NEVIDITELNÁ
Maia Martiniak
Po formální, tedy audiovizuální stránce, není tomuto dokumentu téměř co vytknout (drobná diskontinuita střihu v jedné scéně). Kamera i hudba dobře dokreslují intimní atmosféru, která porody provází nebo by aspoň měla. Dobře se na to kouká. Co se týká tématu, je jasné, že se od Dánska a jiných EU zemí máme hodně co učit. Nejen naše porodnictví ale celé zdravotnictví stojí pořád na pilířích postavených za totalitního režimu (v tom mi přirovnání Ondřeje Valenty přišlo trefné, když on to s tou totalitou myslel jinak). Stále se setkávám s přezíravostí, arogancí a byrokracií, především u lékařů starší generace. Mladší generace lékařů má k pacientům lidštější přístup, což bylo ostatně vidět i v dokumentu. Co mi přijde škoda, je způsob, jakým byl prezentován případ Stelly Valentové. Její kauzu znám, narazila jsem na ni při rešerši neratovické porodnice. Spis je veřejně přístupný, ať si každý udělá svůj obrázek sám: https://llp.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/20200826_ustavni_stiznost-1.pdf Bylo by každopádně fér dát hlas i druhé straně v tomto dle mého názoru dost nejednoznačném případu. Větší šanci vytvořit precedens by bezesporu měla kauza paní Pavlíkové. Ta je však bohužel na hrubé jednání nejspíš zvyklá z domova a ještě se za svůj porod omluvila. Suma sumárum; myslím, že dokument je přínosný, nabádá k zamyšlení a nabízí i řešení (inspirace v Dánsku).
TOUCH ME NOT
Touch me not je pro mě zásadní kinematografické dílo především v tom, že překračuje hranice mezi realitou a fikcí, dokumentem a hraným filmem, filmem a psychoterapií. V tomto je film zároveň kontroverzní; ne každý, kdo přišel do kina, má chuť se v sobě začít šťourat a konfrontovat se s tím, jak moc je v kontaktu sám se sebou a s vlastní sexualitou. K tomu přidejme fakt, že režisérka místy vchází na scénu a hovoří s postavami, tedy vidíme i jakousi její terapii, a výbušné reakce diváků jsou na světě. A já je chápu. Mně se ale film strefil do vkusu i do životního období. Není to příjemná oddechovka. Kdo se filmu otevře, ten si do sebe pěkně hrábne, ale ve výsledku vás film obohatí tím, že se dozvíte něco o sobě.
OCENĚNÍ
Setkání s Václavem, obyčejně neobyčejným člověkem, který dostal ocenění za záchranu dvou lidských životů.
Film vznikl v dílně MyStreetFilms.
DVOJÍ IDENTITA
Projekt Dvojí identita zkoumá téma Pražáků, kteří nejsou Češi, nebo mají kořeny v jiné zemi, tedy. v jiné kultuře. Naši protagonisté se v Čechách buď narodili (jako první generace imigrantů z jiných zemí) nebo přijeli v mladém věku. Každopádně od malička vnímají kolem sebe český systém a jsou jim formováni, zároveň doma s rodinou zažívají jinou sociální výchovu; jejich rodiny žijí na bázi jiných hodnot.
Film bohužel nevznikl, zůstal mi z něj jen tento teaser.
THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS
Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth
I have recently watched a film called The Five obstructions (De fem benspænd, 2003), which portraits the infamous danish film director Lars von Trier challenging his fellow danish filmmaker Jørgen Leth, who has debuted in 1967 with his experimental film The Perfect Human (Det perfekte menneske). Von Trier wants Leth to recreate his formerly successful first film in this day and age. And not only that! The film has to be recreated five times and each version will be defined by a set of obstacles decided by von Trier. Each short film will be one obstruction.
But before we get deeper into (remixed) narration and the sound of The Five obstruc tions (and each short film within), let’s talk about the the original film form 1967. This experimental and in a way surrealist film is ironically reflecting on the superficial and robotic perfection of (so called) humanity; showing a man and a woman in a sterile white box, first describing their appearance, then their basic needs and activities and at the end the narra tor (or the voice) slightly touches up on the relationship between a man and a woman. As if they were unknown alien creatures or a new found species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9kls6bMkRo
The sound in this film is very simplistic. Most of the time we hear the narrator’s voice and/or the music. There are only a few moments in the film when we are hearing diegetic sound (if we don’t count the moment when the male figure speaks). These are the moments: The sound of pipe being filled with tobacco and matches lighting up the pipe (1:00), nail clipping (8:20), shaving (8:45), eating the fish (11:20) (interestingly the director chooses to add the sound in the middle of the eating scene) and the final scene (12:40) when the male character is clicking his fingers (actually here I’m not sure it’s the actual sound of the fingers, it does not sound like it).
As far as the narration goes, the film is more of a description and does not have a story, end or a beginning. However it covers the topic of standards of beauty, rituals (sex, dressing, undressing, having fun, having a meal) and the fact that the perfect human does not question anything (or does not urge the answers to the questions).
And now let’s jump 36 years ahead and start watching von Trier’s challenge of doom.
The first obstruction:
-each shot has to have 12 frames*
-all the questions asked in the original film have to be answered
-the film has to be shot in Cuba
-there will be no film set
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alN-yFtSPCA
There is an interesting use of sound in the first scene. The cuban version of the perfect man is smoking a cigar, we hear the street sounds at the background and added selective sounds related to smoking a cigar (rubbing the cigar, spitting the cigar top, my personal favorite - puffing the first puff, which sounds almost like shooting the gun, cigar burning and the fume being exhaled.
Like the initial smoking scene also the dancing scene has been recreated here. In this version we see the perfect man dancing to the music (add video) while in the original the man is dancing without music (add video). It is quite amusing.
Another recreated scene is the shaving scene; like in the original version the man is shaving and talking about his experience that he hopes he will understand in a few days. The only added sound is the sound of the razor shaving away the facial hair (we don’t hear the water drop or anything else). I believe this was intended in the original version too, but the sound equipment was not great at that time, so we almost don’t hear the sound of shaving.
* I have to say I didn't know what it meant to have 12 frames per shot, so I called my editor friend and learned, that a normal shot always has 24 frames, which means 12 frames would look frantic and kind of staccato.
Considering the 12 frames obstruction make the film look like a remix of it own self. The film has again no narration.
The second obstruction:
-the film has to be shot at the most miserable place Jørgen Leth can imagine -but he is not allowed to show this place
-Jørgen Leth plays The Man
-the meal is in the film, the female character is not in the film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMJvq7qzCNc
These obstacles can sound (semi) innocent, but we have to remember that Lars von Tri er is known for torturing his characters (the actors) to get the authentic feelings and reactions on the set. His films are often painful or at least awkward to watch and so is the second version. It is shot in the red light district of Bombay (where Leth has been shooting a documentary years before and had considered this the most devilish place he has ever seen). Leth is sitting at the table in a tuxedo eating a luxurious meal, drinking a ridiculously expensive brand of vine while the indian prostitutes are looking at him through a transparent screen make of plastic.
Here Leth has not fulfilled one of the obstructions, or as he says; he interpreted it loosely in order to minimize the distance created between the people of Bombay and himself. However von Trier van not pleased with the result and sends Leth to reshoot the film in India again. Leth refuses to do so and he gets a second option - to make a remake of The perfect human without any rules given by von Trier. Both options seem equally difficult. What will he choose?
The third obstruction:
-reshoot the film in Bombay
-or make a film without any given rules
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KrqR6UVEpI
Jørgen Leth chooses to remake the film without any rules. He is showing us a perfect human in 2002 - an aging man, around his own age, who is asking himself questions that Leth would probably ask himself too, revealing the things he is thinking about. Later on we see the perfect woman - a beautiful fifty something year old lady who describes her characteristics on camera. Unlike in the original film the perfect woman in 2002 does not seem to be an indepen
dent entity, but a complement of the man. She is selfless, experienced, loyal, friendly, never complains and so on. It is difficult to imagine that this set of characteristics would be picked by the woman herself.
Although the perfect human is presented in a distant way, we understand that Jørgen Leth is pretty much revealing himself and what the perfect woman is to him. The very end of the film is shot in Venezuela, implying Leth’s escape to Haiti, where he stayed for several decades. I also believe that one of the last scenes is a hint to the controversial topic of the book The imper
fect human describing Leth’s sexual relationship with the 17yo daughter of his cook in Haiti, which had caused a lot of controversy in Denmark.
Style vise Leth uses a technique of double frames, which refreshes the topic so many times and makes it contemporary. Visually there are not many elements recycled from the original film (with exception of the man examining himself in the mirror and yes - the smoking scene is present again).
However the sound is the link to the original; we hear the same music together with the similar story telling voice. Every now and then we get a glimpse of diegetic sound, which is particularly nice when we see a double frame and the different foley sounds come from each frame
at the same time as we still hear the music and the narrator’s voice. The sound coming from four different sources creates a perfect symphony (52:32).
Another example of the sophisticated sound mix is the moment when the thunderstorm accents the music and brings us to the final scene, called ‘the beginning’ (55:06).
Lars von Trier gives this film good critique, but still thinks that Jørgen Leth did not reveal himself enough. He wants not only Leth to leave the mark on his film but the film to leave a mark on Jørgen.
He wants Leth to let go of his perfectionism and finally stop being afraid to make a film that will be ‘a total crap’. Therefore he gives Jørgen Leth his fourth obstruction…
The fourth obstruction:
-the film must be a cartoon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQnplZSS4OY
Both von Trier and Leth hate cartoons and have never seen one that they would consider good, which is why von Trier picked this rule. Another reason is; Leth tells von Trier that he likes to pick aspects of the topic that he finds interesting and frames them (literally or figuratively). Framing the interesting aspects in a cartoon seems impossible, because the whole setting has to be constructed by the filmmaker himself, so what out of your own creation would you point out as attention worthy?
Leth decides not to waste time inventing his own technique of animation, instead he chooses to use the material that has already been shot and approaches Bob Sabiston (who’s most famous animation project would be Hollywood Blockbuster Scanner Darkly).
The film number 4 opens with the shaving scene from film number two accompanied with an image of tortoise (as von Trier said he wants to get the feeling of the tortoise on it’s back).
In one of the following parts we see a scene form a film that I failed to identify, (but I’m sure there is a meaning behind it) and four fragments of the image taken out and framed (so details in a cartoon can be framed after all).
We get to see a ‘new’ smoking scene - of Claus Nissen (the actor who played The man in the original film) in his real age, on the background we see the rainy (final) scene from the third version filmed in Venezuela, followed by notoriously known smoking scene from the first version of the film from Cuba. Another recreated scene is also from the first version; it’s the woman lying in bed. The image is cut in three frames resembling the style used in the third version.
It’s a brilliant response to the attempt that Lars von Trier made not to let Jørgen Leth frame the interesting details as he likes to do.
During this version we hear a different music than what we are used to until now. It’s more melodramatic, but resembles the music from the original version in a way.
So once again Jørgen Leth has completed his task successfully and not only that. He managed to actually concur the fourth obstacle with elegance and dignity. Even though it was a cartoon.
The fifth obstruction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGGvQfzmsc
The fifth obstruction is simple; von Trier has already made the fifth version, but it must be credited as Leth's, and Leth must read a voice-over narration, ostensibly from his own perspective but in fact one written by von Trier. I didn't understand the meaning of this fifth obstruction completely and I didn't find any information about it on the inter
net, but this is how I interpret it:
Lars von Trier was trying to push Jørgen Leth, who is a perfectionist, to make an imperfect film and take away Leth’s control at the same time. The last short film was a version glued from bits and pieces of the previously shot footage (the footage that was shot to document the process of filming, not the footage used in the previous versions) with the voice over read by Leth, but written by von Trier. It almost seemed like sort of a manifest that van Trier was making; he was gently insulting himself using Leth’s voice. The message is too personal for me to understand, but it touched me somehow. It just showed me that we are all human, no matter how perfect or imperfect we are.
The whole film to me was a revival of Dogme 95 manifesto:
1 Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
2 The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.)
3 The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.
4 The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
5 Optical work and filters are forbidden.
6 Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now).
7 Genre movies are not acceptable.
8 The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
9 The director must not be credited.
Dogme 95 was a set of obstructions, The five obstructions film was surely inspired by it, but used in a more playful and interactive way.
LES AMOURS IMAGINAIRES - USE OF SOUND
Xavier Dolan
Who’s this self centered guy?
First scene of the film (it’s not really an opening scene, but it’s introductory for the main plot) starts with our characters preparing food in the kitchen and seeing Nicolas for the first time. Here’s the first moment - Francis and Marie are moving in slow motion, the sound of cutting vegetables in exaggerated and mixed with the dinner party sounds which are in lower volume. This takes us into a moment, as banal as it could be, however we are captured by the moment as much as Francis and Marie are captured by their curiosity about Nicolas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgyEN37PmIE&feature=youtu.be
Les temps est bon
Right after this introductory scene we jump to a scene where Francis is sitting on his bed, he has a phone by his ear saying: Marie, guess what? Cut......and we appear in a cafe. We see Nicolas with heart shaped sunglasses walking in slow motion towards Francis and Marie. All three friends are smiling and kissing each other on the cheeks. At the same time we hear the song by Isabelle Pierre called Le temps est bon. The first verse in translation is: Times are good, the sky is blue, I have two friends who are also my love. There is no doubt what the whole film will be about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCZ7HWCOp2Y&feature=youtu.be
The birds
The next scene where there is an interesting use of sound is quite subtle; Marie calls Francis to tell him that she received a letter from Nicolas inviting her to meet him on Thursday. She finds out that Francis has received the same invitation, so she end the call by saying: See you on Thursday. Then there is a moment of silence when we observe Marie battling her thoughts not knowing what to think. At the background of this scene we hear the birds singing. We will find this effect at several different places later on in this film - Dolan seems to be using the sound of the birds as kind of a silence before the storm trick. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bXHwpS1K8&feature=youtu.be
Bang bang
Now that we know that the two best friends are about to start a battle to win Nicolas’s heart, we follow our two characters in the process of preparation for the battle - Marie combs her hair and puts on the mascara, Francis sprays on perfume. We are introduced to the main theme song of the battle - Bang bang by Dalida (the song is originally sung by Cher in English, but Dolan chose to use the Italian version). The song is about two friends, a boy and a girl who are playing childhood games. The boy shoots the girl down with his toy gun. Needless to say that the song and the lyrics are carefully chosen by Dolan. The slow motion scene and the slow tempo of the song correspond and bring up a feeling of anticipation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaDzyYQE5Fg&feature=youtu.be
Hide and seek
After the meeting in the coffee place Nico proposes that the three friends go to the woods and play hide and seek. At one point Nicolas catches Francis and holds him down on the ground with his full body weight. Francis tries to wrestle Nicolas, then he tries to take the edge of the awkward moment by saying things, but finally he gives in and just looks at Nicolas. At this point we hear exaggerated sounds of breathing and for about three seconds that seem like two minutes we are sucked in the feeling of being held down by someone we are attracted to, having his face a few cm away from ours, expecting to be kissed... But then the moment pasts, Nicolas gets up and goes away looking for Marie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohMjoeZ-Y_w&feature=youtu.be
The birds 2
Francis realizes he is in love with Nicolas, but at the same time he lets Marie to go out alone with Nico. Francis is confused and does not know what to do. He buys a poster of Aubrey Hepburn for Nicolas and then he sits down by a wall just thinking about the whole situation. We see different emotions in his face. And once again we hear the birds - the sound that comes when the characters don't know what to think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0xwO-QeDWc&index=6&list=PLnPklmEJ_9sbt8PZRIx- b_6YnXVTWu2DP
The colored bedroom scenes
While our characters are falling in love with Nicolas they still engage in sexual activities with
other people. These bed scenes are always accompanied by color and classical music. The scenes are rather tender and romantic then sexual, but only the part when we
hear the music.
Before or after music there is a dialog where our characters make it clear that the person who is in bed with them is not the one they would like to share their lives with. It creates an interesting contrast as if when they are talking they are giving the voice to their head and then when they are not talking but just feeling they are showing their vulnerability and letting their heart speak. The heart says - they want to be loved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_96rOBQ8a2E&feature=youtu.be
Bang bang 2
Marie and Francis are invited to Nico’s birthday party. This is their time to take the big guns out; we hear the Bang bang song again and we observe both friends getting their hair done (Francis as James Dean and Marie as Aubrey Hepburn), picking the presents for Nico and approaching the place of the battle fully dolled up and of curse in slow motion.
Welcome to the House of pain
As the Bang bang song ends the editing jumps directly into the beginning of a different song as the friends walk to the battlefield and they enter the party - it is a pop/rap song Jump around by House of Pain. The effect this change of music has on us (from classy to trashy) is accompanied by the visual image. People at Nico’s party are everything but classy and our two fashionistas in their retro outfits look and feel out of place. They just entered the house of pain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fnJQXJSsWo&feature=youtu.be
From The Knife to the Blood of a Poet
Here comes my favorite scene of the film; Francis and Marie sit together at the sofa watching Nicolas dancing with his mother to the song ‘Pass this on’ by The Knife. They are both in a bad and bitchy mood, so first they take it out on the mother who looks like a stripper and then they take it out on each other.
After the argument they both watch Nicolas (slow motion yet again plus this time there is the stroboscope effect so Nicolas seems to be moving even slower). Francis and Marie project their fantasies onto the screen of the dark dance floor as if they were in trance; we see the fast shots of ancient greek statues such as Michelangelo’s David mixed up with the shots of Nico’s blond curly head (Marie’s fantasy) and then we see the shots of Nicolas mixed with drawings that resemble the style of Jean Cocteau.
When I was watching this scene together with my flatmate who had studied fine arts ,he pointed out that the screen strongly resembles an avant-garde film by Jean Cocteau called The blood of a poet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUxLe731O9g
There is a narcissistic main character, who draws his auto portrait, the portrait get projected back on his body and he projects the image from his body onto the statue. All the elements of Dolan’s scene (Narcissistic man, old greek statue and Cocteau’s drawings) are in deed present in the film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO3arXkX5BY&feature=youtu.be
The birds 3
After the party the trio desired to go to the countryside for a weekend. The first night they start a bonfire.
Marie goes to bed earlier than Francis and Nico, leaving them alone at night. She wakes up in an empty house, steps out and sees the two of them still fooling around the bonfire which is already burned out. So is Marie. She is a person who suppresses her feelings, we see no emotion in her face. However we suddenly hear a whole flock of birds screaming as if they were screaming in anger instead of Marie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twKUj5tO7Sk&feature=youtu.be
Morning keep the streets empty
Marie is leaving the scene - defeated. Francis, probably still drunk, goes after her and tries to confront her. The tension that has been building up between the two evolves into a physical fight. Marie and Francis wrestle on the ground to the sound of a depressing song by Fever Ray - Morning keep the streets empty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URYkVOGshuU&feature=youtu.be
The last hopes
Marie decided to write a letter to Nicolas and to express her feelings to him through a love poem. We feel her emotions of hope, and we see her acting with kind of a ritual ceremoniousness. We understand the importance of the moment all through the music we hear in this scene.
The scene is cut to Francis, who decides to make his own confession, only he confronts Nicolas personally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixUCohjwdU&feature=youtu.be
Going down
While Francis makes his confession to Nico we are still hearing the classical piece that started as Marie was typing her letter. At the end when Francis tells Nico he loves him, the tone of the music changes to moll (now we are hearing Prelude form Parsifal) and as the mood of the music is going down, so are the last hopes of Francis. The only thing Nico says in the whole scene is: ,,How could you have thought I was gay?” Not only does he not feel the same, but he denies every move he had made on Francis. When the judgment is uttered the Prelude is ending. We hear a high pitched tone and see the face of Francis, not yet heartbroken, just shocked trying to process what he just heard. The tone ends and we see Francis going down the stairs into a dark corridor in complete numbing silence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCQHBojJC4&feature=youtu.be
Under the rain
It’s been a while since Marie and Francis have seen each other since the time they fought in the forest. Not sure what the other one is thinking they talk about the ‘weather’ and avoid the hot topic. Are they going to be friends again?
They are walking down the street and suddenly it starts to rain. Marie opens her umbrella, we hear the sound of heavy rain and we see Marie (in slow motion of course) putting the umbrella in the middle to cover Francis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWIOtGp8E3M&feature=youtu.be
The last bang
One year has passed and Marie and Francis are best friends again, happy and carefree as ever enjoying themselves at a party. Once they spot a handsome man who is looking and smiling in their direction. Does he look at her or at him? We don’t know. But what we do know is that Marie and Francis, as if they were in trans, follow this man while the Bang bang sons starts to play for the last time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4LxTuGHJk8&feature=youtu.be
BROTHER
Aleksei Balabanov
It definitely wouldn’t be a mistake to call Brother directed by Aleksei Balabanov a true cult movie for Russians. Plenty of quotes from this film have become catchphrases and are often being cited till now. Right after the film was launched, Balabanov has achieved a status of a modern classical director and the young actor Sergei Bodrov Jr., who was cast for the role of Danila Bagrov - the main protagonist, became a star and since then he has been strongly associated with his ambiguous character. In one interview Balabanov mentioned, that he firstly noticed Bodrov playing in Prisoner of the Mountains (1996) and he immediately recognized that nobody would fit the concept of Brother and his view of the main character Danila Bagrov as naturally as Sergei could.
Balabanov offered the young actor to make this project together on a very low budget and Bodrov agreed. The budget of the first Brother was really modest - just about 100K USD. Many scenes were shot on locations with no set design and the well known prop which was Danila’s
knitted sweater was just purchased in a second-hand shop. However the lack of financing didn’t affect the commercial success of the film. Brother, which was launchd in 1997, made the most profit at the box office and became the hit of the year.
In addition to this huge popularity among Russian audience Brother has gained some international recognition as well. It was chosen for the Cannes Film Festival Official Selection in 1997 and had received a number of positive reviews. Though it’s hard to say if the film was accepted by foreign critics with absolute optimism, which is actually understandable as the plot along with the main character’s statements tend to be quite controversial. Critic’s reviews sometimes mention the nationalistic ideas highlighted in the movie as well as “fiercely patriotic statements”. Balabanov was also often criticized for racist and xenophobic tendencies expressed through his main protagonist. In fact violence, lawlessness and racism are sort of the main focus of the film. However isn’t it justified by director’s concept?
In many of his films including Brother and Brother 2 Balabanov explores problems of national identity and creating the image of Russian Post-Soviet life in half allegorical way. The ironic view of those well known national stereotypes is quite typical for Balabanov’s cinematic style. Some of the characters look like they were taken from anecdotes popular in Post-Soviet Russia and others are reduced into cultural stereotypes.
Some would probably say that Bodrov failed his role for not being capable to play the character more intensely, lively and realistically. But as it was already mentioned, Balabanov was quite sure that nobody could be as natural in this role as Bodrov. It’s just important to understand what kind of character he represents.
The nature of Danila’s character is reflected in the name of the
film. His identity is limited by the term “Brother”. Danila doesn’t have his own personality, individual needs or casual egocentric wants as all of us do. He is even not a man but a “brother”- a part of his brotherhood, family, clan and the nation. This idea becomes especially visible in a final scene, where we see that Danila is ready to save and avenged his brother even though he knows that Vitia betrayed him.
Danila doesn’t pay much attention to these details; down to earth passions or fears cannot stop him from achieving his goals. His mission is to serve “the universal truth” as he understands it. Being completely devoted to this mission gives him invincible strength and ultimate
fearlessness that fascinates the audience. Danila’s popular quote from Brother 2 is “whoever is right is strong”. It means that absolute certainty about being right and keeping loyalty to so called “universal truth” gives him his strength. Being like that Danila sees himself as an “universal justice soldier”. He is not only right but everybody who does not share his values is wrong and automatically becomes his enemy. According to the “universal law” all enemies will be defeated. An absolute concentration on his goals with no self reflection is actually the key to Danila’s samurai-like tranquility. It allows him to act effectively without being emotionally distracted or making mistakes. Those complex conflicting emotions that make the character alive are not familiar to him. Despite of this Danila’s character looks simple, solid and completely integrated which makes him look like a real superhero.
As mentioned before Danila serves what he calls “the truth” and defends those who he calls “brothers”. He distinguishes between those who he can call so and those he wouldn’t. He has no sympathy for the ones on the other side. As the film progresses we see that this choice is quite often made in context of ethnical origin. For example in the scene where Danila helps the ticket collector on the bus to get the fine from two Caucasian men who have no tickets and refuse to pay, the one of them, once he sees a gun in Danila’s hand, starts to cry saying: ”Please, don’t kill us, brother”. Danila calmly explains to him in a rude racist way that he is not his “brother”.
As a self appointed defender Danila sees his mission in protecting poor
and week disadvantaged Russians kind of like Robin Hood of this day and age. The ethnicity is one of the things Danila really pays attention to, which gives him somewhat moral guidance. In the scene where he talks to the market seller at the cemetery, Danila becomes instantly suspicious about Jewish origin of the old men he rescued from the street mafia man. This conversation appears to hint to Danila’s anti Semite sentiments. Taking in consideration that the character’s perception often goes through the prism of ethnical origin, there is no wonder that some characters have nicknames like “Chechen” or “Tatarin”.
Those sort of disturbing notions are slightly balanced by Danila’s love for music. In almost a comic situation he runs around the city searching for Nautilus Pompilius’s new album. Music is always with him and we hear him listen to his favorite rock band thought the headphones. However when he gets to the party Danila categorically states: “American music is shit”. This actually proves one more time,
that t h e film protagonist’s patriotism goes into opposition to other cultures. What is unfamiliar to him is wrong. Concluding the conversation Danila adds: “Here goes “kirdyk"* to America. We’ll get you all”. Never mind that he
comments on an Europop band (E-rotic from Germany) and talks to a French man who does not understand him. It’s all the same to Danila. In the film’s second part the topic of opposition to America and its cultural and ethnical values will continue, although this time Danila makes an American friend - a truck driver called Bob Johnson who seems to share Danila’s values despite the cultural differences. In Brother 2 Danila travels to Chicago to avenge the brother of his battle comrade, who’s being cheated by American gangsters of the revenue he earns for playing hockey in the National League.
When we take a close look at all mentioned above, the huge popularity of both films sets a question. Did Balabanov capture the mood in Post-Soviet Russia and does the public reaction confirm this? In another words, is it possible to understand the Brother’s idea as director’s attempt to depict a process of forming a new national identity that partly includes extreme nationalistic sentiments? After the Soviet Union dissolution Russia turned to the unstable economical situation and political uncertainty, that resulted in the loss of moral reference points. Together with the war in Chechnya it could lead to the situation when historically traditional society with strong clan instincts gave a rise to the ethnical intolerance along with opposition to foreign cultures, which insensibly integrated into Russian mentality. Balabanov leaves this question opened as it looks like he just tries to reflect the reality as he sees it but doesn’t make any conclusions and avoids moralization. In one of the interviews he said: ”Some find Brother immoral, some find it moral, but I don’t actually care”.
*Abu Kirdyk is a mix of Arabic with Russian slang with the implied meaning of "A place you're likely to die at"
PLAYTIME
Jacques Tati
The film that I choose to write about is a comedy by Jacques Tati called Playtime, which was shot from 1964 through 1967 and released in 1967. I have seen this film several times at home and formed my initial opinion about it. Later I came to further conclusions as we had discussed it in class.
Playtime portrays an ordinary person (a man in his early fifties dressed in a suit, coat and a hat looking like an office worker) dealing with the situations of the modern urban world, such as having a meeting in an office building, visiting a shopping center or having dinner at a restaurant. No matter how simple and banal the situations are, they always seem to trap and confuse the main character. Along his way he is dealing with many other anonymous characters which, unlike him, don't seem to be lost at all in the maze of the modern city.
Is this a featured film or a cartoon?
To me as to a person who is new to the topic or mise-en-scène this film seemed visually almost like a cartoon, which was the overall feeling that i had while watching without really knowing why. I discovered that it was closer to truth than i initially thought. When we discussed the movie in class, I found out that Tati uses 2d paper cutouts of people and buildings to actually create somewhat cartoonish images. As if he was trying to confuse the viewers and bring them closer to the confused main character. Sometimes Tati even brings a seemingly cut out figure to life (a real person was posing as a cut out, but later starts moving).
Pseudo futurism
The cartoon feeling of the film does not stop by the visual aspect. The story takes place in a pseudo futuristic world full of technical conveniences which are supposed to be modern and helpful but only add to the absurdity. Paris is portrayed as a city mainly full of modern houses made of concrete, glass and steel (which Tati had built specially for the film) instead of the old romantic buildings that we are used to. Occasionally there is a reflection of a classical Paris building on the glass of the window of a modern house, but the focus is on the cubical buildings. The tourists photograph them and we also see the same buildings advertised on the posters of a traveling agency. Another pseudo futuristic and absurd aspect was shown in over the top modern technology, which only seemed to complicate things. For example there is a scene in playtime where an old genitor tries to call his colleague on a house phone to announce the arrival of the main character. Operating a house phone - that in our world can be done by pressing a single button, looked more like operating a spaceship.
Here are some significant aspects of the mise en scene in playtime:
Geometry
A visual aspect that was strongly present in the film was the geometry of the set. This geometry applied not only to the buildings of concrete, glass and steel and the furniture in the offices but also to the patterns created by people. This adds to the robotic feeling of the overall atmosphere of the film and the feeling of anonymity.
Color
All the characters shown in the film during the day are dressed in gray or brown to match the buildings and to blend in with the scene, while the characters of the night scenes in the restaurant are dressed in black and white - once again they are matching the design of the restaurant. It feels almost like Tati was using the characters as props or accessories in the set design.
Uniformity
There is not much variety in the way the characters are dressed. This creates a look of uniformity and even though there are characters that are actually wearing a uniform. Those are carefully distinguished from the 'civil' characters. visually there is only a thin line between the 'civilists' and the people who deliver service to them.
Anonymity
As I have already mentioned, the main character in playtime is meeting other characters throughout the whole film, but none of the characters seem to be on the same level as him. Yes, they treat him politely, but the politeness overcomes the purpose of being helpful and is present just for the sake of itself, again adding on to the absurdity of the story.
Bureaucracy
Similar to the self serving politeness, there is also an element of bureaucracy shown in playtime. The example of that would be a scene that the main character witnesses; one man calls another man from one office cubicle to another. character a in the first cubicle needs information from his colleague - character b. Character b has to put the phone down, goes across the office open space all the way to the cubicle of character a, opens the drawer on the side of the cubicle of, looks up the information and goes back to his own cubicle to pass on the information that was closer and easier to get to character a the whole time.
Confusion
Our main character is no rebel and he wants to follow the rules and signs believing that they will help him find his way. but instead of helping they are misleading. For example in an attempt to get out of a restaurant the main character follows the neon sign leading him out of the restaurant only to lead him back in.
Parametric narration
The film is considered an example of "parametric narration” in which the style "dominates the plot or is seemingly equal in importance to it". In other words the way how the film is delivered is more important than the story itself.
Special sound effects
Dialogue is frequently reduced to the level of background noise.