亂

想一想: 一位盲子抱着他僅可依靠的一尊佛像, 伴着他的只有地上如煉獄般的慘況。 那會是一個怎麽樣的世界？ 一個字： 亂！

'亂' （Ran)是黑澤明1985年的偉大作品。 它與‘影武者’就如一對雙生兒，而且風格上兩片亦都是十分接近的。 ‘亂’根據史實改編， 故事情節亦與莎士比亞的‘李爾王’ (King Lear)十分相似。

一文字幕府之首秀虎（仲代達矢飾演）有退位之意， 便把權力分給三位兒子－孝虎， 正虎和直虎。 秀虎拴起了三根箭， 勸戒三人要兄弟同心。 但是， 秀虎本身卻難佔道德高地： 因為他的天下， 是他不擇手段地奪回來的， 不知多少無辜者因而血流成河。 唯一清醒的三子直虎把拴起的箭折斷， 以圖勸諫父親人性的現實。 秀虎卻以為直虎是為不孝， 便將其流放。 大子孝虎掌權後， 其妻楓之方立即挑撥離間， 旨意孝虎趕絕其父親。 原來， 當年秀虎下令殺掉楓之方的家人， 她便乘機報復。 孝虎趕走父親， 秀虎唯有向二子正虎求助。 但正虎似乎視秀虎為爭鬥的籌碼多於其親父。 秀虎流離失所， 唯有到已被棄置的直虎城堡暫避。 豈料大子二子聯軍夾攻， 他一度企圖自盡， 失敗後幾近精神分裂。 而二子的部下亦乘亂把兄長孝虎射殺！

秀虎在荒野中流浪，重遇了他的親人鶴丸－ 秀虎當年下令刺盲了他。 而楓之方得寸進尺, 要求正虎殺掉其妻， 幸得其部下阻止。 遠在他方的三子直虎知道了父親的事， 便回程找他，觸發了他和兄長的一場衝突。 他倆可不知道， 他們的共同敵人早已磨拳擦掌， 準備坐享漁人之利。 一場混亂之後， 直虎終與秀虎重逢， 但直虎卻被兄長的手下伏擊而死。 秀虎的生命亦走到了盡頭。 ‘好人無好報’， 但壞蛋也難逃審判 － 楓之方被處死， 正虎與其部下全被殲滅， 一文字幕府就此覆亡。 最後， 盲子鶴丸抱着佛像， 企圖察看周圍。 他一鬆手， 佛像跌入無底深淵。 黑澤明的無情， 只是反映了他對人性的絕望。

在攝影風格上， ‘亂’片裏有大量中長鏡頭， 那不近人情的天皇又一次阻止我們和片中的角色有任何認同。 在天上烏雲密佈之際， 無人感受到警示； 到狂風暴雨來臨， 眾人都閃避不及。 剩下的， 只有着火焚燒的古堡， 兩女互刺， 壯士斷臂， 以及一系列充滿暴力的蒙太奇。 在此， 黑澤明塑造出一種近乎末世的慘況。

說到父王秀虎， 不禁會令人想起莎士比亞筆下的李爾王。 但细看之下， 兩人其實不盡相同。 李爾王最多只可以說是一個不懂明辨是非的膠人。 但秀虎可是五十步笑百步， 自己的道德觀也令人敬而遠之。 不過這又完全是他的錯嗎？ 在‘亂’片中， 黑澤明給予我們一個冷漠的無道德（amoral)世界。 裏面的人各懷鬼胎， 只顧奪取自己奢望的名利。 這些人心中並没有任何道德觀念， 他們不斷侵犯一個又一個的倫理法規，更遑論會有像‘羅生門’最後樵夫的那種良知！‘亂’的世界，就只被虚無主義主宰。當秀虎被兩位兒子背叛後， 他企圖剖腹自盡。 但是剩下的只有一把殘劍， 他連保衞自己名譽的機會也没有。 人性的諷刺， 莫過於此。

人們已病入膏肓， 那神又可以拯救世人嗎？很多人認為黑澤明作品裏流露着一種無神論(Atheism)的看法。 但在‘亂’片中， 黑澤明並不否定神的存在。 他的看法比較貼近希臘哲學家伊壁鳩魯（Epicurus)的學說 （Epicureanism)。 伊壁鳩魯亦不否定神， 但他認為神在我們的生命中是沒有任何角色的。 所以， 即使神確實存在， 也不會影響世人的道德觀念， 而人們就更加不用害怕神。 ‘亂’片裏的神看到人們只會做一些自毁的行為， 除了痛心流淚外， 還可以怎樣？ 在片末， 鶴丸手上的一尊神像， 也要墮落到凡人剩下的麈囂上。 黑澤明之亂， 充滿着警世的意味。

結語

教父導演哥普拉(Francis Ford Coppola)曾經說過:

"One thing that distinguishes Akira Kurosawa that he didn't make a masterpiece or two masterpieces, he made, you know, eight masterpieces."

黑澤明的作品， 都有資格問鼎Masterpiece的席位。 黑澤明非凡的實力， 使他贏得了‘天皇’的美譽。 如果你真是對電影藝術有興趣的話， 又怎能不看黑澤明的電影？！

by Ed Law

以戲服人 Film Analysis 

Cries and Whispers

Can the serenity of everyday life undermine the darkness that threatens to haunt all of us? Can the institution of family control the rawest desire and emotions that are inherent to any human beings? When you are faced with the bleakest and most inhuman moments that is nonetheless fundamental to our existence, would you choose to turn away from those, or have the courage to admit our weaknesses? As I have always maintained, the truths of humanity will only emerge at the most extreme situations, when the instinct for self-preservation rules over any notions of the polite society and cultural machine. That is indeed the wonderful aspect about cinema, which represents a chance to provide all these hypothetical scenarios to provoke our thoughts. All these themes are brilliantly explored in my favorite European film of all time - Ingmar Bergman's 'Cries And Whispers'!

If you have read my previous articles, you would probably have noticed ‘Cries and Whispers’ has already been mentioned many times. Now is the time to have a formal introduction of this film. It is fair to say that I have fallen in love with the film since I first watched it many years ago, because the film is so one-of-a-kind and fantastic in many aspects. Not only it deals with and presents the issues of human nature in an inspiring manner, it also presents some of the most memorable visual images ever in film. Be warned that while the film appears like a ‘chick flick’ about 4 women, it is probably one of the most emotionally intense films in cinema history, and the images in the film will imprint and haunt your minds even a long time you have watched it. I think ‘Cries and Whispers’ is kind of a chilling film, because the more you think about that, the more you can identify with the film and it is totally possible that the scenarios in the story can take place in real life. Though it is in no way a horror film, the darkness of humanity portrayed in ‘Cries And Whispers’ will make your heart pound more than any of those ‘cheap-scare’ movies nowadays. The beauty of ‘Cries and Whispers’, as one may appreciate from the title, lies in its inherent contrast – while it is a very stylized film in terms of form and narrative, it also bears relevance to the audience because of its stark realism.

The story took place in a mansion in the 19th century, and concerned 4 women, Karin, Maria, Agnes, who were siblings; and Anna, their maid. Agnes, due to a weak health, was dying from cancer. Did this crisis draw the family closer together? Unfortunately, no. Karin and Maria, while having contrasting characters, were emotionally distant to Agnes and reluctantly came back to the mansion to take care of her. While bearing with the negative aspect of death and decay, they also had to confront their own personal problems, and the relationships between each other. Only Anna, who had a religious faith, was emphatic and could be able to console Agnes, who was already bombarded with tremendous physical pain and mental anguish (which is pretty nasty to see on screen). Bergman presented the story in a very stylized and formalized way. He divided the story into parts, and each part was concerned with one of the characters,  and provided insights on that character and how she has come to possess such a personality. Though the most memorable moments of the film were often concerned with the darkness of human nature –   be it emotional coldness, self-mutilation and meanness to others, Bergman also celebrated the noble nature of humanity – selflessness, redemption, and the consolation achieved from imaginations and dreams.

Ever since my childhood, I have pictured inside of the soul as a moist membrane in shades of red. 
– Ingmar Bergman , 1972

(To be continued.)

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Full Metal Jacket

Are we all fundamentally violent, in a sense we are natural born warriors? Is it ironic to appreciate that our success story on our planet is due to our ability to channel out our aggression, either bringing out our most barbaric moments or turning NBK on others? Do we have the capability to bear the co-existence of good and evil, even when they are locking in an endless struggle in the deepest territories of the psyche? Finally, why is there WAR, to start with, if we have always longed for a peaceful co-existence with each other?!  The brilliant filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick, decided that he would explore all these complex issues in one single masterpiece, which is the topic of a series of articles I will write about in August – Full Metal Jacket (1987)!!

It is great to hear that Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (FMJ hereafter) will receive a re-release in the Film Festival in Hong Kong this month. Based on a short novel ‘The Short Timers’, Kubrick explored the effects of Vietnam War on human psyche, but I have to say there is much more to it. It is noteworthy that the film is very starkly divided into two halves. The first half is about the training of a group of marine recruits in a military camp, and the second half is about these soldiers’ experience in the warzone in Vietnam. For today’s younger audience, FMJ is a film from Kubrick they are more familiar with, and many viewers have likely watched some parts of this film before even if they have no knowledge about Kubrick or his work. Indeed, the first half of the film is probably one of the most iconic and memorable, and, guess what, most entertaining sequences ever from a Kubrick film. The first half of the film has inspired many imitations and parodies in later movies, and I would say many films dealing with similar themes have probably taken inspirations from that too. The success of the first part is very much due to two characters – the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman and an underachiever Leonard Lawrence, most famously known as ‘Gomer Pyle’, a nickname from Hartman. That was the tension between these two iconic characters which drove the narrative of the first half forward, and made this part so memorable. At the second part, some viewers seemed to complain that the narrative became very disjointed and more episodic. To be honest, I would also admit that the second part is less interesting than the more iconic first half, yet I do not agree that the more episodic format of the second half is a short coming. I believe Kubrick adopted this approach because he wanted to contrast that with the first part, as I will elaborate more on the later passages. The more episodic style seemed to signify the random and chaotic nature of war itself, and the apparent aimlessness of the platoon signified the fact that the individualism inherent in any human being could often fit into the main narrative of the war itself – meaning that the soldiers could not quite see or appreciate why they were fighting the war, or they were fighting for, as they were merely instruments for the military industrial complex.

So, FMJ is your typical anti-war flick, right? Well, when I first watched this film in my teenage years, I certainly had this rather shallow point of view. From the dehumanization of military complex to the violence in any war, FMJ did contain a strong anti-war message. Yet the more I think about this film, and the more I understand about psychology, I start to appreciate the complexity of this film. If you have read any of my previous articles about Kubrick’s work, you may expect a statement like ‘Full Metal Jacket is probably the greatest war film in the history of cinema’. Surprise – you will not see this statement here this time. Because if I am really honest and treat FMJ as a hard core war film, it is in no way the best war film ever – films like ‘Apocalypse Now’, ‘The Deer Hunter’, ‘The Thin Red Line’ or even ‘Platoon’ and ‘Saving Private Ryan’ can be considered better war films than FMJ. What makes FMJ special is that it has moved beyond the level of war film – the film is so one-of-a-kind that Kubrick has once again transcended genre categorization.

Let me put it this way. Full Metal Jacket is not merely a war film, that is a film which uses the issue of war as a vehicle to explore fundamental questions about humanity. Indeed, many colleagues close to Kubrick has stated that the motivation behind making FMJ is actually a psychological one – because Kubrick was fascinated with Carl G. Jung’s ideas on psychology, and he wanted to express the idea of ‘The Shadow’ in cinema. Someone, he could see a connection between the Vietnam War and the Jung’s famous ideas – the Duality of Man – and therefore he used the Vietnam War as a topic to express the contradictory dualism inherent in all of us. It is worth comparing FMJ with a film Kubrick made 30 years before that – ‘Paths of Glory’ (1957). In Paths of Glory, Kubrick has made absolutely no confusion about the point he was trying to make – war of any kind and scale is ugly, and it wrecks lives of others. The point of view presented in ‘Paths of Glory’ was very clear, and indeed it was quite a sentimental film which was very different from Kubrick’s usual approach. When we look at Full Metal Jacket, the view point has become far more ambiguous, because Kubrick wants us to consider different perspectives regarding war and the underlying psychology behind that. Kubrick’s approach has matured throughout the 30 years, and what he has been aiming for the last 35 years of his life (since Dr. Strangelove) was an engagement with his audience to discover self-knowledge. Of course, self-knowledge not only entailed the great side of humanity but also his dark and uncharted seas. It is not fair to say that as a pessimism to expose the more painful and ugly moments of humanity, just the opposite, that is how our thinking can evolve and we have a better understanding of ourselves. Thus, I would compare FMJ to Kubrick’s first ever feature film, ‘Fear and Desire’ (1953), as that film was also intensely psychological and used war as a background to explore existential ideas and human personality.

In a nutshell, I guess the question wants us to explore is this – if war is so bad and destructive, given humanity’s intelligence, why is this very idea not replaced? If humanity possesses the intelligence to develop weapons that can target enemy more efficiently and selectively, and can conceive destruction in a far more massive scale, why is this dark side of human nature not wiped out? Throughout history, the story of warriors and conquerors have been celebrated, and they are often hailed as heroes or visionaries, while they certainly did this at the cost of others, no matter what kind of rhetoric they could come up with to justify their actions (that ‘Oh, we are trying to help you because you are less civilized than us’ sort of b.s.). Kubrick was confronting us with this paradox that many of us would find that tremendously challenging to come to terms with. If we are moral and taking a more liberal stance on this issue, and affirming the idea of peace, of course, then why we allow this very destructive activity to continue throughout centuries? In Kubrick’s point of view, the reason is because war is a manifestation of our true nature – our need for violence and aggression. That is nothing wrong or crazy about that, because that is our fundamental nature, just like any animals. What makes humanity different from the other animals is we can instill culture to strive a better balance from our darker attributes. What is more chilling, however, is that how humanity develops the idea of institution to normalize many behaviors that can in no way considered rational. Hence, we have the idea of ‘institutionalized violence’ and war is probably the most exemplary candidate of institutionalized violence.

Indeed, the first part of Full Metal Jacket shows us why the training of new recruits into soldiers are so effective. Because not only the dehumanizing effect has a great impact on the mind of the recruiters, what is often overlooked is that our psychological design is also helping us to transform to become an instrument for the institution. Indeed, it is spectacular and even chilling to see how great the military complex is playing with psychology of the recruiters to achieve a purpose they want – to turn these young and immature teenagers to become efficient killers in combat. The drill instructors are smart in the sense that they can use different tactics to play with the weakness of the recruiters, to influence them to have a self-motivation and drive to transform themselves, to born again hard as mentioned multiple times in the film. When we think about FMJ, there is no point to pass simplistic moral judgement on the film, like saying the drill instructor is a bad guy or so, because that will miss the point Kubrick was trying to make. Every incident, or indeed every character, can be viewed in many different and contradictory angles, and that is why Jung’s idea about the duality of humanity is so essential to the film – humanity is not that black and white, and we often embrace our own shadow if we want to understand ourselves.

In the next article, I will lead you through the first part of the film, about the military training in the camp. Kubrick has taken a clinical approach in this sequence, as he wanted us to serve as observers to this situation, as if we are looking at the action of an assembly line in a factory. The approach we will adopt is going to be very psychological, as I will show how the drill instruction plays with psychological ideas of archetypes, group psychology, intimidation, and the cultural ideas like heterosexuality and masculinity, to build up the military machine of soldiers. Though the sequence has loads of black humor – I am sure anyone will laugh at certain moments – I feel that it is probably one of the most chilling moments in all of Kubrick’s cinema. What makes that so disturbing is the mechanical dehumanization of the sequence makes so much sense to anyone, as this is something not only taking place in the army, but also in any disciplinary institutions. This cold rationalism, developed and perfected by humanity, will certainly send shivers down anyone’s spine - because it just works so well.

(To be continued.)

1/3

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

The Trial

I have always been fascinated by the writer Franz Kafka. Through the absurd situations his characters found themselves in, Kafka explored the human conditions and the possible search for the meaning of life. Orson Welles, who has adapted a number of literary sources to his films, have adapted Kafka’s ‘The Trial’, which is the topic of this article. The film starred Anthony Perkins, who has famously portrayed Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s ‘Psycho’, as Josef K. 

Welles has been faithful to the original story, and has not added much in terms of plot in his film. What he has instilled, though, was an original visual style that not only enhanced the narrative impact of the story, and that also made his film a unique spectacle of its own.  

Most of the Wellesian mise-en-scenes were evident in ‘The Trial’. The Wellesian deep focus emphasized the power struggle of all the players in the existentialist fable. Welles deliberately staged the composition in depth, so that a repetitive and regimented pattern could be observed by the audience, signifying the bureaucratic nature of the society Josef K. found himself in. Since the 1950s, Welles’s visual style has become more complex, and the high contrast black and white also enhanced the dream-like and disorienting impression which could be easily felt by the viewers. The complex spatial aspects in his films, as in ‘Touch of Evil’, ‘The Trial’, and ‘Chimes At Midnight’, appeared like a cinematic labyrinth, and the protagonists were often stranded in the maze-like structure. Their entrapments were not merely physical, but also metaphorical – they were confused and misled by the deceptions, conspiracies, and paranoia that originated from self-interested individuals or institutions, and the story testified their humanistic struggles against these forces, even if the chance of escaping unscathed was slim.

A nice example was the sequence when Josef K. attempted to escape from a maze-like structure. Through a fantastic use of the tracking shot, where similar approach was also found in ‘Touch of Evil’, Welles captured the panic and anxiety when Josef K. was exploring the absurd labyrinth he fell into. The dynamic long take showed his weariness regarding the situation, and the audience could be easily identified with Josef K.’s futile attempt to run away from this bureaucratic environment. While the outlook might appear bleak to many, Welles at least celebrate our underdog hero, by showing his courage to shoot back on a system that was unsympathetic to any human freedom and potential.

Orson Welles’s ‘The Trial’ is a relatively unknown work from the great filmmaker, yet it is a brilliant one. It should be of interest to anyone who likes visually driven films.

Film Analysis

The Silence

This time, I will talk about Ingmar Bergman’s film ‘The Silence’. This 1963 film is often grouped as a trilogy with 2 other films from Bergman, ‘Through a Glass Darkly’ and ‘Winter Light’. I have written an article about ‘Through a Glass Darkly’ before.

Bergman has stated that the three films of his shared a common theme on spirituality, and he felt that the ‘silence’ in the title represented ‘God’s silence’, which, of course, is a belief many people share in a secular world. While Bergman has often been critical of the orthodox and ritualistic aspect of religion, he did maintain that a spiritual quest for inner truth and faith was important for humanity.

The surface plot concerned a pair of sisters, Ester and Anna, and accompanied by Johan, Anna’s son. It was evident that the pair did not get along, and of stark contrast in terms of character – Anna was the more sensual and active on, while Ester was the more intellectual and distant one. Things got worse because Ester was also suffering from illness, and the trio found themselves in an alien place – a fictional central European country (Bergman went as far to invent the country’s language to make it sound alienating), when it served as a mid point for their train journey to home. It was also clear that the country was going to have war pretty soon. Internal turmoil coupled with external threat, that represented the ‘perfect storm’ situation for a film. What would be the outcome for the trio in such an untimely scenario? Of course, as in any Bergman’s film, like ‘Persona’, what I have just described was only the apparent storyline. If one looks at the story differently, he/she may find a completely different meaning. 

Bergman has been heavily influenced by the chamber plays of August Strindberg and he has contributed by extending this idea into his films, most notably in the spiritual trilogy and ‘Persona’. Bergman followed music laws, rather than dramatic ones, in these films, and as a result he established a cinematic rhythm, very unique and different from the norm – the prevalence of narrative films around the world.

Chamber plays give an intimate sense of feelings for the audience. There are a number of characteristics for this type of style, which is also common in theater. Chamber plays tend to show a sparseness of characters and settings. The number of characters is minimal, and so is the setting. That is done so that the actors can focus on their intimate aspects rather than, say, the detailed set. The actors give naturalistic acting, most notably, they can turn their back on audience, to give a ‘realistic’ rather than a mannerist acting style, and that prevents the audience impression that the play is being ‘staged’.

Many critics and filmmakers do believe that the meaning of ‘The Silence’ is not as obvious as the plot may appear, and certainly such an interpretation has also been made to ‘Persona’ and some of Bergman’s other films. A common interpretation about the film is that Ester and Anna actually represented 2 conflicting dimensions of humanity, as illustrated by their respective character. Thus, the film portrayed an eternal struggle between spiritual realm (Ester) and physical realm (Anna), for which this struggle is something we are all aware of throughout our lives.

I would like to divert your focus onto the child. Johan was portrayed positively in the film. He represented a hope for humanity – with his inquisitiveness, sense of wonder around his world – even if it was devoid of objective meanings and haunted by the fact that ‘God is silent’. He was the embodiment of potential, both in an aesthetic and developmental manner.   

The great thing about Bergman’s approach was that, while he showed the positive attributes of Johan when he interacted with his world, Bergman did not insulate him from the hidden darkness inherent in humanity. When Johan interacted with the kind-hearted waiter in a non-verbal manner – because they did not show each other’s language - the waiter did not forget to demonstrate him the ‘sausage’ show. When he interacted with the apparently funny all-male dwarf troop, one of them went as far to put Johan in a dress and kissed him. Johan might not be intellectually ready to understand the implications behind these scenarios, yet no one could make him immune to the nasty things of the adult world, just because he was a child. Johan had to experience the tanks, the aircrafts, the embodiments of war in Bergman’s bleak landscape, no matter how mysterious that might first seem to his nascent mind.

Nevertheless, a very powerful act by Johan was that when Ester believed that she was beyond all points of revival, she covered herself with a sheet on the bed to serve as a gesture of her ‘death’. Johan, walking by, proceeded to lift up her sheet and exposed her again. Though it was just a simple gesture, it took a very spiritual dimension, as if Bergman was offering a sort of hope in a rather hopeless situation portrayed in the film. The child might show innocence, yet he did possess an inherent sense of compassion when facing the demons of degradation.

I can also think of a further meaning of the film’s title. Because Bergman has portrayed a world that had a lot of ambiguities and uncertainties, and the silence of God meant that there were no ways to strive an impartial viewpoint in all of these. A silence of the inaccessible truth. After all, contradictions have to co-exist in our world – that is the aspect that makes us human.

Film Analysis



Red Desert, Part 2

1. An important point about Antonioni’s ‘Red Desert’ is that we should not jump to conclusions about the film’s central message. Antonioni himself has been troubled by the unintentional (or intentional) misunderstanding of the film, and he has stressed repetitively in interviews about what he was trying to say in ‘Red Desert’. Especially for the detractors, they would easy engage in cherry picking and said the film’s stance was anti-technology, anti-nature or even anti-progress, which were all rebutted by the director. The detractors simply have failed to see the big picture.

2. I feel that the stance posed by ‘Red Desert’ is remarkably similar to that of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, because the above labels could also be used by its detractors to attack the sci-fi classic. Both Antonioni and Kubrick were never against technology from the beginning. What they have delivered in common was a balanced point-of-view about technology and progress and how that might impact humanity and inspire changes. For both filmmakers, if you want to understand more about the human condition, you should not turn away from the problematic issues, even if they originate from well-intended motivations.

3. Though Antonioni did celebrate that humanity has the power to master and control nature, he was not at all oblivious to the consequences of that. He was indeed viewing the issue in a very realistic stance. As he stated in another interview, each era has demanded sacrifices upon which other things were built. There is no evolution without crisis. Antonioni appreciated the problem that arose from any form of progress, and demanded the audience not to retreat or run away from them. Before we think about the big questions, let’s deal with a bit of psychology first.

4. Giuliana seemed to have the ability to see things in a unique way. Yet, the heightened sensation might just be subjective (and probably delusional) point of view from Giuliana, suggesting she might have some form of mental illness. Antonioni, on the other hand, did not provide any clue about an impartial perspective, therefore the audience has no clue whose (or which) point of view was the correct one that points to reality? Certainly, this was the style that Antonioni employed in many of his films, as an allusion to Nietzsche’s philosophy.

5. And, I believe there is a vision that Antonioni has been always delivering, much like that of Dreyer and Bergman as I will discuss in later articles – that in real life there is only a thin line because vivid imaginations and potential psychosis. When you see something so different from other people, as Orson Welles would have put it, ‘he / she is either a genius or a complete idiot’. Moreover, it is rather ironic that Giuliani’s idealistic thought - the island she was mentioning in her story was the only one that seemed to reconcile with any attributes grounded in reality, as least the way the audience would find comfortable with. The colors in the sequence were natural, not deliberately deformed or heightened in any way.

6. Objectively, Ugo, Giuliana’s husband, was quite concerned that she has probably contacted some sort of mental illness and therefore she was not acting quite right. Worse still, Giuliana was distressed by a nightmare involving herself sinking in quicksand. This aspect is interesting because it reminds me of another 1964 film from the East, Hiroshi Teshigahara’s ‘Woman in the Dunes’, which I have talked about before. That film was also surrealistic and dealt with existential issues, and I am not sure that is a mere coincidence or maybe there is some inspiration between the two. The content of the dream was not random, it was quite deliberate. When Giuliana was hospitalized before that, she heard an anecdote from a woman that she was afraid of drowning because she felt that was no ground beneath her, as if she was sliding down a slope. Later on, when courting with Corrado, she expressed that she couldn’t look at the sea – though she liked the feeling of it – because she would lose interest on the land - which was what her issue seemed to originate. This is a very nice analogy because the very act of ‘drowning’ was like the unquestioning and conformity to the situations people found themselves in. Giuliana seemed to be aware of the existential ennui, no matter how sick she might be judged by psychiatry, that she had to get away from this turmoil.

7. What is quite obvious, though, was that Giuliana’s real issue originated from her isolation and alienation from the world around her. Not only the modernizing environment has led to her distress, she found it hard to find a true and lasting relationship from others, including her family. The people around her might have offered some possible distractions – sex, politics, material possessions, or mindless RPGs – but any of them would not lead to a better status for her. She had the responsibility to figure it out for herself.

8. The memorable fog scene signifies the existential angst of many characters of Antionioni’s films in general. In the scene, characters appear and disappear amidst the fog, as if not certain of who they are, and what their individual identities lead them to. The very fact that the characters are widely separated in the scene separated the inevitable loneliness inside every one of us, the isolation inherent in the individualism of humanity. This memorable scene was Antonioni’s poetic portrayal of the human condition we must all confront at some point.

9. Corrado, who was Ugo (Giuliana’s husband)’s business partner, was an interesting character. While he was not a model character – there were no model characters in an Antonioni film – he was at least concerned with Giuliana’s plight and was willing to connect with her. Like everybody else, he was also in a state of alienation, but he was a bit more open to interact with his surroundings and has always attempted to look for a solution. He told Giuliana "You wonder what to look at; I wonder how to live." So, he was exploring the attitude to live for a meaningful life. His voyage to Argentina symbolized a possible solution to counteract the existential crisis – to simply run away / escape from the situation. But is it the right way to go?

10. Antonioni disagreed. He felt that the right attitude was not to long for the more primitive times, with the belief that it was a more natural landscape for man. Nor was it to escape from the painful condition. This is best illustrated in the final minutes of the film. When Giuliana and Valerio were walking near his husband’s industrial plant, a stream of exotic yellow smoke was shooting out. And while Valerio wondered whether the birds would be harmed by the poisonous smoke, Giuliana gave an answer that showed she was enlightened regarding her situation. The birds did not just escape or never came back, rather, they figured out a way to get around the poisonous smoke, so that they could be suited to the ever-changing environment. Antonioni believed this flexible attitude was something that we had to develop to meet the changes we encounter in the modern age.

11. Antonioni also believed in hope from the younger generations, like Bergman in ‘The Silence’. Giuliana’s son, Valerio, had a fascination with the robot toy, and his attitude was more open to changes than the other characters. Regarding the robot, that’s a scene where the ambiguity has led to contradictory interpretations from the viewers. The robot accidentally switched his direction and repeatedly crashed into a wall, without the people noticing it. After the light of the room was switched off, the only visible aspect was the robot’s shining eyes. Antonioni appreciated that this scene was meant to be open to interpretation, though he did not want the viewers to feel that the scene had a negative outlook suggesting the technological direction was leading humanity to a dead end. Rather, he pointed out that because in the dark the shining eyes of the robot was the only source of illumination, it could be the thing that could assist humanity to a better outcome. Because Valerio could easily accept this new toy, he would be more equipped to face the many changes that he would eventually encounter in his adulthood.

12. With ‘Red Desert’, Antonioni asked his audience to have a change in perspective – should things be always perceived in the same way? Anything, no matter natural and man-made, can have the potential to show a beauty of its own. That only depends on how you look at it.

(2/2)


Film Analysis

Red Desert, Part 1

Monica Vitti in 'Red Desert'

This time, I would like to talk about Michelangelo Antonioni’s ‘Red Desert’. Though it was a film more than 50 years ago, it is still a recommendable film for today’s audience. While I first became fascinated in Antonioni’s work after working ‘Blow Up’ many years ago, it has turned out that ‘Red Desert’ would become my favorite Antonioni film of all. I am impressed by the thoughtfulness and philosophical outlook of the film, and I think the central theme of the film is relevant for people from any era – what sort of attitude and action should one take in an ever-changing world? Just merely try to fit in and get every gadgets that are just on the web 5 seconds ago? Or to retreat and celebrate the good old times and a simpler life? As we will see, Antonioni recommended a more positive plan of action for the audience.     

The visual style of ‘Red Desert’ has influenced many subsequent films. Alfred Hitchcock, who admired Antonioni, has been impressed by the color use in ‘Red Desert’ and ‘Blow Up’. He tried to adapt a similar visual style in his unrealized film ‘Kaleidoscope’, and what a shame this film could never be made. On the other hand, John Boorman has also cited his influence from Antonioni and other European filmmakers when he made the Lee Marvin classic ‘Point Blank’ in 1967, which was also about the question of subjectivity and alienation. 

The story concerned the experience of Giuliana, the mother of a single child, in a modernizing and industrial town. She struggled to come to terms in the technological progress around her, and a subtle suggestion stated that she might be suffering from some form of neurosis – and certainly existential crisis. Through her interaction with the people, and also landscape and environment around, would she be able to find her own place, and also have the wisdom to figure out a meaning of her life? 

Once in an interview, Antonioni has expressed a lot about his view on ‘Red Desert’. He noted that this film represented a shift of focus for his filmography, because for his 3 films before that – the trilogy that started with ‘L’ – they were more concerned with relationships between people. In ‘Red Desert’, a more cosmological and outward perspective was taken – he wanted to explore more about how individuals interacted with their surroundings – the ‘human in universe’ theme, which I have mentioned quite a lot before in other films. While this approach would likely require an impartial perspective, Antonioni’s style turned out to be far more imaginative than that.  

The style could be considered artificial or even abstract at points, very much like a high-end modernist artwork. While color may at the surface seem to enhance the realism of the scenes – human beings see in color, right? – Antonioni’s evocative use of color seemed to lead to the very opposite paradoxically. His use of color led to a ‘formalist abstraction’, which served his anti-realist motivation. Thus, the color was seen as very ‘heightened’ for the audience, and to be honest, it has a weird sort of pleasure when one looks at it. Antonioni has also explained that the artificiality of his color would enhance the expressivity of his images, I guess much like the edginess seen in German Expressionism. It is notable that Antonioni used a telephoto lens when he shot ‘Red Desert’, because in order to achieve an anti-realist effect, he was committed to reduce the depth of field often evident in Bazinian Realism, and his use of the lens led to a flattening effect of his images, where the distance between foreground and background was reduced. 

As noted by many critics, the motif of landscape is very important for Antonioni's films. Antonioni has succinctly stated that all his works were born of a landscape, and his desire to explore the landscape. Thus, one can start by saying that Antonioni has provided an impersonal view of humanity, as there is a delicate balance between the emphasis of humans and environment.  

Antonioni employed some nice editing strategies to illustrate an abrupt shift of focus and to illustrate to the audience how his characters were trapped by their surroundings. He deliberately did sudden cut from a conversation between 2 characters to a background shot, to state that the characters were locked in a larger surrounding they might or might not be appreciating. Interestingly, this strategy has been used by a lot of great directors, where they attempted to show an alienation and entrapment of the characters. Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Barry Lyndon’, Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s ‘Sleuth’, Martin Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’ contained nice examples of this great approach. The placement of the characters were also quite unusual in many cases, as if Antonioni was attempted to undermine them, suggesting a loss of agency of these characters towards their environment or the context they found themselves in. 

The poiesis from Antonioni meant that he was not only determined to confront his audience visually, but also aurally. He portrayed the irony that, in some senses, the industrial noises were even louder than the character’s dialogue – which would NOT be the case for the traditional approach of Western cinema – symbolizing that these characters were entrapped and alienated, and could not deliver clearly their thoughts and feelings to each other.

(1/2)

by Ed Law

24/2/2018

Film Analysis