Showing posts with label Sergi López. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sergi López. Show all posts

Thursday, November 1, 2018

Happy As Lazzaro (Lazzaro Felice)





Director Alice Rohrwacher



Director Alice Rohrwacher flanked by actor Adriano Tardioli (left) and Luca Chikovani (right)



Sisters Alice Rohrwacher (left) and Alba Rohrwacher (right)




Actress Alba Rohrwacher


Writer/Director Alice Rohrwacher winning Best Screenplay award at Cannes




HAPPY AS LAZZARO (Lazzaro Felice)                             B                    
Italy  France  Switzerland  Germany  (128 mi)  2018  d:  Alice Rohrwacher    Tempesta [Italy]

Unlike her earlier work, The Wonders (Le meraviglie) (2014), which felt so light and effortless (both shot on 16mm by French cinematographer Hélène Louvart), this is stridently manipulative and unappealing, heavily steeped in religious allegory, becoming an overly exploitive film about the evils of exploiting the poor, that becomes, sad to say, wrenchingly overdramatic and misguided, using magical realism not to suggest wonder or delight (though some apparently buy into it), but to suggest that human behavior is the same no matter what time period, as the rich will still exploit the poor in any historical era.  While it may be well intentioned, it’s a major disappointment considering how well acclaimed this film has become, winner of Best Screenplay at Cannes, though Hirokazu Koreeda’s Shoplifters (Manbiki kazoku) (2018), which won the Palme d’Or as Best Film, has a particularly gifted screenplay, which uniquely plays into that film’s appeal, while the screenplay here is overwritten and overwrought.  That was the beauty of her earlier film, as it felt so natural and authentic, actually creating a bit of magic and wonder, but this one’s hard to take and even harder to believe, suggesting, to put it simply, that we’re all saps as we’re so easily duped by false narratives about the power of the rich, somehow believing their lives are better because they have money and status, but really what separates the rich from the poor is that the rich have no moral conscience, believing it is their birthright to be rich, so lying and exploiting the poor is part of their heritage.  It’s what they do for a living.  With that in mind, despite the effort to indict current social ills, this is a terribly difficult film to appreciate, as inevitably the poor keep feeding into the cynical instincts of the rich, allowing themselves to continually believe the lie, even as they sink deeper into poverty.  Is there no hope?  Not in this film, which felt darker and more fatalistic than any Béla Tarr film.  Yet this was the choice for Best Film at the Chicago Film Festival, which has never been particularly adventurous in their awards, rarely picking the best films, which are often determined by which way the wind blows at the time, choosing subject matter that feels appropriate to the times, though this is likely true of all festival juries, including Cannes, which remains a hot subject for viewers and critics alike to scrutinize at length.  A word about the Rohrwacher sisters, however, as they continue to be an absolute delight, with one sister, Alice, as the writer/director, while the other sister, Alba, always appears in a leading role.  They work so well together that their underlying spirit is always on the same wavelength, literally exuding commonality (in terms of themes and beliefs) and camaraderie (a loving generosity), as they feel inseparable.  Usually it’s a joy to watch them work together, where everyday kindness can be elevated to supreme heights, offering a sense of triumph over the prevailing moral hypocrisy, and when Alba is onscreen there’s always a bit of magic in the air, elevating the material, and this is no different, but the screenplay that is being lauded actually constricts and suffocates the life right out of this film, where at least part of the problem is there are simply no appealing characters.      

Bearing a strange similarity to Visconti’s THE LEOPARD (1963), but without all the extravagance, though striving throughout to be an Olmi film, like THE TREE OF WOODEN CLOGS (1978), among the best representations onscreen of a peasant class working the fields, but lacking the gravity and authenticity of his films, not to mention his command as a director, but this is, at heart, a film about the poor, as the camera continually follows them around, making them the focus of the film.  Told in two parts, the past and the present, many of the characters appear in both sections, where the effects of time have revealed unalterable changes in their lives, except one selfless Christ-like figure, viewed as a saint, Lazzaro (Adriano Tardioli), a mysterious creature viewed as a simpleton, exploited by others and routinely denigrated, who is exactly the same in both time periods, not aging a bit, like Lazarus, rising from the dead, where he becomes the mirror of the evolving world around him, reflecting back to viewers an unfiltered understanding, as there isn’t an ounce of cynicism in his character, a good man who is incapable of lying or doing anything bad, as he is pure innocence at heart.  People seem to swoon over this character’s presence, offering deep hidden meanings, but my guess is they are projecting their own religious values and sentiments, making him something astonishingly new, yet, haven’t goodness and innocence been around since the dawn of time?  Are those characteristics remarkable enough, however, to move resolute power?  Do they have the power to end the cynicism that reeks in authoritarian regimes or heavy-handed patriarchal societies that seem to enjoy wiping out any thought of social justice?  In truth, it would get trounced by abusive power.  End of story.  So why all the hoopla about this film?  Part of it is Alice Rohrwacher herself, a symbol of optimism and moral integrity, where perhaps she is being rewarded for having the audacity to challenge these age-old perceptions of social inequities, the same ones ascribed by Olmi and others, like Bertolucci’s epic 1976 drama entitled 1900, where the lower class always gets the short end of the stick.  While people may be gushing at her use of magical realism, which can be extremely effective and influential, both in cinema and literary circles, but the pertinent question to be asked is whether it works here?  And my contention is a resounding no.  Especially the way this film ends, with no ambiguity whatsoever.  It matches Dostoyevsky’s essay on The Grand Inquisitor, articulated in The Brothers Karamazov, suggesting that if Christ returned today, in today’s cynical world, that he would not be recognized, that organized religion would immediately disavow his importance and reject his message, as they’re insistent upon teaching their version of the Christ parable, with a supreme authority that remains unchallenged.  They’re simply not capable of adjusting to a new living Christ.  

In the opening moments, set in an Italian countryside that feels timeless, Lazzaro is utterly indistinguishable from the others, blending into the whole with complete anonymity, where these peasant sharecropping farmers are so poor that they have to move their lone lightbulb from room to room, forced to endure backbreaking work and simple pleasures, as they work in the tobacco fields all day.  Lazzaro is simply one of them, used to being asked to do the heavy work, or the jobs no one else wants to do, which he does willingly, without complaint, as he’s a man of humble origins, as are they all, born into their predicament.  Yet the opening scene is a musical confession of love, viewed as a special occasion, getting everyone’s spirits raised, as all get a sip of wine in a joyous tribute to the happy couple that plans to get married and leave the farm, earning a better life in the city.  But before a single day passes, their spirits are dashed by the reality of the situation, as they have to ask permission of the Marchesa, the tobacco baroness (Nicoletta Braschi, wife of Roberto Benigni) who owns Inviolata, the place where they work, as they all work for her, and no one leaves until she says so, with people scoffing at the idea that will ever happen, so get used to the idea that she owns these workers, whose services belong to her, just like a slave plantation.  When her chosen henchman, Nicola (Natalino Balasso), gathers them all around and tallies up the wages, each one of them is consumed by debts owed, making it impossible for any of them to leave, as the system is rooted in thievery, where they live in a collective purgatory of generational debt.  As the landowner, the detestable baroness lives in a big manor, surrounded by plenty of servants, whose impulse is to exploit the workers at every opportunity (believing they in turn will exploit others), as otherwise they’d show no respect, whose mantra is “Human beings are beasts.”  Along with her is a bored and perpetually unhappy teenage son, Tancredi (Luca Chikovani), a self-centered lout who sulks around the house all day smoking cigarettes, having bleached his hair blond, showing signs of rebellion and dissension in the ranks, but that’s only to get some attention from his unloving mother, who has little use for him.  So he runs off in the fields and joins Lazzaro, pulling him away from work, sarcastically calling him a half-brother, offering him a slingshot as a gift, but then uses him in a secret plan to report his own kidnapping, hoping to extort money from his own mother.  But she’s too sly to fall for it, leaving him high and dry, exactly where he was in the first place, an unloved son with a repugnant mother.  But Lazzaro reveals a secret hiding place up on the mountain, away from view, which becomes Tancredi’s new residence, remaining out of sight from the others.

Tancredi’s plot inadvertently brings in the police, which exposes the Marchesa as a fraud, an aristocrat who’s been keeping her workers as unpaid slaves, ignoring the fact the old feudal shareholding system was declared illegal years ago (inspired by a real-life incident, as sharecropping was outlawed in 1980), so the police arrive and relocate the bewildered and dumbfounded workers to a nearby city, but then abandons them, literally dumping them in a parallel universe of urban sprawl that is completely unfamiliar to them, but more recognizable to viewers as the modern age, where many of them end up homeless and destitute, living by the railroad tracks, scrounging for what little food they can get, mostly surviving by petty crimes.  It’s only here that Alba Rohrwacher becomes recognizable as Antonia (a former maid of the Marchesa’s played by a different actress), joining forces with Ultimo (Sergi López), the leader of this pack of misfits, where they are unabashed street hustlers, pulling any scam they can.  In this strange new universe, Lazzaro arrives, exactly as he was, not having aged a bit, while the others are clearly older, but only by a decade or so.  Antonia is at first dumbstruck, not knowing what to do, but she brings him along on all their heists, though openly hides their intentions, so he doesn’t grow suspicious, where he becomes one of the pack, exactly as he was before, quickly surprising them all in his own natural abilities to chip in what he can to help.  It’s a bit amusing, if not absurd, as Lazzaro remains completely innocent, incapable of understanding what they’re really up to, where he becomes their moral conscience, as least for Antonia, who values his kindness and good will, not wanting to acknowledge her own failings.  Incredibly, Lazzaro runs into an older Tancredi (Tommaso Ragno), more humbled now that he’s served some jail time, who’s welcomed with friendship back to the gang, some of whom he recognizes from before, making this awkward and bizarre, as he doesn’t understand Lazzaro’s strange and mysterious transformation either.  However his sarcastic nature is still intact, loving to play jokes on people, still conveying an air of aristocracy, as if the class system is still in effect, so they see him as he was before, even as he may be as downtrodden as they are, but he hides it well.  It’s inconceivable for Lazzaro to view Tancredi as connected with anything villainous, picking up right where they left off, as half-brothers, only seeing the best in everyone, where wickedness simply doesn’t exist.  This gets a bit silly and uncomfortable after a while, as truth is continually overlooked, cloaked in the flowery language of the aristocracy, which is cynical at heart, using lies and deception, pretending friendly motives when all they want is to take as much as they can get, and once they have no further use for you, you’re expendable.  The lack of any real human connection here slowly goes off the rails, as a certain ugliness creeps in, as it inevitably does, especially for the unfortunate.  While they may all yearn for freedom, none of them find it, as in the end they’re all exploited, perhaps even worse than they were at the beginning when they felt like a family, as there seems to be more distance between people and less understanding, less empathy, and less love.  That is, unless you believe in the unbelievable, which humans happen to call faith.     

Monday, March 18, 2013

The Monk (Le Moine)































THE MONK (Le Moine)         D  
France  Spain  (101 mi)  2011  ‘Scope  d:  Dominik Moll             Official site [es]

An unbelievably morbid, dreary, and gloomy picture that seems to think no one has ever seen Luis Buñuel’s Simon of the Desert (Simón del Desierto) (1965), a much better,  near perfect, and utterly hilarious version of an agonizing ascetic, loosely based on the actual life of Simeon Stylites, who reportedly spent 37 years on a tower during the 5th century, the picture of saintly piety, denying himself all earthly pleasures, though he is challenged by the Devil in various disguises, Sylvia Pinal as a sexual temptress urging Simon to come down from his lonely wooden tower.  What Buñuel does in 45 minutes is a sheer delight compared to this pretentious and overly pompous waste of time, a film that, despite its surrealist attempts, couldn’t be more dramatically dull and predictable.  Despite a rather listless performance from Vincent Cassel as the title character in the 16th century, a young priest who is all too easily led astray, the overly somber mood literally sucks all the life out of the picture, drowning the film in its own seriousness and self-pity.  While it’s not completely without a few memorable moments, they never elevate the material out of the deeply ingrained atmosphere of doom that saturates the overall mood of the film.  This is something that would be better served by Mel Brooks in the era of Madeline Kahn and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974) or even DE DUVA (1968) Madeline Kahn - DE DUVA (The Dove) - 1968 Funny! - YouTube (14:03), where a little outrageous humor is needed.  Instead we get overly dark images of the cloistered life of the priesthood, where Cassel as a baby is left at the doorstep of a monastery with a diabolical crow picking at its diaper before he’s discovered by a Franciscan monk.  Over time, he joins the order of the Capucin Friars that raised him, becoming a local legend, a beloved priest whose energizing sermons fill the church with onlookers and curious admirers who come from miles around to hear him preach, where in his steadfast devotion and goodness he seems touched by the hand of the Lord.

Based on Matthew G. Lewis's 18th Century novel, Ambrosio (Cassel) defends himself from criticism by the devoutness of his commitment to Christ, where those that stray can only blame themselves, in his view, as “Satan only has the power we give him.”  An early sexually explicit confession by an admitted child molester known only as Le Débauché (Sergi López) over the opening credits seems to test his worldliness, as he’s largely been educated with books in a protected and cloistered environment, having no understanding of the goings on in the real world, yet he’s called upon to pass judgment and holy penitence on the lives of ordinary people.  Early on his goodness is challenged when he condemns a young nun for the crime of pregnancy, where she dies starving in prison, blaming him for her fate, sending an ominous signal to the parishioners.  Suddenly the floodgates of damnation open their gates and through the temptation of Satan, the young priest is finally tested by the acts of a young sexual temptress that he initially rebuffs, but a near fatal insect bite changes all that, where as she stands watch over him, she makes her move after all the others finally leave her alone at his bedside, an unthinkable act in itself.  Using an experimental montage of multiple videos mixed together, suggesting a subconscious, dream-like state, she has her way sexually with the young monk while he’s in a state of delirium, an act that he only recalls in his subconscious.  From that point on, there are continual surrealist gestures to show how the shape-shifting Satan can assume the form of anyone or anything in order to bring about the damnation of one’s soul.  The one interesting sequence is a candlelit religious procession with candles placed atop men’s heads, dripping candle wax down their cheeks, where suffering pain has always been associated with spiritual belief, where the more pain you can endure, the closer you are to God, a belief that is not only Christian, where to this day, despite strong condemnation from the Catholic church, devotees in Mexico and the Philippines have been known to re-enact the crucifixion ceremony driving nails into the hands ( Warning: Raw Video: Philippine Crucifixion Re-enactment - YouTube 1:21), but also Hindu religious piercings where cheeks and other body parts are pierced by metal rods and needles as an expression of religious devotion.   

The use of light is a conscious contrast, as the cloistered life inside the confines of the church remains excessively dark, where it appears only natural light is used, with a flood of images showing hooded monks quietly walking through the darkened corridors.  Once outside, however, the brightness of the sun reveals a scorched earth outside, where the desert grounds are baked in the hot sun.  The biggest disappointment of the film is the toxic atmosphere of utter indifference that permeates the entire film, as if living in the darkness chokes away the spirit of life, where there’s simply no dramatic interest, especially when it veers into the realms of a horror film.  When we see the image of a man living among the pigs, perhaps an example of Satan lurking in their midst, he’s completely ignored by everyone passing by, making no attempt whatsoever to connect this strangeness to anything, as if this is a common everyday occurrence.  When no one remarks or says anything, the incident is ignored, a perfect example of the lethargy existing within the film itself, where if the characters don’t care, why should the audience?  This deflation of interest literally destroys whatever connection might otherwise be made by viewers, as every single character takes themselves so seriously, reflected through a shrouded layer of darkness, overly somber moods, the same religious music that repeats itself throughout, where after awhile one gets sick of this dreary, one-note presentation.  There’s none of the usual cleverness from this director, where you’d think with some surrealist imagery and Satan (Sergi López) eventually showing himself to the young monk, using against him the exact same words from his sermon, which have a completely different connotation on the other side of the pulpit, that there would be some shred of interest, but incredibly there’s not, largely due to the film’s own detachment and aloofness, where by the end, nothing really matters anymore.  Much of this film is so over the top it’s laughable and is a major bust.   

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Potiche






Catherine Deneuve with director François Ozon on the set















POTICHE                                    B                     
France  (103 mi)  2010  d:  François Ozon  

Catherine Deneuve and Gérard Depardieu first worked together in Truffaut’s THE LAST METRO (1980), where Deneuve kept the theater going in Paris, hiding her Jewish play-writing husband deep in the bowels of the underground of the theater during the Nazi occupation, with Depardieu playing a French resistance fighter who also joined her onstage as her leading man, working together 5 times in the 1980’s, again in André Téchiné’s CHANGING TIMES (2004), making this their 7th film together.  They work together like long lost friends, and their stature only adds respectability and pleasure to this candy colored, picture post card recollection of life in the late 1970’s, which plays very much like a TV sitcom.  With the frequent use of split screens and over the top piped in strings, Ozon floods the screen with saturated color and light, also stereotypical characters, at least seen by today’s world.  Adapting a successful play written by Pierre Barillet and Jean-Pierre Grédy, the film version is a farce, like joyously watching a train wreck as it happens, where Deneuve’s sheltered and seemingly harmonious world as the trophy wife of a ruthless factory owner (Fabrice Luchini) in a small provincial town covers up his egregious acts as an arrogant, philandering crook who thinks only of his self-interest, and to hell with everyone else, cooking the books, having a continuous affair with his secretary (Karin Viard) while also regularly seeking women’s company in high end night clubs at the company’s expense.  When a work stoppage at the umbrella factory he runs that she inherited from her father causes him to come to blows with striking workers, he is placed under immediate medical care, causing her to step in and run the factory during his absence. 

While most think of this temporary fix as something of a joke, Deneuve enlists the help of the Mayor (Depardieu), a local Communist whose activist tendencies are the opposite of what her husband stands for, so they make an engaging pair, especially when they take a little walk down memory lane, using younger actors to play their shared rosy memory of much younger times, an amusingly sunny recollection where they each looked picture perfect.  Deneuve, once deemed the most beautiful woman in the world during the 1960’s, is now 67, and Depardieu, horribly overweight but as natural as ever, is 62.  Both apparently wear wigs.  The mayor agrees to get the ball rolling in establishing negotiations with the union, where Deneuve wears pearls for the occasion, claiming they paid for them, so the workers may as well share in their enjoyment.  Knowing many of the workers by name, including the family they came from, as many worked for her father, Deneuve immediately develops a hands on style that gets the factory back on its feet and running smoother then ever, involving the help and participation of their two otherwise floundering children, Judith Godreche and Jéremie Réniér, both amusingly cast with an ultra right and ultra left viewpoint, where the dizzying naiveté of each child leaves one wondering if this really resembles the era of the American 50’s as portrayed on TV, yet the color scheme is definitely the 70’s.  When her husband returns to his rightful position, he’s surprised to learn that the rug has been pulled out from underneath him, where he’s literally been stripped of his power and his position, relegated to an out of the way TV room where he can be the dutiful trophy husband.  

Of course, there are more twists and turns, where the comedic battle of the sexes, and the social classes, only develop more forks in the road, each turning the tables on the other, all shot with a sunny disposition and a delightful sense of humor.  While there are dark moments, they are brief and touchingly eloquent, usually followed by out and out laughs.  There’s a wonderful cameo from Sergi López, the sadistic Fascist army officer in PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006), also the wayward father in Ozon’s surreal RICKY (2009), playing a truck driver who offers more than a helping hand.  The children’s development into something more substantial is clever, as is the eye-opening awareness of the secretary, as all figure prominently in the outcome.  There are some particularly observant variations on a theme, as there’s a musical chairs of the children’s love interests, each humorously cast in a different sexual angle.  Everyone grows out of their stereotypical depiction except the husband, a guy who simply refuses to change with the times, remaining despicable until the end, even as it gets him nowhere.  But this is the Deneuve and Depardieu show, where they have a seriously dated dance sequence in a nightclub that is adorable, where the Bee Gees can distinctly be heard in the background, shot with all the kitsch and tongue-in-cheek that Ozon can muster.  By the finale Deneuve actually breaks out into song, a deliriously campy number that couldn’t be more poignantly life affirming, singing about how beautiful life is, bringing the curtain down in an exquisitely “French” moment that encapsulates a kind of harmonious unity where all is right in the world, like the memorable final chorus of Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro which the audience is happily humming in unison as they leave the theater.