Pina (2011)

Pina (2011) movie poster

director Wim Wenders
viewed: 02/23/2013

What I know about “dance” could probably not fill the average thimble.  So, what I knew about choreographer Pina Bausch before the release of Wim Wenders’ documentary of her work, Pina, was nothing.  About some subjects of documentaries, I have reasonable or good knowledge, about some, I have nothing.  Which is totally fine.  I’m just offering this caveat because Pina is almost all dance, Pina Bausch, and the reflections of her contemporaries.

Wenders (The American Friend (1977), Paris, Texas (1984), Wings of Desire (1987), Until the End of the World (1991), Buena Vista Social Club (1999), among many others) had originally planned this film with Pina Bausch as a collaborator.  But Bausch died rather suddenly during production, and Wenders was urged on to complete the film by Bausch’s other collaborators.

It’s an overview of her major works, staged on stage, or with pieces in and around the city of Wuppertal where her Tanztheater (“dance theater”) was/is situated.  What results is overview, memorial, and tribute, very loosely given to factual background.  If you don’t know anything about Bausch, you won’t learn facts from the film.  You will see her work, hear some voices of people who worked with her, learned from her, done in voice-over of their mute faces.

Certainly, the works are vibrant and impressive.  I was struck by them and how little context I had to understand them outside of their own being.  In one way, I was reminded of silent film acting, how the performers render everything physically, mutely, with all of the body.  Of course, this is but a small thing, since their physicality is so intense, some of their actions so precise, some so dramatic.  Far less straight-forward are these pieces.  This is modern dance (if that term still applies) and in its modernism, it’s hardly simply literal.  Abstract.

The film has a beauty and elegance to it, certainly.  And I could appreciate it, to an extent.  I don’t feel that I utterly get it in the sense that I usually like more context and understanding of things that I wind up writing about.  It isn’t my area of expertise and I don’t know that my thoughts on this film would be all that beneficial or enlightening.

It’s me.  Not Pina.

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926)

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926)

director Lotte Reiniger
viewed: 02/15/2013

The word “unique” is used probably too freely.  By definition, uniqueness is not a quality that has degrees, but represents true singularity, and I’ve certainly heard more than one individual express frustration at the misusage of the word.  For me, I actually think it’s not utterly inapt to consider the possibility of degrees of uniqueness and that this usage is actually expanding the term, perhaps in a natural way of language evolution.  So, I’m not a stickler on that point, especially in a world where true uniqueness is increasingly hard to classify or clarify.  Perhaps it is merely an aspect of our time in cultural evolution where eclecticism is natural, all knowledge, styles, ideas are readily available and as I’ve often noted, “Nothing ever goes away.”

I say all that because I would posit that Lotte Reiniger’s The Adventures of Prince Achmed is truly unique, perhaps in the more traditional meaning of the word.  That there is anything remotely like it, I doubt sincerely, unless one considers Reiniger’s other films, none of which wound up being feature-length.

The Adventures of Prince Achmed is the oldest surviving feature-length animated film.  What are animated in the film is most unusual in itself, ornate shadow puppets, cut from cardboard and lead, moved frame-by-frame, appearing in beautifully lush silhouette.  There is an elegance and grace to the figures, the movements, the detail, unlike anything else that I have seen, unique in its time (1926) as it is today.  It is “animation”, most literally, but unlike anything most people would think of when hearing the word.

I had last watched the movie as part of the Silent Film Festival several years ago and I’ve been revisiting movies that I watched with the kids that long ago because I don’t know if they remember them or in Clara’s case, had even seen them.  And I have to say that I think this is one of the greatest films ever made.  It’s gorgeous, vivid, and magical.  There is indeed nothing like it.

 

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972) movie poster

director Werner Herzog
viewed: 08/30/2012

After watching Werner Herzog’s Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970), I bethought myself that I would do well to see, or in this case, re-see, his early feature films.  I had seen Aguirre, the Wrath of God when I was a teenager, oddly enough, experimenting with foreign films from the video store (and I think probably recommended by Siskel and Ebert).  I probably didn’t have the knowledge and perspective to fully appreciate the film at the time, though the images stayed with me in large part.

It’s an amazing, crazy film.  Fictionalizing an account of some real conquistadors, the film follows a large army as it gets lost in the Peruvian wilderness.  A group, including Don Lope de Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) gets sent off to try and meet up with another party.  They’ve been on the hunt for the famed city of gold, El Dorado, and they live out the metaphor that such a quest has evolved into, a quest to the death, searching for an illusion.  Aguirre quickly turns on his captain, mutinying the crew and electing the one noble among them a new king, really machinating his way to leadership.  Aguirre is mad as a hatter, tromping around like a paranoid Richard III, bug-eyed and dangerous.

The crew lived out a version of this metaphor, right along with the characters.  They dragged their crew and equipment up into the mountains, rode rafts made by the indigenous people who worked on and appeared in the film, suffered starvation and hardships and they had a super-crazy megalomaniac on the set too in Kinski.  Herzog reflected on the production of Aguirre in his documentary My Best Fiend (1999), how the local Indians offered to kill Kinski for him at one point, as a way of being helpful.  The film, as naturalistic as the cinematography is, deep in the muck and the mud, carrying a massively heavy canon through the jungle, it’s a quest of its own kind on a shoestring budget.

The film’s best moment comes toward the end, when Aguirre sees a ship hanging from some trees, with its rowboat dangling below.  It’s a harbinger of doom.  Was it the other lost Spanish ship?  Is it a hallucination?  As delirium takes over and Aguirre is left aboard the raft, the only living thing surrounded by a teeming swarm of monkeys, delusion or reality, it doesn’t matter anymore.

It’s quite brilliant, quite simple, beautiful as well.  It raises more questions for me about Herzog as a filmmaker.  He was clearly quite the wunderkind at one point.  His modern self seems like a fascinating, kind, interesting soul, still cranking out films at a great rate, both documentary and fictional, still delving into areas of madness, inspiration, individuality, the extremes of life.  His modern fiction films have felt much more hackneyed, so it’s interesting to see his work when it had its full verve.

The Loves of Pharaoh (1922)

The Loves of Pharaoh (1922) movie poster

director Ernst Lubitsch
viewed: 07/13/2012 at the Castro Theatre, SF, CA

Each year that the San Francisco Silent Film Festival rolls around, I eagerly look through the schedule to see what most tickles my fancy.  Usually, I’m picking and choosing, having neither time nor money (nor endurance) to sit through the entire program (no matter how much I would like to).  This year, I scheduled three in a row for Friday and took the day off.  After watching Little Toys (1933), it was time for Ernst Lubitsch’s The Loves of Pharaoh.

Lubitsch is a name that I’m very familiar with, but not actually a director whose films I’ve actually seen.  I’ve had them in my rental queue for years no doubt, but from his classic American films to his prior German films, I’ve never seen any, famous or obscure.  The Loves of Pharaoh comes from his German years, though the film was actually financed by Hollywood with the intention of bringing it and him there as Hollywood culled the European filmmakers of the day.

Once considered a “lost” film, it played at the Castro in a digital reconstruction, which looked amazing.  For all its reconstruction, the film is still missing about 10% of its footage.  While the print reconstructed these missing scenes with intertitles and still images (when available), it actually made for a significantly diminished experience.  The film is an epic, with massive sets and a cast of hundreds (maybe thousands), including star Emil Jannings.  And while it’s still very instructive to see the film, it’s hurt by its broken rhythms and “lost” sequences.

The epic drama at times builds to dramatic moments, some of which exist, some of which are simply explained.  This is what it is.  Film preservationists have for years been cobbling together these lost films, masterpieces or not, finding pieces of usable footage in one place, another in another, working from shooting scripts, whatever documentation that they have available to put the thing together as completely and as true to its original form as possible.  For historians like Kevin Brownlow, who has dedicated much of his life to this kind of work, it’s a nearly eternal process.  Even the versions that I’ve seen in recent years of Napoléon (1927) and Metropolis (1927) both suffer still from missing much of their original breadth.  And who knows whether they will ever get any closer to their original states than now.

For The Loves of Pharaoh, the breaks and missing elements suck away at the film’s potential power.  Perhaps if I was better familiar with Lubitsch I could better appreciate what was on screen rather than purely yearning for that which was not, but such was the case.  It’s an epic about a selfish Pharaoh who falls in love with a slave girl who belongs to the king of Ethiopia (a rather embarrassing Paul Wegener (The Golem (1920) dressed in a crazy African get-up.)  It’s certainly enjoyable enough and entertaining but it’s a lot harder to fully appreciate without its missing parts or without enough context to override them.

Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970)

Even Dwarfs Started Small (1970) movie poster

director Werner Herzog
viewed: 05/26/2012

This film, one of director Werner Herzog’s first, is one of the more bizarre films that I have seen in recent memory.  The Wikipedia entry on the film sums the narrative up concisely: “A group of dwarfs confined in an institution on a remote island rebel against the guards and director (all dwarfs as well) in a display of mayhem. The dwarfs gleefully break windows and dishes, abandon a running truck to drive itself in circles, engineer food fights and cock fights, set fire to pots of flowers, kill a large pig, torment some blind dwarfs, and crucify a monkey.”

I decided to watch this one as an oddball “dwarf” double feature, a semi-random selection, with another film, The Sinful Dwarf (1973).  Even Dwarfs Started Small, oddly enough, isn’t an exploitation film, per se.  Though it is noted as being the first feature film since the notorious 1938 Western, The Terror of Tiny Town, to feature an “all-midget” cast.  Herzog’s intent and the film’s marketing perhaps are what keep it from being technically an exploitation film.  That said, it’s utterly possible to watch it in the vein of exploitation, even if that is somewhat missing the point.

Exploitation or not, it’s a cult film.  A cult film with fans such as Crispin Glover, who appears on the commentary track with Herzog discussing the film.  It’s akin, perhaps, to David Lynch as well, really a surreal imagining of a world of madness and chaos and anarchy.  The images bring to mind the photography of Diane Arbus’ images of the mentally disabled, though the characters of Herzog’s film are actors, albeit non-professional actors.  They also call to mind elements of Tod Browning’s Freaks (1932).

A mad, sinister chuckle-cum-cackle pervades the soundtrack almost incessantly, evoked from one of two of the actors, who Herzog goaded into constant laughter.

Disturbing as well are elements of animal abuse or at least actual animal violence or suggested violence.  Herzog interposes images of chickens pecking at a dead chicken, essentially cannibalizing, as well as images of chickens harassing a one-legged chicken.  Chickens are also thrown through a window at one point, subdued rather violently and with a couple of them dying.  A sow is killed (supposedly by the curious inmates), and while this was done according to more humane slaughter practice, it is shown in its death throes with its piglets suckling madly at the dying beast.  And yes, a monkey is crucified, though tied with string, not nailed to a cross.  These elements of veritable physical violence supplement the psychic violence and mad disturbance of the rest of the film’s suggested and real traumas.  Not unlike the notorious Cannibal Holocaust (1980), the real images of animal deaths enhance the rest of the film’s violence, giving it greater impact by suggestion and association.

The impact of the film is disturbing and fascinating.  It’s a nightmare.  It’s metaphorical.  Like Arbus’ imagery, there is a voyeuristic, exploitational aspect, but also it crystalizes a deep-seeded sensibility of dissociation and otherness.  Playing out to the strains of increasing rebellion and anarchy, it also dredges a Lord of the Flies-like fear of the worst aspects of human nature unbridled by civilization, whatever evils civilization represents in its repression and restraints.  It’s compelling and effective as a bizarre horror show.

It’s interesting for me as I’ve been watching a lot of Herzog’s more recent works, both documentary films and narrative features, while interesting, a far cry from his more radical early films.  I’d never seen this one before and was very struck by it.  I do think it’s telling that the majority of parallels and references that I find for it are more pure Exploitation than not.

Soul Kitchen

Soul Kitchen (2009) movie poster

(2009) director Fatih Akin
viewed: 09/09/10 at the Embarcadero Cinemas, SF, CA

I got turned on to the films of Fatih Akin about two years ago, so I was pretty excited to see his latest film, Soul Kitchen when it came to town this last week.  Unlike Head-On (2004) and The Edge of Heaven (2007), which were both more melodramas,  Soul Kitchen is much more light-hearted and, in essence, a comedy.  Perhaps after those two heavier and heart-wrenching works, he needed a little lightening up.

Akin co-wrote the script with star Adam Bousdoukos, and it follows Bousdoukos’ character Zinos, a Greek-German, who runs a shoddy little neighborhood restaurant called “Soul Kitchen”.   Zinos’ restaurant is his life, which he has a hard time abandoning for his wealthy blond German girlfriend, Nadine, who is taking a job in China.  But as situations conspire, his brother is on day release from prison and seeks a job from him to appear legitimate, he injures his back and cannot work, and a conniving old schoolmate targets his building for a land grab, Zinos’ whole world is quickly evolving and spinning on its own.  But after landing a talented but disenfranchised chef, Soul Kitchen begins to turn into a hipster paradise, with live music, deejays, dance school students, and becomes a fun and fabulous place.

There are a number of charming and appealing characters in the film, Zinos’ troubled jailbird brother Illias, his beautiful artist/waitress Lucia, and very much Shayne, the drunken brilliant chef, played with great verve and fun by Birol Ünel who was the star of Head-On.  Even some of the smaller characters, like Illias’ criminal buddies or “Sokrates”, the older tenant who can never pay his rent, all of them add great likability to the film.   I was reminded yet again of Jim Jarmusch and Aki Kaurismäki in the types of characters and worlds that they create.

For all its charm, though (and it has a lot), the film is certainly light-weight.  The plotting and storyline is pretty obvious after a while, especially the whole evil business character who tries to buy up Soul Kitchen.  If you can’t see that he’s going to end up in prison after “fucking”, literally and figuratively, the “Tax Board” (and also simply because he’s the rather cartoonishly portrayed villain), then you must not be familiar with narrative in general.  And while the character-driven humor, like Illias’ chain-flipping idiosyncrasy, are very fun and funny, some of the more physical moments are a bit more on the clunky side.  Though Bousdoukos does a fine job walking as if in great pain throughout.

The film is fun, which seems like the best way to watch it.  It seems like it was a fun film to make, a release of joys and play, hipsters and characters, like Soul Kitchen is a fantasy place that Akin and Bousdoukos wish was a real place that they ran.  And it would be cool to go there.  Everybody is nice and funny.  It’s just not as weighty, inventive, challenging or interesting as the other films, though it carries on with this fascinating snapshot of contemporary Germany as as much a melting pot of cultures as any place in the world, and yet still very unique and in full sense of place.

Metropolis

(1927) director Fritz Lang
viewed: 07/16/10 at the Castro Theatre, SF, CA

A huge event in the world of silent film, by far the most complete version of Fritz Lang’s 1927 masterpiece Metroplolis that has been seen since its initial release was on display.  Only two years prior, in a Buenos Aires film library, a beaten 16mm copy of the film was discovered, allowing for over a 1/2 an hour of long-lost footage to be reassembled with existing prints, nearly completely reconstructing one of the periods most important and impressive films.  And since its initial showing in Berlin earlier this year and again in New York, this showing at the Castro Theater was about as big an event as you get in the silent film world.

And it was fantastic.

Accompanied by a brilliant performance by the Alloy Orchestra, it was amazing to see this film in its near entirety.  I had only chanced to see it before on video, a version that was released in the 1980′s with a then current pop soundtrack produced by Georgio Moroder, colorized/tinted and with the intertitles changed to subtitles.  As I recall, I turned off the sound and adjusted the picture to try to make it black-and-white again.  And while much of the visual imagery had been intact, with its striking designs and verve, the film wasn’t the easiest to follow as I recall.  I don’t think I then knew that it was as compromised as it was (with a running time of 80 minutes as opposed to the original 153).

Oddly enough, though, I (and perhaps some others my age) owe it to Moroder that the film’s images are as familiar as they are, in that the music video for Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” was comprised of sequences from the film.  It’s funny, but as I was watching the film this time, for the first time in probably 20 years, those images echoed with a familiarity much stronger than I had anticipated.

Metropolis, at the time of its production, is considered to be the most ambitious and radical feature film that had been made up to the time.  Emanating from the Weimar Republic era in Germany, influenced by Expressionism, Art Deco, and Futurism, the designs are still compelling nearly 80 years later.  The film has influenced designs from Star Wars (1977) and Blade Runner (1982) through so many, many more.  And yet nothing is quite like it.

Set in a future world in which the working class lives underground and people work and march like cogs in the giant machine, the story tells of the son of the overseer of the aboveground Metropolis, an idealized modern city in which the children of the elite frolic and play without a concern or knowledge of the world below.  When Maria, a young woman from the underground city appears to the young man, he is intrigued and goes below to find this world of which he’d had no knowledge and the beautiful Maria, the religious leader and center of a peaceful movement to change the world for the better for the workers.

Meanwhile, a mad scientist has created a robot, the film’s most iconic image, a female form, which he has constructed to turn into a replica of his long-lost love, the former wife of the city’s overseer.  However, the overseer comes to hear of the revolutionary movement and convinces the scientist to abduct Maria and make the robot over in her form to control the workers and drive the revolution on so that he can crush it down.  This leads to a manic riot, the destruction of the underground city, and the near destruction of everything.

There are so many amazing images, it’s impossible to simply recount them all.  But married to the rhythmic soundtrack of the Alloy Orchestra, the film has features patterns of movement, a construct of sight and sound, which build and climax in a completely amazing way.  It’s virtuoso stuff.  Mesmerizing.  Dazzling.  Fantastic.

This is really what it’s all about, when you boil it down, the greatest of cinema from any period, any era.  And the true testament to that is how powerful and visionary the film still is, how fresh, how unlike anything else there is in the world.  And this treasure rediscovered, this most-complete version ever found, is a testament as well to film preservation (it’s really the dream come true of film preservationists).  Because even though the newfound footage is much damaged in comparison to the rest of the film, it is a stark reminder of how amazingly unappreciated this material was in its day.  That films were considered throw-away, mincable.  We are lucky, lucky, lucky to be able to see this film, to still have it, to see it on the big screen, and to see the best of the best of world cinema.

The White Ribbon

The White Ribbon (2009) movie poster

(2009) dir. Michael Haneke
viewed: 01/26/10 at Embarcadero Center Cinema, SF, CA

Winner of the Palme D’or at Cannes last year, Michael Haneke’s film, The White Ribbon, filmed in black-and-white, is a parable-like tale of some of the dark sides of human nature.  Namely, Haneke considers it a story about Fascism, or the elements therein, which gave rise to opportunity for Fascism to come to the fore in early 20th century Europe, poised as the story is on the brink of WWI.

But it’s not a story of the big events, but the smaller, human events in a northern German farming village and situated around a series of bizarre crimes which trouble the community, yet never really find true resolution.  And the powers that be, the baron and his supervisor, the archly Puritanical local reverand, and the powers that are wielded by the strong (or empowered) over the weak (or dis-empowered).  Sounds like a fun time for all, huh?

Haneke isn’t known for making “fun” films.  He’s known for making challenging, critical, thought-provoking films, quite political in their ways, but clearly intellectual.  I was struck, for instance, when watching his 1997 film Funny Games (which he re-made a couple of years ago, shot-for-shot, for US audiences), at how masterful he is at audience manipulation, controlling the tools of narrative cinema, evoking the most striking elements.  A master.  But because he’s also so politicized, he’s not bent entirely on leading the filmgoer by the nose, other than to force one into situations of challenge and thought.

Ultimately, The White Ribbon is quite open-ended.  Nothing is truly resolved, huge questions are thrown open as the film ends, and the troubling situation of not having the mystery solved (though perhaps partially speculated upon), there is no closure for the audience.  It’s sort of a parable where you have to draw your own conclusions, write your own moral for the story.

Though Haneke has apparently made period films before for German television, this is the first of his films that I have seen that were not primarily set in contemporary times (however, The Time of the Wolf (2003) is set in the future).  He chose to film in black-and-white (or rather shoot color film and print in black-and-white) and spent a good deal of focus on period detail.  It’s interesting because his films and mentality are very modern or semi-post-modern perhaps.  And this film, which has a rich visual style and some poignant cinematography, “looks” more like a “classic” film.

Personally, I think Haneke is one of the most-interesting filmmakers in the world today.  My favorites of his films are Caché (2005) and The Piano Teacher (2001), though arguably those are his most mainstream or commercial films.  Maybe they are also his best films.  The White Ribbon, though I’ve given myself a few days to consider it, hasn’t fully sunken in.  Like many of the films that wind up really “sitting with you”, it takes them a while to settle into your system, to contemplate, to consider.  And since Haneke’s films are not wrapped in pure narrative or visual pleasure, one never so much “loves” them rather than is just impacted by them, affected by them, so much like its open-ended lack of solution to the mysteries, one rarely feels as if one has a full and complete sense oneself of his films.

Waxworks

Waxworks (1924) movie poster

(1924) dir. Paul Leni, Leo Birinsky
viewed: 11/22/09

My third Paul Leni silent film (The Cat and the Canary (1927), The Man Who Laughs (1928)) further proves that while not necessarily a master, certainly on one of the higher rungs of Expressionist Silent film.  Waxworks earns its Expressionism via odd sets and strange angles, curious and occasionally Surreal moments.

Waxworks is an anthology film, an oddly structured thing, with three stories told from the quill of a writer (believe it or not, a publicity writer), hired to promote the scary figures from a traveling Wax Museum.  First, he tells the tale of Harun al Rashid, the Caliph of Baghdad, posing the young writer and the waxworks’ owner’s daughter in lead roles.  Emil Jannings is the rotund caliph.  It’s kind of hard to see where it’s going, but it ends up to be a more heroic narrative (supposedly also the inspiration for Douglas Fairbanks’ The Thief of Bagdad (1924)).

The second story is that of Ivan the Terrible, played by the also notable Conrad Veidt.  It’s more a tale of insanity and evil, with some very arch moments and designs.

And then you think there’s going to be a third segment, and then the “Jack the Ripper”/”Spring-healed Jack” segment turns out to be a hallucinary nightmare of the tired-out writer, just asleep on the job.  Ultimately, the film seems sort of ill-balanced, from both a narrative and also a thematic perspective.

It’s probably a silent film for more of a hardcore fan of the period, not having the more powerful peaks and images that some could concoct.  And yet, at the same time, as a further example of German Expressionism, it’s an interesting additional entry, certainly to an extent due to its use of the potential fear factor inspired by wax figures, a theme that would enter the horror genre as a significant subgenre.  The set designs and camerawork are the films’ highlights, but with the cast and participants, this is far from B-movie fare.

M

M (1931) movie poster

(1931) dir. Fritz Lang
viewed: 02/27/09

I hadn’t seen Fritz Lang’s M since my first film class back in 1987.  Oddly enough, it had remained in my mind all this time, but I don’t even know that I have even seen another Fritz Lang film again in all that time, even his seminal silent science fiction film Metropolis (1927).  I guess it’s hard for me to even conceive of why this is, but there you go.  I think, after all this time, I felt compelled to see M again.

M was Lang’s first sound film.  Lang himself, with Metropolis and M as the prizes of his German film career, came to the United States as the Nazi’s came to power, like many of the German film greats of the period.  It’s fairly safe to say that Lang, while immensely influential, never actually achieved again the brilliance that he achieved with this film, one of the truly great films of cinema.  A safe statement, which I am willing to stand by.

The film is the story of a serial child murderer, played by Peter Lorre, in an utterly seminal role, in fact, a role that ended up helping to stereotyping him throughout his career.  Set in Berlin in the period of its time, the film follows not only the tracking of the serial murderer by the police but also by the criminal underworld, a complex web of safecrackers, thieves, and homeless who watch the streets in a stark contrast the world of the “overworld”.

The film culminates in a trial by the criminal underworld, who have caught Lorre, and who attempt to prosecute him by an lynchmob’s ideals.  The irony is that he gets a fairer trial than many might have on the overworld, which leaves him to the main world of 1931 Germany to determine both his sanity and the nature of his crime.

A pre-curser of Noir and an extension of German Expressionism, the film is an utter archetype, a brilliant, beautifully realized vision of cinema.  Much like my recent viewing of F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise (1927), it’s hard to fully express the power and significance of this film outside of its historical and artistic context.  And yet it’s also hard to deny its inherent cinematic beauty and importance.  It’s one of those films that is so notable, so significant, that it’s hard to fathom the experience outside of that.