In January 1972, Aretha Franklin gave two concerts on two consecutive days at a Baptist church in Los Angeles. The 29-year-old soul and R&B singer had already gained worldwide fame and the unofficial crown of Queen of Soul Music. In these two concerts she was returning to her musical roots, the gospel music she had known and began to play as a child in the Detroit church where her father preached. The concerts were recorded and filmed. The album whose name was ‘Amazing Grace’ has become one of the most famous in the history of this genre. The film footage however had a more complicated fate, although the filming commissioned by the Warner Brothers studios had been coordinated by the young director Sydney Pollack, who was already known for the 1969 ‘They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?‘. Technical problems of the synchronization between the footage and the soundtrack made it impossible to complete the film until technical methods emerged to overcome them. Later, both Aretha and Pollack, each for their own reasons, opposed some publicly unknown ones, to launch the movie on screens. It is a shame that only after their death the viewers had the opportunity to become acquainted with this film, which in my opinion is a great achievement, a document that honors them and invites respect for both artists.
Minister James Cleveland, who presents the concert and joins Aretha with the piano and his voice, warns us from start that we will attend a religious ceremony. Indeed, the movie ‘Amazing Grace‘ belongs to the sacred area, and this happens even if you, as a spectator, are religious or not, Christian or not. The voice, the feeling of the singers and of the chorus, the participation of the audience make this concert much more than a musical event with religious content. Aretha Franklin was at the peak of her musical form (where she stayed for several decades) but here, in the church, more than any other concert or recording, she seems to be in her element. In fact, she is the true leader of the sacred ceremony that takes place in the church in Los Angeles, the musical experiences in which she embarks as partners all those who saw her then live as well as those who later listened to the music or see now the movie.
Having to deal with a small, crowded space, Sydney Pollack used a relatively large number of portable cameras, constantly moving and searching for the most special angles. Aretha‘s close-ups are anthological. Post-processing and sound-image synchronization work perfectly. ‘Amazing Grace‘ the movie gives us, almost half a century later, the feeling that we took part in this exceptional musical event, that we were close to the great singer interpreting the musical genre in which she grew up and which she raised to a high artistic level. It is one of the most special and beautiful filmed concerts I have ever seen.
Night time TV shows are an American invention, brought to the level of art by the likes of Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, David Letterman. This is also a very masculine world, there almost were no presenters of such shows among women. ‘Late Night‘ written by Mindy Kaling and directed by Nisha Ganatra takes place in this world and has as its main heroine a female presenter of such a show, of British origin atop all, who is facing a crisis inherent in the profession and life: age – her age and the age of the show to which she dedicated her career and life. Let’s add that the main role is played by Emma Thompson, who, at the age of 60, receives, after the ‘The Children Act‘, another lead role of those that are said to ‘fit her like a glove’ and here we have the premises of a highly interesting movie, one of those generating huge topic and casting expectations.
The peak moments of Katherine Newbury’s show are behind. In fact, for about ten years, the flow of ideas has become stagnant and ratings have slightly eroded, which makes the decision of the boss of the television network (and she’s a woman, at least in this movie, women go far!) to replace her as host sound logical. It is known that this is an extremely competitive business, in which broadcasts of this kind are fighting not only with each other for the attention and time of the spectators but also with the threats brought by the new medium of information and entertainment – the Internet. Katherine’s problems are in conservatism, in the lack of diversity of the team that writes her texts (all men, all white), and especially in the lack of human contact with her collaborators in particular (she never met some of the people who write her texts) and with the world around her in general. The host star had devoted all her efforts to the show that represents her whole life, but at the same time closed herself in an ivory tower losing contact with reality and thus with many of her viewers.
Newburry / Thompson will be challenged and helped at the same time by Molly Patel (played by Mindy Kaling, the author of the script), a young beginner engaged in the team of text writers by an extraordinary chance – she was in the right place (the job interview chair) at the right time (exactly when Newburry is looking for a woman, preferably non-white, to improve the diversity of the team). Molly seems completely unfit for this position and for the professional and social environment she entered, but the relationship between the two women will evolve so that Molly’s unlimited and unmistakable admiration for Katherine will turn into mutual respect to the point that one becomes dependent of the other, and the new breath brought by Molly will change the tone and theme of the show, saving its existence. Foreseeable? It’s one of the movie’s problems.
Script author Mindy Kaling and director Nisha Ganatra (debuting in feature films for big screens) know the world of television well. Kaling, who also plays the role of the beginner text writer of Indian origin, brings elements of his own biography to the screen. Here we can find the source of the complexity of the problems raised by the film (I have listed only a part of them) but also the facility of the film solutions. The story on the screen unfolds in an ultra-predictable way. The real and interesting problems related to women discrimination and lack of diversity, the reverse ‘me-too’ story and the romantic episodes of the two women who are at the center of the story, all find quick and easy solutions, just like in the television comedy series, which should end in a given number of minutes with all the characters on screen happy. In addition we are dealing with excessive verbosity. That would not be a flaw in itself in this film that deals with television talk shows in which by definition there is a lot of talking, the problem is that the words put into the mouths of the characters are surprisingly banal and terribly conventional. ‘Late Night‘ is not a bad movie. It raises interesting problems, is acted by two excellent actresses helped by a good team around them. Unfortunately, my expectations were much higher and the film only responded to a small part of them.
We’ve only been through the middle of 2019, but I think that I can mark the fact that I experienced the cinema event of the year, or at least one of the important events of the year in movies. This is the film by Korean director Joon-ho Bong, ‘Gisaengchung‘ / ‘Parasite‘. It has already received ‘Palme d’Or’ at the Cannes festival, and this time I believe that the jury’s choice is extremely appropriate. ‘Parasite‘ is a profound and complex cinematographic work, which does not hesitate to ask painful questions about the huge differences between the social classes and the deep prejudices that divide them in today’s world, but it does so in an elegant and expressive way, with images. and characters who have a chance to remain in the memory of the spectators for a long time, causing them to reflect but also engaging them with a captivating story.
At the center of the story of the film are two families from today’s South Korea, located at the two extremes of the society. The Parks live in a spacious and luxurious villa, full of works of art and surrounded by green landscape. He is the CEO of a large company, she is a spoiled housewife, the kids, a girl and a boy are even more spoiled. They are all surrounded by servants, drivers, tutors for children. The Kis live crammed into an unhealthy half-underground flat. The parents are unemployed, their children are smart young people, but with little chance of overcoming their social condition because of the poverty. The homes of the two families play a significant role in the story, the luxury and order of the Parks’ villa hides secrets, while the claustrophobic disorder of the Kis’ family home is similar to that of the family in the movie ‘Shoplifters‘ of the Japanese director Hirokazu Koreeda. The destinies of two families accidentally intersect when the boy in the poor family becomes (with the help of forged references) the private tutor of the daughter of the rich family. As relationships intensify, cultural differences seem to diminish, the less fortunate family being equal or even superior in adapting to life and in the cultural interactions. Until about halfway through the movie, the audience is watching a social satire in a light style, a kind of ‘rich family vs. poor family’ story. And then everything changes.
A few weeks ago, writing about another Korean film, I noticed that many of the films that came from there defy genre cataloging and combine different styles into original and surprising mosaics. ‘Parasite‘ is yet another example in this regard. We have here manifested social satire, melodrama, humor, love among teenagers, horror in the Gothic style, comments on art, a natural catastrophe, neo-realistic poverty and soap operas wealth. Stanley Kubrick and Yorgos Lanthimos are quoted. The natural tendency of the spectator to take the part of the oppressed in the class conflict that takes place in front of us is put to the test by the events that happen on the screen. ‘Parasite‘ is an excellently acted movie, filmed in style, a story with many ramifications and meanings, which will not be easily forgotten by the spectators and which gives them material to think about the society and the world in which we live.
In August 1970, more than 600,000 people invaded the Isle of Wight, located near the south coast of England and populated in the ordinary times by less than 100,000 inhabitants, to attend the third edition of the Pop Music Festival. It was not only one of the largest festivals of its kind ever organized, but also a historical event, that took place at the transition between two eras in rock music. It was just after the 60s, when American rock, blues and soul met with English pop on the fertile ground of the social revolt of the young generation in Europe and the United States and of the hippie movement. The commercial period which was to turn rock music into a huge industry in the 70s had started. The Isle of Wight Festival not only gathered many of the most important talents of the genre, but also reflected the conflict between the naive and anarchist conceptions of the ‘Flower Power’ generation and the expanding music industry. The chance makes that this huge but controversial event was filmed (well) by a team led by director Murray Lerner. But a quarter of a century will pass until the film of the ‘Message to Love‘ about the festival could be finished and presented for the first time. Now, almost another quarter of a century later, I also had the chance to see it.
Exceptional music was played in 1970 at the Isle of Wight Festival. Groups like The Who, Ten Years After or Jethro Tull were at the peak of their youth and musical force. Jimi Hendrix gave his last great concert here less than three weeks before his death in London, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer sang for the first time in public what would become their power play work – ‘Pictures in an Exhibition ‘. The versions sung here with ‘The End’ by The Doors or ‘Nights in White Satin’ by Moody Blues are among the best of their careers. Joan Baez’s voice sounds exceptional undertaking a cover of ‘Let It Be’, and Leonard Cohen looks young and rebellious, very different from the one we knew at the end of his life and career. The presence of Miles Davis demonstrates how relative the boundaries between musical genres are. Even the appearances of Kris Kristofferson and Joni Mitchell, faced with a hostile and unruly audience, have authenticity and finally overcame the conditions around. The filmed music, however, occupies only about half of the two hours of the film, as the attention of director Murray Lerner turned to the extra-musical events that also had their importance and message.
It seems that out of the over 600 thousand spectators only about 60 thousand paid the entrance tickets that cost … 3 pounds. The rest remained outside the enclosed enclosure, loudly pressing to enter. Eventually, the organizers gave up and declared that the festival was free allowing everyone to enter, but the result was bankruptcy for them and an ecological disaster for the place where the concerts took place. The outcome was that the British Parliament banned such events on the island, and the 1970 festival was the last of its kind. The record and concert industry will completely take over rock music over the next few years, the stars will start to earn (and waste) huge amounts of money, while music lovers will become accustomed to paying expensive tickets to see and listen live to their idols. More than anything else, the Isle of Wight Festival was an end of the romantic, drugs-and-music-for-free era. Murray Lerner‘s film catches the essential aspects of those days of musical and extra-musical madness and the characters involved in organizing the festival. ‘Message to Love‘ is a valuable documentary not only because of the music but also, or perhaps especially because, of the events that took place around the music.
‘Dolor y gloria‘ (‘Pain and glory‘) has been described by many viewers and critics as ‘Pedro Almodóvar‘s most personal film’. It is, to me, a slightly strange definition, because all the films of the great directors are to a lesser or greater extent ‘personal’ and this is all the more true in the case of Almodóvar, whose personality, style and perspective about the world are so evident in about all his movies. More correctly, it seems to me that ‘Dolor y gloria‘ belongs to the category of those films with an explicit auto-biographical character, which some of the great directors make either towards the end of their careers, or in respite and inflection moments, bringing themselves as the main heroes of the stories unfolding on the screen. Almodóvar is in good company from this point of view, with directors such as Fellini or Woody Allen among the guild colleagues who created alter-ego characters, movie makers in breaks or creative crises, with their diseases, neuroses, loves and especially with their memories.
The story that Almodóvar brings to the screen in this film is very sincere and at the same time delicate and elegant. These latter qualities are a relative novelty in his films. This time the eccentric characters are missing, so are the extreme situations that with his art Almodóvar explained and brought to us at the level of human understanding in other films. The main character, Salvador Mallo (Antonio Banderas) is a famous screenwriter and director, who is caught up by age and illness, but especially of memories. The cinematheque screening of one of his successful films 32 years after the premiere gives him the chance to meet his favorite actor, with whom he had broken since the film’s premiere. Physical pain finds an illusory solution in drugs, the creative crisis leads to introspection and the writing of a play that sublimates the memories of childhood and youth. Two love stories come back successively – his first and only true relationship, with a man with whom he shared the years of his youth but had not the power to support him in times of crisis, and the relationship with his mother (Penélope Cruz) to whom he tries to pay back at her old age the love and support he enjoyed during his childhood. But both relationships are ultimately failures, in both of them, Salvador Mallo fails to return to the loved ones the love and support that made his career possible. The personal salvation and the exit from the crisis are possible only by his returning to creation. This is the personal price paid by many artists.
Antonio Banderas creates an exceptional role in this film. His Salvador Mallo is also Almodóvar but he also has a life and personality of his own. Men who are on the verge of the old age, with their crises and fears, with their pains and neuroses, with the memories and the sufferings these bring back, now have a reference role on screen. On the other hand, I was a little disappointed with Penélope Cruz, for the first time maybe. It may not be her fault, maybe in the role of younger Jacinta, Almodóvar fails this time precisely where he has succeeded so many times in the past, in creating a memorable female character.’Dolor y gloria‘ is a beautiful and sensitive film, but it risks to disappoint those fans of Almodóvar who are used to find in his films not only beauty but also eccentricity. It is missing here. I do not know if the crisis of the main character in the film reflects a personal crisis of the director himself. But I hope that far from being an end point in his career, ‘Dolor y gloria‘ will be followed by other films bearing the master’s unmistakable imprint.
‘HaTzlila‘ / ‘The Dive‘ is one of those films that has an interesting and significant ‘making of’ history about how the idea was born and how the production was made. Director Yona Rozenkier is at his first film, although he is not very young, approaching the age of 40. It is a special film (also) as it can be defined as a family movie made in the family, and as a community film supported by the community. The story of three brothers has Yona Rozenkier and his two brothers (who are not professional actors) cast in the lead roles. The action takes place in a kibbutz, this is were the shootings took place, the locals were actors and extras but they also took part in the financing the film. However, there are many other reasons why ‘The Dive‘ is a special film in today’s Israeli cinema landscape.
The theme and the approach chosen by Yona Rozenkier go in many ways against the prevailing currents in today’s Israel, including in its literature and cinematography. The three brothers who are the heroes of the film meet in the kibbutz where they grew up for their father’s funeral. The father does not appear in the film but his last wish and the consequences of the way his sons grew up determine many of what will happen. Like most Israeli men, the three brothers are at the age of military service. The two older brothers have already gone through wars, both of them having returned with their traumas, which they face differently. The youngest brother is about to leave soon to participate in another war that is going on around. The Israeli viewers will know how to identify exactly which war, but in fact it doesn’t matter, there is always a war going on in Israel or another that is threatening to break out. The main theme of the film is the confrontation with the post-traumas, which leads one of the brothers to adopt a macho militaristic attitude, and the other an escapist and anti-militarist attitude. The younger brother does not have time to prepare for what is to come, in a few days he must not only learn some military techniques, but also, somehow, to overcome his fear. The boys’ mother and the father’s sister are the two feminine presences in the film, also representing two different ways of dealing with the ongoing tension around them, with the mourning and the risk of sending their children to war. This family represents a micro-cosmos of an entire society threatened by wars, seeking survival and normalcy under conditions of permanent fear, in which those who survive physically are psychologically traumatized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lat8e9_xuY
This is, of course, not the first film in which the heroic narrative of the involvement of Israeli youth in wars is challenged from an alternative point of view. But it seems to me that ‘The Dive‘ has gone further than most other similar films through the brutal frankness of tackling the themes of fear and post-trauma. In the discussion with the director which followed the projection I attended, he said that he avoided graphic exaggerations in choosing the means of expression, because he did not want to make a ‘horror’ genre film. But nonetheless, ‘The Dive‘ can be seen as a horror movie, the danger that threatens the heroes is a political and social one that on a personal level turns into primary human feelings. The drama of the situation is amplified by the place where the action takes place. But it is more than just a location for shooting. The kibbutz in decay, with its decreasing population, with the ruined economy, with the uncertain moral foundations is more than a background for the story, it can be considered as two major theme of the film. Of course, this is a topic that can be much more developed.
In the political and artistic context of today’s Israel, ‘The Dive‘ swims against the current (sorry, I couldn’t avoid the metaphor). The film opposes heroic demagoguery to the brutal human sincerity of the feelings of young people thrown into the violent world of the army and of the traumas of those who have passed this life experience less successfully. To the religious themes that dominate the Israeli cinema of the last years ‘The Dive‘ opposes a film about the atheist kibbutz and the confrontation with the realities of the country of the secular Israelis who pay a large part of the price of the capitalist economy and of the permanent war situation. Acted mostly by amateurs, with stylistic means that sometimes are a little schooly, the film has fluency and expressiveness. I only hope that for Yona Rozenkier this first feature film will be a launching pad. ‘The Dive‘ is a sincere and personal film, the autobiographical character and the involvement of the family and of the community it its making gives it authenticity. His next films will have to confirm the filmmaker qualities that he now demonstrated.
A BBC historical series represents a summit meeting for history buffs and quality television lovers. The reign of Henry VIII is an inexhaustible source of historical fiction – literary or for the screens of all sizes. Few other historical periods have gathered in a few years so many exceptional historical personalities, dramas and intrigues combining faith, betrayal, eroticism, violence. Few other moments in history have represented crossroads for the character of a people and for the evolution of one of the world’s great religions. Lovers of literature and historical films never seem to be satisfied with new perspectives of the characters of the saga that took place at the English royal court in the first half of the 16th century. BBC’s ‘Wolf Hall‘ directed by Peter Kosminsky is an achievement of excellent quality in this genre, benefiting as a starting point of a valuable literary source which are the novels of Hilary Mantel, winner of the Man Booker and National Book Critics Circle Awards, books received excellently by an enthusiastic audience of readers that turned them into best-sellers.
The action of the six series of the first season of ‘Wolf Hall‘ takes place between 1529 and 1536, from the downfall of Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and until the decapitation of Anne Boleyn. On the foreground of the historical scene we have the rise of the ambitious courtier to the throne of England, with the price of King Henry’s divorce and the schism that separated the Church of England from Catholicism. The book and the series, however, focus on the figure of Thomas Cromwell, whose ascent begins at the same time as that of the Boleyn family, of which he will separate politically when dictated by the king’s interest and his own personal interests. The impressive rise of the ambitious jurist to the position of chief minister of the king, despite his modest origins and the fact that he was not a man of the church, made Cromwell an interesting and central character in ‘Wolf Hall‘ and other recent works dealing with this period such as the series ‘The Tudors‘. Mark Rylance‘s exceptional interpretation gives Cromwell’s figure intelligence, dignity and humanity. Rylance is considered today the best English theater actor, which is equivalent to a royal crown, and his appearances in films are no less memorable. I liked him immensely here, as well as in Spielberg‘s ‘Bridge of Spies‘ (written by the Coen brothers). I hope to have the opportunity to see him on stage one day.
The whole team of actors achieves good and very good performances, most of them enjoying enough substance in the text to create true and individual characters. The physical resemblance to the King painted by Holbein no longer seems to be a requirement for the role, which allows Damian Lewis to be a cynical and authoritarian Henry VIII, though he does not rise to the height of some previous creations of this role. Claire Foy models Anne Boleyn with a mixture of ambition and vulgarity, the character regaining her dignity only in the end we know from history books. The cinematography is excellent, using the image resolution achieved today in television productions. The historical locations, the sets and the costumes manage to recreate the atmosphere with authenticity and without ostentation, the color palette oscillating between the Renaissance combinations in the light of day and the shadows of the interiors at night with lighting from candles and lanterns, in resonance with the labyrinthine plots. Overall, ‘Wolf Hall‘ manages to meet almost all expectations of fans of the genre.
Aniversarea jumătății de secol de la primii pași ai omenirii pe un alt astru a ocupat, cu o săptămână în urmă, atenția unei mari părți a presei, a programelor de televiziune și a discuțiilor pe forurile internetice. Au fost proiectate filme documentare mai vechi sau mai noi, eroii acelor zile de vară din 1969 care mai sunt printre noi s-au bucurat din nou de atenția publicului și și-au împărtășit amintirile, au fost publicate și au avut loc câteva dezbateri interesante despre reluarea programelor de explorare spațială care includ o nouă serie de aselenizări în deceniul care urmează și transformarea Lunii într-o bază de pregătire și de lansare a expedițiilor spațiale spre alte planete ale sistemului solar, prima țintă fiind planeta Marte. Cei care am avut șansa să trăim acea noapte de neuitat și transmisia directă, care a unit și fascinat atunci întreaga planetă, am împărtășit amintiri de genul ‘unde eram în noaptea de 20 iulie 1969?’. Până și posturile de televiziune americane CNN și Fox News care, de obicei, prezintă viziuni complet diferite ale actualității, de parcă ar fi vorba despre două lumi diferite cu repere geografice comune și personaje care întâmplător au aceleași nume, s-au aflat într-un rar moment de simultaneitate, onorând expediția care, cu 50 de ani în urmă, a marcat începutul explorării altor corpuri spațiale și victoria Statelor Unite ale Americii asupra sovieticilor în cursa către Lună. S-ar părea că Apollo 11 este un subiect care întrunește consensul tuturor. Chiar așa să fie?
O cercetare mai atentă a celor publicate în jurul datei de 20 iulie demonstrează că, pe lângă materialele festive mai mult sau mai puțin interesante, aniversarea jumătății de secol de la primii pași ai lui Neil Armstrong și Buzz Aldrin pe Lună a prilejuit și o readucere în discuție a diferitelor teorii ale conspirației, care neagă realitatea celor petrecute în acele zile (și desigur, a celor cinci expediții Apollo care au urmat cu succes, până la Apollo 17 din 1972, ultima misiune a programului). Sondajele de opinie indică în mod consecvent că în jur de 5% din publicul american crede că astronauții americani nu au ajuns niciodată pe Lună, că imaginile filmate și transmise în direct cu 50 de ani în urmă au fost realizate în studiouri secrete, poate chiar în regia lui Stanley Kubrick. În afara Americii, și mai și. Un britanic din șase este convins că aselenizarea lui Apollo 11 a fost o înscenare. Este de presupus că procentajele sunt mai ridicate în alte țări ale lumii. Alături de teoriile conspirației legate de contactele cu extratereștrii ascunse de guverne, și de cele care susțin că evenimentele de la 11 septembrie 2001 nu au fost atacuri teroriste, ci înscenări, sau poate demolări controlate, ‘conspirația Apollo 11’ este una dintre cele mai populare.
Teoriile conspirației au o tradiție istorică bogată. Evenimente mai mult sau mai puțin misterioase au fost explicate istoric prin ipoteze sau teorii care includeau un element de planificare secretă (conspirație) și fiind atât de secret, desigur, nu putea fi dovedit. Aura de mister a conspirațiilor a fost folosită ca pretext pentru a respinge logica faptelor sau a probelor necesare argumentației. În unele cazuri, au fost inventate și probe false în scop de manipulare – exemplul cel mai cunoscut fiind ‘Protocoalele înțelepților Sionului’, un fals antisemit zămislit de poliția secretă țaristă, pentru a justifica teoria conspirației conform căreia o organizație secretă a evreilor ar încerca să domine politica lumii. Dictatorilor, dar și unora dintre politicienii populiști de ieri și de azi, le-au plăcut și le plac, au folosit și folosesc teoriile conspirației. Scriitorul american Jesse Walker, editor la revista ‘Reason’ și autor al mai multor cărți care se ocupă de acest subiect, a identificat cinci categorii de teorii ale conspirației: cele despre ‘dușmanul din afară’, care atribuie evenimente și fenomene unor factori externi; cele despre ‘dușmanul din interior’, care aruncă responsabilitatea pe seama unor conspiratori interni rău-voitori; cele despre ‘dușmanul de sus’, care îi privesc cu suspiciune pe guvernanți sau pe cei bogați și puternici; cele despre ‘dușmanul de jos’, conform căreia categoriile sociale inferioare complotează pentru a răsturna ordinea socială; și, în fine, ‘teoriile angelice’, conform cărora forțele binelui veghează din umbră pentru a ajuta omenirea în situațiile în care o ia razna. Conspirația Apollo 11 aparține evident categoriei ‘dușmanului de sus’, fiind grefată pe neîncrederea americanilor în guvern și instituțiile sale, implicită culturii politice, dar și culturii populare americane. Merită menționat că respectiva categorie de teorii și conspirațiile imaginate în această direcție au generat câteva cărți și filme de ficțiune foarte interesante, inclusiv serialul de televiziune „Dosarele X”, care este, în opinia mea, unul dintre cele mai captivante seriale de science-fiction create vreodată.
Îndoielile legate de ceea ce întreaga planetă văzuse în transmisie directă, pe ecranele televizoarelor, au început la scurt timp după zborul lui Apollo 11. În filmul ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ din seria James Bond, realizat în 1971, apărea deja o glumă legată de ‘falsa aselenizare’. Au urmat și alte filme dedicate cu totul aceleiași teme, cum ar fi comedia ‘Moonwalkers’ din 2015 sau thrillerul ‘Operation Avalanche’ din 2016. Cartea de căpătai a teoriilor conspirației Apollo 11 a apărut însă foarte curând după evenimente, în 1976, și s-a bucurat de atunci de numeroase re-editări. Se numește ‘We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle’ (‘Nu am ajuns niciodată pe Lună: Escrocheria americană de 30 de miliarde de dolari’) și a fost scrisă de Bill Kaysing (1922 – 2005), considerat părintele ‘teoriei farsei Apollo 11’. Kaysing lucrase între 1956 și 1963 ca autor de documentație tehnică la Rocketdyne, una dintre companiile care furnizau pentru NASA rachete dedicate programelor Gemini și Apollo. În carte, el pretinde că toate zborurile din programul Apollo au fost înscenări, astronauții din misiunile succesive rămânând în orbita circumterestră, transmisiile directe de pe Lună fiind, de fapt, reluări ale unor scene simulate în studiouri. În atmosfera de neîncredere față de guvern, care domina politică americană după dezvăluirea documentelor Pentagonului legate de implicarea Americii în războiul din Vietnam și, mai ales, după cazul Watergate care a dus la demisia președintelui Richard Nixon, bazaconiile susținute de Kaysing au avut o priză imediată la o parte semnificativă din publicul american. Ele au fost preluate și dezvoltate cu alte argumente pseudo-științifice în anii și deceniile care au urmat, și sunt păstrate și recirculate periodic pe Internet până astăzi.
Phil Plait (născut în 1964) este un astronom și autor de cărți de popularizare, cunoscut sub numele de ‘Bad Astronomer’ (astronomul cel rău). În 2001, când studiourile de televiziune Fox Broadcasting au difuzat un film cu titlul ‘Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?’ (‘Teoria Conspirației: Într-adevăr am aselenizat?’), Plait a publicat o analiză detaliată, răspunzând punct cu punct obiecțiilor ridicate de conspiraționiștii mai vechi sau mai noi. Câteva exemple. Cum se face că drapelul american din transmisia televizată pare să fâlfâie, când se știe că pe Luna nu există atmosferă sau vânt? Răspuns: pentru ca steagul să apară desfășurat, el avea inserată o sârmă, și mișcarea este o oscilație produsă de mâna astronautului. De ce au rămas în sol amprente ale încălțămintei astronauților, dar nu și ale modulului lunar? Răspuns: Modulul lunar avea ‘picioare’ late, care distribuiau greutatea pe o suprafață mult mai mare și reduceau presiunea sub limita necesară lăsării de urme în praful lunar. De ce, în lipsa atmosferei, nu apar în imagini stelele? Răspuns: Luminozitatea solului în lumina solară și rezoluția camerelor de luat vederi din acea perioadă făceau că stelele să nu poată fi vizibile. Misiunile ulterioare au fotografiat în schimb câteva splendide ‘răsărituri de Pământ’. ș.a.m.d.
O prietenă cu care discutăm despre tematica acestui articol îmi scria: ‘Toate teoriile conspirației sunt stupide. Și această afirmație nu este o teorie a conspirației.’ Înclin să adaug că sunt și periculoase. Există astăzi o tendință de rebeliune împotriva normelor, convențiilor, metodelor și stilurilor acceptate. Pe plan politic, această tendință a dat naștere populismului demagogic, care contestă statisticile și realitățile, în favoarea ‘adevărurilor alternative’. Când avem însă de-a face cu cercetarea științifică, nu putem accepta acest relativism. Pluralismul de opinii este binevenit în condițiile în care cei care exprimă opiniile sunt în aceeași măsură de educați și se bazează pe fapte și realități. Teoriile conspirației se bazează în cea mai mare parte a cazurilor pe ipoteze care, prin definiție, nu pot fi demonstrate sau verificate, căci conspiratorii ar controla informația și ar suprima dovezile. Poluarea mediului înconjurător și încălzirea globală pun întreaga planetă și existența speciei umane în pericol. Soluțiile alternative de supraviețuire implică explorarea și colonizarea spațiului cosmic. Vom exista numai dacă o parte dintre noi se vor desprinde de Pământ. A recunoaște și a onora pasul gigantic făcut de omenire acum 50 de ani, prin intermediul astronauților programului Apollo, este nu numai un semn de respect față de contribuția acestora, dar și o rampă de lansare pentru viitorul nostru.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial in revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
Fans of Romanian cinema and viewers who follow the movies coming from Romania have two good reasons to want to see “Iubire elenă” (“Greek Love”) made in 2012. This was the latest film by Geo Saizescu (1932-2013), a film director known in Romania for a more than half a century activity that includes successful comedies that were quite popular with the local audiences, also because they were among the few such films in made in the comical genre during the communist era. The second reason is the presence in the lead role of Maia Morgenstern, one of the best theater and film actresses in Romania today, known also (but less than she deserves) internationally. Unfortunately, the film is disappointing in all respects.
“Iubire elenă” is the screen adaptation of a theater play whose story unfolds in two parallel planes. A well-situated woman from southern Greece invites an art critic from Athens to offer him for sale a painting of a 19th-century woman painter with a tumultuous destiny who had destroyed most of her works. Two soap operas interleave on screen, one of which tells the life of the painter, the other is about the hesitating relationship that blossoms between the man and woman, both at the age of maturity. None of the stories is interesting, and the characters do not have enough consistency to win at any moment the audience’s sympathy. It could be a film about art, it could be a feminist film, it could be a movie about love. None of these threads is followed. The two parallel stories meet only in a single moment that seems almost a parody. It is also the only comical moment in this film made by a director specialized in comedies, but unfortunately it’s involuntary humor.
Nothing works cinematically. The story takes place in Greece and Italy, but the film is spoken most of the time in Romanian. Contemporary sequences resemble filmed theater, the historical ones look like a biographical documentary with actors, none of them are of good quality. Outdoor filming resembles clips of tourist advertising. The interior of the main heroine house resembles a small palace, but it does not fit to the economic status of a tourist guide who has alone raised a child that she claims being. Surprisingly, even continuity errors occur. Although the film is full of dialogues and off-screen comments, we learn close to nothing about the heroes excepting the woman interpreted by Maia Morgenstern. Her character is better served by the script and by acting, although the style of interpretation belongs to theater rather than cinema. Seeing Maia is always a delight, but even she cannot save this movie.
Geo Saizescu belonged to the group of Romanian film directors who made good or at least reasonable films under the difficult conditions of communist-era ideological control, but who after 1989 failed to create the films that their viewers were expecting.”Iubire elenă” is a disappointing final piece in a complicated career.
The theme of the movie ‘Félix & Meira‘ made in 2014 by the Quebecois film director Maxime Giroux may seem unusual to most of the audiences, but it is in fact one of the main themes of Jewish literature and cinema. The world of ultra-Orthodox religious Jews has its own system of strict and stricter values and rules that guide them in all areas of life, from the way they dress and eat, to family relationships and the way they interact within the community and with the surrounding world. Although politically liberated and having gained equal rights in many parts of the world since the mid-19th century, ultra-religious Jews have refused to accept religious and cultural assimilation, which they consider to be a great danger and have built around themselves and their communities invisible walls even in the most liberal countries like Canada or the United States, or perhaps, especially in these countries. Stories and films related to the relationship between religious and non-religious Jews, between Jews and non-Jews, are topics in Shalom Aleichem’s or Isaac Bashevis Singer’s books, in musicals such as ‘Fiddler on the Roof’ and in many recent films or television series, mostly made in Israel, but not always, as in the case of this film.
At first glance, ‘Félix & Meira‘ could be another movie describing a romantic triangle. Meira or Malka (who means ‘queen’, the name she uses in the Jewish world) is married, perhaps in an arranged marriage, she has a little girl about a year old, and she is unhappy. Her husband belongs to one of the most strict sects of religious Judaism, and forbids her the most trivial joys, such as listening to music or showing colorful drawings to her little girl. Felix returns to the neighborhood populated by many Jews, not necessarily religious, in Montreal, to bid farewell to his dying father. They both go through personal crises, both are very lonely. Meira is fascinated by the outside world, which she probably never knew. Felix is an nonreligious Jew, disoriented by his father’s death, but perhaps also lacking solid landmarks and a purpose in life. The idyll born between the two is described with gentleness and with minimal cinematic means, blessed by the acting of the beautiful Hadas Yaron and of her partner on screen, Martin Dubreuil. The scenes in Manhattan whith Meira discovering the fascinating colors and sounds of the metropolis and the way they get closer one to the other are among the best romantic scenes I have seen lately.
Minimalism is the main quality but also the defect of the film in my opinion. The world of ultra-religious Jews is described simplistically, being reduced to interdictions and without reference to the context in which they appeared or to the values that they defend. Perhaps this is not a problem for those who know this world, but it can be very confusing for other viewers. This is after all a Canadian film with an international audience.The character of Meira is well-outlined psychologically and its development is natural, but the two men are sketched too briefly, reduced to the typological categories to which they belong (the agnostic Jew vs. the ultra-religious one). Towards the end, in a scene that brings the two men together, we understand that the husband loves and will always love Meira / Malka. Of the two love stories of Meira, perhaps this is the true one. The problem is that nothing has psychologically or cinematically prepared the spectators for this revelation. I did not like the completely open end either, I felt it was not sufficiently supported by the psychology of the characters. We can read here that the big and uncertain world is more dangerous for those who are not prepared for it, but I’m not sure that this was the intention of the author. ‘Félix & Meira‘ deserves to be seen for many of its beautiful moments, but viewers should be prepared to be somewhat confused or dissatisfied at the end.
