl), who was separated from his family at Auschwitz, and was, as a result, thrown into a state of shock, able to remember nothing about himself including his name (we only know his identity thanks to a flashback). At the film's opening, he's one of many unaccompanied children dumped into the lap of Mrs. Murray (Aline MacMahon), a worker at a Germany UNRRA facilty - United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration - with some dim hope that at least some of them might be sorted into the right pile to be reconnected whatever survivors might be looking for them. The children, not understanding English, are terrified to be shuttled around one more large bureaucratic compound by people speaking in clipped, official tones, and the American workers aren't equipped to convince them that things are better now; eventually, Karel flees across country, picking his way through the ruins of Germany and eventually ending up in the company of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recruit "Steve" Stevenson (Montgomery Clift), who takes a shine to the boy, christens him "Jim", and starts to teach him English. While this is going on, Karel's mother (Jarmila Novotná) floats from one UNRRA site to another, never finding a trace of her boy, slowly giving up hope, till chance throws her into the arms of Murray, who encourages her to process her grief (Murrary inaccurately thinks she has proof that Karel died) by working to help the children who still remain displaced and hopeless.

The Search is trying to serve three masters: it wants to be documentary, tragedy, and crowd-pleaser all at once. It wishes to depict the fallen-down state of Europe and demonstrate the way that Americans could contribute to its resurrection; and it wants to do this through the story of a psychologically broken little boy suffering, until he very abruptly isn't thanks to his new buddy Steve. That it manages to do all of this is something of a minor miracle, and it would be unthinkable without Jandl in the central role of Karel. It is one of the great child performances in film, simply put: in a role upon which every other aspect of the film is based (Clift ended up jumping into stardom off the back of his performance here, but he'd be nothing without Jandl as the prism through which we see him), to a degree that the film wouldn't merely be ineffective, but completely dysfunctional without him, Jandl navigates the turn from his empty-eyed soullessness in the beginning to the cheery, but occasionally haunted way he plays things later on, without ever letting it seem too fast or too unmotivated - a critical triumph, since the screenplay hustles us through that transition awfully quickly and arbitrarily.

I suppose credit should get spread around a little: Clift in particular is absolutely fantastic, solid and happily free of the neurosis that would be his calling card as an actor in almost all of his other performances (and let's not mince words: I adore Clift and think he was one of the best, maybe the best young American actor of the '50s; but this role called upon a vastly different skill set than all his later triumphs, and it's too easy to read backwards and be amazed by how bright and pleasant and warm he is here). Most importantly, he makes the relationship between man and boy seem sweet and mutually necessary, selling what is ultimately a kind of dubious writerly conceit (I gather than the '40s were a different time, but how many twentysomething men do you know that would jump at the chance to be a surrogate father to a foundling?) so well that it never even seems to come up that we might question it.

But it's Jandl's film, with Zinnemann always gravely privileging his perspective, even when we already know more than he does; the young actor gets more than his share of close-ups and there are many angled shots that stress his smallness and inability to do much to protect himself in this damaged, dangerous world. Staging all the visuals of Germany in decay through the eyes and mind of a confused boy without a past was a masterstroke for all concerned; it underscores the total inscrutability and horror of the environment in a way that only a guileless protagonist could appreciate, divorced from any knowledge of how things got that way, only appalled that they did (this is not a movie that leaves much of an opening for any late-'40s viewer to silently grouse that the Germans got what they deserved, after all; the Germans are nowhere to be seen in The Search, only collateral damage perpetrated by both the Axis and the Allies). Zinnemann and cinematographer Emil Berna do fantastic work of capturing the physical spaces of the ruined cities and situating Jandl within those spaces to seem especially helpless and terrified; it's a stark contrast with the studio-bound interiors, which are more comforting and closer and lit much softer.

For ultimately, The Search isn't a desperately depressing movie (its most American touch): it is a hopeful one, in which good people doing there best can make things better and more comfortable for the displaced persons unable to fight for themselves. It's not propaganda, really, but it fixedly presents only the tenderest kind of behavior from the American saviors it scatters throughout the adventure, even those whose tenderness is completely misunderstood by Karel. In one moment, Karel is learning English words, and is convinced that the word for "deer" is "Bambi" - a sweet but also surprisingly clever and insightful example of how American pop culture presents itself to the world as harmless, light, loving fun. And that's what The Search wants to be as well: a depiction of America that says to Americans "this is who we can be, true do-gooders in a world badly in need of good", and says to world at large, "we want to help; let us do it", and in both cases acknowledging that it's a matter of hard work and will to actually serve as a protector and world leader, not a right. As themes built around American exceptionalism go, they really don't get any more sincere and humble than that, and constructed on top of such a sensitive, haunting character study, The Search proves to be humane and earnest without sacrificing a certain hardness and grim realism that keeps it from ever being sentimental or idiotically gooey. Two-thirds of a century after the moment it was addressing has passed, it's still a rich, rewarding movie of a sort that they don't make any more, because they never really did in the the first place.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1948
-Bud Abbott and Lou Costello only meet Frankenstein's monster, Dracula, and the Wolf Man in Universal's Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein
-The independent docudrama/noir hybrid He Walked by Night helps to invent the police procedural as we now think of it
-Orson Welles makes Macbeth with Republic, his last American film before a decade of artistic exile in Europe

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1948
-Italian neorealism explodes into an international significance with Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves
-Release the year before the Communist revolution buried it for nearly a half-decade, Fei Mu's Spring in a Small Town is one of the most highly regarded Chinese films ever made
-Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger's The Red Shoes is the British duo's masterpiece and among the most indescribably beautiful films in the history of Technicolor

Thứ Hai, 21 tháng 10, 2013

CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL '13: STOP-OVER (KAVEH BAKHTIARI, FRANCE-SWITZERLAND)

Screens at CIFF: 10/21 & 10/23
World premiere: 19 May, 2013, Cannes International Film Festival

The documentary Stop-Over begins with what's far too swift and deadly to call it a sucker punch: more like a stiletto darted into the heart. Kaveh Bakhtiari's first feature-length project starts with a filmed conversation about the rough life of an illegal emigrant from the Middle East to Europe, with the director filming his cousin Mohsen. This segues into a series of title cards, explaining that Mohsen was with a group of fellow travelers three years ago, back when he hadn't yet decided to give up and return to Iran, back when he was still alive. And just like that, with that dumbfounding "still", the movie assumes for itself a sense of overwhelming fatalism that clings to it for the rest of its 106 minutes, giving a film with a kaleidoscopic view of the lives of several immigrants a very specific human story to tether it.

Bakhtiari spent quite a long time visiting Mohsen in Athens (a common layover point for illegal immigration), when Mohsen was living in a rooming house of sorts with a circle of hopeful immigrants, loosely led by a man of about 30 or 35 named Amir (sensibly, the director refrains from family names). The director was himself a Swiss citizen and thus detached from the reality lived by these people, too broken by life in their native country to feel like they could ever return to the unspoken agonies they've escaped from, and unable to find any legal channel to escape to something better. And so does Stop-Over take the form of a fly-on-the-wall piece of observation, watching as the men (and one woman) come and go, hanging on to whatever measure of hope they're able to scrounge up, mostly letting their daily lives play out without connection to greater narratives about The Immigrant Experience, and mostly eschewing political commentary - by no means are Bakhtiari's political sympathies in doubt, you understand, and by its very nature Stop-Over can't help but by a rallying cry. But it's also not a message movie of any sort, arguing only that these people, so easily written off with the word "illegal", have human feelings and motivations not so readily pigeonholed.

At the same time, Bakhtiari's separation from his subjects remains an ever-present sticking point: explicitly identified only a few times, but always there in the way that his camera eye puts a wal between his experience and theirs - we never see Bakhtiari interacting with the people he spends quite a lot of time living with, and when they make a specific point of engaging with him, it's almost always to stress his otherness, whether because of his camera (which annoys some people more often than others), or because his legal status puts him in a position to do things and speak to people that they cannot. There aren't but two or three moments in the 106-minute film where there's overt resentment, but there's not a single moment where Bakhtiaria seems to really "belong".

This curious relationship between director and his subjects results in Stop-Over having an objectivity to it that's really quite striking. Not about the ramifications of the situation being filmed - as I said, even if he doesn't ventriloquise it, there's no doubt that Bakhtiari firmly believes that every single person who goes before his camera deserve the full rights of citizenship wherever they want to go. It is, however, objective about who they are and how they live: the film's chief value is undoubtedly how it captures the day-to-day life of people living in reduced circumstances and under profound stress. It's a journalistic presentation of life on the edge, most beautifully summed up by a 16-year-old (the film's most reliably freaked-out inhabitant; in one amusing moment, Amir is pleased to find out how much calmer he is on tranquilisers) who observes that all his dreams are of being chased by the police. The film is a marvelous depiction of normal life in profoundly abnormal situations, and it doesn't take political sympathy to see how interesting all this is.

As good as all this is, Stop-Over suffers from one serious and pervasive limitation that significantly reduces its potency, and possibly could not be fixed without breaking the wonderful intimacy with which Bakhtiari represents his subjects. Basically, the film lacks context: it's so concerned with the "this is what happens today" scale, it loses sight entirely of the "this is what happened yesterday and what will happen tomorrow" of the material, and since is the survival mechanism adopted by the immigrants themselves, this makes sense. But it is, maybe, the documentarian's job to expand on the limited viewpoint of his material, and this is not something Bakhtiari does: everything from the overall scope of immigration policy to the simple fact that Athens is a hotbed of illegal immigration is are either implied or left totally unstated, and there's really not any attempt to connect the lives of these people to the world outside of this rooming house. It's all noble, engaging, and humanist, but it's frustratingly minor, and I feel like even just five minutes of more impersonal exposition might have given Stop-Over quite a bit more heft as sociology and political tract.

7/10