One hundred and fifty minutes in the dark

I haven’t seen much Turkish film but the one I saw last week reminded me of an incident that happened to us when I was in Cappadocia with my friend Barb. We were dropped off an overnight bus into a darkened town at about 4.30 in the morning. We were expecting to be picked up and taken to our B&B but no one turned up. This is from my journal:

“Then a car sort of jerks its way into the square. An old beaten up sort of vehicle. The call to prayer booms out over the square - but nothing in the town moves. A man emerges from the car. He is waving a half empty Efes bottle (local beer) and inviting us into his car. A big ugly mongrel of a dog emerges from the back seat and runs around. Barb and I do a quick 'What do you reckon - how drunk is he?' and negotiate a fee with him. We have to get to a town called Urgup - about 8 kms down the road. He is likely to be a tout from one of the local pensiones but he is equally likely just to be a drunk out looking for a light. A moth. We struggle to fit all our stuff in the car and he - let's call him Mehmet - there are only 6 million Mehmets in Turkey - struggles to coax the dog (Which looks like it had some bull terrier and other people-friendly breeds) into the back seat with me. We set off.
The road to Urgup is through one of the most surreal landscapes I have ever been in. The whole area is formed out of some sort of volcanic leftovers - so that there are thousands of giant cone shaped outbreaks of rock. People build homes in them - that's what the area is famous for. It looks like something from a science fiction film. The effect is enlivened by our particular mode of travel - the small truckload of empty stubbies rolling around on the floor of the car, the dogs breath on my leg, Mehmet's drunken attempts to engage in conversation with Barbara - I’m sure he mentioned Steve Irwin at one stage. He would speed up and slow down in some deep-seated drunken rhythm that bore no relation to the road conditions at all. His back door wouldn't close properly so I was more in fear of falling out. Dawn was beginning to appear.
In Urgup it became obvious that he had no idea where our hotel was (not a surprise in the long run as it wasn't actually in this town). Fortuitously, his car stalled outside the police station (It wouldn't start in first gear) so we were able to enlist the aid of the local cops. We paid Mehmet for bringing us to the wrong location - he kept muttering 'I a good man' and threw ourselves on the mercy of the cops who took us inside, located our hotel - in another town close to the original one and called a taxi for us. They were very entertained by our journey - the crime wave in Urdup has been on the wane and they were pleased to have something to do.”

I felt like I was in this territory in Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. Part of the reason for this is that the film (almost) opens with a focus on landscape – rolling treeless hills, the gathering dusk, a road and some headlights. It is mesmerising. Slowly, slowly three vehicles emerge into view. They are old vehicles – like Mehmet’s - and stuffed full of Turkish men. Their size within the claustrophobic confines of the car is comedic – it reminds us that this is not a wealthy country, These men are on an unpleasant mission; they are in search of a corpse, a murder victim who has been disposed of by two men who are part of this strange band of people. The rest of the cast are those in authority: policemen, a prosecutor, a doctor, a soldier. A collegiality is established; the men talk of domestic things during this more morbid task. The texture of buffalo mozzarella, the need for a prescription for a chronically ill son. They exude authenticity.

While this is on the surface a police procedural, it is really just about life – about the awful and the beautiful. There’s not much on the beautiful side but one scene, using candlelight and the face of a young woman contrasting with the aging faces of the men to whom she minsters, is beautiful and restorative.

The film invites intimacy through its very close portrayal of these ordinary men over the course of a night and a morning - their movemnets, their conversations, their interactions. The last part of the film provides a moral dilemma that made me think about the film long after – but I suspect that it is the cinematography and ‘feel’ of the film that will linger longest.

Critic Roger Ebert wrote:

(It is)150 minutes long, and its story unfolds slowly and obliquely. I tell you now so you won't complain later. It needs to be long, and it needs to be indirect, because the film is about how sad truths can be revealed during the slow process of doing a job. The Turkish director Nuri Bilge Ceylan doesn't slap us with big dramatic moments, but allows us to live along with his characters as things occur to them.

Some lovely phrases there – I hope they teach them in film school: “film is about how sad truths can be revealed during the slow process of doing a job” and the director “doesn't slap us with big dramatic moments, but allows us to live along with his characters…”

Last week I saw two films of 150 minutes duration. The other one was titled Margaret. (The diector of this film was new to me, as was Nuri Bilge Ceylan who made the Turkish film.) Made by Kenneth Lonergan, it has taken seven years to release as a result of internal issues around the edit. This is obvious in the film which has many more small sidetracks in plot that it needs. I think the director must have been unable to let these go; they impede the actual emotional arc of the film and made me irritated. I was irritated very early though because an essential part of the main character’s experience seemed to be withheld from the audience and the narrative – for the purposes of creating tension. I felt manipulated. Various aspects of the plot were less credible given this withholding. I can’t wrote easily about this without giving away the plot. I don’t want to do this. The film is based on a great idea. Three people are involved in a traffic accident; two pedestrians and a driver. The significant impact of this momentary event has long-reaching consequences, especially on the teenage girl, Lisa, who is played extremely well by Anna Paquin.

A Guardian reviewer writes:

Lisa is overwhelmed with ambiguous emotion at having contributed to a disaster and then participated in a coverup, and, compulsively driven to do something, draws everyone into a whirlpool of painful and destructive confrontations. But is that emotion guilt or righteousness? Or a sociopathic convulsion, a need to create a huge redemptive drama with herself at the centre, to lash out against her mother and the entire adult world; or to enact vengeance against a man who, without trying, has placed her in a position of weakness – at the very point at which she considers she should be attaining her adult, queen-bee status? Paquin creates that rarest of things: a profoundly unsympathetic character who is mysteriously, mesmerically, operatically compelling to watch.

Another reviewer also comments:

As the heroine of his story of life in conflicting times, Lonergan casts a character in the grips of emotions she can feel but not process. Paquin plays a young woman filled with passion she can’t quite articulate and frustration she can only translate into anger. Alternately endearing and enraging, Paquin’s work might be remembered as one of the great depictions of what it feels like to be a teen if the film around her had worked out better. But, despite a wrenching opening that saddles Paquin’s character with more guilt than most anyone could bear, much less a less-than-steady-on-her-feet teen, the film lets some great performances and compelling moments drift in a sea of shapelessness.

Holden Caulfield is the person who comes to mind in watching this performance. And an early version of my own righteous self in full and ugly flight. ‘Margaret’ (the title of which derives from a Gerard Manley Hopkins poem called Spring and Fall) got lots of very good reviews as well as some mixed ones. For me, the girl’s performance was authentic and the relationship with her mother real and honest. However, the director saddled the girl with a histrionic mess. I felt manipulated and bored despite the excellent acting of the two lead actresses. Some of the quietness and the pared-back narrative of Once Upon a Time in Anatolia would have served this film well. Both of these films turn on the value of knowing the truth – but one rendition is melodramatic; one full of existential ambiguity. Nothing is black and white - or is it?

Elles

Elles is the second film I’ve seen this month that focuses, in part, on prostitution. It would be misleading to see this as the sole focus. It’s a subject that’s always going to grab attention but I think the film is really about something else. The main character (Anne) is wonderfully played by Juliette Binoche – I can’t imagine anyone else doing it so well. A middle class journalist, she is writing an article about students who turn to prostitution as a means of getting through uni. The two women that she meets in the course of interviewing for the article present an unexpected view of their work. The Juliet Binoche character is intrigued by both their perspectives and what it throws up about her own life.


There are few reviews of this film yet but mostly I think the reviewers have got it wrong. Read these two snippets:

“While Szumowska and her co-writer, Tine Byrckel, hammer home their arguably offensive theory that well-to-do femmes are acting as hookers in the kitchen and at the keyboard, they seem far less clear on what they want to say about actual harlotry. Scenes of the journalist's collegiate interview subjects satisfying male clients to earn tuition money are lit and shot like perfume commercials, even as the sex in some cases turns disturbingly brutal.” (from Variety)

and (from The Guardian):

“Juliette Binoche gives it her considerable all in this otherwise dubious film, which purports to investigate the moral and emotional price of teenage prostitution…Presumably the idea is to explore the emotional disconnect required to function as one of those can't-be-too-thin French bourgeoises.

I think what the film is about is not the metaphor of prostitution, but of compromise. The Anne character is not economically reliant on anyone. She does not need to prostitute herself, as the students feel they need to do (One compares the work favourably with working in a fastfood restaurant). She could have a viable and interesting life as a working journalist living by herself. The compromise comes in wanting a relationship, in having children, in wanting to work, in being a daughter, in being part of a middle–class mileau. Parts of herself are suppressed in this process – just as parts might also blossom. (A friend of mine said recently of her time as the mother of two very young children: “I feel like I lost myself for about five years.”) I think that’s where the film maker, Malgoska Szumowska is heading. Much of what we see of Anne’s life is unpleasant; her sons are providing little joy and her husband is disconnected and angry. She is frustrated. Not a pretty picture. One effective scene is when she visits her ailing father in hospital. She picks up his foot to give him a foot massage. Lots of feelings went through my head. What a loving thing this is to do. How horrible old men’s feet can be. How difficult it would be for me to massage my own fathers feet. The importance of touch. Its disappearance in life as you age.


You might think that the prostitution would not be pretty either. Szumowska tries to upset expectations here; the two women present their work as one that provides them with choices and as mostly benign. I was reminded very powerfully of Kate Holden’s account of her life as a prostitute Under my skin. I never quite believed that the things she described in that book did not have a substantial impact on her and I felt that with the accounts of the two girls in the film. I think Szumowska intends us to be sceptical observers; there are small cracks in the façade presented by the two girls.


Binoche is authentic and believable – it’s a very powerful film about being a woman.


Black & White & Sex is the other film I’ve seen recently that features sex workers. It’s a new Australian film by John Winter. This film is much more explicitly about the way we view prostitution though, like Elle, it wants to mess with our preconceptions about it. Winter said that he was inspired to make the film after going for a round of institutional funding in relation to another film script which featured a prostitute. The film fund reps were concerned that the portrayal of the sex worker was too upbeat – not “victim” enough. This inspired him to write the script for this, a film in which the sex worker character is played by eight different women (not dissimilar to the portrayal of Bob Dylan in the film I’m not there).


It begins with the feel of a play. Two characters on stage, almost entirely dialogue driven. I wasn’t sure it was going to work for a while, then the character of Angie got going. She reminded me of kids I’ve taught – like half-loved dogs, never quite reliable but yearning for contact. The film covers some great topics: intimacy, censorship, power, gender dynamics, love, control and trust. What happens is unexpected and interesting. It also looks good – shot in black and white, and using split screens where necessary to fragment the focus and force the viewer to make choices about what to look at. The use of eight actresses was clever; giving life to the idea that there are many facets and perceptions within the world of the sex worker; and that that person can embody universal desires and feelings but simultaneously be uniquely individual.


Need to conclude with this snippet from a review – just because I liked the imagery.

“The film industry, so the common wisdom goes, is chocked to the gills with carbon copy cinema, stuffed like a poisoned piñata with the bile and fluid of a zillion regurgitated ideas. Here is a bold, audacious and throbbingly original Australian film, particularly palatable for viewers partial to edgy, intimate and explorative interpersonal dramas.”

Julie Rigg, in commenting on this film, said: “My colleague Jason Di Rosso reckons that Australian directors are not very good at directing sex scenes. We lack a true erotic cinema. What do you think?”
He might be on to something, though I don’t think anyone would argue that the scenes in Black & White & Sex are meant to be sex scenes per se. I can’t think of any Australian films that have the kind of sensuality I’ve seen in some French films or some of Ang Lee’s work for example. The sex scenes in Elles looked real. Real doesn’t always mean erotic but it can. I think what Australians are good at is the flirty Diver Dan kind of schtick – but this is not erotic. There's something in the image of Australian men that refuses the erotic - it might be that you have to take women seriously and risk intimacy. This is at odds with the ways in which masculinity in Australia is traditionally presented on the screen. Maybe I will stop there.

Dark and crazy

What little I know of life in Romania has been conveyed mainly by films until now. I have seen some splendid films including Four Months, Three Weeks and Two Days, and The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, which I thought about a lot when I was reading The Appointment. In the latter film, an old man is carted from hospital to hospital in the course of one night, getting sicker and sicker as doctors keep refusing to treat him and send him away. The plot line of The Appointment is not dissimilar. The main character (unnamed) is on a tram journey across town which lasts the course of the book. She has been “summoned” by the authorities for interrogation; this trip is just one of many already taken. The journey in the story allows for the character to reflect on her life while adding a kind of forward impetus to the narrative. We are keen to find out what will happen to her as we linger in the surreal and muddy waters of life under the Ceaucescu regime.

It’s a hard book to read. There is nothing desirable about her life and awful things happen to most characters. As occurs in toxic regimes (and this applies to workplaces as much as cultures and countries), people behave very badly toward one another when there is fear and scape-goating around. Or they drink to escape or have nihilistic or abusive sex. All of these elements pertain in this novel. I can’t say that I enjoyed reading it but it provides both a sense of truth, and some very fine writing. Take the following for example:

“The water squirted and gathered around the tree trunks in shallow pools, full of drowned ants. The earth drank slowly. Then Grandfather said You go out for a walk and the world opens up for you. And before you've even stretched your legs properly, it closes shut. From here to there it's just the farty splutter of a lantern. And they call that having lived. It's not worth the bother of putting on your shoes.” (p80)

This novel was written by Herta Muller who emigrated to Germany in 1987, two years before the Ceaucescu regime was overthrown. She accurately captures the way in which the individual is made powerless by the state in writing: "there's nothing to think about, because I myself am nothing, apart from being summoned." One reviewer, Costica Bradatan, wrote: “Müller's work is political not in any superficial way, but in the more profound sense of literature as bearing witness. ‘Bearing witness’ is just the right phrase – it doesn’t make it an easy read but it does make the narrative compelling. It reminds me of the novel I read earlier in the year set in Libya (In the Country of Men). In that case, the author made the politics more palatable by telling the story through the perspective of a small boy. I liked that novel a lot but I’m glad that Muller didn’t try to make it easy to read. Like the ride with Mr Lazarescu, you kind of need to endure the awfulness and the craziness. I guess the other obvious comparison is anything by Kafka, but I haven’t been in that territory for a long time.

Bradatan also writes:

"There is a Romantic misconception that terror has always to be impressive, fierce and appropriately Luciferian – in other words, that terror is nothing if it is not spectacular. However, that's rarely the case in real life. As Czeslaw Milosz excellently put it in The Native Realm, “Terror is not … monumental; it is abject, it has a furtive glance, it destroys the fabric of human society and changes the relationships of millions of individuals into channels for blackmail…That's why Herta Müller's work is so important: It maps out, with surgical precision, this mediocre yet sinister face of European totalitarianism, which is something that has been largely unaccounted for."

a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/5403283-jillwilson">View all my reviews

The Slap

The empty suburbs
propel them in a fruitless
quest for connection.

Yes, the demon haiku strikes again. Maybe it's better than the "reflection demon" which lurked the other morning - I caught sight of a middle-aged woman with fat arms, wearing my shirt, in the window of the train. Aaargh!

More of The Slap later, but it's definitely part of the zeitgeist. Let if be recorded that I didn't love it but I found the first two thirds quite engrossing...

Rabbit

Returning to the haiku tradition for Rabbit Redux:

"Suck it and see" is what
Rabbit might have thought
If he thought at all.

Just finished Rabbit is Rich which I loved. Will post some more about this novel which is now almost 30 years old.

Forget after watching?

I went to see the latest Coen brothers film, Burn After Reading, with my 16 year old niece. I find it impossible to resist the Coens even after No Country for Old Men which I hated. And had I written this review that Friday night immediately after watching the film, my comments would be a little different.

The film sets up 2 inept employees of a gymnasium, who seek to blackmail an ex-CIA man, John Malkovich, who is having marital problems. It is a kind of black comedy farce with Brad Pitt playing, with a lot of skill, one of the hopeless blackmailers and Frances McDormand, the other. Pitt is really funny; I liked him far more in this film than in anything else I’ve seen him in. And on the surface, that is what it is; a comedy filled with mostly unlikeable characters with the regular sprinkling of surprising violence. The Coens always do good dialogue, like Tarantino, and there are scenes in the film which are very funny.

George Clooney features as a philandering diversion and creator of the most bizarre sex aid I’ve seen in any movie (porn included – in fact it’s the 15 year old boy part of the Coen brothers on display here. They obviously couldn’t help themselves). The Coens said that idiocy was a major central theme of Burn After Reading; Joel Coen said he and his brother have "a long history of writing parts for idiotic characters" and described Clooney and Pitt's characters as "dueling idiots". Pitt said of his role, "After reading the part, which they said was hand-written for myself, I was not sure if I should be flattered or insulted". He also said when he was shown the script, he told the Coens he did not know how to play the part because the character was such an idiot: "There was a pause and then Joel goes...'You'll be fine.'"

Tilda Swinton, who plays the wife of the Malkovich character, described Burn After Reading as a kind of monster caper movie, and said of the characters, "All of us are monsters – like, true monsters. It’s ridiculous." She also said, "I think there is something random at the heart of this one. On the one hand, it really is bleak and scary. On the other, it is really funny. ... It's the whatever-ness of it. You feel that at any minute of any day in any town, this could happen."

I laughed a bit but found the violence abrupt and unexpected. It also took out the only characters with any pretensions to likeability in the film. But I was entertained. And also entertained by the idea of calling the review ‘Forget after watching…”

And then I heard Julie Rigg and others talking about the film on “Australia Talks Movies”. Several callers made points that I wish I’d thought of. “John from Brisbane” provided the most interesting perspective of the conversation. He said that he felt it was a Coen Brother classic, that it was a very serious film. The central character, McDormand, has superficial obsessions about her appearance which ultimately have really horrible consequences for the characters around her. He said that he felt that the film is warning us about what society is coming to, that our feelings of emptiness or uneasiness at the end of the film are because of the self-centredness of the characters, the moral emptiness of their decisions and the fact that no one can find love in the film. We are reminded of this on several occasions in the film as the camera returns to the location in a park where people wait to meet their Internet dates, strung out on park benches as other people wander along wondering if that man on that bench will be the person of their dreams.

"John from Brisbane" went on to talk about how the CIA is positioned; an organisation usually associated with menace seems out of its depth, on the back foot. Ruth Hessey, another contributor to the Radio National program, spoke about the film reflecting “the paranoia of the modern world” that may mean it ages well. In fact, we live in a society where people are more and more accessible - the film opens with a great zooming shot as Google Earth pans down from on high into CIA headquarters, but increasingly people are less and less connected and more fragmented. It suggests that we have lost touch with what is important but hang on desperately to the magic wand of things like cosmetic surgery to change our lives and bring us joy.

I began to see the film differently - the Radio National comments have made it less forgettable and I am grateful for this.