The Brood Discussion

I call this one a discussion, but there are only minor spoiler elements, although some do exist, in other words if you haven’t seen the movie you may want to hold off if you want everything to be a surprise. I do not go into huge detail about plot elements, but there are a few things mentioned you may want to see for yourself.

I am an avid fan of anything David Cronenberg makes, and I have no reservations in stating that fact. I own all the Cronenberg Criterion editions except Dead Ringers, and that is only because it is out of print. I do own most of his movies and they sit on my shelf, and are a constant re-watch in my wheel house. Needless to say I was excited for The Brood to be released by criterion because I have never seen it; plus, it was a new Cronenberg film to me! It did not disappoint. Watching it for the first time in 2016 did not seem out of place because start to finish I could tell it was a Cronenberg and the finale was perfect; the right amount of horror, blood, disgust, murder, and a last scene haunting visual that leaves you uncomfortable. If you are a fan of his work then this is an edition that is worth your dollars, however if you are new to his films this will be a tough place for you to start, but it won’t be insurmountable.

The main thing I took away from watching The Brood is that I could truly tell this was Cronenberg unrestrained and in his youth. This is not to say he has lost his touch, but time and ageing are inevitable, and his recent films surely pack a punch, but he has somewhat moved away from the horror genre, and delved into more dramatic territory. This film however, is full of the blood, shock, and terror that a young Cronenberg could only deliver; and it was 92 minutes of some of his best. Inevitably it will be overshadowed by his later and more popular films like Scanners and Videodrome, and in some respects rightly so, but to those that really appreciate his talents, this is a must watch gem.

Now to talk about the nitty gritty; and this film has some very gritty elements, and I mean that as a positive. The story behind The Brood and the time in his career in which it took place is just as important as the film itself. He made a few full length features before this film as an underground film maker and one of them is included on the criterion edition, worth your time by the way, and then he made two feature length films which got major release and recognition and helped establish him as an artist. Then The Brood came, a film that was made and produced in Canada, released in Canada and the U.S. and received mediocre box office success, but on video release massed a huge cult following. It also took place in the life of the director as he himself was dealing with divorce and custody battles. Cronenberg has said it is one of his most personal films because of the subject manner and time in his life in which it took place, and all of that comes to screen in the best way possible. It also was made in a time when the director and production team had very little cash, so there is a large amount of very impressive camera and lighting work. Some of the best ideas and tricks in film were a product of the limitations of the time and budget, and you can tell by the time the crew that filmed Shivers and Rabid got to The Brood, they had their tricks refined. Take your time with the night time scenes, as well as the overhead camera angles in the parent’s house, the ingenuity is awesome.

Many of Cronenberg’s films are not the easiest to watch; and many attribute this to the horror, blood, disfigurement, and shock, and those elements are not miscounted, as The Brood has the moments; to me the uneasiness of this film comes from the father. He is a character which never has a real moment of peace, as something is always getting taken out of his hands, or another horrible development is taking place in his unfortunate story. Even the opening scene is one that is full of confrontation, doubt, worry, and sets the tone for the state of the character for the rest of the film. His Journey does not end as the credits roll, and this works as a story element but also keeps the viewer thinking about the film.

The doctor is one that, like in many other Cronenberg stories, falls victim to his own work; and it ultimately takes his life. I personally do not see his work as genuine; I think his efforts were to satisfy some desire the character had, which he masked by his semi-professional nature. What lead me to this conclusion in large, was the acting of Oliver Reed. He was absolutely perfect for the roll, and I think his careful nuanced delivery kept the motivation of the character hidden, and laid the ground work for viewers to question his methods. The main character is the one who gets the least screen time of our trio, and that is the mother, expertly played by Ms. Samantha Eggar. It is a known fact that if you run your whole life you may have knee or hip problems, if you stress everyday your hair may fall out, if you lift weights you run the risk of joint and tendon problems; the point is physical actions take a quantifiable toll on our body. This film explores, and many other Cronenberg films do as well, the physical actions on our bodies that are the direct result of emotional, or mental actions. The idea that the mother’s anger was so strong, that it did not from as simple boils, but full formed humanoids that embodied her conscious and subconscious anger is simply genius. It is one of the most original and may be my favorite idea Cronenberg has had, and the birthing scene in the finale, one of the few times I remember looking away from the screen and cringing, glorious!

To bring this thing full circle: if you are a new Cronenberg film buff, start with a different movie, Scanners or some of his later work, however if you are a longtime fan and have not seen this movie, make it a priority.  It is easy to tell it is early in his career and that benefits the film hugely, because he is subtler but also does not hold back, it is raw and youthful. The personal nature of the film and the connection it has to Cronenberg himself is evident, as some of the dialogue and scenes are laser focused on the turmoil of divorce. The one main critique I have of the film is that I want more; I am not done with the story or the concept, and who knows maybe one day he will do a follow up and we will get to see little Candice grown up as a mother on her own strange and special journey.

Samurai Trilogy Discussion

Samurai Trilogy Discussion

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto

The first film in this trilogy opens with a very subtle bang; so subtle you may not have realized you heard it in the back of your mind. The conflict in this film is not one of wars and violence, love and betrayal, but conflict of conviction and of the mind. It is a film that has some questions, and because the main character is changing and evolving, and is unsure of himself; answers are not given. This is a compliment not a criticism; the film does a great job of telling an engaging story and creating memorable characters, but these characters are not as simple as they appear, and the film has more going on than what is seen at face value. I have yet to see the second two films in the trilogy, so take this first part on with that knowledge. I am going to give my quick thoughts about the three films individually, and then do a conclusion when I have seen all three films.

  The most impressive thing to me right from the start was the landscapes and backdrops; very colorful and ornate in a way that make the viewer aware of their beauty. The story constantly weaves the characters in and out of the towns and cities and into nature, allowing for plenty of beautiful natural shots. The acting by Mifune has been praised by plenty, and I will join them in their song. He is at his best here, full of complex emotions deep down, and wild and mad on the outside. Some may call the story simple or his acting over the top but I have to disagree. First, the time at which the film was made must be considered, the acting style taken in that context is not over the top, but simply some of the best. Second, on the surface yes it is a straightforward story, but there are plenty of subtle clues littered throughout the film that let us know some of the deeper feelings the characters are struggling with.

For example, take the ending of the film. Miyamoto admits to Otsu how much he loves her, and even submits to her will and allows her to come with him. We all know he is going to walk away without her as she prepares to leave; this is not surprising anyone if you have seen a samurai film before. Before he leaves however there are two shots of reeds being pulled by the current of the stream. It is a beautiful image to symbolize his need to move on and shred any roots he had as Takezo, and to truly become Miyamoto.  He takes the time to carve, “forgive me” in the railing of the bridge. This is especially touching if we consider how Otsu has been hurt before by a man going off and promising to return to her. He takes the time to let her know he understands how this will hurt her, and wants her to know he is sorry and asking for her forgiveness.

His time onscreen as Miyamoto is limited in the first installment, but in the short time we can already witness his transformation. He walks more firmly and more slowly; speaks with more conviction but less volume; has deeper thoughts and emotions, but keeps them within himself. Even when he is admitting his love for Otsu, it is with a calm and forward resolve. The animal that everyone was trying to kill has been tamed and reborn by the monk. Part of what created the animal was his desire for fame, and his arrogance on the battlefield, and perhaps his lack of direct family, but I believe a large majority of it was due to the loss of his friend. He is a man of absolute conviction, and I think it hurt him to see his friend not only abandon him, but his wife back at the village as well. In his eyes, he still cares for his friend, but he cannot ignore the wrongs of Matahachi. When he did get back to the village, only to be betrayed by Matahachi’s mother, I think it cemented these feelings.

When he was hanging from the tree his spirit was not broken by physical exhaustion, but by the exhaustion of his ability to be able to count the people who cared for him, and people he cared for in return. That is why when Otsu let him down it made such a strong impression on him, and why when she showed her hands to him, he began to cry. They were not tears of sadness, but an expression of joy, celebration, and relief; someone in the world cared for his life. The priest was not counting on Otsu to let him down, but when she did he was able to adapt and change is plan accordingly, and locking him in the castle to study, he had a reason for him to get out, a goal at the end simply besides his own life, Otsu. The priest even admits to Otsu he knows little about love, which is a bit of play on words; he knows little about the physical interactions of love between two people, but he is a studied monk, and knows the concepts and ideals of love better than most. It is a combination of studying, mediation, and love that changed Takezo into Miyamoto; I have a feeling the journey he is about to start at the end of the first film will change Miyamoto into the legendary samurai that is the stuff of legends.

Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple

I am enjoying the series as a whole, and so far the second film is my favorite. Having not seen the third film, the second is more of a continuation than a sequel, and if the third film continues this trend, and I think it will, you could really watch all three back to back. It picks up right where the first film left off, some time has passed and our samurai is a bit older, but we are immersed right back into his world and we feel as if we haven’t missed a thing. The second film made several impressions on me: the costume design is simply gorgeous, the landscapes and backdrops continue to be stunning, the music is epic and awesome, and Inagaki really used lighting to benefit the story. I enjoyed this more than the first, because it was more intricate. The first film had many subtle details and hints to uncover, but the emotions and relationships here are intertwined and strained in very interesting and honest ways.

Mifune is still at his best here, and he does a great job of giving as a swordsman, not a samurai. He is one the way to becoming a samurai, but Mifune holds back and revs up in the appropriate manner to show us his character is still just a brutally strong, and skilled swordsman. Newcomer to the trilogy, Koji Tsuruta, as Kojiro Sasaki, is a real benefit to the film. He is confident without being cocky, and even ads in some very dry humor from time to time, which was appreciated. I will say I have read a bit on what to expect in the final installment, and I am glad to see Sasaki will be returning because I do like his character, and story wise he is the only character presented that could pose a real challenge to Miyamoto.

We get a very good look at Miyamoto in this film, a deeper and more open view to what drives and motivates this great man.  Although we get to see these things, what we see is not easily described or understood, he is a complex character. All around him, he is being constantly reminded of and forced to face his past. He starts off meeting a young orphan, who is a version of the man Miyamoto used to be, full of fight, naïve, and yet to understand the life he has chosen to follow. He eventually meets a geisha, who reminds him of Otsu, and he is forced to face his fear of affection, and he leaves that relationship with a better understanding of who he is, and what people are important to him. The most revealing and exposing thing we learn about Miyamoto, and subsequently he learns about himself, is the value of victory without taking a life. In the beginning he is met with a chance encounter with an old teacher, who states he is too strong, but leaves Miyamoto to ponder his words without explanation. He spends the entire film taking life, and thinking of himself as a skilled swordsman, and it is not until the final encounter that he realizes the meaning of the old master’s words. His choice to claim victory, and not take a life, finally gave him momentary peace, although it would not last, and he continues his long walk of solitude.

The lighting lent itself well to the moods of the scenes in the film. The final battle was especially dark, showing the anger and darkness in the heart of Miyamoto, and we saw things brighten up when he was around Otsu. In addition to the scenery, there are many shots displaying natural beauty, one in particular we saw a similar version of in the first film.  In the first film we saw reeds in the water, in this we see a strong river flowing around rocks, creating white water and more noise than the reeds in the stream. As Miyamoto is growing stronger he is becoming more solid, more steadfast, and less easily moved. However, this means when things to come against him, they will crash in a more chaotic fashion.

As much as we want to see Otsu and Miyamoto live happily ever after, we know this cannot be and the two characters know it cannot be, well not in this installment at least. I think Otsu is so deeply in love with him, that she rejected him on the river side because she was afraid of being just a random act, not an act of love. Additionally, she turned him down for the fact that he just threw himself on her suddenly and not in a very romantic way, a little subtlety goes a long way.   I am excited to see the conclusion, and so far I can see why the series is treasured, and I am enjoying all the epic qualities of the films so far.

Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island

So good to know where the idea for catching flies in chopsticks for Karate Kid came from, assuming this film didn’t borrow that idea from a previous one. Moving on, as I am writing about the third and final film, I will also be interjecting some of my final thoughts about the trilogy as a whole. The ending in my mind was perfect; the final shot of the sole boat crossing the water could not have been done any better. The final battle was as epic and tense as all the buildup led us to believe it would be. The two lovers never quite reach that state of bliss, but I think they finally understand how their love works and they both come to acceptance of that fact. All loose ends were tied up, and as a trilogy, it was entertaining, moving, epic, tense, and beautiful; I was very pleased and I am glad it is now in my collection.

This, of the three, was the most traditional of samurai films. It had our samurai doing small acts to display his talent, he was quiet and withdrawn, and did things that did not make sense to most of the characters surrounding him in the story. However, this is not a negative, I feel all these element work well, because we saw the journey of how he reached his current state. This film helps to further display his understanding, that winning and strength are not the only keys to victory. The tear at the end, was more than appropriate. He lost his greatest rival, his best competitor, and his greatest challenge, what was their left for the great Miyamoto to do but weep? It was one of the reasons I believe he chose to postpone the duel for a year. He wanted to focus his mind, on that one thing for a whole year, he wanted to hone his body and his spirit, but he also knew that no matter the outcome, both men would not be the same after the duel. I was sad to see Akemi die, but in the back of my mind knew it was coming; she was a character full of hardships from the very first film, and it was inevitable that her fate would lead to an untimely death.

This trilogy, for me, captured the life of a man in film. It would be easy, except for the time, to watch all three back to back. It was a samurai action flick, a love triangle drama, and existential discovery film all rolled into three great installments. The scenery and cinematography has some truly stunning moments, the pinnacle being the final duel, and the acting by Mifune was nearly perfect. I have no real critiques of the films, there were little things here and there, but nothing I feel that is big enough to be a detriment to the trilogy. I have heard previous viewers mention the films to be too dark, but the Criterion blu-ray was clear and bright for all the nighttime scenes. Others have also mentioned the portrayal of the women as nothing more than objects, but I find that argument hard to justify. I actually consider Otsu and Akemi to be two very strong women, both exhibited deep commitment, fortitude, and strength. The other side of that is the era in which the film was made must be taken into consideration, just as with the style of acting. The final part of that is a difference of cultures, Japanese culture, especially surrounding love, is very complicated, and I won’t pretend I know all the details of how it works, but I have picked up enough from watching other films, that nothing in this trilogy struck me as inappropriate or sexist.

If you are a fan of samurai films, and have the time and resources to get your hands on this collection, go for it! It has more than enough to set it apart from being just another samurai film. It epic scope, score, and scenery are worth the price of admission. The journey of Miyamoto is one that has cemented itself in history, and this trilogy does a just job of bringing that journey to life. For me, the most striking image is the face of Miyamoto right before he goes in for the final killing blow. It is full of determination, focus, calm, strength, conviction, death, and respect. It is important for us to take the time to consider everything that is going through his mind, as he seems to know he is about to land the killing blow, and the director gives us this opportunity, as he recognized it was important for the spirit of the trilogy for the audience to have that moment, and he recognized Miyamoto deserved that moment. It is moments like this, that are scattered throughout the trilogy, that help to make it epic, help to make it grand, and help it to remain on my mind, days after I have finished watching the final frames leave the screen.

Blue is the Warmest Color Discussion

Blue is the Warmest Color-Discussion

There is something so real about this film that about two weeks have passed since my first viewing, and I am still thinking about the film. The film has engrained itself in my brain, but more importantly in my heart. This may be the most heartbreaking, most intimate, lovely, true, and honest film that I have personally ever seen. Forget about your own personal opinions or beliefs on sexuality. This film goes far beyond that level, it delves into the realm of the soul, dipping into an intangible and unexplainable connection two souls share with each other. The way the narrative is told, and I use that term loosely, and the cinematography we are given create a film that has a presence, and emotional significance to the viewer. There was a part of me that felt an entire gamut of emotions when viewing this film, and while my experience was unique to me, anyone who views this film will certainly have some emotional response. It is a film that is not easy to watch, not because of subtitles or run time, but because it requires the investment or your time, your attention, your heart, and your humanity.

A majority of what makes this film work is its cinematography. Any film can make you believe its characters are real, that’s not so hard to do. It takes an extra effort to make you become emotionally attached to characters on screen. It is even harder for a film to make you know these characters are alive; I mean really alive, as in they are people you could know, or they remind you of people in your own life. What this film does goes beyond all these things. We are shown the life of these characters. This is why I previously used the term “narrative” loosely. We are shown their everyday life on the surface, but I am digging deeper. We are not just given a segment of their life, or a few short years that were important. The film we see is the life of these two souls; this is the time that mattered. The time that we are shown, was all the time in the world two these two people. This is what defined their lives, this is what defined who they were, this defined their love, and it defined their existence. We get camera angles that are close an intimate on the faces of these two entangled souls. The camera is constant. We do not just get close ups when they are in their best moments. The camera is close during all moments, the intimate, the mundane and ordinary, the tragic, and the reflective. This constant closeness is balanced with medium and wide shots so it does not disorient the viewer, but its persistence lets us get closer two these two characters than most other films.

The cinematography is also vey symbolic in many instances; representing each of the main characters in various scenes. There were so many scenes that you could tell were thought out meticulously. The image at the very end of Adele turning that corner still fills me with sorrow. It was designed flawlessly. Emma is surrounded by her friends at her show, which throughout the film; her artistic nature is both a source of pleasure and pain for both women. Her free hand sketch was one of the first things that drew them together, and later on many of her works are focused on Adele. Many times we see though, this life alienates and drives Adele away from Emma. We have the actor friend, who was a constant distraction for Adele. Although it may be shown in the physical sense, Adele feeling drawn to a man rather than a woman, his character draws her, and represents more on a deeper level. He represents an unknown type of love. He was interested, possibly even infatuated with Adele. She had trouble understanding and accepting his love, one that was given freely and would be unwavering. He does not see her for years, and then at the show he still feels the same way about her. How is this different from Adele and Emma? The two were drawn and love each other more than either can realize or express. They will love each other till death, but they do not get to be with each other. Theirs is a love neither can resist, and both want, but they chose to deny it from one another. Adele does not have this with the actor, although she could have been happy with him, in my opinion they could have had a life together. This is also what he represents, the unknown, the could have, would have, should have of life. That is why he gets lost in the crowd and is one step behind her in the film’s final moments.

It is also important that Adele walk away at the end, by herself. She walks because she is a alone. She has nowhere to rush to, no one waiting for her, no need to save time. She walks because it is basic and human. Adele is one of the most human characters to be written. Her faults, her actions, her speech, her desires are all things we have felt or done or can relate to. She walks because she is in pain. We all want someone to comfort us when we are in pain, but what do you do if the source of your pain is who you want to comfort you? She walks because she blames herself, she feels guilty. Guilt and blame are some of the most complex, misunderstood, and mistaken emotions we have as humans. She cannot stop herself from loving Emma, she cannot stay away, but it is too painful to be near her, and she blames herself for this. What do we do when we are upset and blame ourselves? We sulk and strive to be alone, to further wallow in our own misery, so she walks home alone. In the preceding café scene, Adele displays all that is unsaid when she is walking down the street at the end. Her misery comes through in her tears, she pleads with Emma, begs her to understand her torture. She resorts to physical desire, anything to bring them back together. She is constantly apologizing; she still blames herself, sees herself at fault, and would give anything for forgiveness. It is a raw and naked scene, unfiltered; and as she walks down the street, she is silent and alone, but still contains all the pain, misery, self loathing, love and desire that we saw in the café.

This is just the one scene out of the film, so many are constructed this way to have so many levels and leave so much unsaid on screen, but have so much running through the viewers head and heart. It would be a mistake to not credit a large part of this realism and truth of the characters to the actors. These two women, Lea Seydoux and Adele Exarchopoulos, give performances that go beyond the call of duty. Reading about the film, it seems the filming process was not only long, but heavily daunting on both actors. I think, in the end, that is the trade off to get an exceptional performance. Sometimes to get the best out of actors, directors push them to their limits and a part of the actor is given up for the performance. They deserve all the awards and accolades they received and more. There is no part of their performance that is flawed, and nothing feels forced. They have both stated in interviews and such that a very real friendship came from the time together, and after watching the emotion and vulnerability they bring to the film, I can see why. After being that intimate with another person, sharing part of what makes you a person; that connection cannot be left to fade, I imagine it draws constantly.

One of the most intriguing things about the film is the title. The color blue shows up throughout the film constantly. Sometimes it is small and subtle, other times not so much. I believe the title is meant to be subjective, different for every person that watches the film. For me, I think it represents Emma, and the love Adele feels for her, but not in the romantic way one might think. As I stated before, the color is constant, it is there before they meet, in their best times, worst times, and once they part. She cannot escape it, and it is always with her and on her mind. For instance, when she is swimming in the water towards the end of the film, there is a beautiful camera shot as she floats on her back. The water is rich with the color. In this moment she is still depressed, lost, and longing for her love. However, in her despair she is still surrounded and saturated by this love. She cannot escape it, part of her wants to and part of her does not, that is the nature of true love.

This is one of those times where I cannot say much about a film. Anyone can dissect and interpret a film scene by scene; it just takes time, attention, and patience. This is one of those films that I watched once, and did not want to watch again. Not because I did not enjoy it, clearly I loved the film, but because it took a lot out of me to watch this film; the love, laughter, joviality, heartbreak, loss, and anger all felt real and a part of me attached to the story of these two souls. I had a great experience when I watched this, and I want that memory to stay, I want to hold onto those emotions, the ones I experienced the first time I saw this work.  It is one that sticks with you, makes you think about the love and lost love in your own life, and it is done in such a way that a film likes this stands out for its intimacy and relatability. I am still, weeks later, periodically recalling the personal emotions that came over me as I watched, and how special it is for a film to create such a connection with its viewer, it is not a common thing, it is a warm feeling.

La Jetee Discussion

                            La Jetee-Discussion

La Jetee is by all accounts a sci-fi film. It is however, also a love story, a mystery, and a war film. In short this film is much more than the sum of its parts. I have seen the film four times now, and I never knew so much could be done with still images in 27 minutes. The film is thought provoking and heart wrenching in the same breath. Its beauty is in its simplicity, but its simplicity also stems its complexities. For all these reasons I consider it to be one of my top sci-fi films of all time. This is not star-trek, although there is nothing wrong with that brand of sci-fi, this is the understated type of sci-fi. The story it weaves tries to push your mind and cause you to think. The focus is not on the special effects, but on the human elements of the tale. If time travel exists and operates the way it does in the film, what does it do to your mind, body, and soul? Is it possible to love outside of your own time? Great sci-fi pushes the limits of not what is seen onscreen, but what you think about after the film is over. For recent and awesome examples of this go watch Primer (2004) or Upstream Color (2013). This film definitely made an impression on me and had me thinking for days after my first viewing.

First off, I want to show how the use of black and white elevates this film to be so memorable. The black and white is an ideal artistic, aesthetic, and atmospheric choice. Artistically, it lends itself to some outright beautiful and haunting images. This is especially true of the now famous image of the woman with her hair blowing in the wind. Aesthetically, the use of black and white is done so well the viewer is never wishing for color to be introduced, or gets the sensation the lack of color is harming the experience. The lighting, shading, and shadows are done in such a way that we get a full color spectrum between black and white. Atmospherically, I believe the film would feel out of place in color. The technology they are using in the film, the desperation of their actions and motives all lend itself perfectly to black and white. A prime example of all of these is the few series of images we get of the man in the chair when he is first trying to connect with the past. The device covers his eyes, but we can still see his face. We can still see the emotions and reactions as he suffers. We see his grimace, the grinding of his teeth, all in still images; it allows to be more focused on what is taking place. The bright white of the device almost glares at us in the images, and as the images progress his head moves further back in each frame as if he is trying to escape the device. The shadows and darkness surrounding the images keep us focused; we get the full concentration of his pain, the crudeness of the device, and the desperation of their situation. These few images are more potent because of his choice to use black and white still images.

There is only one moving image in the entire film. It lasts for only a heartbeat and it is the girl lying in bed in the morning, waking up and blinking. The fact that he chose something so simple and pure to put in motion speaks volumes. It is an extremely relatable action and image. It is also basic and primal, something we have all done. In these ways it grounds the viewer to the story, they have something that is starkly different from the rest of the structure of the film, but it is something tangible and relatable. In the context of the story this happens right after she calls him her, “Ghost” and he seems to be losing track of his realities. After the moving image the experimenters look at him like he has done something wrong, or has gotten lost, or delved into something selfish.  It is fascinating because we are left to wonder are we watching this moment at the same time as our main character? Is it a memory, or a memory that has yet to come, or a memory that was never made? It could also be an image he created himself. At this point he has made contact with her several times and knows the details of her face, and he might simply be creating this image to stay in the past longer. Finally, there is also the idea he is trying to be lost in the moment. He always talks, moves, and connects with her in still images, if for these few seconds he broke that restriction and began a deeper connection, would the experimenters be able to bring him back if he stayed any longer?

On the whole this leads to an even larger discussion the film promotes: how real is the time travel, and what is reality? If his mind is the only thing moving through time, is it still time travel, does his body move as well, or is his mind moving through time and his consciousness occupying a younger self? We see him connect with the past and future, and at the end he is given the option to join the future with other travelers, but asks instead to be thrown back to the past to be with her. This is where he meets his end. Is he really thrown back into the past, or just his mind? Is his body still in that hammock in the present, and his mind lost in the past? He dies in the past; does that mean his corpse lies dormant in the present? I choose to believe his mind was the only thing traveling through time. At the beginning of the film they speak of how earlier experiments result in madness and death. I believe he was able to stave off madness, but in the end the pressure of the experiment caused his death. I also believe had he gone into the future they would have been able to show him how to stay alive, and on some level he might have known this, but he chose to take the chance that in the past he would have a little more time with her. Perhaps this desire is what cost him his life.

This is the idea I find most appealing and interesting about the film: the idea of devoting your life to the moment of your death. In the very beginning of the film we are giving the ending, we just don’t know it quite yet, and neither does our main character. As we progress through the film, there is the ominous tone that this time travel will be his end. Once he has come back from the future, we know he now just waits to be executed, he had served his purpose. He knew however he would not die there, that it would be at some other time. At one point he realizes that in order for him to be with her in the past, it meant she was dead in the future. Would this paradox not apply to him? In order for him to exist in the past he would have to be dead in the future? If that is so then for him to exist in the future, does that mean he his deceased in the present? Tie travel is certainly disturbing to think about, and that may be why it results in madness or death in the film. This also makes the viewer wonder about the madness they describe in the film; we see the one participant who has gone mad and it seems he can only stare off into the distance. This makes me think that the madness they describe is his mind is stuck in another time. His body may still exist in the present, but he has lost his mind to the past or future, and is unable to be collected from that reality. This itself may not be too far off from what happened to our hero. He devoted his life to experiencing that image. No matter the point in time he wanted to see that image realized. He saw it as a boy, he saw a man die, himself die, but he was distracted by his devotion to this ideal, that he could not see it was his own death he was watching. Perhaps he did realize at the last second, when he saw one of his captors, that everything he had strived for was the moment of his death, and that the image he lived for, would be the last thing he saw before he died. The idea of devoting your life to the moment of your death: it is heroic, poetic, romantic, and noble. It is also cowardly, pathetic, depressing, and sad. It is an idea that invokes anger and rage, confusion and hatred, heartbreak and empathy. It is as complicated and simplistic as the film itself, and that is what makes this a true masterpiece.

From a more film side of things the film is expertly composed. The music used strikes deep and true. While he is traveling we are constantly reminded of his position by the whispering of the captors in his ear. The narrator is flawless. We are left to wonder is he watching and observing, is he re-telling a tale, or is it an autobiography? This is a film that has given me a lot to think about and hopefully other will give it some thought as well. There is a strange connection that exists in the film: time travel is messy, brutal, and leaves many questions; it is something never fully known or explained. One could make the argument that those are similar qualities of love. On a very basic level is this not a great love story? Is love bound by time, or is it something that exists between two people always; surpassing time, life, and death?

The Seventh Seal Discussion

I usually try to go into a film with as little previous knowledge as possible, and I am especially glad I did for The Seventh Seal. I knew it was prominent classic and had been on my watch list for some time, but other than that I tried to keep my knowledge to a minimum. I do this with films because I want the first impressions of a film to be organic and from the film itself, not what other people have told me about the film. I am glad I did this because after watching the film, I was surprised at how personal of a connection was formed between myself and this film. After I watched it, I immediately viewed it again the next day.  It was even more apparent on my second viewing that this was one of the films I would hold close to me because of its strong personal connection. There are films that I watch and I really enjoy, or are memorable, but there are some that create these memories and emotions that form these personal connections and I feel like the film means a little more to me as a person more so than an audience member. With this film all aspects seemed to be speaking to me on a personal level: its religious statements, its thoughts on death, and its ideas on love. As I was watching it seemed that the characters and the dialogue were parts of the director’s personality, his ideas, his questions, his beliefs, disbeliefs, and fears; and after some looking into the film afterwards it was confirmed that indeed Bergman stated this film was very personal to him. This always makes a film more potent, when the director or writer tries to impart, or work through something on the screen as they present it to the audience.  It was clear Bergman was trying to explore, confess, and shed different aspects of these three ideas, and that it what engrossed me into the film from start to finish.

From the first viewing it was clear he had some questions and timidness about his religious stance, and perhaps he was not quite clear on what exactly he believed. The knight is a member of the military and has just come back from a bloody crusade, but he was also acting with the belief that he had been tasked by faith to do so. This not only creates a conflict within the knight, it represents the personal conflict Bergman may have had, but also simply showed the conflict of the time when religion and violence went hand in hand. This is slyly alluded to in the film when the knight is confessing and states he will beat death in chess with a combination of bishop and knight; church and military. The knight is also struggling with his faith and throughout the film he is looking for proof of his faith in any outlet; the woman deemed to have fornicated with the devil, death himself, and within his confessions and private declarations to God. This would seem to symbolize Bergman looking for a sign or something tangible or obtainable, that God does actually exist. However, after watching the film a second time, I began to wonder if Bergman was putting more of himself into the character of the squire. This is a character that has endured the crusades in service of his knight, but does not have the same fears and vacantness of his beliefs. This is the main difference, whatever the squire’s beliefs, he has no fear, trepidation, or dread. He is not ignoring death or religion, but he has released himself from the fear and weight of these constants. It is also important to note, he has reached this stage, but does not force anyone else to this place, he allows the knight to travel his own path, and does not try to force his own state on the knight. So is the squire more representative of Bergman? In a way the character could be a way of telegraphing Bergman’s life. In his childhood he had a strong religious upbringing which he accepted (the squiring serving in the crusades), but in his adulthood he has not only formed his own opinions, but been able to come to terms with those, and be comfortable around the people early on who gave him that religious background, and express to them his new views (the squire sharing but not forcing his opinion on the knight). This is what related to me most personally, not only being able to change and accept within yourself your views on religion, but being able to be open with those from your past who have a different stance. In the end, it is not clear cut; I am sure for Bergman it was a combination of both among other things that I may have not picked up, but perhaps that’s the real answer is that Bergman did not have to put, or could not put, all of himself into one character, and that is part of why the film is so great, the depth and expansiveness of the characters is quite amazing.

Death is a major component in the film, and must have been heavy on Bergman’s mind; part of this I am sure was due to the fact that WWII had only just ended. However, it seems to me that while he was exploring how he felt about death and how it affects us all, I don’t believe fear was a major factor. On some level I think we are all afraid of death, but in the film I don’t think that’s what he was working through or trying to explain. The fear of death is present in some way in all the characters, but it is not the foremost emotion. I think the fascination of the unknown is what drives his thoughts on death. The character of death is covered except for his face so we do not know what his form is under the black garments; in fact we are not sure if that is death’s true form. Death has very little answers in the film, and seems to not know just as much as the knight when it comes to the afterlife.  We are never told how are why death comes when it does, and it may be said that death does not know either, does he simply appear where he needs to be or does he choose his next task? That is part of what makes the film so great, is Bergman allows all the unknowns of death to stay on the screen, and maybe that was done on purpose, to see if any answers revealed themselves after the film was done?  I am unsure if the film does answer any of our questions about death, but it does make the viewer look inward and at the very least ask the questions, and that alone is enough to allow the film to be great so many years later.

Love is not something that seems to be a major talking point on this film, but I think it deserves its due. The love of the family in the film is something I picked up on to be very important. Throughout everything that happens in the film, their love for each other and their son is never shaken. Their love is what helps the knight to realize he cannot avoid death, but he can occupy his time to let the family live on. The love of the family is central to the brightest point in the film, as they sit on the hilltop and eat berries and drink milk. The final scene of the film is centered on their love. As the husband looks out and sees death dancing along with the characters in tow, his wife and child are able to take his attention away from something otherworldly. In the end love is the last not of the film, it ends with bright sunlight, a strong breeze, beautiful music, and a family that loves each other walking forward, their backs turned to death.

This is my first Bergman film and I am hungry to watch many more. I identified strongly with this film in particular and I am looking forward to watching it again later on when I am at different points in my life to see if its impact remains the same, I have a feeling it will. I do not see this as a morbid film, see it as a great exploration, and excursion that goes to uncertain places, and does not provide all the answers. This is my favorite type of film, and one of the hardest to make, but Bergman does it here. The confession scene is now on my list for one of the greatest scenes in film, and so much of this move is able to be better explored upon multiple viewings. If you have not seen it lately take the 96 minutes and go re-watch this timeless classic.

The Thin Red Line

The Thin Red Line-Discussion

                This was the second Terrence Malick film I watched and it immediately resonated with me, and it quickly became one of my all time favorites. There are the two classic bits of information most people know or should know about this film: the first being that this was Malick’s third movie, but was made 20 years after Days of Heaven. The second bit is that it was released the same year as Saving Private Ryan. I say these are important because in his hiatus I believe Malick more deeply refined his style and the results are seen instantly. The film is philosophical for sure, but the direction, lighting, acting, and feeling of the film feel natural and thoughtful. We get the sense that Malick did not rush his next film and in no way does The Thin Red Line feel rushed. I say the second part is important because I feel that lots of people overlooked this film for Saving Private Ryan. I think Saving Private Ryan is an amazing war film which has excellent feeling, direction and acting. However I feel that calling The Thin Red Line a war film is not quite enough. There is far much more to this film, and it reaches to depths most films would not.

The film immediately sets itself apart with its opening scene with the alligator. The simple scene sets the mood for the film and tells us much about the film we are about to watch. We know the film we focus on nature, predators, and it will present and ask more questions than it will answer, a Malick staple for sure. We then begin with our beautiful voice over from Pvt. Witt, played by Jim Caviezel, as he talks about life and his mother’s death he ask questions that go deep, and we are given the beautiful image of a caged bird, and his head against his mother’s chest listening to her heartbeat. This tells us that even though Witt is a loving and free spirit, he is still caged by his fear of death, and his mother is trying to show him that though a heart my stop beating, love survives and continues through and beyond death.

We transition to my favorite scene in the movie and one of the most personal and precious scenes in all of cinema to me. The scene is Witt on a costal island living with the Melanesian peoples. The songs that are sung throughout this part of the film always strike me with their beauty, I have listened to them numerous times, and they are some of the best pieces of choir music I have ever heard. In addition to this we have perfect cinematography as we see Witt living, working, playing, and laughing on the island. The sun is warm and inviting, the water is clear blue, and the island is blanketed with white sand. I do not know if any other scene in film has emulated love and paradise in such a tangible and lovely fashion. I find myself smiling with the characters onscreen, and I feel my eyes tear up from happiness when I watch this scene. It is one of the most powerful moments of the film, and its power only grows with multiple viewings, because we now know what is to follow. After having seen purity, the rest of the film is that much harder to watch, and I believe that is what strengthens our connection to Witt. Throughout the film we remember him in this scene, and we long for that time, we do not want the film to continue, but simply stay in those few minutes.

I often say Malick is honest and sometimes it is hard to bear. I feel as if we are ripped away as the boat comes looking for the two men, if we are being honest we must realize that they cannot stay there and the only thing to happen is to fight the war. This does give us introduction to one of the best character pairs in Malick’s work. Witt and Walsh, played by Sean Penn, are two of the best characters he has written. From their first conversation in the boat, we see how different they are, but we also see there is a connection between them that cannot be denied. They can almost be described as two sides of the same coin. Neither of them want to fight this war, Witt wants to do his part, help heal mean and to help men pass peacefully. He has a spark, as Welsh describes it, that keeps him as a burning light in the war, he has a spirit that cannot be broken. Welsh does not want to fight, but is very honest and direct with his knowledge. He knows what to expect, the death and carnage coming, and that is his curse. They both do not want to be in a war and they both know the ultimate end of war, but both men choose to do their part in different ways. This is where the tension between the two rises, Welsh cannot understand how Witt can live the way he does, and Witt holds no resentment or ill will against Welsh.

I cannot imagine the feeling before going into battle, and I think Malick tires to show, not tell, what it must have been like. We see very different actions and thoughts of the men on the boat from the commanding officers down to the privates. Malick keeps it simple and does not focus too long on one man, giving us the sense that everyone was preparing differently, and somewhere in this scene there is a part that resonates with us, and we can imagine the feeling. The historical accuracy is impressive in the living conditions, uniforms, and the ships themselves. However, it is the little things that are most impressive, for example the close and unnerving shots of the soldiers climbing down the rope nets onto the small boats. Something like this could be shown by a simple shot from another boat, but the camera is right in the thick of it and we can almost feel the net shaking and another man stepping on our fingers by accident. The film is also historically accurate in that when they run off the boats there is no immediate battle, as this was true for many soldiers at Guadalcanal.

The first casualties they find are gut wrenching; this sets the level of realism, but is also our first stark contrast to the beauty we have seen previously. The most harrowing part of the scene is not the brutality, but the look on the soldier’s faces and their reactions to the sight and smell of death. We can easy tell this is the first time some of them have been in battle.  IN one of the following scenes Witt is caring for and comforting wounded soldiers. In voice over we hear him talk of man’s shared soul, and we think of the wounds on mans soul from war. While the men wash the stretchers in the river, the blood turns the river red, and we think of how war turns mans soul red during war, and that the blood of a few men affect all men.

Before the inevitable battle comes, we get the almost sickening image of Capt. Staros praying. The emotion in his face is indescribable, one of the best scenes of acting I have ever seen. The man portrays perfectly the burden of being responsible for so many lives when heading into a battle, where he knows not all of them will come back alive. The introduction to the battle is simply breathtaking. There is a green reaching field, flowing with the wind, and slowly the shadow hovering over the field is overtaken by gentle sunlight. It is a marvelous image, and a dreamlike way to signify that the cover has been lifted, and the fighting has begun. This is a great example of a Malick tool to contrast beauty and violence or to have them be side by side as we see men shot and blown to pieces. It becomes even more personal during the, “I blew my butt off!” scene. The comedy of this moment is extremely short lived as the man goes through levels of anger, grief, rage, and fear while he slowly passes away. The moment is nearly hyper-realistic to the point we do not want to watch it continue, and just at that point Witt comes into the scene to comfort and guide the man through death. His presence on the screen provides the viewer some comfort in the scene as well when he describes the action the man took to save the rest of the men from being hit by the grenade.

The battle goes on and we soldiers crack from the experience, many deaths, and even an act of courage, or is it pity, as Welsh take morphine to a dying young soldier. This all builds to the scene where Staros refuses Lt. Col. Tall’s order for a direct assault. For all the screaming and fire coming from Tall, with exceptional energy from Nick Nolte, Staros maintains his position, and this had me thinking of Paths of Glory as I watched the scene play out. There is another important scene with Fife where a young soldier is dying and asks to speak with him. The cries and whimpering and tears as the young man passes are chilling, and we see death from his perspective; sunlight coming through the canopy, the face and warm eyes of Fife, and a river and jungle almost in silent reverence, like nature is stopping to let him pass. When he finally goes the music is so piercing the sensation arises that nature is crying, along with man’s collective soul.

Before the men give the final push to take the machine gun nests, there is a scene where Bell lies in the grass and dreams of his wife. The images of the two people together go far beyond beautiful; Malick has a true talent for displaying love in a physical image and motions. The two seem to flow together, they are felt as one presence, and we get the sense from their expressions that each one is constantly amazed by the existence of the other. Following this we are not given much time before there is the assault on the nest, which is severely brutal because it is close quarters combat and full of tension because there are only a handful of men in the fight. The aftermath is the focal point though; we see how both sides of the conflict react. There are equal and opposite reactions on both sides, revealing that victory in war, is a detriment in life. We are not really given the sense of a celebration for victory, we are not even given the simple satisfaction of the feeling that comes from completing a job, there is simply death and destruction encompassing both armies.

It is jarring as Tall walks through the scared landscape laughing and celebrating his victory, because it is only his victory. He waited for his war and he would not give up the opportunity to prove himself; no matter the cost. There is an image that lingers onscreen just long enough to dig in; a naked child burnt, surrounded by the scorched forest; this further imposes the notion that as nature is harmed, so is man’s soul being marred. Soon after this Witt is focused on the face of a dead Japanese soldier, which is surrounded by dirt and ash so that the viewer cannot make out the full features of his face. As he stares the camera is focused and unflinching, staying direct on the frozen face for an extended period. We hear in voice over Bell ask questions on the righteousness of God, a soul’s place in death, and whether judgment is placed on our life or our death. Even with Witt present in the frame we get no comfort from him, the image has too much weight, and we find ourselves asking the same questions.

The last thing left is the final raid on the Japanese camp. Prior to this we get the few shots of both sides fixing bayonets and getting ready for close combat. There is a thick fog, or possibly smoke, shrouding the field on both sides, perhaps a metaphor for how blinding war is, which makes the tension of battle even more alarming. When the battle does start it is shown with quick camera cuts, and bayonets gouging flesh, rifle bets cracking skulls, and bullets tearing through men at close range. As the battle for the camp continues the scene becomes more unsettling as victory draws closer because the only thing gained is death. Sometimes Malick’s honesty is hard to take, this is particularly true as a soldier lies on a pile of dead Japanese soldiers and looks over there corpses for gold teeth. He taunts one soldier on the verge of death, describing the horrors he will perform once he dies. He does not shy away the camera as the soldier turns over a body and pulls out his tool to remove a tooth, and the camera does not look away as we slowly see the Japanese soldier pass, surrounded by his fallen countrymen.

The next important scene involves Tall relieving Staros of duty, explaining he is just not cut out for the front lines of war. Malick likes the poignancy of contrast, and after Tall’s lecture to Staros we see him sit and take in the horror around him, and perhaps he is cold and calculated about war and the loss of life, but we can see the toll war takes on a man’s soul does not escape him. At points in the film Tall may have been the, “bad guy” and we may have rooted against him, but in this one vulnerable scene all we feel is sorrow, and Nolte does an impressive job of displaying the expression of a deep and sharp inner pain. We get to see Staros say goodbye to his men, and he does not have regret about leaving them, he is honest, glad to be leaving the theater of war, but his love and compassion for his men is unchanged. This is followed by one of the saddest scenes as Bell reads a letter from his wife, asking for a divorce. This is even made harder by the fact that the film has yet to ease up, it is unrelenting in its honest brutality, and one of the few escapes were Bell’s dreams of his love, and now that is taken as well.

The film’s most difficult scene is Witt’s death. I cry almost every time I watch the scene even though it is foreshadowed from the very beginning of the film when he talks of the way in which his mother faced death with courage. I know it is coming but I feel the film creates such a connection to Witt, he provides some small comfort in the darkest moments of the film. It could not happen any other way, that is the reality of the film, and more importantly it is the reality of war. As a teary eyed Welsh stands over the grave of Witt, he says, “Where’s your spark now.” This changes the mood of the film and Welsh. The spark in Witt was the thing that Welsh held onto, and with him gone even though the fighting is over, the film is more dismal and depressing than ever before. We hear Welsh in voice over talking about all a man can do in war is find something and make it his island, this is what Witt did literally and figuratively, and Witt was Welsh’s island so with him gone he has nothing left. The final image of the film; a single reed, beside a rock, in a low shore next to the water sums up the film perfectly. It shows the beauty of nature, reminds us of Witt and Welsh, and references the earlier images that were associated with man’s collective soul.

Each person probably will and should feel differently about this movie. It is a war movie. In certain aspects it is more and less than a war movie. For me the main thing I take away is that it raises more questions than it answers, the importance of that is that I believe the intent is for the viewer to answer these questions. While watching and experiencing this film it should creates questions and memories that we focus on and consider well after we are done watching. The film leaves an impression that is difficult to shake, and it inspires questions in each person that they may not have discovered the answer to yet themselves. Perhaps that is why it is more than the average war film, it causes us to face a part of war that is more difficult than the physical ugliness; it tries to make us think on and consider the impact of war on nature, humanity, religion, and the souls of the individual as well as mans collective soul.

Days of Heaven

Days of Heaven- Discussion

                This was my first Terrence Malick film, and one of my first purchases with the criterion collection.  This is the film that got me started into art house films, indie films, foreign language films, and everything besides the main Hollywood flow. Not to say I don’t like the things coming out of Hollywood, ill grab pizza and beer with a “B” action movie any day, or go to see the latest from the Hollywood big shots and most famous, but this helped me to discover the attraction I have to the films outside the norm. The main thing that stuck with me was all of Malick’s shots of wildlife and nature, his unusual use of voice over, his philosophical nature, and his minimalist story and dialogue; basically, all of his trademarks.  I remember watching it for the first time and almost finding myself giddy, a part of me realized this was most likely the best film I had seen up to that point in my life, and that this was a new side of myself that I could not wait to explore further. Days of Heaven centers around a farm and Linda. The farm is not only beautiful and remote, but the background for our characters. Linda is the main character and we see the story through her eyes, and it is her voice that guides us in the voice over. Guides us not in following the story or giving information, but helps to guide us in figuring out who she is and how she is interpreting the world. This is a film that is filled with beauty, personality, and one that has little dialogue because the characters and settings speak for themselves.

The opening credits set the viewer up as to how to watch the film. They are shown over black and white photos of Chicago in the time period. The important thing to note is the photos focus on the faces of people. That is what he chooses to show us, we try and see the emotion of the time, the happiness and heartache. The pictures are full of lives lived, stories told, and people loved. The focus is not on the setting, not providing background, but showing people, emotion, and life.

The film begins with Bill working in the mill, who is expertly played by Richard Gere giving an all time minimalist performance. Although we do not hear what is going on we are told many things about Bill: he is hot headed, confrontational, and quick to act. The choice to introduce us to Bill in a mill is smart because they share very similar qualities. From there we get the beginning of Linda’s voice over during a scene where Bill is talking to Abby. The voice over of Linda Manz is considered to be one of those love it or hate it type things, I never understood why someone would dislike her voice work. I think it fits the film well, and is done as honestly as the character is meant to be presented; often time I find her voice helps to drive home what the character is saying. The shot of Bill and Abby is great use of natural light to show the shadowy nature of their relationship, the dark nature of Bill, and the passive, and light nature of Abby.

The next major scene which I call the journey, is one of my favorite Malick scenes of all time. The music is invigorating, the scenery is just blissfully beautiful, and her voice over is peaceful and haunting all at once. The first shots of the house show how perfect it fits into the film. This house is isolated and alone, a castle on a hilltop, and the king sits in his castle and looks over his claim, not to be disturbed. It becomes a important part of the story, it is present during lots of scenes of confrontation, and disagreement among characters; it represents The Farmer’s separation from the field hands, and is eventually a vehicle for separation among other characters. After the house we sill Bill in the fields, alone, with back to back shots of wildlife of all kinds, this again is one of Malick’s tools being used to show Bill taking in his surroundings, assessing his situation, and sizing things up so to speak. This is followed by Linda, who both in conversation with her new friend and in voice over is as honest and free with her thoughts and questions as any young girl.

This can where some people get lost with Malick: the many shots of wildlife and nature, they may seem out of place or lack importance to some. The easiest association is association. They are there to try and depict the setting for what it is. They are there to further immerse the view in the film. On the surface they are just pretty to look at, but also when you see a rabbit running or a pheasant take flight do you not usually stop to look at the creature. I think in Malick’s honesty he realizes we stop to notice little things throughout the day and his characters do this as well. Also, I believe he creates in most of his films a strong relationship with nature, which functions differently in each film. In days of heaven, nature is associated with livelihood. The wheat provides food and work, the wildlife we see is living right next to the field hands, and just as the locust come into conflict with the wheat, characters will come into conflict with one another. In the end, the shots have weight and meaning, Malick however does not always come right out and explain their connection to the film.

We see them live on the farm for a while and we get to the scene where the doctor tells The Farmer that he does not have long to live. This not only foreshadows the film’s ending, but proves as a catalyst and reasoning for Bills later actions. We see The Farmer take an interest in Abby, as well as the grueling part of working on the farm. It is shown as long and tiring work, and Abby is starting to become weary. We also see many more shots of Bill on screen without Abby. During all of this we have Linda’s voice over, which is great because it lets us into what she is seeing. Most of the film is told and seen from her point of view, this means she becomes the most accessible character, but it also means that like her, we see the relationship between Bill, Abby, and The Farmer as distant, foreign, and confusing.  This leads us into a scene with Bill and Abby in the river, discussing staying at the farm, presumably to con The Farmer of his possessions. The entire time the actors are moving as is the camera. This signifies that the idea of staying is as unsettling as the camera, and both characters are not fully committed and trusting of their decisions.

When we see them at the bonfire we see everyone is dancing and moving, but Bill is standing perfectly still. He sees The Farmer and Abby dancing together, they have decided to stay, and he can do nothing but walk away. This is another great example of Malick using only natural light. He uses the fire to light the characters, but just as much uses the dark and shadow to cover characters. When we see Linda in the dirt and hear her say, “I could be a mud doctor,” we get more shots of her in the dirt, and shots of the surrounding natural beauty. We gather the idea that this is her comfort zone; that she is direct with nature and it is direct with her. After this we see her confront Abby about their decision to stay, and the answer is one that is indirect and in a sense does not answer the question.  Putting these back to back, as Malick likes to do, shows Abby prefers the simple and direct side of nature versus the confusing and indirect ways of the adults in her life.

We get another great group of scenes that have barely any dialogue, and nothing really eventful happens, but it shows us the little moments in the lives of these characters. We see Bill alone with Abby fawning over her, the four of them playing baseball, The Farmer and Bill having a talk, and The Farmer and Abby alone where he tells her he loves her. These are intimate moments between characters, and in theory they could all be seen through the eye of Linda and that’s how they are presented. This shows the complex nature of the relationship between the three adults, and it also may show how Linda feels as though they are self focused, or as if she is a secondary player.

One of the best scenes where Richard Gere shines through is when he is talking to Abby in the bunk house. In the start he is talking about how the secret is between himself and Abby and that is all that matters, that they know the truth and that they love each other. After he hears that The Farmer said he loves her he flips so abruptly to hating the idea that she looks as though she has no grounds to judge which side of Bill is true. Gere is just perfect in this scene, constantly moving and repositioning himself, placing his eyes in very specific directions, looking at Abby then adverting his gaze; his small and simple mannerisms add huge meaning to the fullness of this short scene.

Soon after the wedding, we see Abby smiling in lots of little moment scenes the major importance here is that Bill is almost entirely absent from these scenes, showing the beginning of troubled waters. Which when Bill comes to visit Abby in the night they go to the river together, this shows that the current or flow is taking her away. This is physically shown when Bill drops the glass and she says to just leave it. Abby is not holding onto Bill and is no longer a part of his plans, she is flowing with the river, and he will be left at the bottom. However The Farmer has his suspicions, even if he will not accept them, this comes to the front when he sends his foreman away after he brings up the strange relationship between Bill and Abby. The Farmer is often shown with the wind, he constantly perches himself on top of the house with his wind vein. After his confrontation with the farm hand, he goes to Abby and we see him with her, followed by views of the river and grass being shaken by the wind. He has constantly looked to the wind and this foreshadows the end of the film.

The intense hunting scene speaks for itself far better than anything I could have so I will leave it alone. The entrance of the flying circus is the way in which Bill now sees a way out. Malick in later films often uses birds in flight to help symbolize a characters free spirit or desire to get away, he the circus symbolizes this but also provides the physical means to an end. The choice for it to be a circus is also a nice little detail, since the three are basically a living circus with their confused and intimate relationships. Additionally, Linda’s voice over about snakes eating into people is perfectly placed as Bill finally leaves, both he and The Farmer can no longer stand the situation. The shot of the seed growing is very important and just plain cool to see. It symbolizes that Abby and The Farmer are growing together, and it shows the passage of time in a unique way. This period all ends with the return of Bill.

I am not sure if The Farmer thought he had won over Abby, or thought in Bill’s travels Bill had moved on, or if he simply trusted Bill and Abby again, but I find it interesting he is so shocked when he sees the kiss between Bill and Abby. Also, once again The Farmer is next to the wind vein when he witnesses the act, it is almost as if he was comforted and looked for direction in the wind, and in the end he felt more betrayed by that fact than by Abby. It is all downhill from this point on, symbolized by the locust overcoming the farm. This is one of my favorite shots in all of cinema, the silhouettes of the men in the field as the locusts descend down in droves. The Farmer tries to release his anger on the locust exhausting all resources to drive them out, and when he sees Bill he is beyond restraint and must confront his enemy. It is poetic how The Farmer views Bill as an enemy, and probably blamed him for the locust and everything bad that had happened, and it is in his rage against Bill that starts the fire, which destroys almost everything. The fire is an excellent use of natural light, but it symbolizes how The Farmers rage has become all consuming and is going to destroy much before it is quenched.

After the fire there is a purely haunting shot of the house, shrouded in the smoke and ash of the fire, and we know the castle has fallen and the king has left his throne. The Farmer’s death could not happen any other way. He has Bill dead to rights, but due to his rage cannot just shoot him, he needs the physical brutality of a close death, and in this rage Bill strikes quick and hard, literally at his heart. We quickly transition to the original trio leaving the farm and getting a boat. We are given no time to grieve The Farmer. As the boat goes down the river we see from what we perceive as Linda’s perspective, shots of fires and people, the light on the water, the natural setting of a flowing river. Her voice over is once again perfect as she talks about the angel and devil in each person. From this we gather that the death of The Farmer is not something that haunted her, she is much more interested in the river and the new adventure, and forgives her brother because she knows two sides of him.

It is no surprise that Bill dies, shot in the back, in a river. It was foreshadowed and symbolized earlier in the film. The choice to have the shot of him hitting the water be silent, suggests it was as quick as Bill himself. He was quick to act, get angry, love, leave, and kill and in his death the act was represented as quick as was his nature.  The last scene in the film of Linda walking down the tracks with her friend always makes me a bit sad. This image and her voice over give us the sense that she likes her friend but knows that like everyone in her life, they have limited time together. She has become accustomed to the people in her life not being permanent, and this does not sadden her or even harden her against people it is something she simply accepts. We know this to be true because we have seen the events mostly through her eyes, and know how honestly she views things, and she honestly just accepts that this is the way the world works.

Days of Heaven is my second favorite Malick film only after The Tree of Life. It has a feeling and beauty to its presentation that few other films have come close to, and the main characters are unforgettable. A big part of this film is the cinematography and that is due to the great Nestor Almendros who has done a brilliant job. In the end of every viewing I leave with a saddened feeling, but I cannot help but enjoy every second of this film. In a way this may be the hardest to write about it because the film is so engrossing that it speaks for itself with an intensity I cannot match. This I do believe is an improvement over Badlands, simply because in his sophomore effort Malick improves on every level and we get to see his unique and beautiful style in full force.

Badlands

Badlands-Discussion

                This film was my fourth exposure to the director Terrence Malick. I can only imagine my amazement if I had seen this film without any previous knowledge of Malick in 1973. Badlands is such a great film to watch because it feels as though all is going well for Malick’s debut. He has a great cast, production, music, and story that allow him to introduce us to his soon to be signature style. This movie slowly breaks us into Malick, it is not full Malick as in The Tree of Life or Thin Red Line, but it is undoubtedly his work. This I believe is the easiest film of his to watch, partly due to Martin Sheen, because it deals with a character we do not understand, which lends itself well to Malick’s philosophical nature, and his style of choosing images and voice over versus action and heavy dialogue. This may be Malick’s first film, but it is no less great than any of his other works.

He opens Badlands with voice over from Sissy Spacek, something that Malick uses in every film. I believe his use of voice over is not to take the easy way out, but to gives us insight to what is truly un-seeable, the inner existence of a person. Malick chooses to focus heavily on just a few characters in his films, this I believe is a tool to try and truly see the emotions and intricacies of a person, and through voice over he is letting us be more intimate with these characters than any other director. In the opening we are given voice over and a few choice shots explaining the relationship between Holly and her father, which we can tell is not the most tight knit relationship, and we get the sense her mother’s death was the cause.

Our introduction to Kit becomes more memorable as we watch the film though. His constant charisma and charm is unparalleled, and he is a free spirit if there ever was one. When Kit talks to Holly we see him sharpen and become more focused, as if he wants to maintain her attention, or perhaps he is trying to keep himself interested in her? Malick likes to show in all films several images in group or back to back and have them relate to one another. We see this when Holly throws out her sick fish she is uneasy and disturbed by it; she throws it out because it is weak, she loses interest and needs to distance herself from the thing. This is followed by a scene of Kit walking over and starring at a dead cow. He shows wonder an intrigue at the sight before him. When he walks over the cow he looks around seemingly to see if anyone caught him, but really he is looking around to say come over here and look at this! There is something about the death of a living thing that was mystifying to kit, but I also believe he enjoys the simplicity of the fact that we are alive or dead, it is not complicated beyond that.

The relationship between the two characters is certainly not normal, but still the realities of the relationship are addressed. The sex scene, if you want to call it that, is handled as quickly, ineffectually, and awkwardly as it must have been between the two characters. We know from his latter work that Malick can create scenes that ache beauty, so this was done deliberately. This does not mean that Kit and Holly were not in love, but for them it was a love that did not manifest itself physically so the act seemed out of place.  The scenes lack of importance to Holly is only compounded by her age and lack of understanding of the expression. Afterwards Kit suggests crushing their hands with a rock, and Holly points out that he does not listen. This alludes to Kit always having something to say, but is this due to his perception of people, that people are always talking and forgetting the important things? As the film progresses we get the greater feeling he constantly talks for appearances sake; he sees people constantly talking with little of it having meaning. So we sense that to him this act would have far more meaning than anything the two could say to each other, even at such an intimate moment.

Next, we get one of the best calm before the storm moments ever on film, due to two amazing actors. The conversation between Kit and Holly’s father, Martin Sheen and Warren Oates respectively, is between two characters with strong, unwavering personalities but who play their cards close to the chest and remain quite polite to each other. This scene takes place right before Kit kills him in his own house, and as they are on the stairs confronting each other it almost seems like a continuation of the conversation at the billboard. After the shots are fired and the father falls dead Kit walks around closing doors, almost trying to contain the moment, the air in the room, trying to keep it close to him for as long as possible. Harshly we are reminded of Holly’s youth and innocence as we get a full shot of her in a school dress before she kneels beside the body, quietly whispering, “Daddy, it’s Holly.”  A few moments after Kit leaves we get exceptional imagery of two boys on the side walk, one motioning for the other to join him in play, then ultimately joining the second boy and bringing the play to him; Kit has just brought the play to Holly.

Another Malick trademark we see form here is his often back to back contrast of beauty and violence, and more often he lets them share the scene together. The example here is the fire. It starts with Kit’s violent covering of the house with gasoline, and as the fire burns we are shown faces of dolls, the father’s body, colorful feathers shrivel, and an almost angelic music plays. The fire destroys and reforms, it is haunting yet beautiful. Jointly another Malick trademark is his use of natural lighting, so the fire is the only source of light in the scene which gives a ghostly glow to the frame.

As we see the two flee in the car together there are careful shots of each of their faces, and their expressions and eyes are perfect; tired and not ready for the adventure ahead. We are transitioned by steady shots of a river, twigs in dew, beetles crawling, and we see Kit and Holly rejuvenated building their world in the forest together. The music is important as we see little scenes of them living together in the woods, and hear snippets of Holly in conversation with Kit. The music contains the youth of Holly, spirit and confidence of Kit, and the innocence and wonder of them both.

This whole sequence is not very long, but it is potent, so when the men invade their camp we almost feel for Kit as he defends himself and Holly, and I say almost because he shoots one in the back and is so very nonchalant about killing them men, we do not forget his lost and dangerous side. As such, Kit may just be as confused by the concept of a friend as he is with Cato’s death. He goes to the shack seeking some sort of refuge, or temporary relief, and Cato runs, though we may never know why, and immediately we see in Kits face he is intrigued and bewildered as Cato is dying. It is as if he can barely understand himself or his own actions, visually we see this as he walks around the trailer cussing and kicking himself, and we wonder if he lacks compassion as he tells Holly to comfort Cato, or maybe he is so focused on himself and what he has done that trying to talk to Cato would be too much for him in that moment.

Tension builds in the home of the Rich man the two hide out in for a few hours. Here we begin to see small signs of Holly separation from Kit. After this we are presented with more of Malick’s back to back shot style. We see kit in the dessert with his gun, wildlife running around, and a huge thunderstorm across the plain. These are all natural things in their natural elements. As they drive across the vast dessert a small act carries immense weight. We start to see more and more signs of Holly trying to separate herself from kit. This comes full circle when we see Kit stop to burry some possessions in the dirt. He knows that the gap is widening and Holly lacks his conviction, but a part of him cannot let go, so he takes time to try and preserve what they had, to try and contain the memory.

This is followed soon by a scene where they dance in the dark and headlights of the car. Nat King Cole is singing a song about misunderstood love, and we see the darkness surround them, the light barely visible. When we are presented Kit he looks caught in the moment, connecting with the music and lyrics, conversely we see Holly who simply looks as though she is going through the motions. In her voice over afterwards this is confirms when she speaks of Kit falling from his place on high. A fall is exactly what it is; as they are being chased by helicopter Holly finally says no to Kit and soon after we see him give up the chase and surrender, and the circle completes as he builds a rock shrine. This shows that nothing he could say or the police could say would be as important as the spot of that rock shrine, that is where Kit chose his fate, he knows where the road ahead leads from that specific point.

That in a sense is the end of the film, because it is the end of their journey together and where Kit surrenders to society. Everything afterwards is more of an epilogue. Malick has a habit of asking more questions than he answers, which is just as true in Badlands. We never really get an answer to why Kit was who he was, or did the things he did. We only get glimpses of his charm and personality, small views of his will and violence, and in the end only parts of a full person. In truth, is that not how we see people we do not understand? We focus in on the actions and evils of a person, and do not look at the whole being. This is not to give violent and murderous people a free pass, but maybe to simply say that like Holly, we should give them a chance just like everyone. That all people deserve the chance and intimacy of another; even if at the end you still do not fully understand each other, you still have shared memories and experiences together. Is that in itself part of being human, sharing time and experiences together?

Like all Malick films there is more to be discussed and talked about than any single writing or conversation could contain. After watching this again, the thing that really stands out at the end is that Holly chooses to spend time with Kit, and that we saw him from her point of view, which is important, because like Holly we are a long way from fully knowing and understanding Kit, and I believe that translates to most people. That a person’s actions do not fully define them, and that maybe we owe it to ourselves and each other to try and become close to the people we meet in life, and expect not to completely understand them, and in the end being at peace with that knowledge.

Heaven’s Gate Discussion

Heaven’s Gate

Once again this is my discussion of the film and contains spoilers and assumes you have seen the film before reading this.

Michael Cimino’s film received tons of controversy while it was being made, and even more once it was released. I read about the financial and critical burden this film underwent upon its release and it is a very interesting story and one fans of the film should look into; however I would prefer to focus on the film itself simply because there is no need to re-write history, the real life events surrounding the film have been covered. I knew very little going into this film and I was very pleasantly surprised. This is a film worth watching, this is a story the viewer wants to be a part of, and the images captured in this film truly show the raw beauty of America.

Skipping the prologue for now, this film starts out and never lets you forget its beautiful setting. The images of the undisturbed countryside are just encapsulating. The air itself seems crisper and more authentic in this film, the grass grows greener, and the sky is the very essence of blue; the beauty may be unmatched by most other films. Part of me believes I could watch a majority of this movie silent, because even while town hall meetings, fights, wars, and even prostitution are occurring it is all set in the real location of the untouched countryside.

The prologue of this film had me fooled at first. The streets of Europe, the graduation procession, and the speeches all inspired the hope and courage that comes with reaching such a milestone. It had me believing this was the start of these promising young people’s extraordinary lives. However, a few specific shots changed all of that and set the mood for the rest of the film. The first subtle indicators were the mannerisms of Kristofferson and Hurt, both who give exceptional performances, at the graduation ceremony. They do not give much away but if you look closely their uneasiness and uncertainty can be seen. The main shot in the prologue is one in where the camera focuses on the light coming through the windows during the graduation ceremony. I am unsure how they achieved this specific cinematic feat but the color and way in which the light shines through has a looming and melancholy feeling. As the light shone through I had this undeniable feeling that the movie was going to ultimately be a dark and melancholy journey. I am a firm believer that lighting is an integral and paramount part in a film, and this one scene helped set me up for the whole film.

Cimino did an exceptional job casting this movie with the main characters, but his ability to make the extras an important part of this film is just astonishing. I think the extras, better yet supporting cast, help raise this film to new heights. I read Cimino received much disdain for his treatment and hiring/firing of extras on a day to day basis, but they do bring this film to a fully immersive experience. Right off the bat when Kristofferson steps of the train and is in a deluge of people in town, you can sense his uneasiness. He does not hold one person above another, as we see multiple times throughout the film, but we can tell the number of people and types of people surrounding him make him very unsettled. I think it is very appropriate he prefers wide open ranges, and friends himself with whores, immigrants, and bar owners; this linking back to the prologue when we see his uneasiness being in a big city surrounded by upper class people.

I believe the saddest part of this film is Averill and Watson’s relationship. There were so many people Averill did not align himself with, and even those he may have called his friends had shaky friendships held together with booze, death, lack of the same spoken language, and women. Part of what makes their love so sad is that he truly settled with Watson. I believe while with her we can see his character unmoving, or unwavering, at last able to be still and be at peace with the person next to him. It was a hard life back then and the people were just as hard and ruthless, which I believe is why he loved his open landscape back yard, he could hold onto the sight and forget about the progressing and forward moving America, and forget about the European background he came from. Similarly while with Watson he could forget about all the people in towns, and people of wealth or higher class that saw the openness as not a way of life, but a financial opportunity.

Ultimately I believe that is why he decided to fight in the war, this was the life he loved, and he knew the people out their bleeding on the battlefield, the supposedly lesser immigrants, saw this as a source of life, love, and happiness. It was this notion that drove the people to stand up for themselves, and I believe the character of Averill embodied the protection of that notion. Like many protectors in great stories, he does not find solace, and ultimately his is the saddest story of all. When we see him in the epilogue with the woman from his past life, it is almost as if he is drowning. In the cabin with her he is choking and fighting for air; when he comes to the deck of the boat he is coming up for air to take in the beauty of the evening sunset. His expensive clothes, lifestyle, and woman are all weights holding him under the water. The character of Watson gave him the freedom to loose his burdens and swim weightlessly in the openness of America, but sadly Watson does not survive and just as in the moment when she died he would never be the same, his America would never be the same.

While this film is overtly melancholic, it has moments of intense humor, and is graced by exceptional performances and direction.  I had the pleasure of watching the recently released criterion edition directors cut which is just over 3 ½ hours, part of me really wants to see the 5 hour version Cimino was made to cut after showing it to studio executives, I can only imagine it better resonated the beauty and sadness of this epic story.