Wall of Sound (on MORTAL THOUGHTS)

This appeared in the Chicago Reader on April 26, 1991. Consider this review Part 2 of a long-term re-evaluation of Alan Rudolph’s use of music and his treatment of working-class people, preceded by my 1979 review of Remember My Name for Film Quarterly, which ran in this space last week. –J.R.

 

MORTAL THOUGHTS

** (Worth seeing)

Directed by Alan Rudolph

Written by William Reilly and Claude Kerven

With Demi Moore, Glenne Headly, Bruce Willis, Harvey Keitel, John Pankow, and Billie Neal.

For all his talent and sophistication, Alan Rudolph has frequently shown a romantic slant toward the working class that borders on stylistic gentrification. Even in my two Rudolph favorites, Remember My Name (1978) and Choose Me (1984), the ironic casting of a construction worker and his wife with real-life mod couple Anthony Perkins and Berry Berenson and the creation of a dream-bubble ambience in a gritty bar suggest a kind of put-on.

Life is a dream, Rudolph always appears to be saying, and the more sordid and low-down the life is, the more seductive and precious the dream becomes. It’s a viable enough premise for a mannerist, and he invariably makes the most of this conceit; yet there are times when his taste for cardboard funk causes his worlds to totter like houses of cards. Welcome to L.A. (1976), Trouble in Mind (1985), The Moderns (1988), and Love at Large (1990) all display at least momentary signs of this shakiness; enjoyable as they all are, they never quite transcend their charm as stylistic exercises.

The half dozen Rudolph films I’ve mentioned so far were all written by him, as was the anomalous Endangered Species (1982). Return Engagement (1983) was a documentary about G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary, and four others — Roadie, Songwriter, Made in Heaven, and now Mortal Thoughts — qualify as inherited projects. (Early on, he directed two horror pictures, which he disowns and I haven’t seen.) In the case of Mortal Thoughts, written by William Reilly and Claude Kerven, he returns to a working-class milieu, but this time the possibilities of romantic embellishment are virtually nonexistent. The result is a strong and gripping picture that nonetheless leaves me ambivalent.

Music is almost always a main ingredient in a Rudolph picture; at least three of them–Welcome to L.A., Remember My Name, and Choose Me – essentially began as record albums around which Rudolph shaped narratives and visual styles. Ever since Trouble in Mind, he has worked with a new-age/fusion composer and musician named Mark Isham, and in certain respects the centrality of the role played by Isham’s scores rivals that played by the camera. This becomes especially important in Mortal Thoughts, where the story, characters, and settings are restricted to a working-class milieu — the film was shot in New Jersey, in Bayonne, Hoboken, and Jersey City — and the music clearly belongs to another realm entirely. It creates a voyeuristic distance between ourselves and the characters, establishing a rigid polarity of “us” and “them” that no amount of sympathy can wholly cross.

My father, a literature professor, used to argue that the novel was an invention that made it possible, for the first time in history, for those in the middle and upper classes to imagine what it was like to be someone in a different milieu. Before the novel came along, it was socially acceptable to visit insane asylums for entertainment; the very notion that such an attitude might be cruel and inhumane became feasible only after novels made it possible to consider an inmate’s point of view.

A quarter of a century ago, the prevailing liberal-humanist ideology in this country appeared to be that as the world steadily shrank through the growth of communications, racial, ethnic, and economic differences between people became less and less important. Fed in part by Marshall McLuhan’s utopian vision of the “global village” supposedly made possible by television, the overall idea resembled an extension of my father’s theory about the novel: the more massive and widespread mass culture became, the more we learned about peoples and cultures different from our own, and the more we learned, the less we had to fear. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the optimism of the mid-60s, but the gist of this attitude was that mass communications were good because they collapsed both geographical and cultural differences.

The problem with this attitude is that it uncritically assumes that mass communications communicate, while overlooking the ways in which they might do the reverse by reinforcing language barriers and other cultural differences. (In a similar fashion, phone-answering machines could just as accurately be called phone-nonanswering machines because they serve to block as well as facilitate communication.) Today, when we’re probably more cynically aware of the role played by mass communications in selling products — material or ideological — we’re more likely to believe that the reverse of McLuhan’s optimistic hypothesis is true. In terms of the recent war in the Middle East, for instance, mass communications made it possible to believe that the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people was less important than the proud victory of a beleaguered world power suddenly feeling its oats again. It even became possible to celebrate the spectacle of an elephant stepping on a flea, because the subject of the mass communications was the size, health, and efficiency of the elephant’s foot, not the welfare of the flea underneath.

All this may seem pretty extraneous to a consideration of a crime thriller set in New Jersey, but I think it has immediate bearing on the role played by Isham’s music in the film. The problem isn’t that Mortal Thoughts is condescending or inhumane or unfeeling toward its characters: on the contrary, it draws us into the worst of their problems with a great deal of compassion and understanding. But it never, not even for an instant, allows us to make the leap that a novel or short story by, say, Nelson Algren would, in order to imagine that these events could happen to us or people close to us.

The plot of Mortal Thoughts depends on various delayed revelations and surprises, the last of which, while it violates our faith in the narrative as a whole, doesn’t substantially alter our overall sense of the characters. The story unravels as a series of flashbacks during the interrogation of Cynthia (Demi Moore), who’s brought to a dingy police station for questioning by two detectives (Harvey Keitel and Billie Neal) when her best friend Joyce’s husband is found murdered.

The emotional center of the film is the friendship between Cynthia and Joyce (Glenne Headly), both young mothers, and the dramatic tension derives from various forces — societal as well as personal — that threaten their friendship. In flashbacks, Joyce’s unemployed husband James (Bruce Willis) is seen as a sexist lout and tyrant who spends most of his time getting high, beating and abusing Joyce, and making crude passes at Cynthia — a character with no redeeming qualities whom the film makes no attempt to soften or excuse. Joyce despises him but seems unable to break away from him, and we learn that their mutual antagonism as a couple dates at least as far back as their wedding, though according to Cynthia, Joyce regarded him as a prize “catch.”

In short, the relationship between Joyce and her husband is both ineffable and familiar; so is their awful milieu. The principal actors — Moore (who coproduced the film), Headly, Willis, and Keitel — are all uncommonly good at making these characters, particularly their speech and accents, immediately recognizable as well as believable, and the locations are equally dead-on. The grim, tacky interiors — including a funeral parlor, the characters’ homes, and Joyce’s Clip ‘n’ Dye Beauty Salon — are brutally plausible.

Yet in spite of these attributes, I couldn’t shake off a phrase I kept recalling from critic Manny Farber — whose original occasion I don’t remember, but whose aptness here is hard to resist: “oily overdefinition of the working class.” The film not only lingers on those aspects of the milieu that lend themselves most easily to satire — a wedding band’s corny rendition of Billy Joel’s “Just the Way You Are,” James’s misspelling of the word “sugar,” Joyce’s bubble-gum snapping, the bad art in the funeral parlor — but it also gives us such a safe and untroubled vantage point that we never respond to the characters’ dilemmas as if they resembled in any way our own.

I have no quarrel per se with the film’s detachment from its characters. Rudolph generally avoids the kind of condescension that has often sabotaged other projects of this kind, and an important part of the movie’s effectiveness in fact depends on its creation of an analytical distance between ourselves and the world that’s being shown. (Similar distancing strategies were used less effectively in True Love [1989] — an independent feature by Nancy Savoca about the preliminaries to a loveless, hopeless marriage of a couple in Brooklyn in which the lack of empathy for any of the characters and the absence of a compelling plot blunted the film’s satirical aspirations.) Cynthia and Joyce’s friendship is treated sympathetically throughout, and this encourages us to analyze all the horrific elements in their environment that ultimately alienate them from each other in spite of their good intentions.

Indeed, our analytical distance suggests at times that much-abused descriptive term “Brechtian”: not only are we distanced from the characters in order to understand certain things about them, but we are also being entertained in the process. One of Rudolph’s central props is a TV monitor that frames Cynthia frontally during her interrogation. Keeping his camera in almost constant motion, circling the three characters and the nearby monitor, Rudolph is at his best when he adroitly shuttles back and forth between the interrogation and the various portions of the story that Cynthia is telling; the TV monitor is only one of his more obvious ways of activating an analytical perspective on what we’re watching. A master at establishing contemplative registers, he makes remarkable use of slow motion at the beginning of several sequences, and he also knows when to jerk us back to attention with an abrupt cut. Purely as an exercise in story telling, Mortal Thoughts is in some ways as impressive as anything he’s done.

Yet the film leaves me with a queasy feeling — almost exclusively the product of Isham’s subtle and effective score — that just won’t go away. With its wordless ethereal voices, its muted and unmuted brass, its purring Gil Evans-like harmonies and voicings, and its varied uses of “soft” percussion (which include a suggestion of heartbeats at one climactic juncture), the music sets up an impenetrable glass wall between us and the characters — at once distancing and reassuring — that we instinctively know from the outset will never be broken. (The fact that we can’t imagine any of the characters in the movie listening to this kind of music with pleasure is not only symptomatic but emblematic of this barrier.) Admittedly, this knowledge of our safety and security is what makes all the other elements in Rudolph’s style mesh and register; the film’s overall achievement, such as it is, would be unrealizable without it. But unlike the warmth and intensity that Algren’s poetic prose weaves around lives that are equally blighted and hopeless, Isham’s score makes the possibility of loving these characters or feeling morally committed to them not only impractical but unthinkable.

Published on 26 Apr 1991 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Touki Bouki

This first feature by Senegalese director Djibril Diop Mambety is one of the greatest of all African films and almost certainly the most experimental. Beautifully shot and strikingly conceived, it follows the comic misadventures of a young motorcyclist and former herdsman (Magaye Niang) who gets involved in petty crimes in Dakar during an attempt to escape to Paris with the woman he loves (Mareme Niang). The title translates as “hyena’s voyage,” and among the things that make this film so interesting stylistically are the fantasy sequences involving the couple’s projected images of themselves in Paris and elsewhere (1973). Cosponsored by Blacklight. (Univ. of Chicago, 1212 E. 59th St., Sunday, April 28, 5:00, 702-8575)

Published on 26 Apr 1991 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

The Comedy of Money

Even this minor film from Max Ophuls has so much energy it makes the major work of figures like Spielberg and De Palma shrink to virtual nothingness. Ophuls was effectively imported to the Netherlands to make this 1936 feature to help beef up the lackluster Dutch film industry. Based on an original Ophuls story (and coscripted by Walter Schlee, Alex de Haan, and Christine van Meeteren) and featuring songs and commentary from a neo-Brechtian clown who stands outside the plot, the film describes the misadventures of a bank courier (Herman Bouber) who is robbed of bank funds and fired, only to be appointed as head of a finance company by crooked businessmen who believes that he has the stolen money. Rather light and on the cutesy side as narrative, this comedy is worth seeing mainly for the inventive mise en scene (with the great Eugen Schufftan as cinematographer); it’s full of unexpected camera angles and Ophuls’s usual delight in camera movement (watch for an especially giddy dream sequence). With Rini Otte and Cor Ruys. (Film Center, Art Institute, Columbus Drive at Jackson, Thursday, May 2, 6:00, 443-3737)

Published on 26 Apr 1991 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Feudal Attraction [JU DOU]

From the Chicago Reader (April 19, 1991). — J.R.

http://www.filmsondisc.com/images/ju_dou.jpg

JU DOU

*** (A must-see)

Directed by Zhang Yimou, in collaboration with Yang Fengliang

Written by Liu Heng

With Gong Li, Li Baotian, Li Wei, Zhang Yi, and Zheng Jian.

http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/graphics/ju1.jpg

Like most people reading this, I know next to nothing about the history of China, which is thousands of years older than the U.S. and has a population over four times as large. In high school I was required to take courses in Alabama and American history; world history was an elective, but if that course had anything to do with China, I no longer recall any details. I also managed to get through seven years of college and graduate school without further edification on the subject.

I suspect that most people in China are comparably uninformed about the U.S. When my youngest brother was in Kenya in the late 60s, he spent time conversing with some Red Guard members who were stationed there, and used to have friendly arguments with them about where Coca-Cola, which they liked, came from; they were convinced it was a product of Kenya. It was difficult for them to accept that anything they liked came from the U.S., just as it’s difficult for many of us to accept that anything we like about China (e.g., the 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square — routinely and misleadingly labeled prodemocracy in the American press) isn’t American in origin.

Given this tradition of shared ignorance, I think it’s less than useful to describe Ju Dou–a beautiful and disturbing new film from the People’s Republic of China — by comparing it to The Postman Always Rings Twice, as a good many American reviewers have done. Some of them have even had the brass to criticize the film for not living up to this comparison; “the postman barely rings once,” quips a blurb writer in the New Yorker, who goes on to criticize the stylization of one of the characters for recalling — and not living up to — a British SF programmer called Children of the Damned (1964). The implication is clear: it’s the business of Chinese filmmakers to study, emulate, and adhere to the standards and aesthetic principles set by Anglo-American pulp writers and hacks so that they can rise to the same cultural level as novelist James M. Cain and directors Tay Garnett and Anton Leader.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede for the moment that there are a few loose and superficial correspondences between Cain’s novel, Children of the Damned, and Ju Dou. Cain’s novel was written and set in the 30s, Ju Dou is set in the 20s — not the same decade, but we’re talking ballpark figures. Both stories center on a passionate adulterous affair between the wife and employee of a loutish boss in a rural area. But this is about as far as the comparison can go, and the only possible connection to Children of the Damned is the presence of a silent, threatening, and destructive child.

The problem with such comparisons is that they obscure considerably more than they clarify, by boiling down a story to what we already know and discarding or minimizing the rest. To give some idea of what is being discarded and minimized, a fairly detailed synopsis of Ju Dou is necessary (readers who’d prefer to see the film before hearing the whole story are invited to take their leave at any point). Considering that the film was recently nominated for an Academy Award (the first time a Chinese-language film has ever been nominated) and that the Chinese government, which has prevented the film from showing publicly in China, also tried unsuccessfully to have the nomination withdrawn, it’s important to try to understand not only what it means to us, but also what it means to — and for — China.

The beautiful Ju Dou (Gong Li) is the third wife of the owner of a dye factory named Yang Jinshan (Li Wei), a cruel, impotent tyrant who purchases her for the express purpose of fathering an heir; when he discovers that he’s incapable of impregnating her, he beats and tortures her. If we assume that such barbaric practices belong only to China’s past, the film’s director, Zhang Yimou, insists we’re wrong. “In remote rural areas among the peasantry,” he said in a recent interview, “you will still find far more serious cases of oppression than Ju Dou’s. Even today, you can buy a woman at the price of RMB 2000 to 3000 [approximately $400]. There’s no way the government can stop this. Sometimes the women escape, but if they are caught, they are chained, humiliated, and beaten in a very inhuman way.”

The employee in Ju Dou (Li Baotian) is an adopted nephew of Yang Jinshan named Yang Tianqing — unlike Ju Dou, he bears the family name of his uncle — who has been working for Jinshan for a long time before Ju Dou turns up. His affair with Ju Dou begins at her instigation and only after a certain amount of prodding; he was content to peek at her bathing herself through a hole in the wall. When she discovers that he’s been spying on her, her first response is to stuff the peep-hole with straw. Later, after Jinshan leaves on an overnight trip, she goes to Tianqing’s room and finds the door bolted. Only on the following day, after she confronts him (”Why are you afraid? . . . Do you think I’m a wolf? . . . I’ve kept my body for you”) and embraces him, do they finally make love.

Some time afterward, a doctor declares that Ju Dou is pregnant. Jinshan, believing that the child is his own, offers a grateful prayer to his ancestors, but Ju Dou whispers to Tianqing that the child is his. When the child is born, the elders in the village meet and one of them selects his name, Yang Tianbai (played by Zhang Yi as a child and Zheng Jian when he grows older). The affair between Ju Dou and Tianqing continues in secret during the baby’s infancy whenever Jinshan is away; she even offers Tianqing some of her breast milk. But when Jinshan’s donkey returns alone to the dye factory, Tianqing dutifully goes out looking for his boss; finding him unconscious, Tianqing carries him home on his back.

After the doctor announces that Jinshan is paralyzed from the waist down, Ju Dou and Tianqing become more open with him about their relationship, though the social front all three characters present to the village remains the same. After Ju Dou angrily tells Jinshan that Tianqing is the baby’s father, Jinshan tries to kill Tianbai. Another crucial difference between Tianqing and his counterpart in The Postman Always Rings Twice is then revealed: Tianqing is unwilling to murder his boss and uncle, despite Ju Dou’s expressed desire that he do so; the most he can do is threaten, “If you touch my son again, you’ll see what happens.”

Jinshan responds to this crisis by trying to burn the dye factory down, but Tianqing and Ju Dou manage to extinguish the fire and then punish him by keeping him trapped in a bucket on wheels that they periodically hoist into the air with ropes, which causes him to pray to his ancestors for revenge. Some time later Tianbai plays with a cart while his parents sit on a hillside expressing concern about his failure to speak. “Anyway, he is your son,” Ju Dou says to Tianqing. “We’ll tell him when he’s older.” She goes on to say that her period is late and that she may be pregnant again. When Tianbai runs back home alone to the dye factory to dunk reeds he has gathered in a vat of dye, Jinshan moves behind him to drown him. But at a crucial moment the boy turns around and utters his first word to him: “Daddy.” Overjoyed, Jinshan embraces Tianbai. When Ju Dou and Tianqing return, he introduces them as “Mother” and “Brother.”

At a village gathering where Tianbai is toasted by the elders, Tianqing bursts into tears, and the locals comment that he’s drunk.

After Ju Dou painfully tries to abort a second child with chili powder and vinegar, and proposes fleeing the village with Tianbai, Tianqing replies, “If they knew, they’d kill us.” When she suggests poisoning Jinshan with arsenic, he takes umbrage: “How dare you — after all, he’s my uncle.” “And what am I to you?” she yells back. The doctor gives her medicine after she passes out, and we discover that her abortion was a success, though the doctor expresses some suspicion about how she became pregnant again.

One day while playing in the dye factory, Tianbai accidentally causes Jinshan to fall into a vat of red dye and drown; he laughs as the old man goes under. When Tianqing returns, he accuses Ju Dou of murdering her husband. When she sarcastically calls him a respectful nephew, he slaps her. “You’re beating me too?” she says. “Revive the old man and you can both beat me!”

Tianbai — who, it is clear by now, despises both his parents — is declared Jinshan’s sole heir by the village elders. There is gossip by now about the adulterous relationship, and the elders rule that Tianqing move out of the house and that Ju Dou be forbidden to remarry. The disgraced Ju Dou and Tianqing stand apart from the villagers during the funeral procession (whether this is because of their infidelity or traditional is not clear), though both of them make public displays of grief and even lie under the coffin as it’s being carried. Tianbai sits on top of it.

Seven or eight years pass. Tianqing visits Ju Dou and Tianbai with gifts for both of them, but the boy refuses to speak to him and rejects his gift. Ju Dou still wants to tell Tianbai that Tianqing is his father, and after Tianbai overhears some of the male villagers gossiping about Ju Dou and Tianqing, he rushes after one of them with a meat cleaver. Finally giving up the chase, but having bloodied his own hand with the cleaver, he returns to the dye factory, beats up Tianqing, and proceeds to wreck part of the factory. Ju Dou tells Tianbai that Tianqing is his father, but he only responds by locking him out of the factory.

Ju Dou and Tianqing meet again and go down to a cavelike cellar to make love; the lack of air in the chamber means that they will eventually suffocate, and they implicitly agree to a suicide pact. But Tianbai appears in the cellar, rescues Ju Dou, and murders Tianqing in the same vat of red dye in which Jinshan drowned. Grief stricken, Ju Dou takes a torch and burns the factory to the ground.

Perhaps the most curious aspect of Ju Dou, at least to a Western viewer, is the fact that all of the major adult characters are depicted realistically and Tianbai is not. When I asked a Chinese acquaintance about this after seeing the film for the first time, at the Toronto film festival last fall, he replied that the film was essentially about the inability of China to break away fully from its feudal past, and that Tianbai was the embodiment of this feudalism. (That print of Ju Dou, I should add, was saddled with ridiculous English subtitles, containing such expressions as “Make my day” and “What goes around, comes around”; it showed in that form — under the title Secret Love, Hidden Faces – at the Chicago Film Festival, where it won the top prize, the Silver Hugo; I’m happy to report that the film has been given new subtitles by its distributor, which has also restored its original Chinese title.)

I’ve given such a detailed synopsis to establish the links of the major characters with the village, which most American reviews I’ve read –a s well as the synopsis provided by the distributor — have overlooked. Without this context, a comparison with The Postman Always Rings Twice might seem at least halfway viable; with it, such a comparison no longer seems relevant. Feudalism is a key concept in the history of China, but in an American context it has virtually no meaning at all. When Zhang Yimou remarks that Ju Dou’s relative slowness to rebel against her condition, as well as Tianqing’s sense of abasement and fidelity toward his uncle, “is the result of thousands of years of Confucian education” and a “lack of confidence in relation to one’s ego,” he’s alluding to a history and a social meaning that simply can’t be translated into American equivalents. Jinshan’s feudal ownership of Ju Dou and Tianqing and the dye factory, which is eventually inherited by his legal son, is accorded a social sanction that effectively makes any escape impossible. Even the fact that Tianbai is responsible for Jinshan’s death can’t break the chain of tradition that winds up crippling everyone, including Tianbai; his social and historical birthright ultimately overrides even his biological birthright, and the passion that produces him ultimately consumes him. The accidental death of his false father leads inexorably to the murder of his real father, just as Jinshan’s attempt to destroy the factory by fire is ultimately fulfilled by Ju Dou, the character who hates him and what he stands for the most.

The first film I ever saw from the People’s Republic of China was Li Wen-hua’s Breaking With Old Ideas (1975), a film about the building of a college for rural workers made during the last years of the Cultural Revolution. It can be rented on video here, but to the best of my knowledge it is no longer being shown in China. Indefatigably cheerful about creating a new social order that integrally involves the peasants, strictly realistic in style, and both frontal and symmetrical in framing, this film seems a world apart from the “fifth generation” films that emerged from China in the 80s — films such as Tian Zhuangzhuang’s The Horse Thief, Huang Jianxin’s The Black Cannon Incident, Zhang Junzhao’s One and Eight, Wu Tianming’s Old Well, Chen Kaige’s Yellow Earth, and Zhang Yimou’s only previous feature, Red Sorghum.

The directors of these films were in their teens during the Cultural Revolution, and when they enrolled in the Beijing Film Academy — the only film school in China — they were all adults with a decade of postrevolutionary experience behind them. They were also the first contemporary generation of Chinese filmmakers exposed to Western films, and the films they directed show traces of this exposure in a way that Breaking With Old Ideas clearly doesn’t. They remain our major pipeline into contemporary Chinese cinema, but it’s important to bear in mind that some of their best-known films in the West are not necessarily well-known in China. (The Horse Thief, for example, got very limited domestic exposure; Ju Dou has had no mass exposure at all, and has been seen only at a few private screenings and on unofficially circulated video copies.)

The Western influences on these films shouldn’t mislead us into taking them as would-be Western artifacts. It’s even questionable whether the Western practice (and auteurist implication) of assigning a possessive credit to directors, which I’ve followed here, is fully appropriate; none of these directors is credited with his own script, for instance. Zhang Yimou may well be the most versatile member of the group — he was the cinematographer on One and Eight, Yellow Earth, and Old Well, in which he also acted — but on Ju Dou he is credited with a codirector, Yang Fengliang, and the script of the film, while apparently written under Zhang’s supervision, is by Liu Heng, the author of the contemporary novella Fu Xi, Fu Xi, which Ju Dou is based on. Moreover, from the little I know about the novella, the film is far from a simple, straightforward adaptation. The action of Fu Xi, Fu Xi takes place between the 1920s and the 1970s (according to Zhang, keeping all of the film’s action in the 20s made it easier to get the script approved), and the adulterous couple in the original are a brother and sister.

Some commentators have suggested that Ju Dou is being suppressed in China because of its erotic content, and I must admit that the film is more sexually explicit than any other film from the People’s Republic I’ve seen. But its pessimism about the feudal past may be an even more relevant factor. The film — which was financed by the Japanese production company Tokuma and used Japanese equipment, but was made with an all-Chinese crew — went into preproduction before the Tiananmen Square crackdown. When the crew was reorganized two months later, the budget had been reduced by a third. Certainly the government crackdown can be interpreted as a feudal throwback of sorts, so it seems possible that the story could be interpreted along similar lines: insofar as Tianbai represents “the return of the repressed,” his brutality and lack of forgiveness can easily be associated with the Chinese government’s punitive responses.

Visually stunning, with ravishing uses of color and beautifully modulated lap dissolves, Ju Dou may not be the most formally striking Chinese film I’ve seen — I still prefer The Horse Thief, which I’m happy to say has recently become available on video — but it certainly is the most effective and dramatic in terms of commercial moviemaking, both as spectacle and as story telling. The film is organized around recurrences and rhyme schemes involving both colors (of fabrics and dye vats) and architecture (with the wooden steps leading from the factory up to Jinshan’s bedchamber serving as a pivotal site). The buildings used date back to the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), and probably for this reason suggest the feudal period even more than the characters and village customs do. A passionate tragedy with a contemporary social message, Ju Dou can only be understood if we step beyond the confines of our own historical context and think about a culture where even the contemporary spans centuries.

Published on 19 Apr 1991 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Reunion

It’s a pity that Jerry Schatzberg’s most recent picture–and one of his very best–has had to wait two years for its Chicago premiere. Adapted by Harold Pinter from a novel by Fred Uhlman, and shot in ‘Scope by Bruno De Keyzer, this French-English-West German production is a story about a Jewish lawyer in New York (Jason Robards) who’s returning to Stuttgart, Germany, after a 55-year absence to discover what happened during the early 30s to his best friend (Samuel West)–an ambassador’s son who didn’t share the racism of his aristocratic family. Most of the story is told in flashback (Christien Anholt plays the hero as a youth), and much of what’s impressive about its unfolding is the meticulous re-creation of Germany during the rise of Nazism (the superb production design is by the great Alexandre Trauner, who appears in a cameo in a warehouse office), as well as a sensitive (and perhaps timely) depiction of how the gradual changes in national thinking were reflected in everyday life. It’s a story that’s been told before, but seldom with such feeling for detail and nuance; one has to adjust to the curious mix between English dialogue and street signs in German, but the performances–including those by Francoise Fabian, Maureen Kerwin, Barbara Jefford, and Bert Parnaby in small parts–are impeccable (1989). (Facets Multimedia Center, 1517 W. Fullerton, Friday and Saturday, April 12 and 13, 6:45 and 9:00; Sunday, April 14, 5:15 and 7:30; Monday, April 15, 9:00; and Tuesday through Thursday, April 16 through 18, 6:45 and 9:00; 281-4114)

Published on 12 Apr 1991 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>