I chose 5 tracks from a very special album by a very special artist today, an artist I barely know, and yet, an artist and an album with some beautiful memories left behind; Tayfun Erdem, who was born in Istanbul, studied composition at the School of Music in Indiana University (1980-82) with the Chilean composer Juan-Orrego Salas and counterpoint with Bernhard Heiden, and he has been living in Berlin as a composer and pianist since 1982. The album is Dreams and Dances of A Silent Butterfly.
A Few Words About the Music...
by Tayfun Erdem
I could probably talk for hours, days or even weeks about all these "journeys" of mine throughout the '90s. which gave birth to the music you hear on this CD... For example about my very crazy and very funny love adventures with a seagull from Coimbra. the old capital of the colonial power Portugal, which suddenly opened my eyes and especially my ears to a completely new, and vast and deeply colourful "tierra nueva": The continent of "Latino Americanos"... And of course I could tell you also about Margit, my love.my angel... A wine queen from Dernau on the banks of the Rhein -an area inhabited since the Roman times by wine producing farmers, very catholic and very modest and about Margit's unbelievable struggle for near ly 14 years against a very severe kind of multiple sclerosis, without ever losing her sense of humour like in one of these great survival stories of the American writer Jack London... But why?.. Why should I tell all these and other stories?.. Because after all these "Journeys", I learned -at least!- one thing:Music is very similar to love!...You don't need to speak about it very much... Just live it -and let it flow over all your body- and then you will know -for sure!- everything you need to know about love (or music !...)
So whilst you listen to this CD, I can only hope that you will enjoy it and that the sounds will have the power to seduce you and take you upon as much as possible and unique journeys of your own like in these wonderful lines of the Greek poet K.Kovafis... Anyway, what more can we expect from a good love (or a good piece of music) except that this encounter has the power to throw us like a rocket out of the routine of our daily life and drive us deep into the fire-seas of purgatory and hell and then - only if we have enough passion!- hurl us upwards to the very top floors of heaven and paradise?,. If we're lucky, our whole life long and if not, okay. Then at least for just some seconds!...
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Nuit et Brouillard
There is not a single day which you do not see hundreds of people dead in news all around the world. There are those that kill each other because of personal conflicts, those killed because of ideologies, those that represent hatred, immense ambition for power and the lowest level of human kind. The images of Bosnia, Urumqi, an explosion in Spain, a man jumping down the World Trade Center after the plane attacks, and so many more are striking images of violence of today, and yet, while we feel sorry for these events and express condemnation personally and formally through governments, we also, unfortunately show the reality of mankind's worst behavioural characteristics: we get used it all.
When Alain Resnais asked in the end of Nuit et Brouillard, whether the concentration camps and the mass killings of Jews by Nazis during World War II would be the last one ever seen or they would be forgotten and revived in another form of violence some day in the future, I believe that he meant the similar chain of events of today. He may have done the documentary in order not to allow those events to be forgotten, and yet, he used so disgusting and unfortunately so real images that the world thinks now that they have seen the worst once, and thus, people beaten to death on the streets are even milder to the eyes of inexplicable and incomprehensible logic. The reality of today's violence unfortunately shows that one need to have a higher understanding and intelligence to see that all are the same - today and back then.
Nuit et Brouillard is a short documentary by Alain Resnais made in 1955 - ten years after the liberation of Nazi concentration camps. To this day, it remains as one of the most important documentaries of all times, and is among top 10 most disturbing films ever according to many critics and viewers. The disturbance of the movie roots not only from the graphic details of the images, but also from the fact that these had been real footage taken by Nazis themselves and allies right after the liberation. Resnais used those images mixed with the shots of those camps in 1955 in a sunny day, showing the contradiction of brutal actions happened there 10 years earlier in night and fog (nuit et brouillard) and the complete serenity and peaceful and yet abandoned view of the camps 10 years later.
The 30 minutes film is divided in three parts; first, by the views of the camps', the narrator Michel Bouquet describes the Nazi ideology. In the second part, the life of the Schutzstaffel is compared to the starvation of the prisoners in the camps, the sadistic events including torture, scientific experiments, executions and the whorehouses are discussed, and in completely black and white images, the gas chambers and piles of bodies are shown. The final part depicts the liberation of the country and the camps, the discovery of the reality and the questioning of who was responsible for those.
The film had a very high acclaim in France in its initial release, although it had faced two difficulties prior to its release; the French censors were unhappy with a shot of a French police officer in the film and the German embassy in France attempted to halt the film's release at the Cannes Film Festival. A local association of prisoners insisted the film to be shown at Cannes, threatening to occupy the screening room in their camp uniforms unless the festival showed the film (information taken from wikipedia). That year, the film was announced to be shown out of competition at Cannes, and was shown in commercial movie theatres in Paris. It was awarded the Jean Vigo Prize in 1956 and the French film critic and director François Truffaut described the movie as the greatest film ever made.
I was looking for a piece of the movie through video websites to put in here as I usually do, however I found the whole movie and decided that those wondering about it should find it and view themselves; I urge everyone to see the film, however I, personally, can not dare to see it a second time because of the disturbing images and include them in this text. See it, and do not, ever, dare to forget it, remember that every single person is responsible for these events, being brutally against, in any case, means responsibility.
When Alain Resnais asked in the end of Nuit et Brouillard, whether the concentration camps and the mass killings of Jews by Nazis during World War II would be the last one ever seen or they would be forgotten and revived in another form of violence some day in the future, I believe that he meant the similar chain of events of today. He may have done the documentary in order not to allow those events to be forgotten, and yet, he used so disgusting and unfortunately so real images that the world thinks now that they have seen the worst once, and thus, people beaten to death on the streets are even milder to the eyes of inexplicable and incomprehensible logic. The reality of today's violence unfortunately shows that one need to have a higher understanding and intelligence to see that all are the same - today and back then.
Nuit et Brouillard is a short documentary by Alain Resnais made in 1955 - ten years after the liberation of Nazi concentration camps. To this day, it remains as one of the most important documentaries of all times, and is among top 10 most disturbing films ever according to many critics and viewers. The disturbance of the movie roots not only from the graphic details of the images, but also from the fact that these had been real footage taken by Nazis themselves and allies right after the liberation. Resnais used those images mixed with the shots of those camps in 1955 in a sunny day, showing the contradiction of brutal actions happened there 10 years earlier in night and fog (nuit et brouillard) and the complete serenity and peaceful and yet abandoned view of the camps 10 years later.
The 30 minutes film is divided in three parts; first, by the views of the camps', the narrator Michel Bouquet describes the Nazi ideology. In the second part, the life of the Schutzstaffel is compared to the starvation of the prisoners in the camps, the sadistic events including torture, scientific experiments, executions and the whorehouses are discussed, and in completely black and white images, the gas chambers and piles of bodies are shown. The final part depicts the liberation of the country and the camps, the discovery of the reality and the questioning of who was responsible for those.
The film had a very high acclaim in France in its initial release, although it had faced two difficulties prior to its release; the French censors were unhappy with a shot of a French police officer in the film and the German embassy in France attempted to halt the film's release at the Cannes Film Festival. A local association of prisoners insisted the film to be shown at Cannes, threatening to occupy the screening room in their camp uniforms unless the festival showed the film (information taken from wikipedia). That year, the film was announced to be shown out of competition at Cannes, and was shown in commercial movie theatres in Paris. It was awarded the Jean Vigo Prize in 1956 and the French film critic and director François Truffaut described the movie as the greatest film ever made.
I was looking for a piece of the movie through video websites to put in here as I usually do, however I found the whole movie and decided that those wondering about it should find it and view themselves; I urge everyone to see the film, however I, personally, can not dare to see it a second time because of the disturbing images and include them in this text. See it, and do not, ever, dare to forget it, remember that every single person is responsible for these events, being brutally against, in any case, means responsibility.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ne le Dis à Personne
It is 3:19 a.m., I have to wake up at 8.30, and I said good night I am going to bed, to my friend on msn before I did come to bed, to watch a movie and to probably fall asleep halfway through it. Instead, I am writing this post now, fully awake and fully stirred up, so much so that I can not wait for the daylight to praise this incredible movie!
About two months ago I had written here that I am not at all thrilled by the genre thriller most of the time and the movie that I was writing about was a dissappointment itself as some of you would remember. This is why my decision was a thriller for tonight, I needed to fall asleep quickly. I do not buy 90% of the mainstream Hollywood thrillers and I definitely am suspicious about the genre's French versions for the extreme use of heavy effects and endless fights to connect the scenes - I am talking about today's generation here -, but I must admit that this young director, young at heart and young at directing, turned this well-written story into a masterpiece.
Alexandre and Margot Beck are a happy couple who had loved each other since childhood. The opening scene is a peaceful dinner party where we meet many of the key characters; it is a life full of love and peace with those loved ones always around. However, this happiness quickly turns into trouble and sorrow, when the couple is attacked one night; as Margot is brutally murdered, Alex stays in coma for 3 weeks. The movie then moves further to 8 years later; Alex is still trying to cope with his wife's death, remembering the exact day that his wife is murdered each year with her parents. I should add here that at around that point, there is a scene about Alex' memories in which the wedding and funeral ceremonies blend within each other with a drunken and depressed Alex' shots seen in between, and that is truly one of the best depictions of loss and sorrow I have seen for a long time.
While he is living a life lost in the usual cliche of life goes on, one day he receives a suspicious e-mail from an anonymous sender; when he clicks on the link in the email, at the exact time it is written to do, he connects to a camera on a street somewhere, and he sees a woman, very much alike Margot, though a little blurry, staring at the camera. The sender also tells on the mail to Alex not to tell anyone (ne le dis à personne), for they are under surveillance. A small series of secret e-mails and two bodies found buried where Margot and Alex had been attacked 8 years earlier, trigger the re-investigation of the case, with new additions, and Alex' life turns to hell as he had been a suspect back then, and he still is, because of some unfortunate details and events. He has to prove that he is innocent, and he has to find the answer to a more important question: Is Margot alive?
The 2006 movie Ne le dis à personne by Guillaume Canet as the director is an adaptation from the novel of the same name by Harlan Coben. You may remember Canet as the leading actor from another, lovely, French movie, Jeux d'Enfants, and his directing is even better. The film starts with an ambience of a truly French touch and the peace of a countryside, and yet once the case starts, it never slows down, though not only visually. The characters, from the minor to the leading, are all so very well analyzed that the story satisfies you in each and every scene. The change of one of the torturers in the book from an oriental male to an ectomorphic white female in the movie, the obsessive compulsive police inspector Eric, and Monsieur Canet himself acting as the most disgusting character in the story are a few of the brilliant points in the casting of the film, and is again, the French touch.
Today, when a movie is labeled as thriller, we expect a twist in the story, for we are now accustommed to such an approach. Ne le dis à personne is no exception of this, it gives you twist after twist, but one especially the least expected and right when you say you no longer expect more. Although there is murder, chasing the unknown, questions, fights etc, in the center of the movie, there is an incredibly deep love, and it is depicted in such a way that noone can say they are not taken by it. It is not just a simple story with a home and dry setup, but is a deeper sense and feeling as a whole; hence, you may see it again and again although you know the answers to all the questions, which is a contradiction to the realities of many thriller movies. And I must add, what a brilliant actor François Cluzet is; the end certainly sent chills down my spine.
Tonight, I have surprisingly found an almost treasure, something like a personal connection. I could even stand the annoying face of Kristin Scott Thomas. I could not be happier not to have slept right after my good night message on msn.
About two months ago I had written here that I am not at all thrilled by the genre thriller most of the time and the movie that I was writing about was a dissappointment itself as some of you would remember. This is why my decision was a thriller for tonight, I needed to fall asleep quickly. I do not buy 90% of the mainstream Hollywood thrillers and I definitely am suspicious about the genre's French versions for the extreme use of heavy effects and endless fights to connect the scenes - I am talking about today's generation here -, but I must admit that this young director, young at heart and young at directing, turned this well-written story into a masterpiece.
Alexandre and Margot Beck are a happy couple who had loved each other since childhood. The opening scene is a peaceful dinner party where we meet many of the key characters; it is a life full of love and peace with those loved ones always around. However, this happiness quickly turns into trouble and sorrow, when the couple is attacked one night; as Margot is brutally murdered, Alex stays in coma for 3 weeks. The movie then moves further to 8 years later; Alex is still trying to cope with his wife's death, remembering the exact day that his wife is murdered each year with her parents. I should add here that at around that point, there is a scene about Alex' memories in which the wedding and funeral ceremonies blend within each other with a drunken and depressed Alex' shots seen in between, and that is truly one of the best depictions of loss and sorrow I have seen for a long time.
While he is living a life lost in the usual cliche of life goes on, one day he receives a suspicious e-mail from an anonymous sender; when he clicks on the link in the email, at the exact time it is written to do, he connects to a camera on a street somewhere, and he sees a woman, very much alike Margot, though a little blurry, staring at the camera. The sender also tells on the mail to Alex not to tell anyone (ne le dis à personne), for they are under surveillance. A small series of secret e-mails and two bodies found buried where Margot and Alex had been attacked 8 years earlier, trigger the re-investigation of the case, with new additions, and Alex' life turns to hell as he had been a suspect back then, and he still is, because of some unfortunate details and events. He has to prove that he is innocent, and he has to find the answer to a more important question: Is Margot alive?
The 2006 movie Ne le dis à personne by Guillaume Canet as the director is an adaptation from the novel of the same name by Harlan Coben. You may remember Canet as the leading actor from another, lovely, French movie, Jeux d'Enfants, and his directing is even better. The film starts with an ambience of a truly French touch and the peace of a countryside, and yet once the case starts, it never slows down, though not only visually. The characters, from the minor to the leading, are all so very well analyzed that the story satisfies you in each and every scene. The change of one of the torturers in the book from an oriental male to an ectomorphic white female in the movie, the obsessive compulsive police inspector Eric, and Monsieur Canet himself acting as the most disgusting character in the story are a few of the brilliant points in the casting of the film, and is again, the French touch.
Today, when a movie is labeled as thriller, we expect a twist in the story, for we are now accustommed to such an approach. Ne le dis à personne is no exception of this, it gives you twist after twist, but one especially the least expected and right when you say you no longer expect more. Although there is murder, chasing the unknown, questions, fights etc, in the center of the movie, there is an incredibly deep love, and it is depicted in such a way that noone can say they are not taken by it. It is not just a simple story with a home and dry setup, but is a deeper sense and feeling as a whole; hence, you may see it again and again although you know the answers to all the questions, which is a contradiction to the realities of many thriller movies. And I must add, what a brilliant actor François Cluzet is; the end certainly sent chills down my spine.
Tonight, I have surprisingly found an almost treasure, something like a personal connection. I could even stand the annoying face of Kristin Scott Thomas. I could not be happier not to have slept right after my good night message on msn.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Un Chien Andalou
"...anyone halfway interested in the cinema sees it sooner or later, usually several times.."
Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that sentence about Un Chien Andalou in his article dated April 16, 2000. It is an absolutely valid statement, for the movie has remained the most famous short movie ever made since 1929 and has continuously been discussed and analyzed about, although its makers, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali had always laughed at those interpretations, saying that nothing about the movie, including its title, had intended to make sense. Yes, you cannot have a definitive comment on the movie, and yet, it is also extremely open to infinite number of speculations and explanations, which would all be more or less true in a sense. It is probably because the movie world has made us accustommed to interpret every single thing about a film, that we, the audience, the critics etc. try to put it within a box of explanation.
Un Chien Andalou is Bunuel's first film. Around 1929, it was a time for highly surrealist movement in Paris and young and passionate Bunuel who is absorbed in dreams collaborated with equally absorbed and passionate Dali. It is said that Bunuel had told Dali about his dream in which a cloud sliced the moon in half, like a razor blade slicing through an eye. Dali went on to tell his own dream about a hand crawling with ants, and there they decided to turn these images to a film, borrowing the budget from Bunuel's mother.
The film is a flow of tenuously related scenes, including some that would seem gross to some viewers, especially within the first minute, where one eye of a woman is sliced in two, just as Bunuel's description of his dream. The two clearly intended to shock the audience, probably to bring them to the right state of mind to view the rest of it. The critic Ado Kyrou stated that "For the first time in the history of cinema, a director tries not to please but rather to alienate nearly all potential spectators". Bunuel and Dali took some stones with them before the first viewing, in order to throw, had the audience attacked them upon seeing the film. However, it became surprisingly popular, despite the French's rather negative opinion on surrealist cinema at that time, and despite the rumours that two women even had miscarriage while watching. Today, it is not so shocking for us, the eyes of the viewers who are used to every single technique of scenes like those, thus it is quite possible to say that the surrealist revolutionists have succeeded in their fight.
From Freudian psychoanalysis to 21st century technical aspects, many have had their own interpretations; so here is the movie, for your own analysis:
Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that sentence about Un Chien Andalou in his article dated April 16, 2000. It is an absolutely valid statement, for the movie has remained the most famous short movie ever made since 1929 and has continuously been discussed and analyzed about, although its makers, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali had always laughed at those interpretations, saying that nothing about the movie, including its title, had intended to make sense. Yes, you cannot have a definitive comment on the movie, and yet, it is also extremely open to infinite number of speculations and explanations, which would all be more or less true in a sense. It is probably because the movie world has made us accustommed to interpret every single thing about a film, that we, the audience, the critics etc. try to put it within a box of explanation.
Un Chien Andalou is Bunuel's first film. Around 1929, it was a time for highly surrealist movement in Paris and young and passionate Bunuel who is absorbed in dreams collaborated with equally absorbed and passionate Dali. It is said that Bunuel had told Dali about his dream in which a cloud sliced the moon in half, like a razor blade slicing through an eye. Dali went on to tell his own dream about a hand crawling with ants, and there they decided to turn these images to a film, borrowing the budget from Bunuel's mother.
The film is a flow of tenuously related scenes, including some that would seem gross to some viewers, especially within the first minute, where one eye of a woman is sliced in two, just as Bunuel's description of his dream. The two clearly intended to shock the audience, probably to bring them to the right state of mind to view the rest of it. The critic Ado Kyrou stated that "For the first time in the history of cinema, a director tries not to please but rather to alienate nearly all potential spectators". Bunuel and Dali took some stones with them before the first viewing, in order to throw, had the audience attacked them upon seeing the film. However, it became surprisingly popular, despite the French's rather negative opinion on surrealist cinema at that time, and despite the rumours that two women even had miscarriage while watching. Today, it is not so shocking for us, the eyes of the viewers who are used to every single technique of scenes like those, thus it is quite possible to say that the surrealist revolutionists have succeeded in their fight.
From Freudian psychoanalysis to 21st century technical aspects, many have had their own interpretations; so here is the movie, for your own analysis:
Adieu, Plancher des Vaches!
I am not sure exactly if it is because his last movie was about Parisian gardens in autumn, but, the feeling I always get from Otar Iosseliani's films is the serenity, humidity and melancholy of that season. It is the autumn for the director, as it is the passing of the French cinema as we know, as something has been happening in Paris, without only the French realizing. That must be the root of this feeling, it has to be.
The 1999 movie, Adieu, Plancher des Vaches, shown in english as Farewell Home Sweet Home, tells the story of people from different places within the society, well, maybe instead of the word story, it is better to use just being, since it is an Iosseliani film; and the lives that are loosely linked, even within a family. It can not be said that the film has one center, however, on the side very close to the focus point, there is the son of a wealthy family, which will only be mentioned as the son, who, for the reasons best known to himself, works in a restaurant as a dish washer and spends his days with outsiders on the streets; when he is fired from the restaurant, he will find another job like that, and another, and another, all just to earn a little bit of money that will lead to wine. When he goes out of his palace-like suburban house in the mornings, he changes his clothes from a suit to jeans and casual shirt. He definitely rejects to be part of a society where money, business and all the boredom are the ultimate purpose. One day, he becomes part of a petty crime and is sent to prison; when he goes out, about one and a half years later, he is to find many things changed.
If I were to choose the adjective 'hilarious' for a movie, I would pick this one, though it is not the kind of hilarious in common sense; it is so surprising and so natural that you can not help but laugh. I realized at the end of the movie that even when I was not laughing, I watched the whole other parts of the movie with a smiling face. It is the usual Iosseliani world; there is the constant drinking, singing and talking among friends, hatred of work in any routine sense, love for women or men, as long as they are never wives or husbands, the presence of plants and animals among humans, and the lives of outsiders, whether wealthy, or living on the street.
The characters in Adieu, Plancher des Vaches! all build a patchwork quilt, it is the contradictions and a different way of holding on to life that attract the audience; and yet, it is also all about kindness, a constant offer of more drinks, more cigarettes, more sharing between the characters. Even still, as I am writing these lines, am smiling.
The 1999 movie, Adieu, Plancher des Vaches, shown in english as Farewell Home Sweet Home, tells the story of people from different places within the society, well, maybe instead of the word story, it is better to use just being, since it is an Iosseliani film; and the lives that are loosely linked, even within a family. It can not be said that the film has one center, however, on the side very close to the focus point, there is the son of a wealthy family, which will only be mentioned as the son, who, for the reasons best known to himself, works in a restaurant as a dish washer and spends his days with outsiders on the streets; when he is fired from the restaurant, he will find another job like that, and another, and another, all just to earn a little bit of money that will lead to wine. When he goes out of his palace-like suburban house in the mornings, he changes his clothes from a suit to jeans and casual shirt. He definitely rejects to be part of a society where money, business and all the boredom are the ultimate purpose. One day, he becomes part of a petty crime and is sent to prison; when he goes out, about one and a half years later, he is to find many things changed.
If I were to choose the adjective 'hilarious' for a movie, I would pick this one, though it is not the kind of hilarious in common sense; it is so surprising and so natural that you can not help but laugh. I realized at the end of the movie that even when I was not laughing, I watched the whole other parts of the movie with a smiling face. It is the usual Iosseliani world; there is the constant drinking, singing and talking among friends, hatred of work in any routine sense, love for women or men, as long as they are never wives or husbands, the presence of plants and animals among humans, and the lives of outsiders, whether wealthy, or living on the street.
The characters in Adieu, Plancher des Vaches! all build a patchwork quilt, it is the contradictions and a different way of holding on to life that attract the audience; and yet, it is also all about kindness, a constant offer of more drinks, more cigarettes, more sharing between the characters. Even still, as I am writing these lines, am smiling.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Guernica
Beau monde des masures
De la nuit et des champs
Visages bons au feu visages bons au froid
Aux refus à la nuit aux injures aux coups
Visages bons à tout
Voici le vide qui vous fixe
Votre mort va servir d’exemple
La mort cœur renversé
***
It is an unfortunate fact that throughout the history, one of the strongest stimulations to the greatest minds of art, science, technology, philosophy... had been the strongest destruction mankind ever created: war. It nurtured the industrial revolution, it nurtured scientific researches, it nurtured paintings, cinema, theatre.. The most impressive and striking images of photography has been those taken in times of war, such as that of My Lai Massacre; Q: And Babies, A: And Babies. The cinema has been dealing with the World War II for years, even today. And one of the greatest works of Picasso is no exception, Guernica, depicting the bombing of the Spanish village during the Spanish civil war, killing hundreds of civilians in about 3 hours, razing the village to the ground.
Guernica is a navy blue, black and white mural painting 3.5 m tall and 7.8 m wide that Picasso created in 1937, right after the Guernica bombing. It had first been exhibited in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) in Paris, traveled extensively between 1939 and 1952 in the United States, and between 1953 and 1956, throughout many cities of Europe, and Brazil. It finally came back to MOMA and stayed there in a private room where it is surrounded by some other paintings of the artist, when finally in 1981, it returned back to Spain.
The painting shows suffering people, animals and buildings wrenched by violence and chaos. There is darkness, fear, pain and panic, however, there is also hope for the future. The overall scene is within a room with an open end on the left. At one point in the image, Picasso intended to signify the destructing effect that technology may have on society; there is a light bulb in the shape of an evil eye over a suffering horse's head, and the Spanish word for lightbulb is 'bombilla', making an allusion to 'bomb'. While working on the painting, Picasso expressed;
'...The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death..'
In her article titled "Analyzing Political Art to Get at Historical Fact: Guernica and the Spanish Civil War", Beverly Ray lists the following interpretations of the painting:
- The shape and posture of the bodies express protest.
- Picasso uses black, white, and grey paint to set a somber mood and express pain and chaos.
- Flaming buildings and crumbling walls not only express the destruction of Guernica, but reflect the destructive power of civil war.
- The newspaper print used in the painting reflects how Picasso learned of the massacre.
- The light bulb in the painting represents the sun.
- The broken sword near the bottom of the painting symbolizes the defeat of the people at the hand of their tormentors. (Berger 1980; Chipp 1988)
While living in Nazi-occupied Paris during World War II, Picasso had been harassed by Gestapo; seeing a photo of the painting in his apartment, an officer had asked him, "Did you do that?", and Picasso replied, "No, you did."
Since it was first exhibited, Guernica has been the subject of many protests against war and massacre, becoming an icon. Its enormous influence could be seen especially during some recent occasions in United Nations building in New York. Since 1955, a tapestry copy of the painting is displayed on the wall at the entrance of the Security Council room. A large blue curtain was placed to cover it, on February 5, 2003, in order not to be visible in the background while Colin Powell and John Negroponte were giving a press conference. It was claimed that the reason why the curtain was placed there was that the news crews had asked for it, in order to get rid of screaming and sharp figures making a bad background, however, according to some diplomats, it was the Bush administration who pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, not to have it in the background while Powell and other US diplomats were arguing for war on Iraq.
Guernica has also been subject of other artistic works, such as an early short movie by Alain Resnais and Robert Hessens in 1950. The 13-minutes movie shows some of the works by Picasso, focusing mostly on Guernica, by showing parts of the painting, while in the background Maria Casares Jacques Pruvost narrate the historical fact of Guernica bombing and the poem La Victoire de Guernica by Paul Eluard. The same poem also accompanied the painting in the 1937 Paris exhibition where it was first displayed.
Guernica is the scream of the people massacred in 1937. What we are left with, today, is an admiration for this artwork and a feeling of pain for those that lost their lives. However, no matter how many paintings are created, or how many photos are taken, the destruction, against each other, still goes on today, even now; and it will take probably an infinite number of paintings to finally realize the reality, or to feel completely numb.
De la nuit et des champs
Visages bons au feu visages bons au froid
Aux refus à la nuit aux injures aux coups
Visages bons à tout
Voici le vide qui vous fixe
Votre mort va servir d’exemple
La mort cœur renversé
***
It is an unfortunate fact that throughout the history, one of the strongest stimulations to the greatest minds of art, science, technology, philosophy... had been the strongest destruction mankind ever created: war. It nurtured the industrial revolution, it nurtured scientific researches, it nurtured paintings, cinema, theatre.. The most impressive and striking images of photography has been those taken in times of war, such as that of My Lai Massacre; Q: And Babies, A: And Babies. The cinema has been dealing with the World War II for years, even today. And one of the greatest works of Picasso is no exception, Guernica, depicting the bombing of the Spanish village during the Spanish civil war, killing hundreds of civilians in about 3 hours, razing the village to the ground.
Guernica is a navy blue, black and white mural painting 3.5 m tall and 7.8 m wide that Picasso created in 1937, right after the Guernica bombing. It had first been exhibited in Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) in Paris, traveled extensively between 1939 and 1952 in the United States, and between 1953 and 1956, throughout many cities of Europe, and Brazil. It finally came back to MOMA and stayed there in a private room where it is surrounded by some other paintings of the artist, when finally in 1981, it returned back to Spain.
The painting shows suffering people, animals and buildings wrenched by violence and chaos. There is darkness, fear, pain and panic, however, there is also hope for the future. The overall scene is within a room with an open end on the left. At one point in the image, Picasso intended to signify the destructing effect that technology may have on society; there is a light bulb in the shape of an evil eye over a suffering horse's head, and the Spanish word for lightbulb is 'bombilla', making an allusion to 'bomb'. While working on the painting, Picasso expressed;
'...The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? ... In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death..'
In her article titled "Analyzing Political Art to Get at Historical Fact: Guernica and the Spanish Civil War", Beverly Ray lists the following interpretations of the painting:
- The shape and posture of the bodies express protest.
- Picasso uses black, white, and grey paint to set a somber mood and express pain and chaos.
- Flaming buildings and crumbling walls not only express the destruction of Guernica, but reflect the destructive power of civil war.
- The newspaper print used in the painting reflects how Picasso learned of the massacre.
- The light bulb in the painting represents the sun.
- The broken sword near the bottom of the painting symbolizes the defeat of the people at the hand of their tormentors. (Berger 1980; Chipp 1988)
While living in Nazi-occupied Paris during World War II, Picasso had been harassed by Gestapo; seeing a photo of the painting in his apartment, an officer had asked him, "Did you do that?", and Picasso replied, "No, you did."
Since it was first exhibited, Guernica has been the subject of many protests against war and massacre, becoming an icon. Its enormous influence could be seen especially during some recent occasions in United Nations building in New York. Since 1955, a tapestry copy of the painting is displayed on the wall at the entrance of the Security Council room. A large blue curtain was placed to cover it, on February 5, 2003, in order not to be visible in the background while Colin Powell and John Negroponte were giving a press conference. It was claimed that the reason why the curtain was placed there was that the news crews had asked for it, in order to get rid of screaming and sharp figures making a bad background, however, according to some diplomats, it was the Bush administration who pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, not to have it in the background while Powell and other US diplomats were arguing for war on Iraq.
Guernica has also been subject of other artistic works, such as an early short movie by Alain Resnais and Robert Hessens in 1950. The 13-minutes movie shows some of the works by Picasso, focusing mostly on Guernica, by showing parts of the painting, while in the background Maria Casares Jacques Pruvost narrate the historical fact of Guernica bombing and the poem La Victoire de Guernica by Paul Eluard. The same poem also accompanied the painting in the 1937 Paris exhibition where it was first displayed.
Guernica is the scream of the people massacred in 1937. What we are left with, today, is an admiration for this artwork and a feeling of pain for those that lost their lives. However, no matter how many paintings are created, or how many photos are taken, the destruction, against each other, still goes on today, even now; and it will take probably an infinite number of paintings to finally realize the reality, or to feel completely numb.
The Madness of King George
Every now and then one accidentally starts watching a movie, without knowing anything about it, on TV usually, and falls in love with it finally. For me, years ago, The Madness of King George had been one of them; I only had the chance to see it once on TV and - internet was not such a big part of our lives back then - could not find it anywhere else for years, finally, a few months ago I found it and now it is an essential part of my archive.
The Madness of King George focuses on the deteriorating mental health of King George III of England during particularly at a period around Regency Crisis of 1788. The illness starts to show itself by discoloured urine, cramps, abdominal pain and soon enough, by a mental disorder that would officially label the king as "mad". Several medical actions take place, while in the background we witness parts of the Regency Crisis. He is finally taken away from the palace to a house in the country where he is cured by the unusual methods of Dr. Willis; he believes that the key to the cure lies in the behavioural discipline and he applies this strict disciplinary restrictions to the king, dismissing mostly the other physical symptoms. George III finally recovers and gets back his power, with a happy ending to the movie.
Today, it is known that King George III of England, in fact, had suffered from porphyria, a genetic disorder. It is very unlikely for men to show the symptoms of the illness, and George himself did not show any until the age of 50. A recent research made in 2003, by Professor Martin Warren, by the samples taken from the king's hair exhibited in a London museum showed that he was exposed to large amounts of arsenic, probably from the powders used in wigs and later on some medications applied by several doctors of the time, and this was the main substance that triggered the illness. Today, porphyria is still incurable, though several drugs are used to decrease the amount and severity of the symptomatic attacks. George III too had not recovered totally and had the attacks again in 1811, this time until his death. The movie therefore shows only the first period of his illness.
The Madness of King George is a 1994 movie by Nicholas Hytner and is an adaptation from Alan Bennett's play The Madness of King George III. The cast is a hall of fame; the ever brilliant Nigel Hawthorne as King George, the amazing Helen Mirren as Queen Charlotte, accompanied by Ian Holm as Dr. Willis, Rupert Everett as Prince of Wales, Julian Wadham as Pitt and John Wood as Thurlow. It is a great period movie, with several themes. In the center, it focuses on the relatively primitive medical actions of the time. While the Royal doctors have no positive result by their medications, probably because of the arsenic as we discover today, Dr. Willis seem to have some kind of a response, probably thanks to taking away the large amount of arsenic involved substances. Until that time, the king had never been told what to do, as he had the ultimate power, however, the change was about to come. This strict discipline the king is exposed to is also a link to this change, or shift, of the powers between royalty and the parliament, which is the other theme in the movie, and the time. Therefore, in the end, the recovered king tells his family, and mostly to his son, the Prince of Wales, that they are paid to wave the crowd and to seem happy, as a model of well behaviour to the people; it is the time of modern constitutional monarchy.
With severals awards and nominations in the Academy Awards, BAFTA Awards and Cannes Film Festival, the Madness of King George is an officially good movie, deserving all those awards and probably even more. For the audience, it is a great experience to witness a part of British history, mixed well with humour and drama, and to witness the amazing acting by Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren and Ian Holm.
The Madness of King George focuses on the deteriorating mental health of King George III of England during particularly at a period around Regency Crisis of 1788. The illness starts to show itself by discoloured urine, cramps, abdominal pain and soon enough, by a mental disorder that would officially label the king as "mad". Several medical actions take place, while in the background we witness parts of the Regency Crisis. He is finally taken away from the palace to a house in the country where he is cured by the unusual methods of Dr. Willis; he believes that the key to the cure lies in the behavioural discipline and he applies this strict disciplinary restrictions to the king, dismissing mostly the other physical symptoms. George III finally recovers and gets back his power, with a happy ending to the movie.
Today, it is known that King George III of England, in fact, had suffered from porphyria, a genetic disorder. It is very unlikely for men to show the symptoms of the illness, and George himself did not show any until the age of 50. A recent research made in 2003, by Professor Martin Warren, by the samples taken from the king's hair exhibited in a London museum showed that he was exposed to large amounts of arsenic, probably from the powders used in wigs and later on some medications applied by several doctors of the time, and this was the main substance that triggered the illness. Today, porphyria is still incurable, though several drugs are used to decrease the amount and severity of the symptomatic attacks. George III too had not recovered totally and had the attacks again in 1811, this time until his death. The movie therefore shows only the first period of his illness.
The Madness of King George is a 1994 movie by Nicholas Hytner and is an adaptation from Alan Bennett's play The Madness of King George III. The cast is a hall of fame; the ever brilliant Nigel Hawthorne as King George, the amazing Helen Mirren as Queen Charlotte, accompanied by Ian Holm as Dr. Willis, Rupert Everett as Prince of Wales, Julian Wadham as Pitt and John Wood as Thurlow. It is a great period movie, with several themes. In the center, it focuses on the relatively primitive medical actions of the time. While the Royal doctors have no positive result by their medications, probably because of the arsenic as we discover today, Dr. Willis seem to have some kind of a response, probably thanks to taking away the large amount of arsenic involved substances. Until that time, the king had never been told what to do, as he had the ultimate power, however, the change was about to come. This strict discipline the king is exposed to is also a link to this change, or shift, of the powers between royalty and the parliament, which is the other theme in the movie, and the time. Therefore, in the end, the recovered king tells his family, and mostly to his son, the Prince of Wales, that they are paid to wave the crowd and to seem happy, as a model of well behaviour to the people; it is the time of modern constitutional monarchy.
With severals awards and nominations in the Academy Awards, BAFTA Awards and Cannes Film Festival, the Madness of King George is an officially good movie, deserving all those awards and probably even more. For the audience, it is a great experience to witness a part of British history, mixed well with humour and drama, and to witness the amazing acting by Nigel Hawthorne, Helen Mirren and Ian Holm.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Al di là delle nuvole / Beyond The Clouds
John Malkovich, Sophie Marceau, Peter Weller, Fanny Ardant, Jean Reno, Irene Jacob, Vincent Perez, Marcello Mastroianni, Jeanne Moreau. Add to this two brilliant directors of different generations: Michelangelo Antonioni and Wim Wenders. There you have, a perfect recipe for a perfect movie.
Beyond The Clouds is not perfect in a traditional sense. What makes it more than just a notable work is that it shows how a director who once knew everything, or at least thought that he knew everything, has become so inconclusive, suggesting answers but never giving in a precise judgement; a change that probably occurred by getting so close to death - Antonioni had a stroke in 1985 which left him mute and paralyzed. His own physical silence at the time reflects to the general mood of the movie; it is the director's "looking", what we see. The film is co-directed by Wim Wenders, helped by Antonioni's wife, in order to establish the verbal communication between Antonioni and the rest.
One of the last movies of Michelangelo Antonioni who died in 2007, Beyond The Clouds is composed of 4 short stories, in 4 different cities in Italy and France, about love, about connection and disconnection, conclusiveness and inconclusiveness. The stories are interlinked, though loosely, by Antonioni's surrogate John Malkovich, going to those places and narrating while taking photos and being involved in one of the stories himself. The first story is about a young couple, though never being a real couple, in Ferrara, almost having a love affair. It is followed by the director's own story, in picturesque Portofino, where he is taken by - and takes - a young shopkeeper girl, who has a secret in her recent past. Third story is in Paris, and is about a man who is torn between his wife and his lover; his wife leaves him at the end, meeting another man in a somewhat same condition. Finally, we wander around the narrow streets of Aix-en-Provence, with a young man desperately trying to connect with a young woman who is completely taken away by her faith - and love - for God.
Michelangelo Antonioni had been criticized by many critics as being too pretentious in most of his works. This is true in many senses, for even some of his most famous works, however, I would take this one as an exception. Beyond The Clouds has a sensitive touch in your heart, the somewhat rare dialogues are of little or no importance, the beautiful scenery, perfect cinematography and the views and occasions of contrast leaves you with a complete serenity; the vitality of the mistress' apartment contrasts with that of cold modernity of the married couple, the beautiful cathedral choir is a sanctuary from the rainy texture of the cobbled street. What Antonioni suggests is that the same stories will go on behind the surfaces, behind those silences; he certainly had been, at the last stage of his life, inconclusive about connections.
It is a rather ironic fact that Michelangelo Antonioni shares the same date of death - 30 July, 2007 - with another extraordinary director of all times, Ingmar Bergman, who had criticized him maybe the most during his whole life time.
Beyond The Clouds is not perfect in a traditional sense. What makes it more than just a notable work is that it shows how a director who once knew everything, or at least thought that he knew everything, has become so inconclusive, suggesting answers but never giving in a precise judgement; a change that probably occurred by getting so close to death - Antonioni had a stroke in 1985 which left him mute and paralyzed. His own physical silence at the time reflects to the general mood of the movie; it is the director's "looking", what we see. The film is co-directed by Wim Wenders, helped by Antonioni's wife, in order to establish the verbal communication between Antonioni and the rest.
One of the last movies of Michelangelo Antonioni who died in 2007, Beyond The Clouds is composed of 4 short stories, in 4 different cities in Italy and France, about love, about connection and disconnection, conclusiveness and inconclusiveness. The stories are interlinked, though loosely, by Antonioni's surrogate John Malkovich, going to those places and narrating while taking photos and being involved in one of the stories himself. The first story is about a young couple, though never being a real couple, in Ferrara, almost having a love affair. It is followed by the director's own story, in picturesque Portofino, where he is taken by - and takes - a young shopkeeper girl, who has a secret in her recent past. Third story is in Paris, and is about a man who is torn between his wife and his lover; his wife leaves him at the end, meeting another man in a somewhat same condition. Finally, we wander around the narrow streets of Aix-en-Provence, with a young man desperately trying to connect with a young woman who is completely taken away by her faith - and love - for God.
Michelangelo Antonioni had been criticized by many critics as being too pretentious in most of his works. This is true in many senses, for even some of his most famous works, however, I would take this one as an exception. Beyond The Clouds has a sensitive touch in your heart, the somewhat rare dialogues are of little or no importance, the beautiful scenery, perfect cinematography and the views and occasions of contrast leaves you with a complete serenity; the vitality of the mistress' apartment contrasts with that of cold modernity of the married couple, the beautiful cathedral choir is a sanctuary from the rainy texture of the cobbled street. What Antonioni suggests is that the same stories will go on behind the surfaces, behind those silences; he certainly had been, at the last stage of his life, inconclusive about connections.
It is a rather ironic fact that Michelangelo Antonioni shares the same date of death - 30 July, 2007 - with another extraordinary director of all times, Ingmar Bergman, who had criticized him maybe the most during his whole life time.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Tommy
There are some movies that you should see at two certain ages, one when you would only watch and enjoy the scenes, music, colours etc, two when you would understand the hidden symbols inside the movie. That is exactly what I did with Tommy; I had seen it first when I was 9 or 10, can not seem to remember now, and I was amazed by the music and the glamorous visualization; years later, a few months ago I had the chance to unlock the symbolism of the movie and a whole new phase of admiration began.
Tommy is the 1975 movie version, by Ken Russell, of the famous rock opera of 1969 by The Who. It is almost a hall of fame, starring the group's members, with the lead singer Roger Daltrey as Tommy, Ann-Margret, Oliver Reed, and notable appearances by Eric Clapton, Elton John, Tina Turner and Jack Nicholson. It was nominated for two oscars and Ann-Margret received a Golden Globe Award for her performance.
The film is about a young man, Tommy, who, since his childhood, is deaf, blind and dumb, because of a trauma. His mother, Nora Walker, who gives birth to him when his father, Captain Walker, is away during World War II. She waits for the Captain for six years, but then gives up finally believing that he is dead, and starts a relationship with Frank Hobbs; however, one night the Captain comes back home all of a sudden only to find Nora and Frank in bed. Panicked, Frank kills Walker with a lamp, and little Tommy, who has followed his father to his mother's bedroom, sees it all. Both Nora and Frank tell Tommy that "he didn't hear it, didn't see it, and won't say nothing to noone", and as a result of this Tommy becomes deaf, blind and dumb.
For the following years, Nora and Frank take Tommy to numerous doctors, cults and even prostitutes in order to find a cure for him, however he responds to none. In a strange occasion, it is revealed that he plays pinball perfectly, and this leads to a national prominence and fame when he defeats the local champ - Elton John. When one of the doctors say that Tommy's problem is totally psychosomatic, Nora feels guilty and in a state of delirium, she pushes Tommy out of the window, causing yet another trauma, however this time, a trauma that cures him. This new awareness helps Tommy to try to enlighten people; however this whole new religious icon is again to be torn apart by ever-consuming people.
Without a doubt, musically and visually, Tommy passes all the tests with honors, however, this psychedelic ambience has more to it than just a joy for your eyes and ears; it sends stimulating signals to all over your brain with the iconic figures of pop cultures, in a mixture of sex, violence, war and religion. It is filled with questions of our lives, our powers and identities. While the mother figure who wants to help her son but is not able to do anything and in the meantime who wants to enjoy money shows a perfect struggle, Tommy being an icon both as a pinball wizard and later a cult figure is the symbol of power and focus, with masses of people drawn to anything unusual in order to be lead and to believe. And yet, they are extremely and quite easily destructive.
I would recommend you to watch Tommy with the volume full up, it is truly a grand feast with pure quality music and sounds. Be ready to be shaken through your nerves though, you are yet about to experiment something truly staggering - in the most positive sense.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Dangerous Liaisons
I love John Malkovich. Period. The very first time I started thinking what an incredible actor he is was when I saw him as the dangerous Vicomte de Valmont in Dangerous Liaisons. That intriguing character was the perfect Malkovich and ever since, that is the ultimate image I have in my mind of him.
Dangerous Liaisons is a 1988 movie by Stephen Frears starring John Malkovich (Vicomte de Valmont), Glenn Close (Marquise de Merteuil), Michelle Pfeiffer (Madame de Tourvel), Uma Thurman (Cécile de Volanges) and a very young and naive Keanu Reeves (Chevalier Danceny) in his usual extremely untalented manner. The movie is an adaptation of a play by Christopher Hampton which was based on the classic eighteenth century novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. It won three academy awards in 1989 out of seven nominations, and it has been referred to in various books and movies, becoming the ultimate version though many remakes have followed later.
The wicked Marquise de Merteuil calls her ex-lover and her ultimate match in immorality, Vicomte de Valmont, to ask him to seduce Cécile de Volanges in order to take revenge from one of her past lovers who is about to marry this young virgin newly out of monastery. Famous for his immoral character, Valmont does not agree with this too easy task, for he has already found his next challenge at the time; the virtuous Madame de Tourvel. However, when he later finds out that Cécile's mother who happens to be one of Valmont's past lovers has warned Madame de Tourvel about him, he accepts the offer.
While Madame de Tourvel has been staying in his aunt's house, Valmont tries everything from reading her letters to showing himself as a virtuous person and in the meantime he secretly seduces Cécile. Satisfied with this seduction, Marquise de Merteuil joins in Valmont's plans for Madame de Tourvel, making it a challenge for him in the end of which he will receive the prize of spending one night with her. After a long and aching resistance, Madame de Tourvel finally gives in and falls in love with Valmont, becoming his lover. Unaware of the fact that he too fell in love with her and thinking of his reputation as only the seducer, Valmont breaks up with her all of a sudden but quite reluctantly, however, when Marquise de Merteuil realizes Valmont's feelings for Madame de Tourvel, the whole challenge turns out to be a war between Marquise and Valmont, as a result of her secret jealousy.
Dangerous Liaisons is the perfect depiction of the virtues and secret relations of the aristocracy of that time. With the exception of Valmont's aunt who is very old to get into those intrigues, everyone has a secret or a second self behind the mask of morality - from the young Cécile - Danceny, to the noble Marquise - Vicomte or the dutiful wife Madame de Tourvel. It shows what a tangle the whole network of intimacy and relationships is, with the young or the ever innocent being drawn to seductions by the masters of this puzzling almost a game, ending up sick or dead from pain of a broken heart and regret, as Madame de Tourvel, or creating a whole new puzzle of games themselves as a master-to-be, as in Cécile's case. In that world, there is no room for innocence or pity, and if one passes the thin line between the cold-hearted game and real love, is ruined and most probably, will pay it with his life.
The movie is a classic of the classic. Do not take it as if it is a soap opera with those so well known intrigues; this is a world of intellects, nobles and artists, it is the history of men of quite a long time, even of today. The movie itself may be that of a period cinema, however the dangerous liaisons it depicts are timeless. Pay attention to the famous scene, 'It is beyond my control'; the best and the most wicked break-up of all times.
Dangerous Liaisons is a 1988 movie by Stephen Frears starring John Malkovich (Vicomte de Valmont), Glenn Close (Marquise de Merteuil), Michelle Pfeiffer (Madame de Tourvel), Uma Thurman (Cécile de Volanges) and a very young and naive Keanu Reeves (Chevalier Danceny) in his usual extremely untalented manner. The movie is an adaptation of a play by Christopher Hampton which was based on the classic eighteenth century novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. It won three academy awards in 1989 out of seven nominations, and it has been referred to in various books and movies, becoming the ultimate version though many remakes have followed later.
The wicked Marquise de Merteuil calls her ex-lover and her ultimate match in immorality, Vicomte de Valmont, to ask him to seduce Cécile de Volanges in order to take revenge from one of her past lovers who is about to marry this young virgin newly out of monastery. Famous for his immoral character, Valmont does not agree with this too easy task, for he has already found his next challenge at the time; the virtuous Madame de Tourvel. However, when he later finds out that Cécile's mother who happens to be one of Valmont's past lovers has warned Madame de Tourvel about him, he accepts the offer.
While Madame de Tourvel has been staying in his aunt's house, Valmont tries everything from reading her letters to showing himself as a virtuous person and in the meantime he secretly seduces Cécile. Satisfied with this seduction, Marquise de Merteuil joins in Valmont's plans for Madame de Tourvel, making it a challenge for him in the end of which he will receive the prize of spending one night with her. After a long and aching resistance, Madame de Tourvel finally gives in and falls in love with Valmont, becoming his lover. Unaware of the fact that he too fell in love with her and thinking of his reputation as only the seducer, Valmont breaks up with her all of a sudden but quite reluctantly, however, when Marquise de Merteuil realizes Valmont's feelings for Madame de Tourvel, the whole challenge turns out to be a war between Marquise and Valmont, as a result of her secret jealousy.
Dangerous Liaisons is the perfect depiction of the virtues and secret relations of the aristocracy of that time. With the exception of Valmont's aunt who is very old to get into those intrigues, everyone has a secret or a second self behind the mask of morality - from the young Cécile - Danceny, to the noble Marquise - Vicomte or the dutiful wife Madame de Tourvel. It shows what a tangle the whole network of intimacy and relationships is, with the young or the ever innocent being drawn to seductions by the masters of this puzzling almost a game, ending up sick or dead from pain of a broken heart and regret, as Madame de Tourvel, or creating a whole new puzzle of games themselves as a master-to-be, as in Cécile's case. In that world, there is no room for innocence or pity, and if one passes the thin line between the cold-hearted game and real love, is ruined and most probably, will pay it with his life.
The movie is a classic of the classic. Do not take it as if it is a soap opera with those so well known intrigues; this is a world of intellects, nobles and artists, it is the history of men of quite a long time, even of today. The movie itself may be that of a period cinema, however the dangerous liaisons it depicts are timeless. Pay attention to the famous scene, 'It is beyond my control'; the best and the most wicked break-up of all times.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Kolja
There are some movies that I have been saving for years and years. I have been missing the chance to see in a festival, on TV or in multiple reruns in the movie theaters as part of a 'best of'. Or else I have been waiting for the right time to see when I finally have the movie in my hands. The perfect moment to see Kolja seemed to be last night and I realized that I was right to pursue that movie.
Kolja is a 1996 movie by Jan Sverak and the story is of 1988, when the former Czechoslovakia was occupied by then Soviet Union. It is the time of Gorbachev and the union is about to dissolve. The protagonist, Louka, played by the author of the story and also the father of the director, Zdenek Sverak, is a concert cellist who has lost his place in the philharmonic orchestra, plays cello in the funerals and paints tombstones in the graveyard, in order to earn money. He is not married and certainly do not have any children, as his late father told him not to, if he wanted a musical career. And so, up until that day, he has happily agreed with his father to become a confirmed bachelor.
Although the reason behind his losing place in the philharmonic orchestra had been largely due to political issues of the time, Louka does not look so much insterested in politics, at least not more than any average citizen at that time - contrary to his mother, who seems to hold a grand despise against the occupying Soviet Union army. However, Louka's life avoiding meddling is about to be shaken by a highly unexpected person. His friend working in the graveyard, Mr. Broz, offers him a large amount of money, in exchange with his celibacy; all he needs to do is to agree a fake marriage with Broz's young Russian cousin who needs Czech papers. Louka reluctantly accepts this after giving it a long thought, and the two get married, to be divorced in 6 months. Shortly after the marriage the young bride escapes to West Germany where her lover is, and Louka is stuck with her 5 years old son, Kolja, as his stepfather. At first, he becomes annoyed by Kolja being around for who knows how long, however, the sweet boy would soften his heart and the two would be connected to each other with a grand emotional bond. In the background, Czechoslovakia is about to regain its freedom from Soviet Union.
Kolja is a brilliant movie on so many levels. First of all, Andrei Chalimon as sweet little boy is incredible, both as an actor, and as just himself; he truly reflects the feeling of a little one being abandoned. The scene in which he imagines as if he talks to his dead grandmother inside the bathtub through the shower head is certainly a legend, and a heart-breaker. I may sound as a maternal woman here, but the boy is simply irresistable in every little scene he is in, which is also confirmed by breaking down Louka's long standing walls around. Despite the mostly positive reviews from all over the world, some do criticize the movie as being too predictable; Louka, from the beginning, gave the signals to be changed in the course of the movie, they say. Yes it is certainly predictable, I will not discuss otherwise. And yet, sometimes it is interesting to watch a predictable story handled within a significant context.
Another impressive side of the movie is to have the sub-plot of the country's political situation at that time in a strong parallelism with the story of Louka and Kolja. Just as Czechoslovakia was invaded by Soviet Union, Louka's life was occupied by the Russian Kolja; Louka-Kolja relationship is heartwarming, while that of political situation is certainly not.
I do not speak neither Czech or Russian, and both that I heard throughout the movie seemed so close to each other that I could not tell which was which. Many Czech's say that some of the jokes and plays on words were lost in translation; I wish I could get it all as its original, however what I heard - or read as subtitles to be exact - were enough to make my heart dissolved inside the beautiful story. I do recommend this 1997 Academy Awards and The Golden Globe winner as the best foreign language film, it will soften and warm your heart.
Kolja is a 1996 movie by Jan Sverak and the story is of 1988, when the former Czechoslovakia was occupied by then Soviet Union. It is the time of Gorbachev and the union is about to dissolve. The protagonist, Louka, played by the author of the story and also the father of the director, Zdenek Sverak, is a concert cellist who has lost his place in the philharmonic orchestra, plays cello in the funerals and paints tombstones in the graveyard, in order to earn money. He is not married and certainly do not have any children, as his late father told him not to, if he wanted a musical career. And so, up until that day, he has happily agreed with his father to become a confirmed bachelor.
Although the reason behind his losing place in the philharmonic orchestra had been largely due to political issues of the time, Louka does not look so much insterested in politics, at least not more than any average citizen at that time - contrary to his mother, who seems to hold a grand despise against the occupying Soviet Union army. However, Louka's life avoiding meddling is about to be shaken by a highly unexpected person. His friend working in the graveyard, Mr. Broz, offers him a large amount of money, in exchange with his celibacy; all he needs to do is to agree a fake marriage with Broz's young Russian cousin who needs Czech papers. Louka reluctantly accepts this after giving it a long thought, and the two get married, to be divorced in 6 months. Shortly after the marriage the young bride escapes to West Germany where her lover is, and Louka is stuck with her 5 years old son, Kolja, as his stepfather. At first, he becomes annoyed by Kolja being around for who knows how long, however, the sweet boy would soften his heart and the two would be connected to each other with a grand emotional bond. In the background, Czechoslovakia is about to regain its freedom from Soviet Union.
Kolja is a brilliant movie on so many levels. First of all, Andrei Chalimon as sweet little boy is incredible, both as an actor, and as just himself; he truly reflects the feeling of a little one being abandoned. The scene in which he imagines as if he talks to his dead grandmother inside the bathtub through the shower head is certainly a legend, and a heart-breaker. I may sound as a maternal woman here, but the boy is simply irresistable in every little scene he is in, which is also confirmed by breaking down Louka's long standing walls around. Despite the mostly positive reviews from all over the world, some do criticize the movie as being too predictable; Louka, from the beginning, gave the signals to be changed in the course of the movie, they say. Yes it is certainly predictable, I will not discuss otherwise. And yet, sometimes it is interesting to watch a predictable story handled within a significant context.
Another impressive side of the movie is to have the sub-plot of the country's political situation at that time in a strong parallelism with the story of Louka and Kolja. Just as Czechoslovakia was invaded by Soviet Union, Louka's life was occupied by the Russian Kolja; Louka-Kolja relationship is heartwarming, while that of political situation is certainly not.
I do not speak neither Czech or Russian, and both that I heard throughout the movie seemed so close to each other that I could not tell which was which. Many Czech's say that some of the jokes and plays on words were lost in translation; I wish I could get it all as its original, however what I heard - or read as subtitles to be exact - were enough to make my heart dissolved inside the beautiful story. I do recommend this 1997 Academy Awards and The Golden Globe winner as the best foreign language film, it will soften and warm your heart.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
101 Reykjavík
I have been thinking about the same thing last night: What is it that lots of people found incredible in this movie? How could they say "hilarious" about it? "One of the best examples of Scandinavian cinema", what?? What am I missing?
101 Reykjavík has been shown in the 20th Istanbul Film Festival in 2001 and it was a blockbuster that year. It won 9 B-class film awards and received 10 nominations, making the director Baltasar Kormakur's debut as a filmmaker a big success. I would consider myself a fan of movies and culture of the northern countries - intentionally avoiding the word Scandinavian here - and normally I am not disappointed with the results, so I guess the problem here was that I expected too much, way too much.
The film tells the story of geek-ish Hlynur (wonderfully act by Hilmir Snær Guðnason) who is almost 30, still living with his mother with no ambition in life and no desire to find it. He spends his days mostly sleeping or watching porn while at nights he goes to the same bar bumping into same people, drinking the same beer, smoking the same cigarette... I must admit that it is very well depicted how boring and depressing most young people in Iceland feel; for us looking at that country from far away it happens to attract our attentions with a great curiosity and yet, this is unfortunately not the case for those who were born there looking at the infinite ocean as if there is nowhere else but empty space beneath the horizon, after all, it is not the elves and not only beautiful landscape what this country is about. The ever-wealthy northern states provide the young (and all) with sufficient support and thus, they do not usually feel the need to find a challenge, which makes them ever-depressed. Add to this, the climate and long lasting darkness, and you will see what I mean.
However, this extremely bored young man's life changes all of a sudden when a light-hearted, fun-loving Spanish woman, Lola, enter his life as a friend of his mother's. As soon as she starts sharing her life with them, she questions Hlynur's reluctance towards life. A drunken night causes them to have sex - surprisingly a very good one despite Hlynur's normally not-so-good interactions with women - and this would trouble his mind; it would even get worse when his mother explains him her lesbianism, newly discovered in her love for Lola; and then twice as worse when Lola announces her pregnancy, no doubt from Hlynur, and she and Hlynur's mother decide to bring up the baby together - without the mother ever knowing the truth about the father of the baby.
101 Reykjavík is interesting in some aspects for its mixture of humour and drama does give some insight to a young man's struggle against the routines of life in a too normal place, however I would not describe it all as hilarious. Maybe it is because at many points in the movie I lost track of the time and thought that most of the important moments and sides of the story passed in an enormous speed while watching the same patterns without another clue again and again. A movie does not always have to be exact about time and space at every second but this one did not give me the idea as if it were made on purpose, to create a different ambience. It was mostly scenes popping after one another.
Even though my opinions on the movie are not that positive I would still recommend it, especially to northern movie lovers; apparently many find more in it than I ever did in the last 24 hours. I, too, will nonetheless pursue the movies by Baltasar Kormakur to see his progress as a filmmaker - without a great expectation this time.
101 Reykjavík has been shown in the 20th Istanbul Film Festival in 2001 and it was a blockbuster that year. It won 9 B-class film awards and received 10 nominations, making the director Baltasar Kormakur's debut as a filmmaker a big success. I would consider myself a fan of movies and culture of the northern countries - intentionally avoiding the word Scandinavian here - and normally I am not disappointed with the results, so I guess the problem here was that I expected too much, way too much.
The film tells the story of geek-ish Hlynur (wonderfully act by Hilmir Snær Guðnason) who is almost 30, still living with his mother with no ambition in life and no desire to find it. He spends his days mostly sleeping or watching porn while at nights he goes to the same bar bumping into same people, drinking the same beer, smoking the same cigarette... I must admit that it is very well depicted how boring and depressing most young people in Iceland feel; for us looking at that country from far away it happens to attract our attentions with a great curiosity and yet, this is unfortunately not the case for those who were born there looking at the infinite ocean as if there is nowhere else but empty space beneath the horizon, after all, it is not the elves and not only beautiful landscape what this country is about. The ever-wealthy northern states provide the young (and all) with sufficient support and thus, they do not usually feel the need to find a challenge, which makes them ever-depressed. Add to this, the climate and long lasting darkness, and you will see what I mean.
However, this extremely bored young man's life changes all of a sudden when a light-hearted, fun-loving Spanish woman, Lola, enter his life as a friend of his mother's. As soon as she starts sharing her life with them, she questions Hlynur's reluctance towards life. A drunken night causes them to have sex - surprisingly a very good one despite Hlynur's normally not-so-good interactions with women - and this would trouble his mind; it would even get worse when his mother explains him her lesbianism, newly discovered in her love for Lola; and then twice as worse when Lola announces her pregnancy, no doubt from Hlynur, and she and Hlynur's mother decide to bring up the baby together - without the mother ever knowing the truth about the father of the baby.
101 Reykjavík is interesting in some aspects for its mixture of humour and drama does give some insight to a young man's struggle against the routines of life in a too normal place, however I would not describe it all as hilarious. Maybe it is because at many points in the movie I lost track of the time and thought that most of the important moments and sides of the story passed in an enormous speed while watching the same patterns without another clue again and again. A movie does not always have to be exact about time and space at every second but this one did not give me the idea as if it were made on purpose, to create a different ambience. It was mostly scenes popping after one another.
Even though my opinions on the movie are not that positive I would still recommend it, especially to northern movie lovers; apparently many find more in it than I ever did in the last 24 hours. I, too, will nonetheless pursue the movies by Baltasar Kormakur to see his progress as a filmmaker - without a great expectation this time.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
