Anthony Mann/Victor Mature

THE LAST FRONTIER, directed by Anthony Mann, with Victor Mature (1955, 97 min.)

Spurred by the enthusiasm of Jean-Pierre Coursodon, posting in the chat group “a film by,” I follow his lead and also see Anthony Mann’s THE LAST FRONTIER for the first time, and I wind up basically agreeing with him: the film is a lot better than its reputation warrants (for one thing, some of the CinemaScope landscapes are breathtaking), and Victor Mature is especially good in it. In fact, it seems pretty clear that the fact that this movie has such an unfashionable cast–not just Mature, but also Guy Madison, Robert Preston, and James Whitmore, which the relatively fashionable Anne Bancroft can’t quite offset–has something to do with its apparently low place in the Anthony Mann canon. (The fact that the film has an imposed and unsatisfying ending doesn’t help either, but this is so perfunctory that I find it easy to overlook; Mann almost seems to glide right past it.)

Mature plays a Noble Savage here (a trapper who joins the U.S. Cavalry as a scout), and many people either forget or don’t know that he virtually began his career as a D.W. Griffith discovery playing precisely that sort of part. (In Hal Roach’s 1940 ONE MILLION B.C., where Griffith served as an uncredited coproducer, Griffith expert Seymour Stern once told me that discovering Mature for the lead role was in fact one of Griffith’s major contributions to the film.)

Even though Mature’s presence in a lot of bad movies (including, I should note, ONE MILLION B.C.), made him a laughing stock for much of his career, it’s worth noting that he was hip enough to be in on the joke himself; when he was once asked while passing through customs at some airport somewhere whether he was really an actor, he reportedly replied, “Many would dispute that.” But I always thought he could be good when the right opportunity presented itself. Another fine, underrated performance of his that showed off his wit was as Doctor Omar in Josef von Sternberg’s THE SHANGHAI GESTURE, made only a year after ONE MILLION B.C. There, of course, he’s the very opposite of a Noble Savage, a rather urbane degenerate, but in THE LAST FRONTIER he manages to take over this part with a fair amount of grace, imagination, and passion. And Mann being Mann, no one in the plot, not even him, is simple or entirely predictable. [6/26/08]

Published on 26 Jun 2008 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Expatriate Filmmaking, For Better and For Worse

From Stop Smiling, issue 36, 2008. — J.R.

It’s easy to argue that most of the greatest filmmakers in the history of movies can’t be reduced to single nationalities, and that an uncommon number of them worked as expatriates. “I’m not at home anywhere,” declares Friedrich Munro (Patrick Bauchau), the expatriate director-hero in Wim Wenders’ underrated The State of Things (1982) — shooting an apocalyptic SF film in a remote corner of Portugal until money suddenly runs out and he has to chase down the producer (Allen Garfield) in Hollywood, who appears to be fleeing from the Mafia. This line is actually a quote from a real-life, very great German expatriate director with a similar name, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. And it might be argued that a condition of homelessness has helped more major filmmakers than it’s hurt, maybe because it’s forced them to reinvent themselves — a process that has also often entailed reinventing their cinema.

Some examples of this tendency may not be immediately obvious. Luis Buñuel is usually regarded as quintessentially Spanish, yet he only made three films fully qualify as Spanish — a short documentary called Land without Bread (1932) and two features, Viridiana (1961) and Tristana (1970). Furthermore, Viridiana created such a scandal in Franco Spain that when it was rejected by the censors there, it was identified exclusively as a Mexican feature, simply because it had a Mexican coproducer and by then all its Spanish credentials on paper had been destroyed (a tale told by one of its two Spanish producers, Catalan filmmaker Pere Portabella). Tristana, on the other hand, stars Catherine Deneuve in the title role, a French actress whose Spanish lines had to be dubbed by someone else. And every other film by the “most Spanish of Spanish directors” is either French or Mexican. A line uttered by the title hero of Nicholas Ray’s western Johnny Guitar (1954), “I’m a stranger here myself,” eventually came to be adopted as a kind of motto by the wandering director himself, regardless of whether he happened to be filming in Hollywood, Canada, or the Sahara. This only helps to underline the fact that being an expatriate is not merely a possible life; it’s also a state of mind — and not just the mind of the expatriate. Charlie Chaplin was an Englishman who made almost all his films in the United States, returning to London to shoot only his last two features (A King in New York and A Countess from Hong Kong). Alfred Hitchcock directed 23 features when he was still in London, and 30 more after he emigrated to Hollywood — following the pattern of many German directors who started out successfully making films in Germany (Fritz Lang, Ernst Lubitsch, and Douglas Sirk– not to mention Murnau and Wenders) before shifting operations to the U.S. and elsewhere. Lang went first to France to make Liliom and much later made films in the Philippines, India, and back in Germany; Murnau, who’d already made excursions to European countries east of Germany for Nosferatu (1922) and The Grand Duke’s Finances (1924), made his last film, Tabu (1930), in the South Seas. Paul Verhoeven’s own career trajectory has led him from the Netherlands to Hollywood and back again.

One also has to consider Hollywood directors like Otto Preminger, Josef von Sternberg, Erich von Stroheim, and Billy Wilder whose artistic personalities were defined by their Viennese backgrounds. Sternberg and Wilder both made single features in Germany, and Sternberg, who made his last feature in Japan, also received part of his schooling in Queens, New York. But unlike Preminger, neither they nor Stroheim ever made a film in Austria, so it’s a matter of interpretation how much these four filmmakers were or remained expatriates as filmmakers.

***

Many important directors have spent portions of their careers globetrotting—including Michelangelo Antonioni (Blow Up, Zabriskie Point, his documentary about China, The Passenger), Bernardo Bertolucci (The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris, The Last Emperor, The Sheltering Sky, Little Buddha), Jean Renoir (films in Hollywood and Rome, The River in India), Roberto Rossellini (Germany Year Zero, Fear, India Matri Bhumi, The Rise of Louis XIV, Socrates), Jacques Tati (who had a multinational family background — Dutch, French, Italian, and Russian — and shot most of his last two features, Trafic and Parade, in Holland and Sweden), and Orson Welles (Othello, Mr. Arkadin, The Trial, The Immortal Story, Chimes at Midnight, and F For Fake). Some leading non-fiction filmmakers, like Joris Ivens and Chris Marker, have chronicled their globetrotting in their films.

A few independent spirits, both living and dead, ranging from Paul Fejos to Jon Jost to Dusan Makavejev to Max Ophüls to Jacques Tourneur, have been so footloose that, in spite of their pronounced national origins (Hungarian, American, Yugoslav, German, and French, respectively), they wind up making their films wherever as well as whenever and however they can. Fejos, an extreme example, went from making experimental films in Hungary to some memorable commercial films in Hollywood (such as Broadway and Lonesome) during the silent and early sound eras; then, walking out on his Hollywood contract, he made early talkies in France, Hungary, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden before switching his interest to ethnography and documentaries and making all his remaining films in Madagascar, Indonesia, Siam, and Peru. Jost, currently living in Seoul, has spent much of his career moving back and forth between the U.S. and Europe; Makavejev became a political exile from Yugoslavia after making his transcontinental masterpiece WR: Mysteries of the Organism, and Ophüls made films in Germany, Italy, France,     Holland, and the U.S. (not always in that order), while Tourneur, like his father Maurice, directed films in   both France and the U.S., with several excursions elsewhere in Europe and one to Argentina. Carl Dreyer, born illegitimately in rural Sweden, was adopted by a Danish couple in Copenhagen, where he was raised   and continued to live for most of his life. Most people simply regarded him as Danish, but he also made features in France, Germany, Norway, and Sweden.

What about those blacklisted American filmmakers who wound up exiled in Europe from the 50s onward — John Berry, Jules Dassin, Cy Endfield, Joseph Losey — or other American leftist filmmakers such as William Klein and Robert Kramer who wound up as permanent Paris expatriates for what appear to be somewhat related reasons? Or Stanley Kubrick, who managed to continue his career as a Hollywood director by making eight of his 13 features in England?

***

I think all the filmmakers cited above have either benefited or at least haven’t been serious handicapped by working in other countries as expatriates. But there are others who haven’t fared so well, maybe because the meaning of their work is so firmly bound up with the cultures of their native countries. I’m thinking especially of Mohsen Makhmalbaf (Iran), Samuel Fuller (the U.S.), and Andrei Tarkovsky (Russia), and it’s possible that the same strictures might have applied to such Japanese directors as Kenji Mizoguchi and Yasuijro Ozu if they’d ever made any of their films abroad.

Makhmalbaf was raised in Tehran as a working-class fundamentalist. He was arrested at the age of 17 as a terrorist against the shah’s regime when he stabbed a policeman (an event re-enacted by some of the original participants in Makhmalbaf’s celebrated 1996 A Moment of Innocence), and he emerged from prison only five years later, during the 1979 revolution. He was still a fundamentalist when he started making films, but his steady evolution away from Islamic orthodoxy since the mid-1980s led to increasing problems with Iranian censors, some early work abroad (like his 1991 Time of Love, about adultery, shot in Turkey), and finally, after more censorship battles, exile, along with his filmmaking family. (In the mid-90s,he founded Makhmalbaf Film House — a radical film school whose main students were his own wife and children, and whose collective activities are charted in detail at www.makhmalbaf.com — and he has subsequently collaborated in diverse capacities on such major Iranian features as The Apple by his daughter Samira and The Day I Became a Woman by his wife Marziyeh Meshkini.) Initially he and his family concentrated on making films in Afghanistan (most notably, Kandahar in 2001); more recently, he’s made Sex & Philosophy (2005) in Tajikistan and Scream of the Ants (2006) in India, and it’s no pleasure to report that these and Kandahar are decidedly inferior to such Iranian features as The Peddler (1987), Marriage of the Blessed (1989), Once Upon a Time, Cinema (1992), Salaam Cinema (1995), Gabbeh (1996), and The Silence (1998), all of which qualify in different ways as critical dialogues with Iranian society.

I think something comparable happened to Samuel Fuller when he moved to Paris from Los Angeles in the early 1980s, after the refusal of Paramount to release White Dog (another form of censorship) — which I consider his last great film — before he returned to Los Angeles in the mid-90s, shortly before his death. In his case there were also practical considerations, such as the fact that he was better known in Europe and thus could find more acting and directing jobs there. The inferiority of Fuller’s Thieves After Dark (1983), Street of No Return (1989), and The Madonna and the Dragon (1990) to his The Steel Helmet (1951), Pickup on South Street (1953), and White Dog (1984) stems from the unavoidable fact that America was his key subject, and its absence in his films left a gaping hole. This is most evident in Street of No Return — a David Goodis adaptation in which Lisbon has to double for a large American city where a race riot occurs. The issue isn’t whether or not a race riot can be imagined in Lisbon — it’s whether a Sam Fuller race riot can be imagined there. (White Dog, his clearest and strongest statement about and against racism, was later barred from prime-time TV because NBC deemed it “inappropriate”. “‘Inappropriate’?” Fuller once declared to me, indignantly recalling this judgment. “That’s turning up at a funeral in a jock strap.”)

I suppose stronger cases could be made for Tarkovsky’s Nostalghia (shot in Italy, 1983) and The Sacrifice (shot in Sweden, 1986) than for either Scream of the Ants or Thieves After Dark — but not that these two features could be regarded as equal or superior in any way to Andrei Rublev (1966) or Stalker (1979). Indeed, it might even be said that Tarkovsky’s last two features are in many fundamental ways films about exile — which is a far cry from the existential alienation found in his Russian films.

***

Speaking as someone who lived for almost eight years as an American expatriate in Paris and London, I’d argue that my appreciation of American movies — and of America more generally — was broadened and deepened as much by what I saw and read in those two cities as what I encountered back home. This suggests that becoming an expatriate can sometimes be a single step in a much longer process of repatriation. Standing outside one’s own country makes a fresher perspective possible, and if I find Stroheim’s take on San Francisco in Greed (1924 a lot more stimulating than his take on Vienna in The Wedding March (1928), this isn’t necessarily or simply a matter of valuing his location shooting in the former over his studio recreations in the latter.

More generally, I find some of the freshest views of the U.S. to be found in movies coming from foreign visitors or expatriates — Jacques Demy’s in The Model Shop (1969), Emir Kusturica’s in Arizona     Dream (1993) — even Paul Verhoeven’s in Showgirls (1995), especially if one reads Las Vegas as Hollywood. Or consider the view of San Francisco in Petulia (1968) that so enraged onetime Berkeley resident Pauline Kael — a movie directed by an American (Richard Lester) who’d become an English expatriate. What Kael found simply incorrect I found exhilarating as a fresh perspective. And if this perspective proves to be fantasy-driven, isn’t that what movies are sometimes supposed to be?

Published on 26 Jun 2008 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off

My Winnipeg

It was just a matter of time before the eccentric independent Guy Maddin made a personal documentary about his Canadian hometown, and though he labels this a docu-fantasia, one still suspects he’s captured the real character of Winnipeg, especially its freezing weather. The movie is dominated by Maddin’s usual black-and-white photography, silent-movie syntax, and deadpan melodrama; he even casts Ann Savage, who starred in Edgar G. Ulmer’s classic B movie Detour, as his own mother (her dialogue is credited to Maddin’s usual cowriter, George Toles). In the narration Maddin claims that Winnipeg has ten times as many sleepwalkers as any other city in the world, and though he’s surely making this up, it conveys his own sense of entrapment amid the town’s dreaminess. 80 min. (JR)

Published on 26 Jun 2008 in Featured Texts, by admin

No Comments >>

A Few Eruptions in the House of Lava

In the “Publications and Events” section of this web site, I’ve written, “I don’t know when `A Few Eruptions in the House of Lava,’ my commissioned piece about Pedro Costa’s 1994 CASA DE LAVA, will be appearing in a bilingual or trilingual collection about Costa edited by Ricardo Matos Cabo, the publication of which has been delayed many times. At some point I hope to print or reprint this essay on my site.”

I hope Ricardo doesn’t mind me jumping the gun. I sent him this essay in mid-January, and I’m moved to post it now as a sort of gesture of solidarity with COLOSSAL YOUTH having just appeared on the cover of the the summer issue of Film Quarterly – and James Naremore writing about it inside the magazine as his favorite movie of 2007. (2010 footnote: Ricardo’s collecion has been out for some time by now. It’s very beautiful, even if it’s only in Portuguese.) — J.R.

I know I’d go from rags to riches
If you would only say you care
And though my pocket may be empty
I’d be a millionaire.

My clothes may still be torn and tattered
But in my heart I’d be a king
Your love is all that ever mattered
It’s everything.

[…] Must I forever be a beggar
Whose golden dreams will not come true?
Or will I go from rags to riches?
My fate is up to you.

–“Rags to Riches” (by Richard Adler and Jerry Ross; sung by Tony Bennett)

In my mind, there isn’t as much of a distinction between documentary and fiction as there is

between a good movie and a bad one. — Abbas Kiarostami in an interview

“The living are as scary as the dead.” – Tina in Casa de Lava

1. Let me preface my remarks with an embarrassing personal confession, which also could be interpreted as a very long-winded apology. After encountering both Pedro Costa and his work for the first time in Rotterdam in early 2002, when I first saw his amazing Où gît votre sourire enfoui? (2001), I had an opportunity to hang out with him a little at the Buenos Aires Festival of Independent Film three months later. And soon after I returned to Chicago, Pedro kindly sent me subtitled VHS copies of that film and three others  – Casa de lava (1994), Ossos (1997), and In Vanda’s Room (2000).

Rather than succumb to my first temptation and look at these right away, I decided to wait, for what then seemed like sound professional reasons. It’s one of the terrible aspects of regular film reviewing that whatever films you happen to see, sometimes including the ones that affect you the most, tend to be forgotten once you have to see dozens or hundreds of other films, most of them terrible, afterwards. And because I knew it was only a matter of time before all of Pedro’s films made it to Chicago and that I’d want to write about them all when they arrived, I decided it was better to wait and then see all or at least most of them at the same time.

Then a few glitches came along to complicate this grand scheme. I hadn’t realized that it would take more than five years for a Costa retrospective to make it to Chicago. Even worse, while enjoying the unparalleled luxury of having unlimited length at my disposal in all the longer pieces I wrote for the Chicago Reader for at least 15 years, I hadn’t foreseen that a decrease in the paper’s ads due to the growth of the Internet might have led to a curtailment of that freedom, which is precisely what happened before I was finally able to write my piece in November 2007. During the five long years that I waited, my assigned length went from unlimited to 1200 words —- an absurdly tight space in which to consider all six of Pedro’s features. And to make matters worse, Ricardo Matos Cabo, the editor of this collection, had meanwhile contacted me half a year earlier, inviting me to contribute something of about twice that length, but not having seen most of the films, I felt I was unable to accept.

Finally, by the time a Chicago Costa retrospective was scheduled, I’d seen Juventude em marca (2006) in Toronto, but not yet O sangue (1989) or the three features that followed it. So I wound up discovering most of his oeuvre backwards and in a hurry, long after many friends and colleagues had written eloquently about it. And while doing so, I found that, even though I simultaneously loved and had to struggle in diverse ways with all of Costa’s films, Casa de Lava, his only landscape film, was the one that blew me away the most. So when Ricardo emailed me again in early January 2008, inviting me specifically to write about this film, as a last-minute entry for his collection — even though neither of us had much time to spare —- I had to say yes. Nevertheless, I hope I can be forgiven for imitating this movie a little by letting improvisation, fragmentation, and somewhat disconnected notes overtake any firm position, sustained argument, or conclusion.

2. I don’t know whether the Tony Bennett song quoted above is the unacknowledged (or perhaps unrecognized) source of the lovely melody played repeatedly by Bassoé (Raul Andrade) on his violin in Casa de Lava or if the resemblance is coincidental. Either way, and whatever the intentionality might be on the part of Andrade or Costa or anyone else, the relation of one to the other reminds me of the relation of Casa de Lava to I Walked with a Zombie and other Hollywood and non-Hollywood films. Some people, unlike me, feel that as a reference point, I Walked with a Zombie provides an obstacle or distraction when it comes to appreciating Casa de Lava rather than a useful key that unlocks some of the film’s treasures. Others feel that Stromboli is a more helpful reference point, whereas for me it is the Rossellini film, with its very different and less politicized form of mysticism, that provides a distraction and an obstacle, whatever its own merits.

There are at least four other Andrades listed in the cast of Casa de Lava, all of them playing children of Bassoé —- one of many factors that suggests that the film, like all of Costa’s other films, is an intricate mixture of fact and fiction. Costa told Mark Peranson in Cinema Scope (issue no. 22) that the film was originally scripted, but “at one point I just left the script behind, because I thought that if I’m going to try to shoot this girl in this new place that’s foreign and dangerous, then I have to shoot it from her point of view,” and “There was a lot of improvisation each day” —- one indication among many that Mariana (Inês Medeiros), the lead character, largely functions as Costa’s surrogate in the film. Nearly all the ethical questions and ambiguities posed about her involvement with the islands’ residents are those raised by Costa’s involvement —- that is to say, his filmmaking — as well. And improvisation is perhaps the most obvious way of raising the existential stakes of these issues. As Costa notes, he and Isaach De Bankolé even came to blows over the latter’s objections as a professional actor to his character Leao having to remain in a coma for most or all of the film. (It’s also my impression — gleaned from the account of a friend who attended Costa’s discussion of the film in Los Angeles —- that Leao, like his rough counterpart in I Walked with a Zombie, never would have come out of his coma at all if it hadn’t been for Bankolé’s objections.)

In the same interview, speaking about O sangue, Costa admits a personal aspect in his concentration on “the three boys, the family” in that film, “because I never really had a family. My mother died early, then I went to live with my father, who then went away. From the age of 14, I was alone…” And I’ve noted elsewhere my impression that all of Costa’s films seem to be about outsiders and improvised families. So it seems to me that the passionate struggle of outsiders to find and maintain makeshift families provide much of the meaning as well as the methodology of his work. Existentially speaking, if one combines this struggle with Costa’s uncanny and always evolving talent for composition and color, the overall aspiration resembles both what Godard has called “the definitive by chance” and the fusion of fiction and documentary sought and found by Kiarostami (especially in Life and Nothing More, Through the Olive Trees, and The Wind Will Carry Us, whose plots also feature strained interactions between big-city protagonists and the impoverished yet exotic villagers they’re visiting).

It also suggests that Casa de Lava may be the film of Costa’s that poses the most constant and furious tug of war between Hollywood narrative and the nonnarrative portraiture of both places and people, staging an almost epic battle between the two. These warring modes become almost magically fused whenever there is a landscape shot with one or more human figures; every time this happens, the film moves into high gear. The film begins with stark island portraits, evocative of films by both Straub-Huillet (their fiery Etna and their actors, sometimes glimpsed from behind or in fragments) and Dovzhenko (brooding and heroic still-lifes), only to shift from there to the shards of a Lisbon narrative. Typically, in the latter stretches, we’re either told too little about what’s happening in order to be able to follow the story or everything we could possibly want to know —- in both cases in a rather mannerist fashion. First we get quizzical fragments and a very oblique narrative, served up almost as directly as the island portraits were —- the sounds and images of a Lisbon construction site, anticipating later Costa films, and then Leao and other construction workers seen before Leao’s accident — including a bit of seemingly choreographed, playful sparring between two of them as they hustle through a doorway, returning to work —- and just afterwards as well. (The accident itself is elided, but we glimpse a coworker reporting it.) Then, shortly after we’re introduced to Mariana, a nurse, with a coworker at the hospital, we get enormous chunks of exposition, dumped unceremoniously into our laps. A doctor speaking to Mariana over Leao’s body concludes, “They say he was sad. His name is Leao. He’s been two months in a coma. Oddly, he’s been discharged. The ticket’s bought. Leao’s going home. A check and a letter from his village, both anonymous. A woman’s letter. Sad.”

Much later in the film, the son (Pedro Hestnes) of a white islander, Edite (Edith Scob), gives a similarly telegraphic account of his mother, himself, and the allotment of funds, again to Mariana, over his father’s grave: “She came after him. She was 20 years old. She was half his age. I never met him. He was a political prisoner. Afterwards, she never went home. She’s been here for years with me. People help her. She likes them, they like her. We live here. Now we get a check every month, his pension, to pay everyone back. They know, they all wait. They all want to leave.”

3. Although I can’t hear Bassoé’s song without thinking of Tony Bennett’s, just as I can’t watch Casa de Lava without thinking of I Walked with a Zombie, each transposition —- if that’s what it is in both cases —- is so radical that there’s a recasting of basic elements and presuppositions. The unhinged and bereft lack of definition of Bassoé, the old violinist — except perhaps for his melancholy “Music is a bitch. I worship her” — makes a mockery of Tony Bennett’s wistful lyrics. And whatever else the man in the coma might be, he isn’t a zombie, much less Tourneur’s more mythical and statuesque zombie Carrefour. As far as we can tell, Leao’s an illiterate Cape Verdean construction worker in Lisbon who has an accident, winds up in a coma, and then, after being taken back to Cape Verde, takes his time coming out of it because even if he has a home to come back to, everyone else is leaving there and no one wants to stay — except, perhaps, for Mariana (if only by default) and Edite and her son. And at least the latter two speak Creole.

Whenever Mariana repeats the phrase, “Speak Portuguese,” to someone on the island, I’m reminded of Arthur Hunnicutt in Hawks’ The Big Sky trying to relate to his French partners as they trek across the wilderness: “Speak English, hoss.” But Mariana has no partners, and consciously or not, she remains a colonialist, perhaps even more than Edite and her son are colonialists, because she hardly gives anything to the islanders. And Costa can’t interrogate her motives for remaining on the island without interrogating his own.

Is the film itself his own patient? And if so, what can Costa do once the film wakes up on its own, without his help or input? Answer: The same thing we can do. He can watch.

4. The film is a suite of denials, one after the other. Bassoé refuses to acknowledge directly that he’s the father of Leao, and other locals refuse to respond when Mariana asks them if Leao is a relative. But Mariana is no less in denial when people ask her directly or indirectly why she isn’t back in Lisbon. Edite’s son puts it the plainest: “Why are you here?” And, like Bassoé, she never answers the question of whom she belongs to and who belongs to her.

Worst of all, she can’t seem to go native as Edite, her doppelgänger, does, maybe because her own self-appointed function on the island is merely to be the caregiver of Leao, who has no clear place of his own on the island, and who can’t even figure out what her exact function is even after he wakes up. Maybe she likes boys, as she puts it to Edite’s son, but unlike Edite, who likes girls as well as boys, she’s pretty much in denial about her sexuality whenever it has to rub shoulders with any sort of emotional commitment. The only emotional commitment she seems to have is to Leao, and this has nothing to do with Hawksian professionalism. In fact, there are no professionals in this movie — apart from the soldiers, who never come back from whatever war they’re servicing, or the doctor in the medical compound, who seems to evaporate about halfway through the picture, or Edite, at least if she qualifies as a professional colonialist. The other characters, so far as we can tell, are all lost children.

5. Leao regains consciousness almost exactly halfway through the movie, although it takes Mariana much longer than that to become aware of this. Even some of the lost children, such as Tina, know it sooner. It would be interesting to know what Costa’s original scenario would have consisted of if Leao had remained in a coma for the remainder of the movie. As things stand, and no doubt because of the improvisation, the film breaks up and gradually atrophies into fragments and miniplots, a little bit like Muriel or Petulia. But, come to think of it, I Walked With a Zombie also winds up subverting the very notion of a consecutive, coherent plot. Here one could almost say that each beautiful composition —- that is to say, each shot —- tells a separate story. Put them all together and they might seem to resemble the lengthy tracking shot that follows Mariana’s stride through the village, at once purposeful and aimless, as various obstructions pass and periodically block our vision. Now we see her, now we don’t — and neither we nor she seems to know where she’s headed.

Published on 25 Jun 2008 in Featured Texts, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>

Manoel de Oliveira

I’m really sorry that in the Gene Siskel Film Center’s forthcoming and very welcome Manoel de Oliveira retrospective, three of my five favorite films of his are missing. I can be pretty specific about this because I recently ranked all the Oliveira films I’ve seen in order of preference for a lengthy article I wrote about him for FILM COMMENT, which is about to come out. The first five of my favorites, in descending order, are DOOMED LOVE (1978), BENILDE OR THE VIRGIN-MOTHER (1975), INQUIETUDE (1998), PORTO OF MY CHILDHOOD (2001), and MON CAS (1986). The last of these (see first photo below) has never been shown in Chicago and I’ve never even been able to see it in an English subtitled version (assuming that one exists). BENILDE (see second two photos, below–both screengrabs from a mediocre video transfer, so I’m sorry they don’t look better) is a film I was able to bring to Chicago several years ago, when I selected it as a Critic’s Choice at the Chicago International Film Festival (which, if memory serves, has also shown INQUIETUDE and PORTO OF MY CHILDHOOD); it still remains, to my mind, the most underrated and underseen of all of Oliveira’s major works. And PORTO OF MY CHILDHOOD, the other film on my list that’s not coming here, is the film of his I’d cite as the most accessible and entertaining.

This leaves DOOMED LOVE and INQUIETUDE, both of which are showing in late July , and you haven’t ever seen these great films, you can’t really afford to miss them. Each one is being shown twice. In the case of DOOMED LOVE, I very strongly recommend that you see the two parts in the same evening. For its second screening, the Siskel Center is showing Part 1 on a Tuesday night and Part 2 the following night, and I can’t imagine it could work nearly as well that way.

Intermissions with long films are a serious business. (Sometimes they’re key structural devices even when they’re minimal. I’ll never forget the first time I saw Jacques Rivette’s four-hour L’AMOUR FOU for the first time at a midnight screening in Paris, when the intermission halfway through lasted exactly 90 seconds.) I have a friend who recently tried to see the seven-hour SATANTANGO in Los Angeles, and found that a long dinner break between parts two and three was so disruptive that she couldn’t bring herself to come back for the end. The last time I saw DOOMED LOVE–at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, also recently–there was no intermission at all, which is pretty difficult for a 265-minute film, though it’s a tribute of the film’s greatness that it survived this difficulty. But even that discomfort was surely preferable to trying to see the film over two separate nights. So, now that SATANTANGO is about to come out in a beautiful three-disc version (to be released by Facets Video), you shouldn’t try to space out your home viewing to more than a single day and evening; if you do, a good part of the spell is bound to be broken. [6/25/08]

Published on 25 Jun 2008 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

No Comments >>