Persona

‘Persona’ (1966) is one of Ingmar Bergman’s most iconic achievements. The film possesses some of the most powerful filmic images that have ever emerged from the medium, and the style and theme presented in this piece of great European art cinema have inspired so many later filmmakers. This black-and-white film is confrontational, and it has a starkness that reminds me of Hiroshi Teshigahara’s ‘Woman in the Dunes’ (1964). On the other hand, it also reminds me of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ (1968), as both films pose questions rather than offering answers. ‘Persona’ is a total mystery, and there is simply not one unifying interpretation regarding what it is about. You do not go to Bergman or Kubrick and ask them what the movies mean – it is you who are supposed to connect and understand these masterpieces in your personal way.

The story of Persona is indeed quite simple. Elisabet Vogler was a theatre actress, who has suddenly become mute during a stage performance. So, a nurse called Alma was called in to take care of her, and the majority of the story revolved around their intimate interactions. Alma talked to the mute Elisabet throughout the film, and in most cases Elisabet did not response in any verbal means. Yet, as the story progressed, all lines of divisions were blurred. Past and present were linked up, dream and reality were no longer clear, two faces seemed to merge into one...

Bergman’s Masks

The word ‘persona’, which is derived from a Latin origin, means the masks that are worn by actors when they are performing on a stage. Isn’t life a drama after all? We all wear various masks when we interact with others. We present ourselves to the others as a certain persona, and too often, we hide our true selves behind the curtain. What is even more depressing, however, is that we often do not have the courage to face our real selves. The theme of mask and façade is prevalent also in Jean Renoir’s films – from ‘The Grand Illusion’ to ‘The Rules of the Game’. Renoir firmly believed that, only by looking beyond the façade and tearing off the masks, one could finally see the true face of humanity.

Why do we have to hide behind these false personas and exist as if we are theatre performers? To Bergman, we do have quite a lot to hide. We all have a lot of problems and angst to confront, and when we start to consider the meaning of life, we are exposed to an emptiness and loneliness for which the implications are often tough to take in. The ennui and emptiness of modern existence is also a major theme in Michelangelo Antonioni’s films, and it should not be surprising that both Bergman and Antonioni’s most productive periods are both in the 1950s / 1960s. To repress these hard feelings, we desire to run away from all these intimate problems and long to play another easier role, through the undertaking of another persona.

The fun of acting, however, is hard to sustain. In the film, Elisabet suddenly broke down during a stage performance and ceased to speak anymore after that. The breaking point represented the dissonance between her stage persona – or in a more metaphoric way – the persona she was pretending in real life – and her truest inner self. It was the massive conflict of her true and assumed self that made her aware of her existential problems. Her powerful response was that of silence - this was her statement that she did not want to play this assumed role anymore.

The axis of turning

In Bergman’s films, turning is one of the most important and symbolic gestures. In many cases, it is the turning away that represents the most painful experience for the characters. Turning away is to run away from problems, relationships, and human interactions. That explains why Bergman’s faces are his most resourceful motifs for his work. The movements and gestures of the faces very much convey the interactions of the characters, and also symbolize whether they are willing to commit or not.

In Persona, Elisabet has been trying to run away. She was mute most of the time, and she did not response to any of Alma’s questions. Alma served to confront Elisabet, to ask her questions about her past experiences. Alma’s challenges invited Elisabet to confront her true self, and to add to that, the stunning close-up of faces also invited the audience to examine themselves. Elisabet, like any other characters in Bergman’s films, could not run away from her problems. She might be mute for no sensible reasons, yet the true voice in her mind would not cease. The intensity of the film was contributed from the two great actresses, Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann. In most of the film, there were only the two of them performing, and the claustrophobic intimacy only added to the intensity and the psychological thrill of the resulting masterpiece.

Offering a helping hand

Bergman’s films often deal with existentialism, and the journey to find one’s meaning of existence is often a lonely one. I feel there is an optimistic aspect in many of Bergman’s bleak pictures – the company of someone who is willing to give a hand. The most powerful ‘face’ scenes in Bergman’s films often consist of two faces – with someone who is willing to ask questions and to inspire. It is the presence of an ‘other’ who will motivate you to look beyond the surface and give you the courage to face the spiritual sickness, which in Bergman’s view, is far more problematic than any physical sickness that has appeared in this world.

by Ed Law

27/8/2016

Film Analysis

Kubrick: Napoleon, Part 2 - The Scarlet Waltz

Depiction of a Napoleonic Battle.

'What's the difference? It's all food. This is how Napoleon used to eat.'

-Stanley Kubrick allegedly to actor Malcolm McDowell, when the latter asked why Kubrick ate ice cream at the same time as his main course steak, at a dinner meeting during the pre-production of 'A Clockwork Orange'.

Expecting to be filmed and released after ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, ‘Napoleon’ stood at the era when Stanley Kubrick’s films were the most innovative and vibrant. ‘Napoleon’ could be the most Kubrickian film of all, and it was not only because of the style and themes that would be presented in the unfinished work. Experiencing ‘Napoleon’ would be like viewing Kubrick in action – observing his approach to challenging filmmaking issues and understanding how he devised ingenious ideas to solve the numerous problems during the process of making a film.  

  

What made Napoleon ‘Kubrickian’?

Kubrick has described the Napoleonic Wars as ‘lethal ballets’. He could perceive the analogy between the heavily choreographed dance numbers and the large scale battles in Europe at Napoleon’s times. Napoleonic Wars had the legacy of innovations in military weapons, enlarged scope, and the ingenious or even elegant applications of strategies. If you have seen any paintings regarding Napoleonic Wars before, you should most likely notice an aesthetic elegance of these bloody encounters. Dressed in differently colored military suits, the large number of troops moved, or literally flowed, slowly through a vast natural landscape. Every strategy, leading to a very specific movement or turn, was so dynamic that even the gunfire has not started, these preludes to the bloody battle could already raise any audience with awe.

Kubrick has always understood that, even for the simplest movement, if it was filmed in a very vibrant and dynamic way, and added with the relevant use of music and other filmic techniques, could give rise to a lyrical and rhythmic outcome as stunning as great music. Kubrick has always felt that image was his prime concern when he made a film, rather than dialogue or narrative. It was through this firm belief that gave him the courage to make something as abstract and subtle as ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’. How can a few flowing spacecrafts contribute to something we now call ‘art’? That is Kubrick’s signature touch- the way he staged the slowly moving Ferris wheel and the space station, the color tone he has employed and his inclusion of ‘The Blue Danube’ throughout the sequence. It was the mélange of all these parts that gave the audience an extraordinary impression they have never experienced before, and thus provided the viewers with the feel of an ‘odyssey’. It was Kubrick’s musical, rather than narrative, treatment of the scene that would lead to his famed signature style.

With this approach in mind, we can try to speculate how Kubrick would have approached the battle scenes in ‘Napoleon’. Imagine an extreme long shot, where an aerial view could show the outline of the battleground. The large number of troops from opposing sides, in different colored suits, moved almost like patches amidst the greenness of the natural landscape, or, in the case of the Russian battle, the whiteness of the snow. The dynamic formations and dissolution of the various troops addressed by the interactions and changes in strategies throughout the duration of the battle, and the ingenious arrangements and configurations of the forces, the wisdom behind these military ideas could be conveyed to the audience through narration or clear descriptions. Nevertheless, it was the vibrant color, lyrical movements, and dynamics that would heighten the visual sensations of the audience the most and immediate, and this was the aspect that was guaranteed in any film from Kubrick. The slow-paced mobilization of the troops, the turn of direction for the massive army, would make it as elegant as a Waltz. As Kubrick has succinctly stated in an interview, the aesthetic brilliance of these battles did not require someone with a military mind to understand, an ordinary viewer could easily feel the elegance through simple cinematic images. Kubrick drew a nice analogy that, if one could appreciate the beauty of a symphony or something mathematical like the Fibonacci sequence, they would be moved by the heightened and dynamic images from his ‘Napoleon’ film.

Now, some readers may sense a tension between style and substance here. If Kubrick was committed to explain to the audience objectively about the details of the execution of the battles, would his stylized signature approach divert from the objective truths he was trying to convey to the audience?

To me, the most important issue is to strike a delicate balance between personal style and substance. From what we have in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, I am confident that if Kubrick could have an opportunity to direct ‘Napoleon’, he would be able to achieve that.

It is quite evident the more heightened scenes, such as ‘The Blue Danube’ and ‘The Stargate’ sequence, has not compromised the other more informative sequences that can provide the viewers a window to speculate about the future life and technology. The aforementioned sequences are special because Kubrick has attempted to convey the feelings and meanings (if there are any) only through filmic images and music, without recourse to any narrative elements. He has done so well in this regard that the style has eventually borne his name. If Kubrick could keep in mind about this balanced approach, then I believe the end result of ‘Napoleon’ would be a brilliant mélange of stunning filmic images and Realist depictions of fascinating historical events.

What would be the ultimate challenges for ‘Napoleon’?

‘Napoleon’ was an extremely ambitious project for Kubrick, and to translate a complex character like Napoleon Bonaparte into cinematic forms, it was going to present much challenges for this master in film.

It is almost impossible to compress Napoleon’s life into a three- or four-hour film, as Kubrick might have expected, without compromising or taking out certain aspects of Napoleon’s life. Apart from the various warfare Napoleon has found himself in, many aspects of his life are worth a closer inspection. How he has risen to the top from his humble start as a Corsica-born young man; his passion for Josephine; the reasons for his fall; or even his life style as an emperor (with a Viscontian touch in this case), are all interesting topics for any Napoleon-themed films. The challenges of making an epic often stem from the multi-faceted topic or the complexity of the protagonist. To be honest, not that many people can write something brilliant like ‘War and Peace’ on this planet!

Kubrick would be likely to show his filmmaking caliber through the portrayal of the Napoleonic Wars. Through many abstractions in the topic, this would likely ignore the minor, yet contributing, aspects of Napoleon’s life. This would likely attract criticisms from the audience and critics alike. And if the film was not doing as well as expected, like many re-assessed classics throughout the film history, it would certainly serve as a giant blow to Kubrick’s career, and would limit the scope of  his future projects. The Napoleon was going to be extremely risky project for Kubrick, because he was working at full force at that era, yet there was no guarantee that his efforts would equate to the rewards he would get from the film. Indeed, Kubrick would most likely have to make a 10 hour film to do Napoleon justice – like, in the case of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter nowadays!

Thus, his eventual abandonment of the project could be seen as a wise move. It is certainly an all-time shame that Kubrick had no chance to present his most ambitious project to the world, yet through the advancement of technology and the change in audience expectation, he understood that he had to come to terms with the trend. Since ‘2001’, every Kubrick film could capture the mindset of the contemporary audience, and even more they stroke resonance in the future viewers, too. Kubrick’s character was that of moderation and control – he knew when to stop and let things go, and then moved on. If he has forcefully pushed on, and ended up with a cinematic disaster, his reputation would be tarnished, and this has often happened to a number of great filmmakers over the course of film history.

Concluding Remarks

There is another old saying – often what is not present is the most interesting aspect. Kubrick could not make his Napoleon film, yet the effort and passion he has devoted to his unfinished film is what has made the whole saga legendary.

(2/2)

by Ed Law

22/8/2016

Film Analysis - 68

Kubrick: Napoleon, Part 1 - The Naturalistic Rondo

A portrait of Napoleon Bonaparte; Stanley Kubrick directing 'Barry Lyndon' (1975).

‘...an epic poem of action’ 

-Stanley Kubrick on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte.

For all my articles in ‘Film Analysis’ so far, there is one aspect in common – these films all exist in this world. This time, I would like to talk about a film that has never existed. Why bother to waste time talking about something that does not even stand in this world? It is because of that old saying - process is often more important than the outcome. And, if the undertaking is as rigorous, passionate, and intense as in the case of Stanley Kubrick, then this story is worthwhile like any of his other masterpieces. That never-existed film is the project Kubrick has sought to do throughout his life – ‘Napoleon’.

Kubrick has always been obsessed with the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, and one can easily appreciate why. Napoleon was known as a military genius, who worked very hard and devised very stunning military strategies, which led to his many successes in the era of what we now call ‘Napoleonic Wars’. Napoleon has lived his life to the fullest, and the confidence and charisma that radiated from this average-height person has made him one of the most iconic historical figures of all time. In a sense, Kubrick somehow resembled the character of Napoleon. Kubrick’s concentration in his craft – cinema, and the passion he has devoted to film making and the control and strategy he has devised to stage the perfect shots for his work, are no less intense than a Napoleonic battle. Kubrick is indeed fighting his own war to get the best artistic outcome!

After finishing ‘2001 : A Space Odyssey’, which was premiered eventually in 1968, Kubrick and his team started working on the Napoleon film. He intensely worked on this project in the late 1960s, and intended to finish and release this historical epic in the early 1970s. This is the perfect time to show such a great epic. Back in an age when special effects were not advanced enough to film large scale sequences, people would look up with awe if Kubrick could depict these battle scenes in an authentic manner.  It is very much like ‘2001’, as the special effects presented in the sci-fi classic were almost without any precedent at that time. Imagine if ‘2001’ and ‘Napoleon’ are made in 2016, do you think these films will provide such an impact to the audience? With the advancement of computer-generated images nowadays, how hard is it to generate a 40,000 troop or a few flying Ferris wheels? Even a very average filmmaker can easily stage these scenes in an era of technological advancement. Thus, it can be said that ‘Napoleon’ has to exist in a defined time, and one can then easily understand why Kubrick would eventually abandon the project rather than pushing on it.

However, fate has dictated that Kubrick would never make his most ambitious film. Another film about a similar theme, ‘Waterloo’ (1970), came out first and was a real fiasco. Thus, Kubrick’s studio bosses were nervous and they postponed his project, and Kubrick did not have any chances to make ‘Napoleon’ throughout the rest of his life.

Instead, Kubrick made 2 wonderful films in the 1970s – A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Barry Lyndon (1975). ‘Barry Lyndon’, which also took place in the 18^th century, is particularly important here. Because Kubrick has used much of his preparatory work and techniques and translated the efforts into ‘Barry Lyndon’. Therefore, Barry Lyndon can be seen as a window into Kubrick’s vision of Napoleon, as many of the approaches in ‘Barry Lyndon’ were originally intended to be used in ‘Napoleon’. Barry Lyndon is the focus of my next couple of articles in the Kubrick series.

What did Kubrick want to achieve in his Napoleon film?

The prime concern for Kubrick in his version of Napoleon was a strenuous commitment to realism. A core value often treasured by the filmmaker, he would adopt an objective approach to the biographic sketch of this great military genius, and the depictions of all the key events in Napoleon’s life would come as close to reality as possible.

Certainly, one should not be over surprised that, among all the experiences Napoleon has ever encountered, the ones that have left lasting impressions in the future generations were the various battles Napoleon has been involved in. Napoleonic Wars were likely going to be the master stroke of Kubrick’s period epic, and, very much like the futuristic scenes in ‘2001’, these were going to be the scenes to see where Kubrick stood at the history of cinema. Battles of all scales are often complex, and the strategies employed are often difficult to understand for an ordinary member in the audience. In order to achieve accurate descriptions of the battles and the strategies involved, Kubrick has decided to include narration, and the use of maps, schemes, and paintings, besides the use of cinematic techniques to depict the battles.

Thus, one can consider Kubrick’s Napoleon to be some sort of a docudrama – a film with a strong documentary feel. This made total sense in the age when Kubrick was working on Napoleon – as it was an era when the use of cinéma vérité techniques was becoming increasingly popular in fiction films. Kubrick has been influenced by this documentary-inspired filmmaking style, and has already employed it in ‘Dr. Strangelove’. As a mater of fact, cinéma vérité techniques have also been used in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and ‘Barry Lyndon’.

In order to capture an intense sense of reality for the various battles, Kubrick felt that the details of the battles should go from the props and costumes all the way to the terrain. He felt that the factor of the terrain – ‘the ground’ when the battle took place – could potentially impact the flow of the troops and thus the strategies devised on both sides, hence influencing the final outcome of the battle.

A more technical preference for Kubrick was his intention to use natural lighting in both exterior and interior scenes for the film, to capture a period feel of the 18^th century. This was quite a feat because, for the 18^th century, an age when no electric lights were yet available, and illumination might require either sunlight or candle, the cinematic photographic technology  available in the 1960s or 1970s were not powerful enough to capture these ‘available light source’ or under lit images without the help of additional electrical lighting setup. If Kubrick’s obsession meant that he would abandon electrical lighting totally in ‘Napoleon’, then it was going to be a really tough challenge. Facing with a similar problem at the time he made ‘Barry Lyndon’, Kubrick eventually succeeded in finding a monumental solution for that, and this will be discussed in my first article of ‘Barry Lyndon’.

What did Kubrick and his team do to realize ‘Napoleon’?

‘Wherever Napoleon went, I want you to go.’ 

– Kubrick to his assistant.

Known for his meticulous research into projects he has achieved – and has not realized, Kubrick’s work for Napoleon deserves a picture of its own. Other than reading hundreds of books about Napoleon, Kubrick has devised an extensive filing system to categorize all the information about the French emperor, and this was before the computer age. The filing system also included potential location photos and Napoleonic imageries. The result was a compilation of 25,000 library cards, with a size of 3 inches by 5 inches, containing all the information, major and minor, regarding the life of Napoleon.

In order to have a realistic feel about the battles, Kubrick and his team examined many paintings of that age, and those from subsequent eras, that portrayed Napoleonic battles. He has already employed this approach – through the examination of a single available photograph of a fighter jet – to stage the realistic fighter jet sequence  in ‘Dr. Strangelove’ (1964), and he would adopt a similar approach when he made ‘Barry Lyndon’ later.

Because Kubrick desired to portray the Napoleonic battles as accurate as possible in a cinematic manner, therefore he had to make sure every component that comprised the final result was executed in the most perfect way possible. As mentioned, the terrain was important for the war, thus Kubrick has looked for possible locations that he could portray the battles. At the end, he was able to approximate and abstract a number of locations where he believed he could stage his version of the battles. As an example of Kubrick’s obsession, he even asked his assistant to bring back samples of soil from Waterloo, so that he could accurately match the correct color tone for his film. In a pre-CGI age, when one could not easily bloat up the scale by faking, Kubrick has tried to borrow some 50,000 men from the Romanian armies for the battle scenes, and he has planned to film his battles on various suitable locations, including France, Italy, and Yugoslavia.

How about the cast? That was just as stunning when compared to the more technical aspects of the project. Kubrick wanted either David Hemmings or Jack Nicholson to be his Napoleon, with Audrey Hepburn as Josephine, and veteran actors Alec Guinness and Laurence Olivier as supporting roles.  

Kubrick has also watched a number of films about Napoleon Bonaparte and that era, including Abel Gance’s impressionistic ‘Napoleon’. However, he was not particularly impressed by any of them, and he felt he was able to do things better, and to make what he believed to be the greatest historical film of all time...

(1/2)

by Ed Law

21/8/2016

Film Analysis - 68