Showing posts with label Apichatpong Weerasethakul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apichatpong Weerasethakul. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Top Ten: 2004


Ranking the Decades
A Year in Film List + Image Gallery


Notre Musique [Jean-Luc Godard, 2004]:


The Village [M. Night Shyamalan, 2004]:


Tropical Malady [Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2004]:


Moolaadé [Ousmane Sembène, 2004]:


With Blood on My Hands: Pusher II [Nicolas Winding Refn, 2004]:


2046 [Wong Kar Wai, 2004]:


The World [Jia Zhangke, 2004]:


To Forget [Adrian Thomas Pennington, 2004]:


Vital [Shin'ya Tsukamoto, 2004]:


Vera Drake [Mike Leigh, 2004]:

Above, arranged in order of preference, my personal top-ten best films of the year (from what I've seen), accurate at the time of writing.

Sunday, 6 April 2014

Top Ten: 2006


Ranking the Decades
A Year in Film List + Image Gallery


The Boss of It All [Lars von Trier, 2006]:


Colossal Youth [Pedro Costa, 2006]:


Lady in the Water [M. Night Shyamalan, 2006]:


The Exterminating Angels [Jean-Claude Brisseau, 2006]:


Still Life [Jia Zhangke, 2006]:


Gardens in Autumn [Otar Iosseliani, 2006]:


Syndromes and a Century [Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2006]:


Children of Men [Alfonso Cuarón, 2006]:


Pan's Labyrinth [Guillermo del Toro, 2006]:


Bamako [Abderrahmane Sissako, 2006]:

Above, arranged in order of preference, my personal top-ten best films of the year (from what I've seen), accurate at the time of writing.

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Dead But Not Yet Buried


I found this article while trying to locate reviews of the latest M. Night Shyamalan movie, After Earth, that didn't originate from an English speaking source.  I thought the argument was quite interesting, so, with the aid of an online translator and my own efforts to clean up the text (hopefully not losing too much of the article's original intent), I'm re-posting it here.  The article was interesting to me because it seems to suggests that outside of the Anglophone blogosphere there are others who find something genuinely quite unsettling about the way English-language journalists are approaching Shyamalan's work, or more appropriately, approaching Shyamalan the filmmaker.  The legitimate fury that the writer/director has inspired has long since gone beyond constructive criticism; it's no longer about evaluating the work with as much reverence and respect as you might afford the work of an another human being, but an effort to actively (and gleefully) destroy Shyamalan and his professional reputation.  The journalists (if we can even call them such; the majority have no journalistic training and no education in film) are backed and encouraged by a culture of ever increasingly vitriolic audience members who likewise have little knowledge of the cinema and its histories and are attacking these films from an entirely consumerist perspective.  That a great number of genuine movie fans aren't outraged by this (regardless of their feelings for Shyamalan and his work) is both a surprise and a disgrace, since this issue seems to have passed well beyond what we might call valid film criticism into a kind of censorship by consensus, which is unacceptable. 

This article by Hendy Bicaise gets to the core of this issue, citing several critics who, for me, have crossed the line into something quite destructive and actually prejudicial; no longer striving for objectivity or respect for those of us who see Shyamalan as a relevant and imaginative filmmaker, but really just trashing the films without analysis or interpretation.  However, his article is not just a defence of Shyamalan, but an attempt to look at After Earth as an actual film and not just as a product of this strange burlesque of opinion.  Bicaise actually engages with the material, wittily interpreting it; it's not just about standing in judgement over the film but attempting to place the film into a proper 'auteurist' context within the parameters of Shyamalan's work.  As an approach, it's refreshing to see, and reminds me of something the Toronto based film critic David Davidson said recently in his article about Shyamalan's relationship with the magazine Cahiers du Cinéma.  Davidson writes: "Even though Night is a championed director at Cahiers they acknowledge the flaws in some of his films, when they deserve it. What is the big difference between Cahiers and how most other critics view Shyamalan's work is that Cahiers approach his films with a generosity instead of condescension."  In highlighting the Cahiers reception of Shyamalan's work, Davidson is providing a wider context on the director and his reputation outside of the U.S., but is also highlighting the disparity in the way these films are written about and received.  The serious, analytical, academic study of film (all film) as genuine objets d'art - and not just as 'product' to be gossiped about or griped about or slapped with some flimsy numerical reward - seems beyond the grasp of the majority of Anglophone critics, who look to approach the medium with an absolute indifference and contempt.
 
 
Reflections of Lady in the Water [Zak Forsman & Kevin K. Shah, 2006]:
 
The translation below is in no way definitive.  It's full of mistakes and may even lose the quality and the intention of the original piece.  Nonetheless, I wanted to highlight this particular consideration because it communicated something that I've tried to express myself, but was unable to find the right words.  Rather than re-post the promotional images used for the original article I've added several images of my own choice, to provide illustration.  Final apologies to Hendy Bicaise if the translation is so far off from his original article that it becomes a completely different work, but regardless, the thoughts and insights that this text provides, not just in regards to the critical judgement of Shyamalan the filmmaker, but as a critical study of his latest film After Earth, is for me invaluable.
 

 
After Earth
N'enterrons pas trop vite M. Night Shyamalan
By Hendy Bicaise
Vodkaster, June 5th, 2013
 
Is the haste proportional to the hype?  M. Night Shyamalan is now hated, especially in the United States, and especially in the American press; but is this in proportion to the enthusiasm he once aroused with The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000)?  Since Lady in the Water (2006), the director seems to pay for "betraying" a number of his admirers.  As if, in retrospect, they felt guilty for having so loved his early films.  The icy reception of After Earth - his new film, in theatres this June - brought down sharply by critics and shunned by the American public, seems to confirm this: Shyamalan has become the scapegoat for Hollywood.  This is an opportunity to return to this critical determination, incidentally to argue that it is unfair, and to see how Shyamalan has found the best person to defend his position, chiefly, himself.
 
 
After Earth [M. Night Shyamalan, 2013]:
 
A decade ago, Newsweek magazine devoted its cover to M. Night Shyamalan.  It read, in full, in bold, without a question mark, "The Next Spielberg ".  For several years, and again with the release of After Earth (2013), the American press cannot help referring to this statement.  For Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times, for example, the film is "an unintentionally funny sci-fi thriller made without imagination by a director once considered the new Spielberg."  It is amusing to note that the stronger the rejection of this later work, the more enthusiastic their response to his earlier success appears.  Before sticking the knife in, they recall their affection for his early films and voila, the dismissal becomes easy.  A recent video by 'Screen Junkies' (a group responsible for the web-series "Honest Trailers") operates on the same principle.  The three columnists have fun electing the "worst film by M. Night Shyamalan."  To do this, they go through his films chronologically, from the "masterpiece" The Sixth Sense to the "nadir" of The Last Airbender, tracking the reception to Shyamalan's work as it becomes more severe.
 
In the video, the 'Screen Junkies' conform to another constant in bashing Shyamalan by maintaining that the latest film is always worse than the last.  The most striking example of this so far was the infamous chart taken from the aggregate ratings site, Rotten Tomatoes, in which the films were each ranked from a system of binary ratings assigned by a panel of American critics, presenting a programmed devaluation.  With the release of After Earth, his fiercest critics will begin to move-in, asking themselves, how do we lower the perception of a filmmaker even further when one is already at the lowest?  If American journalists had the ambition to continue to belittle Shyamalan's work for as long as possible, they should have made their rejection less swift.  Even with the release of Lady in the Water (2006), the reaction was already very violent.  In Time Out, Trevor Johnson announces "[the film] isn't just duff, it's career-threateningly catastrophic."  Shyamalan, the director who openly teased reviewers when he wrote the character of Mr. Farber (Bob Balaban) - a heartless film critic eventually eaten alive by a monster - has clearly sought the ire of Johnson and his cronies.
 
 
Lady in the Water [M. Night Shyamalan, 2006]:

The French press is more divided.  If some say "it's just ego", others defend it more than ever.  For Cahiers du Cinema, Lady in the Water is a great movie and is even found in their Top 10 of 2006.  A distinction shared by The Village (2004) two years earlier, also elected in the top ten films of the year by the magazine, in second place behind Tropical Malady (2004) by Apichatpong Weerasethakul .  For a while, this fact was merely anecdotal, at least until 2010 when the Thai director, having just won the Palme d'Or for Uncle Boonmee, said in an interview with Les Inrockuptibles that Shyamalan is one of his favourite contemporary filmmakers.
 
 
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives [Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2010]:
 
Reflections of Lady in the Water [Zak Forsman & Kevin K. Shah, 2006]:

However, does the defence of his films by some of his peers and only a handful of scattered critics make it difficult to hope for a comeback?  Should we instead listen to sceptics and expect nothing more of Shyamalan, or follow those who despise, unreasonably, and throw out everything in retrospect, including his first film?  As most negative critics are often the loudest, it's better to try and find peace and reason.  Like the rule of survival instilled by Will Smith to his son in After Earth ("Take a knee"), do the work and try to point to the origin of the hatred.
 
The anti-Shyamalan cabal sometimes looks like a competition.  Recently, in the Metro Times , Jeff Meyers began his review with these words: "Is there a more satisfying career implosion than that of M. Night Shyamalan?" before adding, not without a certain cowardice: "Far be it for me to wish ruin upon anyone, but the filmmaker all but invited derision from those in my field when he spoke long and loud of his genius and then in The Lady in the Water brutally murders an arrogant film critic and casts himself as a writer whose work brings about world peace."  It always comes back Lady in the Water; the origin of evil.  After he offered them the screenplay in 2004, the bosses at Disney were the first to suggest the consequences that such a film would have: "You attacked the film critic? They'll kill you for that..."  Since then, the struggle with each new work to find the harshest word against Shyamalan has become a kind of national, journalistic sport.  This year's game is sandwiched between the poisoned Jason Gorber of Twitch.com, who calls the film "apocalyptically bad" and Richard Roeper, who anticipates it to be "one of the worst movies of 2013", while the Wall Street Journal wonders if it is "the worst movie of all time" (before answering "no", though it is nice to be asked the question).  But for the prize "WTF" comment we have to turn to the blogger Mike McGranaghan who says that 'After Earth is "the cinematic equivalent of the video Friday by Rebecca Black. "
 
The most amazing thing about all of this is the fact that so many - whether they're critics, bloggers or moviegoers who respond to their articles - speak without knowledge of Shyamalan's cinema.  In itself, this is not a problem: all the critics and their followers cannot know, by heart, the work of each auteur.  The problem is, they claim their ignorance with pride.  The first person to respond to the Roeper article on the newspaper's website makes it clear: "I admit his movies fell down from Lady in the water, which was the last one I saw."  A declaration that therefore has no real merit, but nevertheless reflects a general feeling.  The consideration of his filmography as ramshackle since 2006 is almost a given, obvious, no need to see the films to attest.  Moreover, Jason Gorber of Twitch begins his review with a similar confession: "I purposely missed out on Signs, and The Village, and The Lady in the Water, each film with progressively lower IMDb ratings."  They're free to avoid the films, if they wish to, but why not be more discreet?  What does the critic hope to achieve by boasting, publically, that he shunned the previous films of a director in the same column in which he discusses his latest work?  This is a clasping confession.  So naturally, in comparison, the viewer who loves After Earth, who has not ignored its author and, in fact, believes it more natural to defend his latest film, inevitably ends up in a position of force.  For it is only by summoning all of these previous films that M. Night Shyamalan's' After Earth becomes vast.
 
Far from thinking, Scott Foundas in Variety describes the investment of the filmmaker on this project as "clearly a director-for-hire, his disinterest palpable from first frame to last."  The director here is more than a simple yes man, for the film is clearly placed within the continuity of his work and, more importantly, adds to its general discourse.  The future, as described in After Earth, is not our future, but the future of the characters of Shyamalan's previous films.  The people of Nova Prime - the planet where Cypher and Kitai Raige (Will and Jaden Smith ) live at the beginning of the film - are the descendants of the heroes of Signs (2002), The Village and Lady in the Water, etc..  Shyamalan recites details, references and self-citations to support this suggestion.  The baby monitor of Signs, a primitive means of extraterrestrial communication, turned into a standardized object, is here used by Kitai Raige for extraterrestrial communication.  As captured by the film's signal, it is now audible, tenfold, a millennium later in After Earth, on the edges of space.  Even the "Great Eatlon", mythical eagle and benefactor of the Lady in the Water, is back in a sequence of this latest film, again to save a teenager's mission.  And when Kitai gets rid of an enemy by dropping it into a hidden crevasse - like Ivy Walker in The Village - he invites the possibility that the boy has been raised and educated on the exploits of the other heroine, blindly traversing kilometres to save a loved one.
 
 
Lady in the Water [M. Night Shyamalan, 2006]:

After Earth [M. Night Shyamalan, 2013]:

 
The Village [M. Night Shyamalan, 2004]:

After Earth [M. Night Shyamalan, 2013]:

On Earth, as now on Nova Prime, Shyamalan's tales seem to have been told for a thousand years.  We also look back to the character of the prophet in Lady in the water, where Vick Ran played some small role in the changing world of the last millennium.  One thinks of nature, and its rebellion against humanity in The Happening (2008), as the first warning that the earth is to be taken seriously, and which would eventually lead to our inevitable departure from this "blue world."  Alone, abandoned by almost everyone, M. Night Shyamalan has come to save himself.  Rather than wait, time gives him reason; he jumped a thousand years in the future to talk about a world where his films were finally appreciated at their true value, and even became words of the Gospel.  It must be remembered, the sentence that would have pronounced Beethoven to the end of his life, facing the chilly reception of one of his last compositions: "It might please them... some day."  Critics and fans of the film can at least agree on this point: this is a statement that would also be well suited to M. Night Shyamalan.
 

 
Original text published by vodkaster.com, © Vodkaster & Hendy Bicaise, 2013
 
You can read the full article, in French, with original illustrations, hereI would also highly recommend Davidson's blog and his translations of several articles on Shyamalan's work, as published in Cahiers du Cinéma, and contrast it to the lazy, repulsive way English-speaking reviewers approach these films.

Saturday, 12 May 2012

One-Hundred Favourite Films - Part Ten

Ongoing response to The Dancing Image "100 (of Your) Favourite Movies" meme-that's-not-a-meme, presented here in a loosely alphabetical order. I'm posting the series in reverse formation in an attempt to maintain the original continuity, from A to Z.



Stop Making Sense
Directed by Jonathan Demme - 1984

Let's drop the 'concert' tag from the term 'concert film' and appreciate this for what it is. Demme's film - a live recording of a Talking Heads performance; shot over three nights at the Pantages Theater in Los Angeles, 1983 - is one of the greatest American motion-pictures of the 1980s, 'concert' or otherwise! A film that goes beyond merely showing the band play live for the benefit of a paying audience and instead manages to explore the very idea of performance, and our perception of what music is. Music, not as a commodity, or as showbiz 'event', but as an expression; as a communal experience.

By stripping away the usual extraneous baggage, like pyrotechnics, enormous sets and dazzling costumes that are so often associated with films of this nature, Demme & Co. are able to place the music - and this shared experience of it - at the very centre of the thing; creating something that has the feeling of a great spectacle - like a grand revival or a back-lot musical number - but a spectacle of small gestures; with vulnerability, celebrations and moments of great intimacy.

The approach, which begins with lead singer David Byrne walking out onto the empty stage with his acoustic guitar and a now defunct cassette player, only to be joined, one by one, by the rest of the band and supporting musicians as the set-list develops, gives the film its sense of narrative. A feeling of story - full of drama and emotion and individual characters - that unfolds, like interconnected vignettes, through each of the sixteen songs.



The Suspended Step of the Stork
Directed by Theodoros Angelopoulos - 1991

Anyone who has seen this typically mesmeric Angelopoulos meditation on 'borders' (political, geographical, generational, psychological) speaks of the pure spectacle of the wedding across the river, which in perfect cinematic terms suggests the absurdity of nationalism - of claiming place - as an affront to the natural human instinct to create links between people. It is, in its presentation, one of the boldest of Angelopoulos's great set-pieces, and one of the defining moments of this, his greatest film.

Using a framing device similar to the one found in his earlier film Voyage to Cythera (1984), Angelopoulos sends a filmmaker - in this instance a producer of "human interest" documentaries for television - into a refugee camp somewhere along the Greek border. Increasingly fascinated by the image of a dishevelled man of low standing but great dignity, the filmmaker - as vessel for Angelopoulos - begins to 'invent' a story around him. The story of a noted politician, who having become disillusioned with the system, simply disappeared.

The character of the filmmaker, in many ways a surrogate for Angelopoulos - the restless observer who enters this place in order to find a story - is also a representation of the audience. His presence suggesting the role of the viewer as an intruder within the lives of these characters, and how this intrusion relates to possibly the greatest "border" an audience will ever face: the one that exists between reality and fiction.



The Tango Lesson
Directed by Sally Potter - 1997

This is a film about dance - about the Argentine Tango to be precise - but it's also a film about cinema as a creative force. Cinema, as a spectacle, is a kind of dance; an expression of movement and emotion. The bodies within the frame play out this intricate choreography, which suggests, in its motions, stances, attitudes and positions, a variety of stories (of love and anger, sorrow and betrayal); but the dancers are matched at every step by the chorography of the camera, the intonations of the editing and the rhythms of the music. When placed together in collaboration these elements create a story; the story of a man and a woman.

Potter's intensely personal, near-autobiographical film, uses the liberation of dance as a way of dealing with the often cumbersome process of making a film (from the meddlesome producers, to the weight of expectation, to writer's block and sheer vulnerability...). However, in doing so, she's able to illustrate the natural ability of filmmaking, when it works, to transcend these various pitfalls and create something that is, as a creative act, as passionate, moving and wordlessly-expressive as the dance itself.



Three Crowns of the Sailor
Directed by Raúl Ruiz - 1983

How to express in words the magic of this film, or any Ruiz film for that matter? Its narrative, like a tall tale dusted off and handed down by the narrator to its curious listener, is full of strange tangents, jarring twists and a variety of intangible loose ends. There are stories within stories - a kaleidoscope of images, refracted, like a cracked mirror-ball manifestation - which traipse backwards and forwards between mystery, fantasy, thriller, melodrama and farce, as if the whole thing is being invented for our amusement (before the rug is pulled out from under us by yet another narrative left-turn!)

The combination of dazzling (formalist) experimentation, nested flashbacks, outrageous compositions (which boggle the mind as well as the eye) and a continual inter-cutting between black & white and saturated colour creates the feeling of an unreliable narrator patching together a tapestry of elaborate fabrication, and goes further than any other film (that I can think of) in capturing the atmosphere and tonality of the great short stories of the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, who seems to have been an influence.



Tokyo Story
Directed by Yasujirô Ozu - 1953

It seems impossible to define the extraordinary power of this film, which on paper reads as a typically unassuming post-war melodrama about the usual concerns: family, responsibility, bereavement, and the ever widening gap that exists between the generations. Ozu had already covered much of the same territory in earlier films, most notably The Only Son (1936) and Late Spring (1947), but rather than feel like a reiteration of such themes, there's a certain process of refinement in the approach to Tokyo Story, which once again explores the same concerns, but does so with such assurance and simplicity that the continual shifts, from comedy to drama, jollity to pathos, seem effortlessly placed.

If the experience can be reduced to anything at all, it's the feeling of authenticity. An emotional authenticity, with these moments and interactions displaying a rich understanding of human behaviour - a warmth and compassion that makes the occasional critique seem all the more pointed, or keenly observed - and an overwhelming sense of time and place, of life, continually moving, crashing, then caressing, like waves against the rocks. Most films provide entertainment; some even inspire great thoughts and feeling; it's a select few that are powerful enough to teach us how to live.



Tropical Malady
Directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul - 2004

Moments that stir the soul: The gold noon sun of the opening sequence; the body and the music; the camera brushing through the tall green grass as if presenting the perspective of another; the shape shifter that intrudes upon the scene and watches, silently, from the periphery; the figure that wanders naked into the empty frame; the song and the cinema; the moped ride that brings to mind the vacant drifting into night of Catherine Deneuve's 'Marie' in Pola X (1999); the underground shrine; the stories within stories; the questions of love, with its mysteries and conspiracies; the spirit of the animal returning to the forest; the lights in the trees; the eyes of the beast burning brightly through the dark.

These waning moments that bewitch us like that "strange creature" on the spirit's path, who beguiles us with its otherworldly presence; plays games with us, forces us to pursue it through the darkened forest until we're lost, like the trapper in the clearing, where the branches hang down like the talons of an out-stretched claw.

That Tropical Malady is defined by these moments is in no way a criticism. Its bare plot, which spins two seemingly separate stories with much room for individual interpretation, feels at times like a blank canvas. We project ourselves onto it by bringing our own interests and emotional perspectives; seeing a creation of love or revulsion, devotion or obsession, depending on our own individual personalities. As a result, the film remains vague, elusive even; challenging the audience to think themselves through the film, to ponder its great mysteries and construct the plot in hindsight from the similarities that are formed by both parts of the narrative.



The Village
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan - 2004

Like Miklós Jancsó's The Round-Up (1966), a recognisable 'historical' setting is used to explore a series of contemporary concerns. 'The village' of the title becomes a metaphor for America in the shadow of 9/11; fearful and hermetic; fuelled by scaremongering and propaganda tactics that impose order, conformity and control. The 'monsters' that breach the periphery of this prison-as-village manifestation are representations of a society so blinded by pious self-righteousness that they fail to recognise violence and resentment as inherently human traits. In doing so, these characters effectively initiate their own downfall, but refuse to acknowledge it as anything less than a personal utopia.

Regardless of how well we perceive this social commentary, Shyamalan's film is undeniably beautiful; every frame, evocatively lit and composed with an artist's eye, could be mistaken for an impressionist painting. The play of light and colour is incredible, but it's the depth of the film that most impresses, with Shyamalan producing an atmospheric "monster movie" that not only works as a wider commentary on society, isolation, violence and bereavement, but remains perhaps the most successfully realised treatise on the director's favourite theme: the sacrifice.

For all its slow, unsettling ambience, its high-concept approach and its typically controversial mystery-box reveal, The Village is really, at its best, a wounded cry of anguish, a declaration of love and a solemn, beautifully crafted and incredibly moving film about the perseverance of the human spirit, as personified by Ivy Walker; the blind leading the blind.



The Ward
Directed by John Carpenter - 2010

'The ward', as a setting, as a physical space, is a representation of the character's psyche. Its winding corridors, like the corridors of the mind, become a labyrinth, leading everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. The evil that lurks within this maze of emotions - the literal 'monster in the box' that stalks and picks-off, one by one, these vulnerable young women - represents a great trauma; but the same can be said of the characters as well. Where The Ward succeeds is in creating this dichotomy between what is felt by the central character and what is presented on-screen; where the uncontrollable bursts of emotion (cf. Run Baby Run) are not only a respite from the solitude of confinement, physical and psychological, but an outward expression of the character's inner thoughts and fears.

Here, persecution and self-loathing find an outlet through a generic supernatural mystery and its knife-through-the-heart twist.



Werckmeister Harmonies
Directed by Béla Tarr & Ágnes Hranitzky - 2000

From its opening dramatisation of planets in orbit (creating a living enactment of a solar eclipse) to the eventual exhausted feeling of numbed dislocation - which characterises the overall experience - the effect of the film on me, as a viewer, was comparable to the effect that the giant whale carcass has on its own protagonist, János Valuska. As a result, I've come to see the film as a similar 'mysterious object'; one powerful enough to transform the very character of an audience willing to look at the film - to be moved and enthralled by its atmosphere, imagery and remarkable intensity - without necessarily subjecting it to any great scrutiny; just let the film speak.

As such, I find it impossible to define, clearly at least, just how captivating the film is, how breathlessly its story develops through each vivid tableau, and how much the use of the camera - blocking and revealing objects like the orbiting planets of the opening scene - creates a feeling of dizzying insanity, as tangible for the audience as the plague of madness that descends upon its characters. This is something that cannot be explained, only experienced.



Winstanley
Directed by Kevin Brownlow & Andrew Mollo - 1975

The film's authenticity is overwhelming. The sense of time and place, visible in every costume and location, in the rust, the mud and decay, or on the faces of these non-professional actors who speak the words with an untrained innocence that makes us believe every second of their interactions, their politics and ideals, is alive in every frame. There are no 'stars' here, just faces. Honest faces, plain faces, ugly faces; faced caked in dirt and debris but still looking at the shadows on the hillside, at the ploughed fields and the sense of accomplishment, with a wet-eyed optimism that is touching in its integrity.

Some familiarity with the actual historical context might be necessary to really understand the relationships between characters, or the greater political shifts that occur across the edges of the film, but really this is Brownlow's attempt at a John Ford western - think Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) perhaps - by way of the rigorous , precise, historical documentary-dramas of Peter Watkins or Straub-Huillet.

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

Phantoms of Nabua

Phantoms of Nabua directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2009:

A film about the impressions of light and memory, described by its director as an exploration on the concept of remembrance and extinction. The title, Phantoms of Nabua (2009), therefore establishes the location, and through the particular evocation of the word phantoms, defines the presentation of these characters emerging, half-formed, from the fires that surround them. The film, which runs for close to eleven minutes in duration (with credits), is part of Weerasethakul's multi-platform 'Primitive' project, which is described by it's creator as a "portrait of home." Weerasethakul states that, like the previous experiment, A Letter to Uncle Boonmee (2009), this film "portrays a communication of light; the lights that exude, on the one hand, the comfort of home, and on the other, destruction." In this respect, it is a film, like much of Weerasethakul's work, that is defined by its images; which are striking, precisely because their relative simplicity - as in the way that these manifestations seem to be created from everyday objects that we might find anywhere around us at any given time - is in a complete contrast with the overwhelming otherworldliness of the manner in which they are used.

This contrast of light, of the natural and the artificial, is of particular significance in how we approach the film; creating a disparity, as ever with this director, where one line intersects another, creating drama and emotional connection from the juxtaposition of two immediately disparate forms. In his more clearly defined narrative work, such as Tropical Malady (Sud pralad, 2004) or Syndromes and a Century (Sang sattawat, 2006), these disparate forms are illustrated by two divergent narrative strands that coalesce. As we view the films, not knowing or expecting such shifts to occur, we're disarmed by the experience; seeing the switch from a level of, for example, documentary realism into pure folklore, as largely disruptive. However, when we think about these tricks again, after the initial viewing, and return to the films in an attempt to try and discover these great mysteries that lurk behind each moment, we see that the two strands complement one another on a much greater level. Certain parallels and similarities can be gleaned from paying close attention to the significance of certain objects, or the introduction of a character, their movements and approach. It also has a lot to do with location. In Tropical Malady, or more specifically perhaps in Blissfully Yours (Sud sanaeha, 2002), the location plays an important part in understanding the drama and the way that it unfolds.

Even the name of the place - Nabua - is rich in exotic suggestion; already creating the image of a jungle at night (hot and wet from the fresh summer rain) before the film has even begun. The lightning storm that introduces the film - real or man-made - also sets a tone for the experiments to follow. Already we're seeing the contrast between the natural and the artificial - both the differences and the similarities - in two distinct presentations; like the two layers of projection from which the film is made - an artificial recording of a literal projection of light on a canvas, capturing another artificial recording against the backdrop of a jungle at night. In this respect, Phantoms of Nabua is a folding of one film into another, with Weerasethakul taking footage from another installation, projecting it on a screen in the middle of a playground illuminated by a solitary fluorescent tube, and allowing the film on screen (as in - one frame within another) to captivate his characters; creating a near-supernatural atmosphere that stresses the extraordinary power of the image, and the impact on those who see it. Thus, in its purest form, it is the expression of the spectacle as it relates to those experiencing it; these lights - like the light from a cinema screen - burning through the dark.


Phantoms of Nabua directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2009:

Weerasethakul compares the project to the book A Man Who Can Recall His Past Lives, claiming that "Primitive is about reincarnation and transformation; a celebration of the destructive force in nature and in us that burns in order to be reborn and mutate." Into this we have the football match – the ball being passed back and forth in a potential representation of the shot/reverse-shot, before setting the screen ablaze. The significance here is unknown. However, these encounters of light, illuminating the pitch-black canvas of night - (obscurité, oh ma lumière) - tell a story. Each object tells a story. In introducing the film and explaining the significance of the fluorescent tube that lights the area directly above the goalposts where the action plays out, Weerasethakul writes: "for an economic reason, most of the houses in Asia are illuminated by fluorescent lights. Even though these lights make the skin look pale, even dead, for me they relate to home, to being home." If each object can be read on such a level, revealing more of Weerasethakul's personal intentions, then we can better appreciate the importance of how each individual object has a meaning, and how each part of this installation can be seen together to create a greater whole.

It goes back to those two original contrasts; the lights that exude the comfort of home or destruction, which are apparent throughout. So the fluorescent tube, with its recollections of home, and the fire which destroys the screen, are explicitly underlined. But then how do we interpret the light that burns behind the screen? This alien-light, reminding us of the strange lights that danced in the trees in the second part of Tropical Malady - or the lights from Steven Spielberg's science-fiction masterpiece Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) - which defy classification, but affect us, emotionally? Is this flickering light, like the light cast from the reflection of a mirror, a destructive force, numbing those that experience it; or is it an altogether more wholesome light – a light that allows these characters to transcend, beyond the primitive tribal rituals of football, or the creation of fire, or the past-violence of Nabua itself, and becoming more like the monolith from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) – a harbinger of greater change.


Close Encounters of the Third Kind directed by Steven Spielberg, 1977:

Phantoms of Nabua directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 2009:

2001: A Space Odyssey directed by Stanley Kubrick, 1968:

Schalcken the Painter (1979)

Schalcken the Painter [Schalcken the Painter [Leslie Megahey, 1979]: This is a film I first saw around four years ago. At the time I found...