以戲服人 Film Analysis

Friday, 27 April 2018

Last Tango in Paris, Part 1

Maria Schneider and Marlon Brando in 'Last Tango in Paris'.

About 45 years ago, the film critic Pauline Kael made the bold statement that a landmark in the history of cinema emerged. The unusual suspects included a young Italian filmmaker, a middle-age American actor who has just delivered one of the most iconic characters in the history of cinema (and made others a few offers they couldn’t refuse), and a French actress who just reached 20. This international wonder was recognized by many awards, and yet generated enough controversies for which active discussions regarding it have continued to this day. The film is of course Bernardo Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’!

The contemplation of life.

Before we indulge ourselves in this modern classic, I would like to offer a bit of a warning. This film is extremely sexually explicit, and while my discussion will be more about psychology – because I feel it was Bertolucci’s focus after all – there are certain points that we may encounter sexual content, and I hope that will not be offensive to certain readers. The first part will be about background and style, the second part will be about content.

Bernardo Bertolucci

‘The Last Tango in Paris’ can be considered a milestone in the world cinema of the 1970s. It starred the one-and-only Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider, and was directed by a young Bernardo Bertolucci, just after he made another modern classic, ‘The Conformist’. Bertolucci has always been a filmmaker I admire and have an intense fascination in. Ever since I watched his epic ‘Last Emperor of China’ (1987) in my teenage years, I have already found his films visually stunning, mainly due to the contribution from his director of photography, Vittorio Storaro. Bertolucci has always been a very daring and ambitious filmmaker, and his films have often courted controversy, mainly due to the sexual content. While Bertolucci’s films are often politically-driven, there is also a psychological edge in many of them. To be frank, I am more into the psychological aspect, and I guess that’s the reason why ‘Last Tango’ is my favourite Bertolucci film. I have to admit I have a continuing fascination with this film. Though I have watched it more than 20 times, I cannot stop going back to it again and again. The Technicolor feel, the painterly composition, the naked emotion, and Brando’s brilliant performance – all can turn into an obsession. So be warned – ‘Last Tango’ can be the sort of film you fall in love with!

Bertolucci directing Brando and Schneider.

Marlon Brando was one of the actors I admire the most in the history of cinema, and therefore it shouldn’t be surprising that his performance here is among one of my favourite, alongside with ‘Godfather’. One cannot stop falling in love with Brando’s talent, if you really love cinema, because his style was just so unique. Brando could be considered as one of the key actors who involved in method acting. The way he mumbled through his lines, and his monologues, especially in his films from the 1970s, offered a hypnotic effect. I can say I have fallen in love with Brando’s monologues – I just want to hear him talking on and on and on.

Bertolucci and Storaro's painterly composition.

While ‘Last Tango in Paris’ has won a lot of awards, it was an extremely controversial film even in its era, which was a time when filmmakers were willing to explore all sorts of ideas and style. The NC-17 film is sexually explicit, and it has unfortunately courted courtesy last year because of the infamous butter scene that implied an anal rape. As there are so many contradictory versions of the story, and also two of the protagonists – Brando and Schneider – have already passed away, there is thus no way to have a fair assessment of what was really going on. What can be established is that there has been some horrible misunderstanding between the filmmaker and the actors, and Schneider did not quite see what was coming for her character. Thus, what the audience watched on the screen was her genuine distress, and I think it would make the audience feel unsettled if they were aware of that fact. Maybe Bertolucci wanted to push for a more authentic performance here, but he probably would be better off if he explained clearly to the actors given the controversial nature of the sequence. So, it is fair to say everyone had some responsibility here, because they should all ask for clarifications if things might go wrong, and this should serve as a cautionary tale for later filmmakers.

Light, shadow, body, psyche.

Is ‘Last Tango in Paris’ pornographic, as some detractors may suggest? I disagree. It is fair to say the film has a strong sexual element, yet the intention is not to make the audience feel ‘dirty’ about sex. If Bertolucci’s intention was to make ‘Last Tango’ a pornographic film, then he would have failed miserably, because it was clearly not his intention (and he would also not need all the efforts to write all those beautiful dialogues and figure out the painterly compositions). The audience will not feel horny or sensationalized by sex from this NC-17 film, rather, they will likely feel emotional and garner sympathy to the two major characters. To me, ‘Last Tango in Paris’ is not merely about sex. It is about relationships. It is about feelings. It is about how things can go horribly wrong if you do not understand others, or have a wrong expectation from others due to the lack of a proper and sincere communication. The tragic consequence of the film is due to character flaws and the failure to express feelings that can strengthen relationships. Sex, after all, is merely a vehicle to tell the story and express the theme.

Paul and Jeanne's brief encounter in the streets of Paris.

After watching 2 paintings by the 20^th century artist Francis Bacon, Bertolucci invited us to the story of Paul (Marlon Brando) and Jeanne (Maria Schneider). Paul was a middle-age American who was mourning over her wife’s recent suicide. Wandering aimlessly around the streets of Paris, he first encountered Jeanne, a young French girl. Fate had it (or Bertolucci playing God?!) that the two met again when they both wanted to let an apartment. Out of impulse they first made love there. Since then, they established a relationship based on sex and love-making, yet there was a rule not to be broken – it had to be anonymous, and they could not tell each other their names and their outside lives. In fact, Jeanne had a boyfriend in her normal life, meaning that she was sort of living a diurnal existence here. While Paul was struggling to make sense of his life and regrets, Jeanne had second thoughts and confusions about her relationship with Paul. Is the relationship worth sustaining, and what would eventually come out of that in the end?

The inevitable union of 2 tortured souls?

Now you owe me Bacon

While ‘Last Tango in Paris’ was a psychologically- and emotionally-rich film, it also had an unique style, which was brilliantly devised by Bertolucci and the director of photography, Vittorio Storaro. While I feel that the Bertolucci-Storaro style is more obvious in another film, ‘The Conformist’, which I will talk about soon, there are still some aspects in ‘Last Tango’ that is worth looking at.

Bertolucci has cited the influence of Francis Bacon to the style in ‘Last Tango in Paris’, as far as asking Brando and Storaro and others to observe Bacon’s paintings and tried to imitate the style from them. Bacon had a unique style to his painting, and one could feel that his painitings on human characters were often very abstract, rather than relying on the foundation of realism. In the opening titles of the film, Bertolucci showed 2 paintings from Bacon, one male and one female. Not only the grotesque effect was evident, the paintings also showed ambivalence. While the characters in the painting appeared to be in relaxing position, their facial expressions were distorted and ambiguous, far from suggesting they were enjoying themselves. It thus appeared if they were ‘placed’ into such a position deliberately rather than following their natural composure and feeling comfortable. Indeed, Bertolucci advised Brando to imitate the gesture and composure from these Bacon paintings (you can say it as a sort of method acting), and Brando has committed to this approach and has all sort of different composures in the interior scenes. In the final moment of the opening credits, Bertolucci deliberately placed the 2 paintings aside once more, as if to symbolize the inevitable cross of path of the male (Paul) and female (Jeanne). Call it fate or whatever, that was when the two tortured and confused souls finally encountered each other amidst the streets of Paris.

Brando, a phone, and a lamp - then we have a performance.

When one watches a film by Bertolucci, the significant contributions from Vittorio Storaro, who is Bertolucci’s long-term collaborator on cinematography. Though I will talk in detail about Storaro’s general style in the article for ‘The Conformist’, I will pick up a few points which are relevant to ‘Last Tango’ here. Drawing inspirations from Bacon, many scenes in the film had a painterly feel, and to be sure, if one pauses the film every now and then, the shot may appear as if they are paintings from an artist. The beautiful compositions, the brown hues, with the balanced and often stylized use of light and shadow, Bertolucci and Storaro created images as if they were painting on celluloid. It was quite clear that there was a contrasting atmosphere when one compared the scenes outside the apartment (i.e. Jeanne’s normal life), and those inside the apartment (i.e. Jeanne and Paul). While the outdoor scenes were naturalistic, the indoor scenes were painterly and stylized in terms of lighting and composition. In many of those scenes you can almost always see light mingling around with shadow! I am not sure if an analogy to Freud’s ideas are totally relevant here, yet I feel that the intimate scenes inside the apartment are very similar to the unconscious side of our minds, and the place is where the more carnal desires lurk around. While the indoor scenes can be seen as limited, often only involving Paul and Jeanne, they are among the most atmospheric and emotional moments of this film, and Bertolucci’s mastery for the story should be recognized. I remember reading a negative review of Bertolucci’s flawed classic ‘1900’ from Roger Ebert, and in there Ebert pointed out that Bertolucci’s greatest moment was when he was directing 2 characters in a room. I think at least Ebert could appreciate the strength of Bertolucci’s work (also think about the ‘Plato’ scene in ‘The Conformist’). To sustain the fascination and attention from the audience in such a minimalist mise-en-scene requires a lot of talent and creativity from the filmmaker. Bertolucci should be proud of that!

(1/2)

Film Analysis

Friday, 20 April 2018

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

Friday, 13 April 2018

Day of Wrath

After talking about Bergman’s ‘The Silence’ last week, I am talking about a film with a similar theme regarding spirituality this time – Carl Theodor Dreyer’s ‘Day of Wrath’, which was made during the Second World War.

The story took place in the 17^th century, at a time when witches existed and witch hunting was an important act for normalizing the beliefs of people. The story was divided into 2 parts, and they paralleled each other as similarities could be observed. The protagonist was a young woman called Anne, who married Absalom due to obligation. Absalom was a pastor who served as a judge for the prosecution of witches. An old woman, Marthe, was insinuated as a witch, and she was hiding from the church officials. What connected the two women was that Absalom was actually one of the judges responsible for Marthe’s condemnation. Before Marthe was captured and eventually burnt at stake, she chanced upon Anne and told her a startling truth - Anne’s long dead mother was actually a witch. This revelation fascinated Anne, and yet jeopardized her because she would be seen as a descendent of a witch, and would likely face condemnation when the appropriate reason came to her. On the other hand, Anne could not find happiness with her marriage to Absalom, and she found out that she loved Martin, Absalom’s son instead. When Anne was increasingly consumed by paranoia and suspicions, what would eventually come out of these characters?

Day of Wrath was a film very representative of Dreyer’s style because it illustrated a tug-of-war between his two predominant styles – the spiritual and the psychological. Dreyer has always expressed the transcendental aspect of the human condition in his films, most notably in ‘Ordet’ and ‘The Passion of Joan of Arc’. Yet, he was just as inspired by Expressionism, and the resulting psychological edginess could be in particular detected from ‘Vampyr’ and this film.

For the first half of the story, when Marthe was condemned as a witch, the plot paralleled ‘The Passion of Joan of Arc’. It has been pointed out that Dreyer did not make any moral judgment on Marthe, unlike the characters in the film whom definitely saw witchcraft as something evil. I think this amoral stance is important for the film because Dreyer was questioning either there was a clear boundary between the spiritual / psychological or the morality debates.

The tones between the two parts were different. In the first half, the viewer could easily conclude that witches did exist. Yet, the second part’s concern was naturalistic. Anne’s paranoia had no supernatural elements, and the origins were totally psychological – jealousy, insecurity, and mental pressure. In a sense Anne had to hide from her true feelings – because the person who she really cared and loved was Absalom’s son , Martin, hence those intimate excursions in the green fields. Of course, the time of intimacy was tragically brief. The pressure also arose from her duty of marrying Absalom and the appreciation that she might be connected to witchcraft, given that she was living in such a non-secular era – meaning that there would not be a runaway explanation for involvement in witchcraft and the activities would not be tolerated.

Whether Anne could be considered as a genuine witch was meant to be ambiguous. Marthe did inform Anne that her own mother was a witch, and that seemed to be the only connection between Anne and witchcraft. What was ironic was that Anne’s nasty wish for Absalom’s demise did eventually materialize, and that might suggest she did possess the gift of some black magic. Critics did point out that the apparent miracle (albeit a nasty one) was more an expression of Anne’s delusion, and that made sense because the philosophy behind Expressionism was often to externalize the psychotic feelings in one’s mind into the mise-en-scene, hence the edgy composition and setting. Indeed, Dreyer made Anne appear witch-like by using very high contrast lighting, and staged her as catatonic in certain scenes. When she creepily looked out of a window to witness Marthe’s death, it sounded as if a foreshadowing was taking place - soon it would be her turn to be condemned as a witch.

The final condemnation of Anne could also be interpreted in a social context, though Dreyer had no intention of making a political statement or making allegories on Nazism and the Second World War The story took place at an age which was ruled by totalitarian power, and the need for scapegoating was an aspect that defined such a political system, which relied on a black-and-white logic to govern the people. When Absalom died, someone had to be held responsible for that. Therefore a witch hunt has taken place, and irrational judgments have been passed onto Anne to deem her guilty. The scenario has bore similarities to the totalitarian powers and racial hatred around the time of Second World War. While the story was medieval, it was ironic that a modern blend of witch hunting appeared only a decade after ‘Day of Wrath’ was first shown – the House Un-American Activities Committee and McCarthyism in the 1950s. Critics since then appreciated the relevance of the film to the modern world – when paranoia and prejudice joined forces, only the innocent ones would be victimized.

Film Analysis

Friday, 6 April 2018

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

Thursday, 29 March 2018

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

Friday, 9 March 2018

A Few Words on Oscar

The Academy Awards ceremony has taken place on 5^th March, 2018. While there were not many surprises for the winners, it is a great idea here to review a few of these wonderful films from 2017.

‘The Shape of Water’ has won the Best Picture Oscar, and Guillermo del Toro has won his first Oscar for his stunning directorial effort. Del Toro has been acclaimed as a visual and imaginative director over the years, and while ‘The Shape of Water’ has similarities with another of his masterpiece, ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’, these films are about the potential of imagination and fantasy within a harsh reality. The two protagonists of ‘The Shape of Water’ were both underdogs – who were the victims in a paranoid and prejudiced world. There should be no surprise that the story took place in a setting of the Cold War because that was exactly the time when people did not put much consideration on the well-being and dignity of individuals – even if it was a blue, fish-like creature – and subject to bouts of electric shocks and vivisections. Yet, del Toro is willing to offer us hope – the setting was exactly where fantasy and love could become possible, when the mute protagonist and the creature could fathom a compassion beyond human. The scenario is very similar to ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’, when the little girl has to imagine a fantasy world with the creature with horns to ‘detox’ her really stressful situations. The evil clutches may prevail sometimes in the real world through the brute force, yet those with golden hearts deserve more than just the world. Just like the 2 protagonists in the film, they can reach a realm where they can be happy together, and this is what a visionary filmmaker like del Toro can offer. After all, the analogy of water (which somewhat recalls Bruce Lee’s philosophical statement – ‘Be water, my friend) is related to humanity. Water is free-flowing, can come in all sort of forms and shapes. It only depends on the context, and gives meaning to itself. And, what you can make meanings out of your existence depends on you.

Gary Oldman and Frances McDormand won the Best Actor and Best Actress respectively for their brilliant performances in ‘Darkest Hour’ and ‘Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri’. All the nominees in the Best Actor category are wonderful, and it really is a bit of a Mexican Standoff there. Gary Oldman has steadily proved to us that he is a spectacular actor who deserves to be loved throughout the years. One can never forget his killer performance in ‘Leon: The Professional’, when he played the Beethoven loving bad cop. Just like when he was portraying Winston Churchill, he put all his feelings and efforts into the character, and with the stunning makeup effects he literally became Churchill. I suppose many of the film lovers would feel great about Oldman finally winning the Oscar. Frances McDormand, who has already won the Best Actress Oscar years ago in ‘Fargo’, completely nailed it as the obsessive, foul-mouthed, and determined mother in ‘Three Billboards’. Her intense look only showed her determination of getting things right, and she would drop F-bombs and go NBK (interesting that Woody Harrelson was also in the film – a bit sad he did not get the Oscar, but then Sam Rockwell is also great) on the injustice that befell around her. The three billboards represented her modus operandi when facing with the disjointed time, direct and to the point. McDormand is channeling Klaus Kinski here – her character is obsessive about her aim, and she can easily go a bit too far – at a certain point throwing Molotov cocktails (and F-bombs and racial slurs) to the police station. I do not feel the director was asking the audience to judge his characters. There is no point to ask whether McDormand’s character is good or evil, so are Harrelson’s and Rockwell’s, because the flaws are what make them so human and realistic. The dark sides portrayed in the film – the prejudice, obsession, anger – are something present in our world, and we have to be courageous and confront them often. Ms. McDormand’s talent should be lauded because, as a leading lady often in Coen Brothers’ films, ‘Blood Simple’, ‘Fargo’ etc., she always delivered the first rate performance of surviving and fighting in an absurd, bigoted, and to be plain, effed-up universe. The intensity of her performance testified the fighting back of the individual, something that humanity should really cherish and celebrate.

‘Dunkirk’ won 3 technical awards, and Christopher Nolan was nominated for both director and picture. The film is special because Nolan has painstakingly turned away the narrative structure common in many American movies. The idea of the film is very simple, very different from his past work like Memento or Inception. The plot is sort of similar to The Wages of Fear, where basically the soldiers were fighting for their lives through round after round of obstacles, asking themselves when they will hit the wall. What Nolan has achieved is to present the story through a very visual and aural way, and the scenarios here would give the audience snapshots and experience of war. Nolan did not try to give us a coherent story of the evacuation, and this should not be seen as a shortcoming of the film, as some critics may have assumed. He deliberately downplayed the importance of the use of dialogue to explain the story and feelings of the characters, so in a Kubrickian sense - the film is possibly the closest in terms of his influence from Kubrick - Nolan ‘banalized’ the dialogues and made the characters opaque. Because, like Mildred's case in ‘Three Billboards’, there was no room for polite society, everyone was just reacting to survive and passing the round. I really love the fact that since the first meeting of the 2 main characters on the beach, they have not really said anything to each other, but no one would deny that they were friends. I believe this is a testament to Nolan's caliber, where you do not need any sentimental dialogues to convince the audience they are comrades - all you need is a creative vision.

How did Nolan achieve this visual experience? It is instructive that he has taken inspiration from silent films, an era that dialogues were only presented as title cards, and the filmmaker had to exert the power 100% by the cinematic images. That is the reason why some of the most memorable cinematic images come from the silent era, because the filmmaker had to fully rely on the visual aspects to make the point. Nolan used purely visual means to portray the stress and excitement when one was locked in battle, and the spectacular sound effects lead to a cinematic poiesis of action. The effect is further enhanced because Nolan played in parallel 3 sets of action of various durations, and the relativity of the time difference clearly heightened and alienated the effect of viewing the film. The stylized score evoked stress for the audience, and completely matched the theme of escalation as shown in the film. When watching the film, I could only think of the famous quote from Churchill, ‘If you're going through hell, keep going!’

Finally, how can we miss 'Blade Runner 2049', a genuinely fantastic film from 2017? Though I was a bit disappointed the film was not recognized by any major category nominations of Oscar - I would be surprised if the film was not a top 10 film of 2017 - it did finally get the respect from the great reviews from critics this time, and got 5 nominations in Oscar, eventually winning 2 well deserved ones - Visual Effects and Cinematography. Though I will always see BR as a Ridley Scott masterpiece, Denis Villeneuve has given new life to the story, and he has made significant contributions in terms of the interpretations of BR.

Roger Deakins, a first-rate director of photography who has worked with the Coen Brothers, Scorsese and Villeneuve, finally won his first Oscar for BR2049. Deakins is the rare sort of cinematographer who has a style as distinct as a filmmaker, some other examples are Vittorio Storaro, Gordon Willis and Emmanuel Lubezki. Say, in Storaro’s case, no matter it is a Bertulocci, Coppola, or Beatty film, Storaro always provides his signature fluid camera movement, and complements with the approach of the director in question. When we look at Deakins’s style, one can usually identify with a gritty atmosphere, and that is why he has such fruitful collaborations with the Coen Brothers and also Villeneuve, as it will be very different if Deakins’s signature style is absent in films like ‘Prisoners’ and ‘Sicario’. Deakins’s style perfectly fits the future noir of Blade Runner, and affords a sense of edginess to the not-that-black-and-white film. Speaking of style, we should also acknowledge and appreciate the original effort of Jordan Cronenweth, the cinematographer for the original Blade Runner film in 1982. It was him who gave us the atmospheric feel of the original masterpiece, and literally influenced every sci-fi or cyberpunk films since then. Scott has always maintained that Blade Runner was intended to contain elements of Film Noir, and it should be of no surprise that Cronenweth’s approach to cinematography was also inspired by the aesthetics of Film Noir. The low key, expressionistic feel that penetrate both Blade Runner films is exactly what make them visually stunning and that achievement deserves the recognition from Oscar.

Really look forward to more wonderful films in 2018!

Friday, 23 February 2018

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

Friday, 2 February 2018

La Notte

1. In January and February this year, a number of films by the Italian filmmaker Michelangelo Antonioni are re-released in Hong Kong. This time, I am going to talk about ‘La Notte’, which is part of a trilogy with ‘L’Avventura’ and ‘L’Eclisse’. I will present my viewpoints in an episodic manner, as if they are some random thoughts from my mind.

2. ‘La Notte’ is fascinating in the sense that it can be qualified for the guideline for classical unities in Aristotle's ‘Poetics’ - the unity of time. In terms of theme, ‘La Notte’ shares similarity with another film of the same era, John Cassevetes’s ‘Faces’, though the approaches to the issue were quite different between the 2 filmmakers. It has also been compared to Stanley Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut'.

3. The story concerned Giovanni and Lidia, a couple from Milan, and how the experience in an evening would push them to examine their relationship. While the activities might sound a bit random and episodic, Antonioni’s intention was probably deliberate and these activities will lead to meanings if one is willing to look beyond the banality of the surface.

4. The relationship between the couple was detached, and soon Lidia felt that she needed some solitude and thus wandered into the evening lights. When she strolled through the place she once lived, some solutions seemed to offer to her in the form of her perceptions – aggression (a fight) or running away (the setting off of some homemade rockets). As one would see also in the later Antonioni’s films, these are often not the best way to deal with one’s existential terror, though they might have provided some form of short-term solace.

5. Memories have been confronting the characters, especially our 2 protagonists. Antonioni the filmmaker seemed to provide his characters a lot of things to think back on, say, where they lived in the past, and the love poem Giovanni has written a long time ago. Giovanni went as far to claim that all he was left with were recollections of the past, though, ironically, Lidia caught him off by noting that he even forgot his own poem, where he has written for Lidia to show his love.

6. It is also worthwhile to see that the mise-en-scene has also emphasized the detached relationships for the characters. Antonioni deliberately installed barriers like gates and doors to symbolize the distance between characters, and the limits that impeded them to get closer to each other in an emotional way. One of the scenes involved a floor which resembled a chessboard, as if the characters were players in a game, always keeping safe distance from what others could offer.

7. Giovanni succinctly stated to Lidia regarding his existential angst, "I no longer have inspirations, only recollections". Inspirations are what we need to move on with our lives, to find out our own meanings throughout the journey of our existence. Giovanni pinpointed the stalemate in his own life, and probably his relationship with Lidia. All Lidia could recommend, which was understandable at first glance, was that "One must do something", and they just dropped in to a lavish party, to explore any new opportunities for gratifications.

8. The party by the millionaire was fascinating, because although the activities might appear banal, Giovanni and Lidia were forced to confront a number of issues – fidelity (in the form of Monica Vitti and her invented game), fame and wealth, mortality and nature (the sudden shower). What I have often wondered is to what extent Kubrick has been influenced by this double-flirting sequence and put it into ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ (he did mention ‘La Notte’ was one of his favorite films). The force of nature also exposed the carnality of some of these ‘civilized’ guests – they literally jumped into the pool like kids when rain started to pour.

9. The millionaire, Gherardini, was portrayed rather neutrally in the film, given the belief Antonioni would likely have regarding this sort of people. Gherardini indeed gave a few insightful observations about modern life. Not only he saw through the decadence and wealth-oriented nature of the modern ago, he also felt that the meaning of life has to be figured out by the individual himself. Gherardini cared less about his position on the billionaire list, yet he wanted to create something ‘solid’ – which was a legacy of himself to be remembered. He also pointed out a nice point regarding writer and or form of artist – one should create an art work because of necessity, because the artist had a will to do it – they just wanna do it, period. It could not just be reward or recognition that one wanted to involve in art work. Gherardini’s vision also coincided with some key ideas of existentialism, for example his affirmative insistence that ‘Life is what we make of it through our own efforts.’, and his concentration on the present rather than the inaccessible future.

10. After all that happened throughout the evening, they reflected one last time on their relationship. Lidia was sad because she felt that she no longer loved Giovanni, and she felt like dying because there was clearly a relationship she has cherished all the time, and she saw it as an intense loss. Giovanni could appreciate the seriousness of the issue and he kept on reassuring her that he definitely loved her.

11. It should be fair to state that both of them were experiencing some form of crisis, so we cannot say who should be more responsible for the marriage failure. Lidia, by noting that Giovanni has forgotten his own love letter, allowed him to confront his own memories, his vision of the affair. In a sense, Giovanni would be able to discover new meanings in these lost memories, and see how they might be inspiring him to regard his relationship with Lidia, just like he has once written for Lidia, "Beyond your face I saw a pure, beautiful vision showing us in the perspective of my whole life...all the year to come, even all the years past.".

12. Antonioni concluded La Notte with an open ending, by not giving the answer of whether Giovanni and Lidia reconciled at the end. I would be optimistic and speculate that they would have a greater chance to be back with each other. Because throughout the night, they had so many chances to rediscover themselves and realize where the problems were. Both of them still treasured the relationship they have sustained, and would feel depressed if that ended with a nasty note. When Giovanni was forcing himself on Lidia (sort of), it was almost the dawn, suggesting the beginning of a new day, and a new chapter of their relationship. That is the idea of ‘lost and found’ – through the recognition of the the value of what that has been lost, it will then orient for a new start. After all, that is what I think Antonioni has always wanted us to be able to do.

by Ed Law

3/2/2018

Film Analysis

Friday, 26 January 2018

La Ronde

This time, I will talk about a film by Max Ophüls, known as ‘La Ronde’.

The story of ‘La Ronde’ was adapted from a play written by Arthur Schnitzler, who also wrote ‘Dream Story’, the novel that inspired Kubrick's ‘Eyes Wide Shut’. Schnitzler's visionary look at the sexual relationships and psychological aspects of the human condition was inspiring even for today's readers, as he seemed to see through the universal and anthropological traits that have governed human's behaviors all the way - our desires, our imaginations, and our needs for love and recognition from others. Freud, a contemporary of Schnitzler, was very impressed by the writer's ideas and was also amazed by how close their outlooks resembled each other, going as far to call Schnitzler his ‘double’.

The story were formalized in a sense, because it involved ten love stories, where they were interconnected and consecutive. To put it plainly: let’s say the ladies were represented by [A, C, E, G…]; and the gents were represented by [B, D, F, H…]. So A flirted with B, then when the relationship ended; B hanged around with C; then C with D; and D with E… and all the way back to A, rather ironically. Very stylized from a 19th century writer, isn't it? It can be considered as a round dance of love. What is more interesting, not only the sexual relations appeared random, they also transcended all form of class relations, which was really a core value back in the 19th century. Hence, the blue-blooded and aristocrats got a bang on with the low lives. If there existed a reason why the firewall of ideology could be crashed, then it would be that the clockwork of lust (I cannot find a word more appropriate than ‘clockwork’) here were driven by the desire and impulse to feel love and pleasure. The encounters in ‘La Ronde’ may sound amoral, if you really take it seriously within the framework of monogamy or ‘respect’ for someone you love. Yet, I do not feel Schnitzler and Ophüls were passing any moral judgments here. They were just merely reporting the truths of human nature.

While the play itself is a fascinating story on its own right, Ophüls’ creative approach

In his treatment of the story was also noteworthy. Not only it stood as a testament for his unique style, the theme was also addressed nicely through Ophüls’ style. For the design, the story was told by an operator of a carousel, and it was evident that the analogy of a carousel fitted well with the structure of the story because of their circular forms. It also signified the filmmaker’s fluid and mobile camera style, and reinforced the interaction between style and content. All the love stories were locked in as if they were separate components of the carousel, yet it was important to appreciate that they are all connected at the same time. It can be ironic to realize that, while the stories belonged to the ten or so characters, it was the operator which was orchestrating all the stories, and telling the stories with a full control, as if he was a conductor of a symphony. The complexity of the plot also stemmed from the fact that the stories itself were not all objective, they resembled layers and layers of memories and opinions, which might be subjective or even considered as rumors. Deleuze, who has admired Ophüls and cited the filmmaker’s work as examples in his philosophy of cinema, has put it nicely that the structure of ‘La Ronde’ resembled a crystal of memories – which was a form of time-image for his categorization. He pointed out that the reason why it was categorized as time-image was due to the fact that the stories were not merely objective recollections, meaning that the audience had to actively engage with these memories and discovered any (subjective) meanings for themselves. This active participation often distinguishes the ‘time-image’, often served as an ideal of film art, from the films with a more conventional narrative. All in all, Ophüls’ version of ‘La Ronde’ illustrated a formal beauty that signified the filmmaker’s achievement as a cinematic artist.

by Ed Law

27/1/2018

Film Analysis

Saturday, 13 January 2018

Cinematic Poiesis

For some filmmakers, the approach to cinema is not very different from the approach to poetry. The approach is to look for a 'poetic' in cinema, which is advocated by many film theorists. The word has a history as far as the dramatic theory from Aristotle, and this approach of art has been embraced by various thinkers throughout history.

The word 'poetics' was derived from the Greek word 'poiesis', which meant active making. David Bordwell believes that film should be studied as a process of construction. To him and those who support the approach, an appreciation of cinema should in no way be limited to a mere analysis of plot or narrative itself. That means ‘story’ is not the only metric to assess a film, as for those who thinks ‘If you have a great story, you have a great film’ may insist. Even if one has a dull story it may still be metamorphosed to a brilliant film, and the greatest plot can appear like a high school video project if that falls onto the wrong hands. What is the magic behind that? If is the other side of the coin – form (or style).

A poetic of cinema is a delicate entanglement of three elements of films: image, sound and word. It is the combination of the aural dialogue, music, sound and also the visual composition, lighting, editing, and narrative aspect that leads to an organic unity. Often, if it is done satisfactorily, the effect is not merely additive, and the sum can be greater than the parts. While Poetics concerns film form or the formal aspects of cinema, it is not necessarily the same as the movement of Formalism, popularized by the Russians in the early 20th century - though there may be certain common aspects between them.

Filmmakers like Kubrick, Ozu, Welles, Antonioni and Tarkovsky, and many other great ones, have put together the various aspect of cinematic techniques, leading to an active construction of cinematic experience for the audience. The great thing about poiesis is that it demands an active participation from the members of the audience, not just passively receiving filmic images under the power of the so called ‘plot’ or ‘narrative’.

Bordwell contributed intensely to this field by studying in depth the style of Yasujiro Ozu, who I will talk about in later articles. What is quite ironic about the analysis of Ozu is that he has been labelled as traditional and the most Japanese by some critics, who seems to have only observed the surface of the issue. It turns out that Ozu has put up more Western and American references that one can expect, even in his earliest films. As Bordwell has pointed out and elaborated in detail, Ozu's style was among the most original and innovative towards the Western audience, because he defied many rules and techniques what most American filmmakers would see as the norm and were comfortable with.

Bordwell presented his ideas in 'Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema', and then he also published ‘Poetics of Cinema’, in which he developed his central thesis and provided more examples throughout the history of cinema. I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in cinema and want to understand more how cinematic style can lead to an impact on its audience. You will see cinema in a completely new light!

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

Friday, 5 January 2018

2001: A Space Odyssey - The Quantum Leap

The year 2018 marks the 50th anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, and that makes total sense for us to continue our exploration of this modern classic. This time, we will do something special. I will concentrate on only a single scene in 2001. While that may seem a bit of an excess, it is justified because that scene in question is widely considered at one of the most iconic moments in all of cinema, and serves as a testament to Kubrick's genius. It is a scene signified by both simplicity and complexity, and thousands of words can be devoted to one’s interpretations of what that cinematic image means to him. Indeed, the reason why Kubrick's masterpiece was termed an ‘Odyssey’ was because he intended this cinematic experience as an exploration, one that even every member of the audience had a place in.

To remind ourselves where we are coming from, Moon Watcher, an ape-man from the ancient times, was inspired by the presence of a black monolith, and he developed the idea of using a bone as a tool. This new found technology was put to good use when he used it to kill, or bash the brains in, the leader of a rival tribe of ape-men. The success of this encounter meant that Moon Watcher and his friends could claim authority to a property - a water hole, and it was the very first time they felt they were in control of their lives. As Moon Watcher was finally alone, he gave a gratifying roar and threw the bone up into the air. Then, cinematic magic emerged. A match cut led the audience to an image of a space ship of a similar shape. This represents a leap of millions of years in only 1/24 of a second, which is the duration of a single frame in cinema.

This memorable scene is one of the most ambiguous images in Kubrick’s cinema, or probably in all of cinema. The reason why Kubrick adopted ambiguity rather than a clear explanation for his masterpiece was because he was trying to illustrate the complex nature of the many issues regarding humanity. Certain viewers prefer ‘Yes-or-No’ type of answers all the time, where a binary opposition has to be established for whatever issue they are concerned with, be it morality, social structure, or preferences. In reality, most issues we encounter in real life can be made sense of with multiple perspectives. In fact, contradicting sides often emerge from the very same issue. Is technology good or bad for us? Does culture lead us to a better taste? Can we use morality as a metric for everything? Kubrick wanted contribution from the audience, and demanded them to give their own answers to these issues.

Kubrick encouraged the audience to discover self-knowledge through the confrontation of his many great films. Self-knowledge does not necessarily guarantee reassurance - we have to face the positive but also the negative sides of our own nature, even if we often attempt to avoid or deny the latter. It is through the sincere appreciation of ourselves that would lead to hope for the improvement of our well-being and the discovery for the meaning of our existences.

It is significant to note that the editing style of this scene is a match-cut. Since the development of montage from the American and Soviet filmmakers at the start of 20^th century, many innovative uses of editing have been employed to generate visual impacts for the audience. The preference of Kubrick to use a match cut in his most famous cinematic usage served a purpose far more important than a mere shocking effect. The match cut emphasized the similarity between the image of the bone and the space craft, not only in terms of physical appearance but also the underlying concept behind that. The two images, when placed side-by-side, led to a continuity. That suggested we could not detach ourselves from our origin. The connection between the bone and the spacecraft could be seen as a manifestation of the will, an aggressive energy and drive that motivated humanity throughout history.

On the surface, this scene shed a positive light, because one should be in awe how much humanity has done in terms of progress. The bone is visually a homogenous material, and the spacecraft is composed of numerous components. Through a first concept and the application of our intellectual faculties, we have been able to instill complexity to our creations, and the voyage to the outer space is a testament to humanity’s achievement. This scene can be easily seen as the most optimistic moment in cinema.

Yet, the flip side is, it can just be the most pessimistic outlook from Kubrick, where a demand for contemplation from the audience is evident. He might be suggesting that we have not made any fundamental changes at all – no matter how much we have appeared to be evolved or developed throughout such a long span of time. The pessimism originated indeed from the continuous nature of the match cut, which, in a symbolic point of view, not only nothing apparent has been changed, but it also signified that the only thing that has been passing through time is our nature to survive at all costs, including the use of violence and aggression to achieve this end. Humanity’s dark side may just be so intense that it cannot be eliminated. It can only be transformed, from primitive violence to institutionalized violence. Kubrick was not trying to pass any moral or misanthropic judgment in this possible interpretation, he was merely telling the truth about our nature.

As I have already pointed out, many things can be seen in contrasting perspectives. The duality of issues in life often reflects the duality of Man. Violence and aggression are not a side effect of technology and innovation, but the other way round. Kubrick's antihumanist vision showed that violence has always been part of us, the representation of our animalistic origin. Humanity is often at the most creative and inspiring when it comes to violence and destruction. There has not been another form of organism on our planet that has the power or intelligence to cause such fundamental impact to a place they call home.

It should be ironic to appreciate that, the process of mechanical dehumanization commenced at the very point when we were enlightened to use technological artifices to improve the well-being of our species. The consequence of losing our humanity was not something to lament on, but it was seen as inevitable by Kubrick. It is the self-knowledge that we can discover by ourselves that will prove to be more fulfilling that any forms of gratification or false hope derived from movies that merely aim for profits or easy 2-hour comfort – the ‘Oh, we are getting better and better’ cliché.

As Kubrick has pointed out in an interview, ‘we are born of risen apes, not fallen angels’. An evolutionary and secular point of view is one that will lead us to a constructive understanding of ourselves. Having a realistic view does not entail one to undermine anything great and beautiful about humanity - our imaginations, creativity and courage are among the key reasons why humanity has arrived at such a sophisticated status in the first place. After all, as Kubrick reminded us at the same interview, ‘we are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses’. A delicate balance has to be struck if we desire to arrive to the knowledge of ourselves, and what we can become.

After all, how would anymore not wonder with awe the tremendous achievement our species have done throughout the long passage of time? Kubrick was certainly among one of these. As Kubrick’s quantum leap ferried the audience from watching the moon to exploring the moon, we are ready to embark on the second part of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’…

by Ed Law

6/1/2018

Film Analysis