Endless Love [NIGHT AND DAY]

From the Chicago Reader (March 26, 1993); reprinted in my collection Movies as Politics. — J.R.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/53/53_images/53stabsnight&day.jpg

NIGHT AND DAY **** (Masterpiece)

Directed by Chantal Akerman

Written by Akerman and Pascal Bonitzer

With Guilaine Londez, Thomas Langmann, François Negret, Nicole Colchat, Pierre Laroche, and Christian Crahay.

Considering all the oppositions that inform the work of Chantal Akerman — such as painting versus narrative, France versus Belgium, being Jewish versus being French and Belgian, and the commercial versus the experimental — it’s only logical that both the plot and the title of her recent Night and Day, one of her best features to date, should reflect the same pattern. The situation it refers to is so simple that it’s hard to describe without making it sound singsongy: Julie (Guilaine Londez) and Jack (Thomas Langmann) — an infatuated young couple from the provinces who’ve recently come to Paris — live in a small flat near Boulevard Sebastopol. During the day they make love; at night Jack drives a taxi and Julie walks the summer streets, singing happily to herself. One night they meet Joseph (François Negret) — another isolated newcomer to Paris — who drives Jack’s cab during the day. Jack heads for his shift; Julie goes walking with Joseph, and they quickly fall in love. From then on, Julie becomes a round-the-clock lover, sleeping with each driver as he gets off work; Joseph knows about Jack but not vice versa, and Julie refuses to choose between them. (She eventually arrives at what might be called the ultimate feminist solution.)

Insomnia has long been a basic element of Akerman’s nocturnal poetics — especially in Les rendez-vous d’Anna, Toute une nuit, and The Man With a Suitcase. But until now Akerman’s take on it has seemed troubled and neurotic. Her magically luminous nighttime exteriors and claustrophobic interiors, like those of her painterly influences, Belgian surrealists Paul Delvaux and René Magritte as well as Edward Hopper, glower with abnormal degrees of presence.  á à

http://www.sfmoma.org/view/assets/images/events/akerman/akerman_nuit.jpg?w=160&h=10000&scale=fit&smileaction=image

In Night and Day, by contrast, insomnia seems a kind of precondition for utopian romance — a sentiment expressed at the very outset by Jack and Julie as they lie together in bed: “Are you sleeping?” “No. Are you?” “No.” “You and I never sleep.” “Never when we are together.” “We like movement better.” “Yes, it’s true.” “When I sleep, I don’t live.” “Neither do I.” “Right now, I prefer living.” “So do I.”

A little later their dialogue resumes: “Maybe we should meet people.” “Next year.” “And get a telephone?” “Next year.”

And finally, after they make love, this closing exchange: “You must sleep, Jack. You’ll have an accident.” “Next year.”

http://th716.photobucket.com/albums/ww163/LeopoldPhotos/Just%20Watched%20January%202011/th_NightandDay.png

The musical-comedy-like rhythms of their dialogue are far from accidental. Roughly speaking, Night and Day is Akerman’s third and most successful attempt at capturing the feel of a musical — after Les années 80 (1983), an inspired feature-length trailer for one, and Golden Eighties (aka Window Shopping, 1986), a charming if somewhat disappointing fulfillment of the earlier prospectus. This one succeeds in part because it’s less literal in this endeavor than its two predecessors.

A ravishingly beautiful moment immediately follows the above dialogue: Julie starts to sing wordlessly along with the lush strings on the sound track — sometimes in unison, sometimes complementing or augmenting the musical backdrop. After she and Jack walk downstairs to go their separate ways — he to his taxi, she on her nightly tour of the city — she begins to sing out loud to the same tune, this time without accompaniment, a kind of celebration of her life as we’ve come to understand it. “During the day, he tells me about his night, and at night I wander across Paris. . . . We don’t have a child; it isn’t really the right time. . . . I always get home before him. I wait for the day and erase the night. It’s summer in Paris, the time for abandonment, when days are the longest. . . . We don’t have a phone, but we don’t know anyone anyway.” Sometimes we see her singing while she walks and sometimes we merely hear her offscreen, but the movement of her walk and the movement of the melodic line both proceed continuously in a stream of unbroken poetry.

http://1.gvt0.com/vi/nwP85RVcrl0/default.jpg

Not all of Night and Day proceeds like a musical. Indeed, the sheer exuberance of the first reel or so isn’t really sustained over the film’s 90 minutes. At the same time, it would be shortsighted to assume that capturing the spirit of musicals represents the sum of Akerman’s ambitions here. To try to understand better all that Night and Day achieves, both in relation to Akerman’s earlier work and on its own terms, it would help to return to the four separate, yet connected, oppositions already mentioned.

***

Painting versus narrative. “Carl Dreyer’s basic problem as an artist,” wrote the late Robert Warshow in 1948, reflecting on Dreyer’s Day of Wrath, “is one that seems almost inevitably to confront the self-conscious creator of ‘art’ films: the conflict between a love for the purely visual and the tendencies of a medium that is not only visual but also dramatic.” This is the problem addressed in one way or another by each of Akerman’s features to date, beginning with her painterly, silent, nonnarrative first feature, Hotel Monterey (1972), made in New York when she was only 22, and her narrative and relatively unpainterly sound feature Je, tu, il, elle, made two years later.

Her 1975 masterpiece Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles was her first major attempt to combine and somehow reconcile the visual with the dramatic, and the features that follow represent different attempts at synthesis. News From Home (1977), for instance, is essentially a nonnarrative study of Manhattan exteriors accompanied by Akerman’s voice as she reads letters she received from her mother while she was in New York, material that inevitably introduces narrative elements. Les rendez-vous d’Anna (1978), The Man With a Suitcase (1984), and Golden Eighties are all unabashed story films, but the first two make use of some of the claustrophobic painterly elements in Hotel Monterey, while the third, set almost entirely inside a small shopping mall, defines narrative as an interlocking series of mini-plots.

Toute une nuit (1982) is also made up of multiple mini-plots, but other than occurring over a single night most of them don’t interlock, and the overall effect is more painterly than narrative; the same is true to an even more radical extent of Histoires d’Amérique (1989), which stages the recounting over one night of numerous Jewish jokes in and around a Brooklyn park. Les années 80, a documentary about Akerman auditioning and rehearsing actresses for Golden Eighties, regards these actresses in part as painterly subjects or models and incorporates narrative only in the sense that it charts the development of certain songs and performances.

In broad terms, the polarity between painting and narrative is one between persistence and development. A painting exists in space, a narrative in time; persisting is what a painting does in time, and developing is what a narrative does in space. Consequently, insofar as Akerman’s films resemble paintings, character and plot development is always something of a problem, and insofar as they impose narratives, the persistence of people and places without any development is also something of a problem.

In the past, camera movements in Akerman’s work have tended to be both functional (pans following the movements of actors) and minimal, with the consequence that most of her compositions are static and therefore painterly. In Night and Day, camera movements have become copious and descriptive as well as functional; that is, they not only follow, accompany, or precede Julie when she walks down the streets of Paris or from room to room in her flat, but also lyrically traverse the bodies of her and her lovers when she’s in bed with them. One might say, in other words, that they follow or impose narratives on the people and the places, her painterly subjects.

France versus Belgium. Akerman was born in Brussels in 1950, and Belgium remains an important setting in many of her works, including Saute ma ville! (her first short, made in 1968), Jeanne Dielman, Les rendez-vous d’Anna, and Toute une nuit. The relatively staid and repressive quality of Belgian culture — including the bourgeois aspects of Belgian surrealism as exemplified by painters like Delvaux and Magritte — has a great deal to do with what these films are about as well as what they’re like, which is why they’re so much creepier than Akerman’s other works. Their decorous sense of the everyday calls to mind what the English writer and broadcaster George Melly once said about Magritte: “He is a secret agent, his object is to bring into disrepute the whole apparatus of bourgeois reality. Like all saboteurs, he avoids detection by dressing and behaving like everybody else.”

Magritte’s Man With Newspaper (1927-’28) tells me something about the customary disquiet of Akerman’s world. In it, four panels, two on top and two on the bottom, show the same corner of a sitting room, with one difference: in the first panel a man is seated at the table by the window reading a newspaper, and in the other three panels, neither the man nor the newspaper is in evidence. A narrative is implied between the first and second panel — the disappearance of the man and newspaper — without being confirmed, and we’re left with the eerie fact of three identical “empty” rooms. Similarly, many of Akerman’s settings suggest absence even more than presence.

Night and Day, like many of Akerman’s recent films, is a French-Belgian coproduction, but it has less of this creepy quality than any of her films I’ve seen to date. There’s some evidence that France has been a liberating force in her work, sexually as well as stylistically. Figuratively, at least, one might say that for the first time in her work, there are no empty rooms.

Being Jewish versus being French and Belgian. Akerman is the daughter of Polish Jews who survived the Nazi concentration camps, and this background bears significantly on News From Home, Les rendez-vous d’Anna, and Histoires d’Amérique. Though Thomas Langmann, the actor who plays Jack, played the Jewish leading character in a non-Akerman feature, Les années sandwiches (1988), and Guilaine Londez (Julie) has a physiognomy that suggests she might be Jewish, Jewishness appears to have no thematic relevance in Night and Day, and to all appearances seems as unimportant here as Akerman’s Belgian background. Significantly, however, Night and Day immediately follows Histoires d’Amérique, which is the most explicitly Jewish and, quite possibly, the least commercially successful of all her features to date. (Its critical reception at the Berlin film festival in 1989 was generally hostile and it appears to have had few screenings since then.)

The commercial versus the experimental. Throughout her career, Akerman has been commercially ambitious at the same time that she has shown the marked influence of experimental and mainly nonnarrative filmmakers such as Michael Snow, Stan Brakhage, and Jonas Mekas. In Je, tu, il, elle she took her first major steps toward commercial features, introducing sex as well as narrative into her universe while implicating herself personally by playing the lead character. In Jeanne Dielman, for the first time, she cast a movie star (the late, great actress Delphine Seyrig) in the lead role, while in Les rendez-vous d’Anna she moved closer to articulating a conventional story line. Les années 80 and Golden Eighties, by virtue of their charismatic casts and songs, clearly represent further attempts to woo and seduce audiences.

While Night and Day doesn’t qualify exactly as Akerman’s first love story — Golden Eighties is full of love stories — it is probably her first love story that audiences can easily identify with. Similarly, it is certainly not her first feminist film, but possibly the first that could be described as commercial. (The ads, not inappropriately, refer to it as “a postfeminist romance.”)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2IZWCIMy3Qo/S65FMs5illI/AAAAAAAASto/sVdX_Rh4Kq4/s1600/NIGHT+AND+DAY.jpg

***

One might conclude that Akerman has taken a big step with Night and Day toward making a conventional narrative feature. But the painterly persistence remains throughout the film; Jack and Joseph’s physical resemblance, the repetitions of various camera movements and angles, the similarities of Julie and Joseph’s various hotel rooms, and the recurrences of some Paris locales (such as place de Chatelet and rue de Rivoli) are all manifestations of this. And these rhyme effects have thematic as well as stylistic consequences. (Julie’s nightly routines become increasingly ritualistic, and at times the two male lovers seem interchangeable.) On the other hand, it might be argued that these rhyme effects are ultimately less painterly or narrative than they are musical; if the film’s music gradually decreases in importance, and disappears entirely in the final sequence, one might argue that the film’s rhythms have by this time been taken over by certain visual refrains. (Throughout the film, the feeling of summer nights in Paris is so palpable that one can almost taste it, and this delicious taste may be the film’s loveliest achievement in painterly persistence.)

It might be argued that narrative development — which includes character development — remains something of a problem, even if Akerman’s attempts to solve this problem are pretty ingenious. Toward the end of the film, Julie and Jack decide to knock out a wall in their flat, largely as a means of rejuvenating their own relationship. The physical change in their apartment leads them to throw a party — a major change in their relationship. Julie, we’re told by an offscreen narrator, subsequently undergoes an even more important change, but the fact that we’re told about this change rather than shown it indicates to what extent narrative development eludes Akerman — at least formally and dramatically, if not thematically.

This offscreen narrator is in fact an integral part of the film. Her all-knowing and somewhat personal commentaries on the action may remind us, along with the names Jack and Joseph, of Francois Truffaut’s Jules and Jim, a classic — and classically romantic — French New Wave depiction of a nage à trois as well as of a free-spirited woman who makes all the significant moves and calls all the shots. But the offscreen narrator of Jules and Jim is a man, not a woman — a conventionally patriarchal voice-of-God narrator who ultimately articulates the male viewpoint that Jules and Jim embodies, merging the viewpoint of Truffaut with that of Henri-Pierre Roche, on whose autobiographical novel the film is based. It’s a voice whose narrative authority we’re meant to accept without question.

Simply because of this patriarchal convention, it’s hard to hear the woman narrator of Night and Day without asking — even if only momentarily — who this woman is. Once we ask this question, however, the answer becomes clear: she is the woman Julie will become. The story she tells is the one about how Julie becomes her.

Published on 26 Mar 1993 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Brother’s Keeper

A potent and highly engrossing documentary by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about a 1990 murder trial in New York State that attracted national media attention. The case involved the death of one of the four illiterate Ward brothers, all reclusive and eccentric bachelors who inhabited a two-room shack without running water on their dairy farm. Bill was found dead in the bed he shared with Delbert, who confessed the same day to suffocating his ailing brother in a mercy killing, but later retracted his confession and implied he was being framed. It’s amazing how many primal issues are engaged in this real-life mystery story, and Berlinger and Sinofsky, who contrived to follow the story from start to finish, do a superb job of keeping us on the edge of our seats (1992). Music Box, Friday through Thursday, March 26 through April 1.

Published on 26 Mar 1993 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Riff-Raff

Ken Loach, perhaps the last unreconstructed English realist (Kes, Family Life), takes a funky, intermittently comic, but generally uncompromisingly grim look at a group of men on a London building crew, placing particular emphasis on a young man from Glasgow (Robert Carlyle) and his affair with an aspiring singer (Emer McCourt). Shot on an actual building site complete with rats, with actors experienced in construction, and written by the late Bill Jesse, a former laborer himself, this film has a gritty authenticity about English working-class life that makes even Mike Leigh seem like a bit of an artificer (1991). Music Box, Friday through Thursday, March 19 through 25.

Published on 19 Mar 1993 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Friends and Aliens [FIRE IN THE SKY]

From the Chicago Reader (March 19, 1993). — J.R.

Fire in the Sky movie poster

FIRE IN THE SKY

** (Worth seeing)

Directed by Robert Lieberman

Written by Tracy Torme

With D.B. Sweeney, Robert Patrick, Craig Sheffer, Peter Berg, and James Garner.

“Based on the true story,” crows Paramount in the ads, and the words “Based on a true story” appear on-screen right after the opening credits. Under the circumstances — Fire in the Sky being the story of one Travis Walton (D.B. Sweeney), who was allegedly knocked to the ground by a ray from a UFO in an Arizona forest on November 5, 1975, then whisked away by the same UFO only to be spat out five days later minus his clothes and sanity — these are clearly fighting words.

I came to this movie fully prepared to execrate it, but on reflection I’m more inclined to congratulate Paramount on its ability to get people like me riled up with its Barnum-like come-on — a good way of getting all of us to pay attention. In fact, considering that the encounter with extraterrestrials is couched in subjective rather than objective terms, “based on the true story” doesn’t seem such an outrageous tag. Furthermore, some of the implications of the line are partially undercut, or at least displaced, by a quotation that appears on-screen before the credits: “‘Chance makes a plaything of a man’s life’  — Seneca, First century A.D.”

Personally, I think that all movies are fantasies to begin with — documentaries and so-called true stories most of all — so the issue of being a “true story” seems moot. The press materials for Fire in the Sky report that, according to a 1990 Gallup Mirror of America survey, “Forty-six percent of Americans believe that there are ‘people somewhat like ourselves living on other planets in the universe.’” My first response is to wonder how this could possibly be true considering the steady rise of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and diverse other forms of xenophobia and intolerance: surely fewer than 46 percent of Americans believe that there are people somewhat like themselves living on the next block, much less in other countries. My second response was that probably 46 percent of Americans would rather believe that people somewhat like themselves are living on other planets than believe that they could be living in other countries, much less on the next block.

Without being any sort of student of UFO sightings, I think I probably share the skepticism of most people (among them, presumably, the unmentioned 54 percent of Americans in the Gallup survey) about extraterrestrial beings, though I would acknowledge the odds in favor of intelligent life in other planetary systems as well as the unreliability of the press and “experts” in keeping us abreast of things we still know practically nothing about. (Among the treasured books in my home library are The Books of Charles Fort and Damon Knight’s biography Charles Fort: Prophet of the Unexplained, both chronicling the library research into phenomena unexplained by science — including UFO sightings — carried out by the iconoclastic Fort in the early part of this century.) But the banal similarities between most accounts of UFO sightings (and the fairly unconvincing details that crop up in them) added to the emotional reasons people have for believing these stories convince me the accounts are untrue. I’m reminded of the Bridey Murphy craze that swept the country when I was in my early teens — an instructive instance of human gullibility that adds some historical perspective to the discussion.

In 1952 a housewife in Pueblo, Colorado, Mrs. Virginia Tighe, began to speak under hypnosis “in an Irish brogue about her previous incarnation as a red-headed colleen named Bridey Murphy” (as Martin Gardner describes it in his indispensable Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science). Working with William J. Barker of the Denver Post, Morey Bernstein — the local businessman who had put her under hypnosis — wrote a book called The Search for Bridey Murphy (1956) that topped the national best-seller lists for weeks, was printed in condensed form in 40 newspapers and translated into five other languages, and spawned various spin-offs and fads — including an enormously successful LP of one of Mrs. Tighe’s trance sessions, at least three rock songs, and a pretty awful movie released the same year. The press, which was about as serious then as it is today, devoted most of its energies to tracking down (unsuccessfully) records of Bridey Murphy in Ireland instead of checking out Mrs. Tighe. In my hometown in Alabama, a barber and champion fiddler hypnotized a teenage boy who suddenly started speaking Spanish, a language he allegedly didn’t know; in one of the trance sessions I witnessed myself, the boy mimed an obscure form of basket weaving supposedly known only to certain Mexican women (one of whom was brought along for the occasion). I’m sure that dozens or even hundreds of such experiences were replicated nationwide.

Before the year was out, however, the Chicago American blew the lid off the story by revealing that Mrs. Tighe had grown up in Chicago across the street from an Irish widow who liked to recount tales of her youth and whose maiden name was in fact Bridey Murphy. As a result Bernstein’s book dropped off the best-seller list, but ironically and predictably, this revelation received much less public attention and interest than the original story, and for years afterward some people were still citing The Search for Bridey Murphy as “proof” of reincarnation.

The only kind of “proof” we have of Walton’s story is that four fellow loggers, including his friend Mike Rogers (Robert Patrick), offered eyewitness accounts of a UFO knocking Walton to the ground before they fled the scene in terror; a little later, when Rogers drove back to the site alone, Walton had disappeared. Three of the loggers passed lie-detector tests in 1975 (and the fourth, it’s suggested in the movie, had reason to lie about his testimony), and at the very end of the film a title informs us that in February 1993 the same examiner administered the test again and this time all of the loggers — perhaps including Walton as well, though this isn’t specified — passed.

While it certainly isn’t brilliant, Fire in the Sky offers some fairly efficient story telling and a few effective visual and dramatic moments. A couple of the ‘Scope compositions in the film are much more striking than anything they have to show or dramatize: one highlights an interesting pattern of slanting telephone lines on a hilltop as the loggers are setting off on their fateful trip to the forest; the other shows a comatose Walton, after his return, alone in a hospital ward lit by a single lamp, a rainstorm raging outside. A few sequences are fairly adroit at manipulating the audience’s imagination — most notably the opening image of a small pickup truck racing through the woods at night, the climactic UFO sighting, and much later in the film an extended flashback of Walton remembering his traumatic alien captivity, a sequence testifying to the power of elliptical suggestion (though its ending seems familiar, even humdrum).

The real subject of Fire in the Sky isn’t whether or not Travis Walton was abducted by aliens in a UFO — an issue that’s more of a narrative come-on than an ongoing theme, despite a new-age score by Mark Isham that is clearly supposed to suggest the usual kind of otherworldliness. Indeed, after getting us all into the tent with its “true story” jive, the movie does a neat about-face; it winds up having much more to do with the relationship between Travis and his best friend, Mike, than it does with extraterrestrials or alien rays. Of course Walton’s mysterious disappearance plays a major role in their relationship, but scientific curiosity isn’t really what this movie is about.

The first flashback shows Travis riding his motorcycle through the small town of Snowflake, Arizona (actually the location is Douglas County, Oregon), and picking up doughnuts on his way to Mike’s house. There he shinnies up the facade to wake his girlfriend (Georgia Emelin), Mike’s sister, on the second floor, then shows Mike his drawing of “M.T. Motors,” a fantasy filling station he’d like them to build and run together. The character reminds us a little of James Dean’s persona — that climb to the second floor seems straight out of East of Eden – and seems calculated to make us feel a bit protective toward this childlike figure.

After Travis disappears, Mike becomes the film’s focal point. But though at first Mike seems a stable and adult figure compared to Travis, that status is undermined once Mike discovers that most people in town don’t believe his account of the UFO; his rage about this escalates, and after Travis returns Mike never seems to regain his initial sense of security about himself. In effect, the movie charts the loss of innocence experienced by both characters; insofar as the extraterrestrials matter at all, they function as catalysts, not subjects in their own right. By implication it’s Mike, not his friend’s captors, who becomes the pertinent bug-eyed monster, at least to his family and neighbors.

Published on 19 Mar 1993 in Featured Texts, Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Damned in the USA

Paul Yule’s simple talking-head documentary, made for England’s Channel Four in 1991, was attacked in court by the Reverend Donald Wildmon, who called it “blasphemous and obscene”; Wildmon unsuccessfully tried to get it barred from the U.S. and sued the film’s producers for $8 million, which is why it’s a little late reaching us. The film is supposedly lethal because it presents both sides of the recent art-censorship debates and actually lets us see the contested Robert Mapplethorpe photographs and Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ, hear the 2 Live Crew music, and then make up our own minds. What it doesn’t do, alas, is present both sides of the debate on federal arts funding–an understandable omission considering the English audience the film was originally made for, like most audiences in the world, values art and education enough to dismiss out of hand the “con” position as it’s routinely expressed in this country, which usually defines federal support of business as “freedom” and federal support of art as “enslavement,” without worrying about who’s being freed and who’s being enslaved. (Only in America, it seems, can such a debate happily ignore what the rest of the world thinks about the subject.) Without being especially brilliant or original, this film remains compulsively watchable simply because it clarifies what people are attempting to do to limit some of our cultural choices. (Music Box, Friday through Thursday, March 12 through 18)

Published on 12 Mar 1993 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>