About Chocolate Parfaits

Zéro de Conduite

I don’t think anybody I know watches Vigo’s movies. He only made three films really, one of which is a documentary I haven’t seen. The last film is “L’Atalante”, a movie which I thought was beautiful and enjoyable, yet totally overrated. I am a little scared of these critic favorites sometimes, and Vigo’s movies are perfect examples of that.

“Zéro de Conduite” would probably have been much better if it wasn’t so damn highly rated as well. When critics write about it, they have a strong tendency to use the term ‘magic’, and if magic is supposed to explain these movies, then I am not surprised why Gorp or Shii have never touched them before. There is nothing really remarkable about these films, apart from their pleasant 30s French style.

In many aspects, I think that “Zéro de Conduite” is at least as beautiful as “L’Atalante”. Ironically, I recognize Truffaut’s 400 Coups in this, and the immensely amusing and ridiculous adults in the film especially make me think of “Amarcord”. Comedies on boys in boarding schools should have become a genre of their own, but of course now it is too late since this extreme form of education has long disappeared from the world. But the education system today, especially the French one, still has traces of this tradition, and I have a faiblesse for these stories. It is quite refreshing to watch this film and its mischievous children.

I also like how Vigo made his movies on the cheap (another of my weaknesses) because his movies do not look cheap. The black and white still looks elegant, and his cinematography is rough but top-notch. His camera angles are perfect, and one must give him credit for that.

Apart from that, these are 44 minutes well-spent. It is an incredible playful film and I don’t think I have seen anything like this, but the slightly confusing plotline makes it hard for you to relate to any of the characters. As a result, I have always felt like I am watching the film like a circus spectacle, albeit a nice one.

Utopia

Welcome to the newest instance of films I am watching because Gorp told me to. Lately one must apply a little force for me to watch things – how else am I supposed to see all these things which are lying around on my computer? I promise myself to only get a Netflix or Hulu account if I have seen all the films on the Monolith. :D Maybe Pixelmatsch and I need to allocate some 7 hours to go through Satantango after all, ha ha ha. Otherwise we will never see it.

“Utopia” is a very random choice. I was bored in some sense (or rather I really, really did not want to work) and I was alone in something that practically looks like a hotel apartment without internet. It was the perfect stage to be watching “Utopia”, a 3 hour long marathon which I normally cannot sit through. But just like “Ai no Mukidashi” is worth every second of its 4 hour run, “Utopia” is worth every second of those 3 hours… except for the first few minutes maybe. For some reason the film begins with a very, very long shot which made me wonder if I can sit through that. But afterwards, the disturbing happenings in the film worked like a charm.

As much as you might expect from a super obscure old German film, “Utopia” is certainly not one of those politically inspired arthouse films with unbearably long pacing. The unbearable parts entirely comes from the story itself. I don’t think I have seen so much violence before, even if the violence is not shown with any bloodshed. Somebody compared this to “No Exit”, where the characters are unable to go through the exit. I don’t quite like the comparison because “No Exit” is a heavily psychological piece, and people in the story are very French in how their hatred for each other is deeply passionate. “Utopia” is not passionate at all, it is rather a film of cold domination in which the characters cannot escape their own hell for completely different reasons than passion.

I read that Shahid-Saless knew about brothels in Berlin, and that he studied them for the film. I have never frequented such an establishment, but I feel like I know more about humans to get the feeling that, just like “No Exit”, “Utopia” is disturbingly real. An (obviously male) friend recently postulated that women try to control men. Now, Fassbinder might agree with that, but I don’t really, because from what I see, it is much more often the other way around. But “Utopia” is not primarily gender-specific. Domination, obsession and being psychologically crushed can happen in any circumstances, and the setting of “Utopia” allows them to exploit it. Amongst all of them, the most fascinating character is clearly the pimp who might feel like the clichéd character who is unable to love himself nor others :D But no matter why he is the way he is (the film does not tell you anything after all), it is much more interesting to observe his behavior. The way he just randomly sleeps with some of his women, gets angry about any stupid thing and just simply the way he talks to them – it feels so damn real. At the same time I agree that Shahid-Saless conceived him as some sort of samurai character. He clearly acts that way because he cannot help himself, and his elegant demeanor and fairly good looks make it possible for you to sympathize with him in some sense, despite all the brutality. It makes it understandable why at least two of the women had some sort of romantic feelings for him, if not more than that.

On a side note, I think the pimp also looks a little bit like Pixelmatsch’s best friend. But don’t ever tell him that. It’s probably the most horrible role you could possibly be associated with. But the guy is a really good actor!

I am a little disturbed at some of the synopses or interpretations floating around on the internet. Unfortunately I cannot find them now. One says the film is about “lust and desire” (lolwhat?), another says the women all believe they are the man’s true love (oh God). I am quite appalled at that. Did these people simply not watch the movie?

To me, the film was rather a mix of Jeanne Dielmann and, strangely enough, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (incredible depression and some sort of melancholy?) than Jeanne Dielmann x Salo. “Utopia” is not a political movie unlike Salo, it is a portrait of humanity like Chinese Bookie, with a lonesome pimp as main character, except that one feels love and the other one doesn’t. All of them are absolutely unwatchable films I could never recommend to anyone, but which I have loved. I think these films tell us a little more about ourselves, and such films are rare and precious.

L’année dernière à Marienbad

Currently, I appear to be in a Gorp phase. Earlier this morning I started watching Agora and was quite disenchanted with it. It might be better than your average action battle CG period piece, but despite a few beautiful shots (and a beautiful Movies in Frames post which inspired me to look into the film) I cannot get into the film. The main character, while beautiful, appears absolutely boring, and her suitors are not much more than horny. Ever since Naoki Urasawa’s manga, I have become bored with the perfect, sophisticated and smart woman – who has absolutely no interest in sex. It might be a special thing for Hollywood and lead to more interesting plots, but Agora bored me. It might be a better modern Hollywood film, but it’s a Hollywood film and to me, it is therefore almost as unwatchable as, say, Troy. (I never saw that one, by the way.)

Compare that to “L’année dernière à Marienbad”. I absolutely loved the movie. It is an utterly ‘boring’ film, yet to me it looks like the best piece of ennui I have ever seen in my life. The characters have nothing to do, so they engage in boring conversation, boring games and probably also boring affairs. But while I disliked the mix of reality and imagination in “Providence”, I thought it was perfectly enough to keep my eyes peeled to the screen in “Marienbad”. Maybe it’s because Nymphenburg is just so damn beautiful and the film has so many visual details which I absolutely love. Since I have visited so many of them, I have a tendency to get bored when visiting castles and palaces – period rooms, ugh – but what makes “Marienbad” so great is the way they are shot. The focus on one particular statue, the way the camera glides through the rooms, and the black and white which makes every palace like that appear more elegant because it focuses on form rather than the tacky color these rooms typically come with.

In terms of their lovestory, I don’t have a strong desire the interpret it. Most of the interpretation are utterly useless. “He is her psychiatrist” or “it was all in his/her imagination” are the better ones. When I read theories about “virtual reality” and “parallel universe” or “Marienbad is hell” or just “dude is lying” – it just makes me cringe. There are other interpretations where the interpretation itself is even more vague than the film itself. What in the world. Amongst all of these, my favorite is the “Der Tod und das Mädchen” interpretation. It makes sense to me and ties into the many literary and cultural references of the story itself. At the same time, I would like to see Marienbad as simply a love story in a similar way “Hiroshima moon amour” was – if you accept that X is death then the entire of concept of love is moot here. The film “Marienbad” reminded me of the most is actually “Copie conforme”, also a rather confusing love story with many interpretations, where the first question is “Are they actually lovers?”

Style-wise I am amused that Resnais tried to emulate the Louise Brooks-look. I think that the lack of bangs makes Delphine Seyrig’s haircut more severe looking than Brooks’, and I much prefer Godard’s approach to it in “Vivre sa Vie”, which is much closer to Brooks anyways, both in style and in character.

Oh yeah! I also have completely forgotten the story of Rosmersholm but only remember that I did not particularly like it. I re-read the plot and find it surprisingly fitting for Marienbad.

All in all, I still think that the film is utterly strange, and might well deserve the dislike by most people. But really, it is not as confusing and pointless as it looks like. I originally watched the film because Don watches it in some episode in Mad Men, and do not regret having done so for a single second.

Tystnaden

As a result, I am totally into movies again these days, even though I barely watch any. Just thinking about them makes me crazy and happy, despite the fact that I haven’t actually seen a lot of good movies lately. I was quite ecstatic about “I Vitelloni”, but from what I wrote into my own blogpost, the film has a few weaknesses and would, without a doubt, never make it onto my top film lists. Maybe what I need to do is to revisit a few old movies, to convince myself of their goodness again. In fact, it’s been awhile since I saw “The Dreamers”, something that necessitates a re-evaluation every year.

Everything else besides “I Vitelloni” was a disappointment. Most likely this is because I have a tendency to watch other movies by some directors I already know. In the case of Rohmer, “Le genou de Claire” was fun but not half as good as “Ma nuit chez Maud”, Rohmer’s masterpiece (probably). “Körkarlen” was indescribably disappointing, and “Marionetten” can never be as good as “Scenes from a Marriage”. Last time I saw a surprisingly good film (“The Big Year”) was in Japan – and it feels like that was ages ago, plus it’s not exactly a film I would recommend.

“Tystnaden” is a must-see, perhaps the only important Bergman I have yet to touch apart from “Winter Light”. In fact, it is the only film which appears both on Shii’s as well as on 314’s list of favorite films. Unlike Shii and myself, or Pixelmatsch and myself, those two have practically independent tastes, so I take it as an extraordinarily strong recommendation. According to the 1000 Films list, “Persona” is Bergman’s best film, followed by “The Seventh Seal” and “Wild Strawberries”. I think the latter is my favorite, and I would place both “Fanny and Alexander” and “Scenes from a Marriage” much higher. However, the people who write the 1000 Films website put “Tystnaden” into a lower category, behind the likes of “Saraband”, “The Virgin Spring” and “Through a Glass Darkly”, even behind “Smiles of a Summer Night”.

I agree with them. As much as “I Vitelloni” resonated with me for unknown reasons, “Tystnaden” didn’t. I don’t think I failed to understand the movie (or perhaps I did?) but I know that I fail to understand its appeal. Why would anyone like this movie? Why do two people whose tastes I value highly independently put this film onto their favorite movie lists? It’s sad that I don’t get it. To me, it lacks the interesting premise of “Persona” and the redemption of “Wild Strawberries”, the smart dialogue from “Scenes from a Marriage” or even “Aus dem Leben der Marionetten”. More than anything else, the movie looked like a better “Cries and Whispers” to me. Both films deal with these family members who misunderstand each other and hate others for being different – gähn. “Tystnaden” owes its fairly high ranking almost entirely to its beautiful visuals, and the fact that it seems more meaningful than “Cries and Whispers” does. I liked the little boy and his interaction with the theater troupe, the butler who is probably the only character in the story who seems to be capable of human feelings (much like “Cries and Whispers” where it is also a servant who truly takes care of others) and the wonderful hotel the whole story is set in. The image of the film, quite masterfully shot, remains in my memory. But apart from that I think Tarkovsky is the only director where I accept the attribute “sparse dialogue”. Everybody else please write a nice script, or otherwise I will be bored.

I have a hard time expressing my disagreement in tastes with others, even when it’s, say, Shii. I tend to think that it must be me who is strange for not liking something. In this case it is even worse, because I am completely unable to understand the other party. I would love to hear about it, but apart from that I find it fortunate that the film was only roughly 90 minutes long.

Le genou de Claire

Hahaha I love love love Rohmer. The way they talk, it’s so pointless, vapid and beautiful at the same time. I hear myself talking, and I see it with some irony and self-criticism there. I have been talking similar kinds of bullshit just a few years ago, and since whatever we say is not scripted, it must be even worse. I love Rohmer’s dialogue for that reason, for some reason I cannot help but find myself enjoying to listen to them. I don’t even care what exactly happens, I don’t care what their true feelings are for each other, I just want to hear them talk.

I suppose the simplest explanation is that all the characters are attracted to each other, and all of them pretend not to take it seriously, but actually they are quite serious. I find it ravissant.

I don’t think there is a Rohmer film which could possibly surpass “Ma nuit chez Maud”, because Maud is the best and most level-headed character he has ever created. But all of his films are strangely fun to watch, and “Le genou de Claire” is no exception. I am actually impressed with how they managed to have Claire only appear 45 minutes into the film. She is kind of pretty but I don’t like her obviously fake blonde hair, and while I absolutely see how one could feel attracted to her, but she looks strangely stupid (even more so than the other characters who at least can talk) and her legs are way too… thin? Or she just doesn’t talk enough, and I am not interested in female Rohmer characters who appear as alive as a nice-looking piece of furniture.
The difference between Claire and the piece of furniture is that Claire is a human being, or at least she is supposed to be. But the main character talks about how he thinks he has feels having a “right over her” which stems from his “desire for her” – it totally sounds like he wants to rape her. I mean, my goodness, they show her in her underwear.

The end of the story felt utterly unsatisfying for me, very much unlike “Ma nuit chez Maud”. I didn’t really like how Laura just conveniently disappears after Claire showed up, and the last scene with Claire is almost heart-breaking. Certainly Claire and Gilles are just idiotic, but they manage to obviously lie to each other within a minute of dialogue – wow. Strangely enough, I thought the Laura part of the film was much more interesting, because she was the much more entertaining girl.

The Phantom Carriage

I am currently watching “Le genou de Claire”, and its immediate juxtaposition to “The Phantom Carriage” is striking. “The Phantom Carriage” is Sjöström’s most famous film, and all those artsy people absolutely love it. As an example, my well-loved list on Observations on film art calls the film “the easiest” to include onto their ten best films of 1921 list. Isn’t that enough reason for me to watch the film?

As a matter of fact, though, I was horribly bored by the movie. Maybe it’s a film you have to see on the big screen to be able to fully appreciate its visuals. Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Caligari are similarly supernatural movies (albeit with a completely different philosophy and style) which work best on a big screen with live music. I still remember vividly how I bought a DVD of “The General” and was mostly bored by the film. Later on, I saw the film on the big screen with a huge audience, and we all roared with laughter. I am therefore trying to be careful when passing a judgement on silent films, which are so immensely different depending on when and how you watch them.

But in the case of “The Phantom Carriage” I have a feeling that my opinion is pretty much set in stone. Of course the film is beautiful, and I absolutely loved its visual style and effects – the ghosts look truly ghostly, and everybody in the film is a brilliant actor of the realistic type (very modern and very different both from stage actors and from the flashy Hollywood type acting). But that is all the praise I can bring for the film. The story is based on a beloved book, but unlike many other films from the silent film era with social commentary “The Crowd”, “The Last Laugh” and even “The Box of Pandora”, “The Phantom Carriage” is utterly outdated to the point that it makes almost no sense at all. What makes most stories good is some sort of universal humanity in them, which is why people nowadays are still fascinated with Faust (of which my favorite version is actually Berlioz’s “Damnation of Faust”) or any Shakespeare title. “The Phantom Carriage” has nothing of the sort – we are dealing with some man who redeems himself for almost no reason. Why would his wife ever want to go back to him when there is still a risk that he could infect his children with tuberculosis? Why is that nurse Edit in love with him, and why in the world would it be her fault that he didn’t get better? Even if I accept a world in which a meeting with death does not mean that you must necessarily die, the motivation of any of the characters there absolutely puzzle me.

Sure, it’s a film you should see as a movie fan, but when I think about how much fun I have while watching Rohmer’s masterpieces, I suggest we all leave an exercise in film history as “The Phantom Carriage” to people who have a more academic interest in it.