Showing posts with label artificiality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label artificiality. Show all posts

Sunday, November 3, 2019

Vitalina Varela





Director Pedro Costa




Costa with lead actress Vitalina Varela















VITALINA VARELA           C+                  
Portugal  (124)  2019  d: Pedro Costa            Official site [Portugal]

Defiantly different, uncompromisingly bleak, existing in a world of its own creation, it represents a kind of dream slumber, drawn almost completely from the imagination, as there’s little here people can actually relate to in their own lives, instead feeling overly literary, much of it coming from the reading of letters, long speeches bearing little resemblance to life as we know it.  Comprised of extremely long drawn-out shots, people barely move in this film, instead they sit or stand and confess their innermost thoughts on camera, shrouded almost completely in darkness, shot almost exclusively at night, with barely any light creeping in.  This is the kind of film that draws plenty of praise from critics yet produces droves of walk-outs, as there is little else in the cinema tradition that compares, leaving viewers unnerved and confused, even a bit despondent, as they want to appreciate what they don’t particularly care for.  This kind of filmmaking is so out of the mainstream that audiences should be forewarned before entering the theater, as it’s not what you suspect, and can barely be called cinema at all, instead it more closely resembles a dialogue-driven living theater, a highly individualized staged expression, where theater audiences are much more likely to endure the kinds of extremes shown with this production.  While there is a small group of admirers who know who they are, this kind of heavily stylized filmmaking is for them, conceived with film festivals in mind, with absolutely no commercial prospects whatsoever.  While there may have been 100 viewers when the film began, it was closer to 60 or 70 who stayed to the end, and far fewer who actually liked it.  Existing in its own realm, utterly uncompromising, it comes with plenty of accolades, having won the Golden Leopard Grand Prize (1st place) at the Locarno Film Festival, while also winning a Best Actress Award for the actress bearing the same name as the film title.  If you’ve seen even one of Pedro Costa’s films, then you know what to expect, as the pace of the film is exasperatingly slow.  Except for a stunningly beautiful more traditional documentary entitled NE CHANGE RIEN (Change Nothing) (2009) that is shot completely in black and white, mostly in the studio with barely any trace of movement, capturing rehearsal sessions of actress/musical performer Jeanne Balibar, though revealed in fragments, never hearing an entire song, his other films are just plain difficult, most of them shot in the reconstructed realms of the now demolished Fontaínhas housing project, a home to largely immigrant communities located just outside Lisbon.    

Costa’s films follow a group of émigré’s originally from the rocky and volcanic Cape Verde Islands, a former Portuguese colony established to serve the African slave trade, who come to the mainland to find a better life but are relegated to segregated lives in the poorest slums, living in dilapidated shacks, eking out an existence of day labor jobs that leaves them ensnared in a web of neverending poverty.  While they may originally have dreams of transporting their families, those dreams die over time, as even their language is not really Portuguese or a Cape Verdian dialect, but seems of a different world, reflective of their lost identity that dissipates even further as the futility of their displaced lives becomes even more apparent.  The dominant impression is the staged artificiality of the style, maximizing the photogenic impact of every shot by the filmmaker himself or his longtime cinematographer Leonardo Simões, where shadowy figures emerge from a darkness, lifeless and bitterly deprived, appearing like ghosts, forced to confront their grim lives, yet a vividly animated life can be heard offscreen, whether it be babies crying or dogs barking, yet what’s captured onscreen is the utter stillness and solemnity of isolated lives who are now dreadfully alone, cut off from the rest of the world, downcast and spiritually depleted.  Expanded from her earlier brief appearance in HORSE MONEY (2014), the film is based on the true story of its protagonist, the entitled character Vitalina Varela, a non-professional actress who was born on Cape Verde Island, who arrives at the airport in Lisbon three days after her husband’s funeral.  In the opening few sequences, a slow funeral parade of weary bodies weaves its way past the walls of the cemetery into the narrow alleyways of their decrepit homes while the camera follows each one of the men as they open and close the metal doors of their crumbling concrete homes, one after another, shot from a dizzying array of angles, like a choreography of doors closing, yet the collective images suggest they are sealing themselves into tomb-like coffins where they will likely die in places just like this.  Arriving several days later, Vitalina is immediately told to go home, that there is nothing for her in Portugal, signs of warning that feel just a bit disingenuous, but may represent their own struggles with self-loathing, as the rundown neighborhood is hardly a picture of success.  Her view is that she waited 25 years to get here, so she might as well stay, clearing out the empty liquor bottles from her husband’s dingy home. 

What we quickly learn is that Vitalina is a strong-willed woman of extraordinary strength and resilience.  Flashback sequences reveal she married her husband Joaquim on the island, happily building their own home brick by brick before he ventured to Lisbon seeking work, returning briefly once, but then disappeared altogether, with Vitalina learning he was in prison at some point, never knowing why, or why he never fixed the leaky roof in this ramshackle home.  What follows is a period of mourning, reduced to lengthy monologues directed at her dead husband, whose spirit looms over the entire landscape, exploring the traces he left behind while remaining embittered for all the years he left her waiting alone without sending for her.  He’s not the only casualty here, however, with men reduced to scrounging through supermarket dumpsters or salvaging scraps of metal, it’s a neighborhood where people are devoid of all hope.  Even the local priest (Ventura, a Costa regular) has lost his faith, with Vitalina remembering him from the island, aware of the excruciatingly sad circumstances that gnaw at his ailing soul, having what’s left of a tiny church with no parishioners, where she is the only one who bothers to show up.  Shot in long, unbroken shots of her dimly lit face, revealing unfathomable depths of anguish and pain, ghosts of the past comingle with the shadowy world of the present, with Vitalina speaking in soliloquies, mostly seething with anger at her husbands  philandering ways and broken promises, struggling with her own regrets, anxieties, and grief, looking around at this godforsaken place, wondering why he stayed, addressing him mournfully, “Here there is only bitterness.  Here we are nobody.”  An underlying message in Vitalina’s embattled relationship with her husband mirrors the complex relationship Portugal has with its former colony, leaving Cape Verdian immigrants displaced from either shore, tainted by the toxic effects of the mother country that never lives up to its promise as a homeland.  The film takes a nostalgic twist at the end, emerging from the cavernous darkness into the light of day, even under openly blue skies, recalling that time she and her husband built their house together in Cape Verde.  Even if much of the film is exasperating, feeling more like a slow death march, Costa has found an original method to imprint his vision into our subconscious, literally keeping the mood of his images in our heads long after the film is over.  Add to that the somber reality of the people who inhabit this human purgatory, where much of what we remember feels like an elegy or a requiem, providing an almost classical frame for this highly individualized and in many ways unpleasant journey.

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

A Woman Is a Woman (Une femme est une femme)





Jean-Luc Godard (left) on the set with his cameraman Raoul Coutard




Godard on the set with Anna Karina



Godard with his new bride, actress Anna Karina







A WOMAN IS A WOMAN (Une femme est une femme)               B-                   
France  (84 mi)  1961 ‘Scope d:  Jean-Luc Godard

Lights, camera, action!
―Angela Récamier (Anna Karina) opening the film, spoken in English

This is a film about aesthetics, creating a jumbled effect from a variety of cinematic techniques used throughout the history of cinema, seemingly having fun behind the camera, challenging the audience to play along, while also shooting a film about the female aesthetic.  His first film in a studio shot in just five weeks in late 1960 largely without a script, Godard was smitten by his lead actress, Anna Karina, marrying her shortly after finishing the shoot in March 1961, creating a short-termed cinematic love affair with her in front of the camera, making six of his most impressive early films together in the next five years, divorced in December 1964 when Godard began a more political/intellectual period of his life, losing interest in what he would later call his bourgeois phase.  Describing their marriage, she recalls “It was really a great love story, but very tiring in a way for a young girl because he would go away a lot.  He would say he was going to buy some cigarettes and he would come back three weeks later.”  Yet Godard will forever be associated with the films he made with Karina, like Masina with Fellini, Vitti with Antonioni, and Bergman with Rossellini, as they all reflect a partnership with an artist and his muse during a period many think is the most creative of their career.  Their relationship was a classic example of the male auteur constructing his personal film universe, where what he liked, apparently, was Karina’s pliability, where he could mold her into whatever he desired, which, when viewed today, includes a certain amount of sexist condescension.  Karina showed an awkwardness on the screen that he used as an asset by emphasizing her vulnerability, displaying a melancholy fragility that became her most distinguishing characteristic.  Godard’s work with Karina is the best of his repertoire, while Karina’s work with most other directors is merely ordinary, with Rivette’s LA RELIGIEUSE (1966) and Fassbinder’s Chinese Roulette (Chinesisches Roulette) (1976) being the exceptions.  His third film in fourteen months, though his second, LE PETIT SOLDAT (his first film working with Karina), was banned in France due to the controversial subject matter of a French draft dodger during the Algerian War and not released until two years afterwards, Godard was surprised by the outburst of popularity that met his initial work Breathless (À Bout de Souffle) (1960) and was completely caught off-guard, having spent a decade working as an outsider offering critical analysis of films for the prestigious film magazine Cahiers du Cinéma.  This is basically a cheesy love story reflected through an endless relationship squabble, a battle of the sexes between lovers Angela, Anna Karina, and by extension all women (forced to deal with an immovable trait of male stubbornness), and Émile (Jean-Claude Brialy), largely improvised yet expressed in the satiric manner of a neo-realist musical, with garish costumes, brilliant colors, and a breezy musical score from Michel Legrand.  More of a tribute to the American musical, Godard subverts the audience’s expectations, leading up to but never breaking out into song and dance, then cutting off the sound completely for brief periods of time, where the effect is intentionally jarring, especially during street scenes with the bustling sounds of traffic and street noises, but also during the performance of Karina’s lone song, where the rousing cabaret music plays up to the moment that she sings, but then stops, so her song is completely unaccompanied by music, picking up again the moment she’s finished, creating a curious moment of intimacy that is stylistically unique.  What’s undeniable is the playful manner that exists throughout, often overlooked, yet easily the most lightweight comedy in the Godard repertoire.  (Nobody dies). 

Winner of the best actress award at the Berlin Film Festival, Karina works with two French superstars at the peak of their popularity, including Jean-Claude Brialy as her boyfriend, sharing a dingy flat together, and Jean-Paul Belmondo as his friend Alfred Lubitsch (a variation on the small talk from the 30’s screwball comedies of Ernst Lubitsch, The Cinema of Ernst Lubitsch: The Lubitsch Touch, in particular DESIGN FOR LIVING, 1933), a friend who is also in love with Angela, making this a friendly ménage à trois, where there’s surprisingly little jealousy between the rival men.  When Angela announces out of the blue that she wants to get pregnant (Karina actually became pregnant during the shoot, but had a miscarriage), there is a running argument that lasts throughout the film, with Émile preferring to wait, suggesting they have plenty of time, while she insists he’s not taking her seriously.  There’s an interesting stand-off between them, as the camera follows each standing to one side of the room with their thoughts projected onscreen, moving back and forth between them.  Similarly, when they have arguments that extend past bedtime, they insist upon not speaking, so after they turn out the lights, they can be seen carrying a stand-up lamp to the bookshelves, each choosing various books, then getting back into bed where they wordlessly continue their argument by displaying book titles.  Turning instead to best friend Alfred, early on Angela announces that she wants to be in a musical with Cyd Charisse and Gene Kelly, with choreography by Bob Fosse, while the two of them strike poses in colorful costumes along an otherwise rundown section of Paris.  While it’s clear that the era of the grandiose 50’s musicals are over, this is nonetheless a nostalgic tribute, complete with red, white, and blue color schemes from the French flag and lush Cinemascope color compositions.  Curiously, the lavishly colorful musical productions of Jacques Demy had not yet been made, like The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Les Parapluies de Cher... (1964) and The Young Girls of Rochefort (Les demoiselles de Rochefort) (1967), both of which hold up better to the test of time than this Godard miniature, which simply doesn’t age as well, accentuated throughout with a kind of modernist pop art, but it is an example of Godard making a musical.  “But the film is not a musical,” according to the director, “It’s the idea of a musical.”  While there are certainly plenty of moments of tediousness and trivialities in this film, feeling overly superficial, where there’s really not much of a storyline, with Émile actually asking people on the street if they’d like to father Angela’s child, while also reduced to making inside jokes, including Jeanne Moreau in a brief aside about working on JULES AND JIM, which wasn’t even made yet, released the following year, or Belmondo making a comic reference to wanting to watch Breathless (À Bout de Souffle) on TV, yet there’s a quizzical nature to it all, at times audaciously speaking directly to the audience, even questioning the meaning of the film itself, with Émile perhaps overstating the case, “Is this a tragedy or a comedy?  Either way it’s a masterpiece.”

The only song that plays in its entirety is a Charles Aznavour song played on a jukebox by a sad and distraught Angela, Aznavour 1962 Tu t'laisses aller - YouTube (3:29), a torch song about the regrets of marriage, how people let themselves go, no longer that charming face that was once so easy to fall in love with.  Basically a study of her fluctuating moods, beautifully shot by Raoul Coutard, where adding to the colorful allure is Angela’s profession of a striptease dancer in the seedy Zodiac Club, which looks more like a restaurant than a nightclub, with female performers interacting with an all-but-absent clientele, creating a strange feeling of emptiness, personified by the song Angela sings in this setting, which lyrically is a brazenly sensual female manifesto, yet quietly reflects more than anything else a deep feeling of personal loneliness.  According to Godard, “Life and the unreal are inseparable.  If you begin with life, you find unreality behind it, and vice versa…the imaginary and the real are firmly separated and yet both are one, like the Moebius curve which has at the same time both sides and one side.”  While the camera essentially follows Karina throughout the streets of Paris, stopping in shops and happily greeting people, and is mostly a valentine to her screen image, with the camera adoring her throughout, yet she becomes the subject of the film itself, which in effect is a documentary on the actress at work as a one-of-a-kind performer, with both Karina and the city of Paris becoming the feature characters of the film.  In contrast with the marked artificiality of the film, Godard uses a verité style along the heavily populated streets, using direct sound, capturing faces of aging French men and women ogling for the camera, readily identifiable as the keepers of the flame, representative of the working class, emblematic of a patriotic phrase Angela repeats from the national anthem, La Marsellaise, “the day of glory has arrived.”  Yet the film takes place in the wintry chill of a cold and grey Parisian present heavily populated by outsiders and prostitutes, where, if anything, his three characters stand for lost dreamers whose time has finally come.  There’s an intriguing scene when Alfred tells Angela that he loves her, yet she doesn’t believe him, asking him to demonstrate by telling her a lie, then following that with a true statement, where she doesn’t recognize the difference, as both were uttered with the exact same facial expression.  This begs the question, how do you know when somebody is telling the truth?  While this doesn’t concern Alfred, claiming he knows he’s telling the truth, yet Angela isn’t convinced, suggesting everyone is out for themselves.  What this highlights is her own developing distrust, revealing her own sense of inner solitude.  This concept that another person’s feelings can’t be recognized, that they remain inaccessible, is a clue to understanding the director’s own unique feelings of loneliness, where he is sometimes perceived as indifferent or even hostile, which may explain his preference for isolation and not being disturbed.  Yet this existential void that we are all alone in this world is the underside to all the bright and cheery expressiveness that pervades throughout this film.