From time to time, once every few years, comes a movie that does not look like anything I’ve seen before as a passionate cinema fan. It’s what’s going on with ‘Lazarro felice‘, the film made by the Italian director Alice Rohrwacher. A special, beautiful, one-of-a-kind movie, one of those movies that after watching you have the feeling that you’ve made new acquaintances within its characters and, if you’re not too cynical, you’ve become a little better than before seeing it.
‘Lazarro felice‘ is one of those films that have an atemporal character, even as the story takes place in a well defined period of time, if we look for example, at the technical accessories used by heroes such as their portable phones. I believe that viewers over 20, 50 or 100 years will understand the metaphor in the spirit of their times. The story of the film combines social and even political elements (social class gaps, labor exploitation of the poor, the bad influence of the tobacco monopoly) characteristic of Neorealism with a powerful magic and religious message. Lazarro, the poor peasant boy in the film, is destined by name but especially by his character and deeds to follow the canons of Catholic Christianity, only that today’s world has no respect for those who have a tendency to holiness, exploits them physically and sentimentally, and eventually destroys them. The Biblical story does not tell us what happened to St. Lazarus after the resurrection by Jesus four days after his death. In Alice Rohrwacher‘s film, in a world that is perhaps our world, he dies the the second time, killed by the people around unable to understand his intentions.’Lazarro felice‘ may feature in the repertoire of Catholic film festivals, but attention – his resurrection is far from being Christian, the legend of the wolf has origins much older than Christianity in the mythologies of the area we now call Italy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NQUOYO1tow
Good films in the fantasy genre are characterized by the fact that they absorb you in the story beyond the point where you feel the need to check the credibility of the facts that happen on the screen. Just as true believers who do not question the miracles in the Bible, the viewers of this film will not question what Lazarro can do. Much of the merit lies with the actor who plays the lead role, whose name is Adriano Tardiolo. He is at his first film and lives exceptionally in his role. As a matter of fact, a large part of the cast is made up of unprofessional actors, a world of the poor, located at the beginning at the periphery of the geography and later of the society in which the story takes place. A profoundly human world, but one under threat, which only miracles can help survive. Director Alice Rohrwacher made a beautiful film. She is a new and clear voice in the Italian cinema landscape. I’m waiting for many other great movies from her.
Both of them were formidable actors. Dennis Hopper left us in 2010. Bruno Ganz followed him a few days ago. Coincidentally, the retrospective of Wim Wenders‘ films at our local cinematheque featured the wonderful film ‘The American Friend‘, which brought the two great actors together in 1977. For me, as a declared and unconditional fan of both actors, it’s a great opportunity to see them in a movie I had not had the chance to see before. But it is not the only reason why ‘The American Friend‘ deserves to be seen.
In Wim Wenders‘ filmography this film occupies a special place. We find here two of his major themes – the meeting between different cultures and the fascination for traveling. The action takes place in Germany, France and America, and the main character played by Bruno Ganz is Swiss (as Ganz was). Some of his favorite actors feature in the cast: Ganz at his first major role and Lisa Kreuzer, his wife and muse at that time. The film is a thriller but its heroes are far from James Bond’s typology in spite of their international mobility. The action is taken from Patricia Highsmith‘s novel and features as a hero Tom Ripley who enjoyed different and interesting versions by actors like Alain Delon, Matt Damon and John Malkovich. But the stylistic inspiration seems to be the “films noirs” associated with the New French Wave (for example Jean-Pierre Melville‘s), or later Hitchcock‘s films in which ordinary people become involved against their will in mysterious intrigues and end up in limit situations that call for life and death decisions.
‘The American Friend‘ is also the story of an unusual friendship that provided the opportunity to the two lead actors to create roles of great complexity and quality. Dennis Hopper was already a well-known name, made famous by ‘Easy Rider‘, while for Bruno Ganz it was his first big role. The torments of a man who believes to be touched by a fatal illness and reluctantly becomes a paid killer, maybe to afford the expensive treatment for his illness, maybe to get some kind of insurance policy for his wife and child in case he dies, will remain for a long time in the memory of the spectators. The connection between the scammer involved in dubious art commerce and the owner of the frames workshop is gradually building up and evolving from a mutual fascination of the two men to each other and his lifestyle to a friendship put to the test in extreme circumstances. The cinematography plays an important role in the film’s atmosphere. Wenders initially intended to use only static frames in the style of the Japanese master Yasujirô Ozu. He eventually gave up the idea, but most indoor scenes are minimalist with regard to camera movements. As an action movie, ‘The American Friend‘ is quite conservative, following Alfred Hitchcock‘s tradition. Fans of the genre may be slightly disappointed, having seen many other films in the genre with more spectacular effects. The director’s attention is focused on other aspects: the psychology of the characters, the connections between them, the urban landscape and the way it envelops the heroes and the story. The film and his heroes stay with the viewers for a long time after they finish watching. A film to search and see.
After seeing ‘The Lobster‘ I have no doubt that Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most remarkable film directors living and creating today. Each of his films shocks and disturbs, in each one there are copious doses of absurdity and cruelty. These extravagant and extreme elements are not gratuite as they start from real-world situations (or from history as in his latest film) and amplify them to grotesque and nightmares. The nightmares of the Greek director’s films are our very existence, or what it could become. ‘The Lobster‘ is among the Lanthimos’ movies I’ve seen, the best structured and the clearest in message. A mute and tragic scream about the dangers of social and family engineering, about the emptiness of our lives and of the relationships between people.
The story takes place in the near future, or maybe it’s not even the future. Life in couples is the only legal form of existence. Those who do not have or lose their pair are sent to an institution that looks like a luxury hotel under strict control, where they divide their time between finding the right pair, participating in propaganda-educational activities and hunting animals. However, the animals (important as in all of Lanthimos’s films) are actually just ex-humans, because if loners do not find their pair in 45 days (plus or minus a few days won or lost in the hunting games) they are entering the ‘transformation rooms’ and turned into the animal of their choice. When the hero manages to escape, he discovers the world of the opposants, only in dystopia as in dystopia, the opponents are also fanatics, extremists from the lonely side, any connection between them being also cruelly punished. Falling in love leads to tragedy and happiness is not possible in any of the sides of this dark world.
The execution is impeccable. As in all the films of Yorgos Lanthimos, we deal with a world whose rules are only apparently familiar to us. The motives of the actions of the characters are often shrouded in mystery. Emotions are controlled by the laws of a society in which fear has become the main resort. Colin Farrell performs one of his best roles, succeeding in rendering the lack of emotional capabilities and the fear of the absurd and the inevitable that is going to happen with remarkable discretion. Bizarre and absurd seem to dominate the world described in this movie, a universe in which Beckett meets Hitchcock, but is our society so far away from it?
‘Green Book‘ seems to have been designed according to a recipe for winning Academy Awards. The subject is historic but with reverberations in current politics and the approach is in tune with the mood at Hollywood. It addresses one of the painful topics of recent US history, but it does it in a sufficiently careful manner to get a rating that makes it accessible to audiences of almost any age. It has as a hero a musician and includes a lot of (good) music at a time when musical films are again enjoying great success. The cast includes a couple of well known actors who are given the opportunity to play consistent roles. Finally, the film is based on real life heroes and a true story. And yet, despite all these arguments, I do not think the ‘Green Book‘ will be able to gather too many statuettes.
The story of the friendship between the high-class musician and the driver he hired for a two-month tour of the Southeast US of the 1960s is unusual. Don Shirley (Mahershala Ali) was an exceptional musical personality, one of the virtuoso pianists of his generation, but he could not get recognition into the world of classical music because of his Jamaican origin. He played a brand of sophisticated jazz for rich audiences. Yet, the rich musician, accustomed to first class hotels, when in tournaments in the southern states, as a black singer, he was subjected to racial discrimination in the still partially segregated America. Don ‘Lip’ (Viggo Mortensen), the driver and bodyguard hired to accompany him on the trip is an Italian from the Bronx, not missing a dose of benign racism. A lot seems to separate them, but the differences in race, culture, social classes and personal tastes will be tested and will melt during this road trip together that allows the two to get to know each other and to learn each some lessons from the experience of the other.
What I liked. The music. The authenticity of the details. The acting performances of the two lead actors, but also of many of the ones in supporting roles, including the non-professionals. The way in which the realities of the 1960s are brought to screen.
What I liked less. The predictability of the script. I was several times in the situation of anticipating a few minutes in advance what was going to happen on screen. The director and co-screenwriter Peter Farrelly went too far to make of ‘Green Book‘ a feel-good film to be enjoyed by the audiences and especially by the jury of the Academy. The result, even if it has the excuse of being inspired by a true story, is conventional and syrupy. I think this movie could have been much better if it did not try that hard to be a crowd-pleaser.
Cinematograful este una dintre pasiunile mele,
și am șansa să locuiesc într-un oraș binecuvântat cu o cinematecă. Povestea
acestei instituții începe cu vreo zece ani în urmă. Ca în multe alte orașe ale
lumii, vechile săli de cinematograf (erau trei la număr) se închiseseră,
nefăcând față concurenței cu complexurile de săli moderne instalate în mall-uri
la marginea orașelor. O primărița inimoasa și câțiva entuziaști au avut însă
ideea de a renova una dintre fostele săli și a o transforma în cinemateca.
Minunea durează de peste un deceniu. Publicul este format dintr-o interesantă
combinație de pensionari și de studenți de la universitatea locală care
întinerește orașul, și ea o apariție a ultimelor decenii. În programul
cinematecii din ultima lună figurează o retrospectivă a filmelor regizorului
german Wim Wenders. Născut în august 1945, la câteva luni după sfârșitul celui
de-al doilea război mondial, Wenders este unul dintre exponenții cei mai
cunoscuți ai Noului Cinema German, autorul unor filme diverse ca gen și
structură, a căror tematici includ fantezii poetice, filme de călătorie (‘road
movies’) și documentare despre artiștii săi preferați (muzicienii cubani de la
Buena Vista Social Club și coreografa Pina Bausch între ei). În cadrul
retrospectivei am avut șansa să văd prima dată un film dedicat începuturilor
cinematografiei germane, sau poate, mai bine zis, începuturilor germane ale
cinematografiei. Filmul mi-a sugerat o trecere în revistă a perioadei de
efervescență tehnică care a dat naștere tehnologiei și apoi artei filmului.
Realizat în 1995, ‘Frații Skladanowsky’ (‘Die
Gebrüder Skladanowsky’) a început ca un proiect de cercetare și producție de
film al lui Wim Wenders și al studenților săi despre începuturile
cinematografiei în Germania. Rezultatul a fost destul de interesant pentru a
deveni un documentar de (aproape) lung metraj. În cinematografia lui Wim
Wenders, presărată cu multe experimente de tematică și formate, filmul se
încadrează fără probleme. Evenimentele cheie descrise în documentar s-au
petrecut în anul 1895, care poate fi considerat Anul Zero al industriei
cinematografice. Invenția ‘imaginilor mișcătoare’ și aplicarea sa în teatre în
scopuri de divertisment plutea în aer de câțiva ani, și inventatori din
diferite țări erau angajați într-o competiție pentru a o aduce primii în fața
publicului. Între ei se aflau cei trei frați Skladanowsky din Berlin, o familie
de ‘entertainers’ care dădeau spectacole pe care astăzi le-am numi ‘multimedia’
combinând dansul, circul, pantomima, muzica și imaginile proiectate. Pregătind
invenția pe care o numeau ‘bioscop’ ei au realizat cu ajutorul tehnicii pe care
o inventaseră, scurte filme de circa 15 secunde, pe care le-au proiectat public
la 1 noiembrie 1895, cu câteva săptămâni înainte de primele proiecții ale
fraților Lumiere la Paris. Au fost primii, dar nu și cei mai buni. Metoda lor
avea multe limitări, în special în ceea ce privește lungimea filmelor, așa
încât invenția francezilor le-a dat acestora câștig în cursa care a pus bazele
cinematografului. A fost o înfrângere care nu i-a descurajat pe frații
Skladanowsky, ei preluând metoda franceză și realizând cu ajutorul ei în anii
următori filme scurte care au pus bazele industriei cinematografice germane.
Documentarul lui Wenders le preia povestea și o face cunoscută, cu respect și
duioșie Filmul combină câteva metode cinematografice. Fiica cea mai mică a
fraților Skladanowsky împărtășește cu Wenders și echipa sa amintiri despre
familie. Deși născută la peste un deceniu după 1895, ea avea încă, atunci când
a fost filmată, destule informații interesante despre perioada respectivă, care
sunt combinate cu secvențe din primele filme realizate cu ‘bioscopul’ fraților
Skladanowsky. Secvențele din interviu sunt intercalate cu pasaje de docu-dramă
în care cei trei frați și fiica mai mare a inventatorului principal apar
întruchipați de actori, povestind peste timp aventura începuturilor
cinematografului în stilul comediilor din primele decenii ale secolului 20.
Combinația funcționează destul de bine, fiind completată și de fragmente din
filme de epocă care redau atmosfera Berlinului și a Parisului de la sfârșitul
secolului 19.
Bioscopul fraților Skladanowsky folosea
principiul ‘lanternei magice’, inventat la mijlocul secolului al 17-lea de
olandezul Christian Huygens. Sunt rare
cazurile în care invențiile vechi de câteva secole au o datare documentată cu
exactitudine, acesta este unul dintre ele. S-a păstrat pagina desenată de
Huygens și datată 1659 cuprinzând zece schițe mici
ale unui schelet care-și scoate craniul (simbolizând probabil moartea),
deasupra cărora scria “pentru reprezentări prin intermediul unor lentile
convexe cu lampă”. Un alt desen, datat 1664, schițează însuși sistemul de
lentile, care se presupune că a fost prezentat la curtea regelui Franței,
Ludovic al XIV-lea.
Bioscopul
inventat de frații berlinezi folosea un proiector dublu, care lumina alternativ
cadre din două benzi de film, pentru a reuși să atingă viteză minimă de 16
cadre pe secundă necesară efectului stroboscopic care da senzația mișcării
continue a cadrelor fixe proiectate. Filmul folosit avea o lățime de 54 de
milimetri. Prima demonstrație publică a aparatului lor avusese loc la Pankow,
lângă Berlin, în iulie 1895. După proiecția comercială de la 1 noiembrie 1895
de la Berlin, frații Sklandanowsky intenționau să organizeze o prima proiecție
publică la Paris, la Folies Bergeres în ianuarie 1896. Premiera publică a
‘cinematografului’ fraților Lumiere, care a avut loc la 28 decembrie 1895 le-a
stricat însă planurile.
Patentul
inițial și numele invenției – ‘cinematograf’ – aparținea unui alt inventator
francez, astăzi uitat, Leon Bouly, și data din 1892. Neputând să-și finanțeze
proiectele el a vândut drepturile sale fraților Lumiere, care au preluat ideea
și numele, dar au schimbat cam toată tehnologia. Sistemul lor era net superior
din punctul de vedere al iluminației, al fluidității imaginii, și în special al
portabilității. Aparatul de proiecție al fraților Lumiere cântărea doar vreo
opt kilograme, ceea ce făcea ca el să fie transportabil, un avantaj imens față
de invenții similare cum erau de exemplu kinetoscopul care fusese deja
prezentat publicului de câțiva inventatori englezi și americani, printre care
și Thomas Edison. Demonstrația care fusese făcută de Edison la Expoziția
Universală de la Paris din 1889 necesită o sala dedicată și o mică uzina
electrică pentru a fi acționată. Spre deosebire de kinetoscop și de aparatele
fraților Skladanowsky, cinematograful lui Lumiere nu era limitat nici ca număr
de spectatori și nici ca durată a spectacolelor. Cei doi frați au demonstrat că
cinematografia poate deveni o artă populară, potrivită proiecțiilor publice, la
costuri rezonabile. În anii care au urmat, toate tehnologiile competitorilor
lor au fost abandonate. Combinația dintre echipamentele de filmat și cele de
proiecție a dus în câțiva ani la standardizarea de facto a formatelor
peliculelor, și cinematografia a devenit o artă internațională, în care
creațiile cineastilor puteau circulă de la o sală la alta, de la o țară la
alta. Tot în anul 1995 în care a fost
realizat filmul lui Wim Wenders și al studenților săi, la împlinirea unui secol
de la realizarea primelor filme și a primelor proiecții cinematografice
publice, 40 de regizori din toată lumea au fost invitați să realizeze filme
scurte folosind aparatură similară cu cea originală a fraților Lumiere.
Rezultatul a fost filmul ‘Lumiere and Company’ semnat de cei 40 de regizori
între care și Wenders.
Anul
1895 a fost într-adevăr un an excepțional. Cinematograful era o invenție care
‘plutea în aer’. Era o combinație a trei tehnologii fundamentale diferite –
lanterna magică, fotografia și efectul stroboscopic. Pentru ca o invenție să
reușească și să aibă un impact considerabil trebuie îndeplinite câteva
condiții, existența tehnologiei fiind numai una dintre ele. Trebuie să există o
necesitate socială și/sau economică. În cazul cinematografului, în mai puțin de
două decenii avea să apară o întreagă industrie cinematografică și o nouă artă
se adăuga celor șase existente până atunci. Dar mai ales trebuie să existe
vizionarii, pasionații, cei care să fie gata să-și investească talentul, banii
și o mare parte din viață pentru a-și transformă visele în realitate. În 1895
cinematografia a avut șansa să-și găsească acești promotori entuziaști și
talentați in frații Lumiere și frații Skladanowsky.
(Articolul a aparut iniţial in revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
‘Sans Soleil‘ is a movie that is hard to fit in any category, same as its director Chris Marker (1921 – 2012) was a cinematic persona hard to characterize or place into a single shelve of the French film history. Marker’s film from 1983 was projected at our local cinematheque outside any series, but in reality it happily complements the retrospectives dedicated to Wim Wenders and Agnès Varda. The most appropriate genre for ‘Sans Soleil‘ would be travel documentary films, those ‘road movies’ in which Wenders excelled. Together with Varda and Alain Resnais he belongs to the so-called Left Bank (Rive Gauche) film group , a sub-current of the New French Wave distinct by its declared rejection of commercial cinema, permanent search for new artistic forms, and leftist political stance. Chris Marker, who began his biography in the Resistance and continued as a filmmaker in 1961 with a film that supported Fidel Castro and his regime in Cuba, continued throughout his film career until the last years of his life to experience and to be politically engaged. However he preferred to make cleat his politics in films, refusing interviews and hiding from publicity. Besides politics, he made interesting cinema, some of his films opened paths that inspired many other filmmakers. If we were to define his genre, it would be the cinematic essay. ‘Sans soleil’ is a successful example.
The soundtrack runs parallel to the projected images, and both have equal roles in this film by Chris Marker. The text is an apparent exchange of letters between a traveler in 1983 in Japan and an interlocutor traveling and filming in other parts of the world. In reality, both are the author’s alter-ego characters who maintain an imaginary dialogue about the world, cultures and their relationships, about people and loneliness, about novelty and tradition. Many topics are approached, and the dialogs are in many interesting moments. If we need to decide what the main theme should be, we should, I think, find it in the diversity of cultures, in the differences of approach, but also in the share feelings that bring together the inhabitants of the planet wherever they are. Do you remember Mondo Cane, the 1962 shocking documentary about the cruelty of the world? This would rather be a more optimistic ‘Mondo Umano’.
More than half of the images are filmed in Japan, which is traveled from north to south. Like many other visitors to Japan (I have also lived the same experience), Chris Marker is fascinated by the diversity of the landscapes and the cultural richness, by the combination of ultra-modern and tradition. Avoiding tourist sites, he tries to capture the everyday, even banal aspects of life, the Japanese traditions, their fascination for games and the adoration of animals. Of course, the ultra-modern of 1983 has retro nuances if we watch the movie in 2019, but this adds another dimension of comparison and further reflection to the permanent geographic comparison with sequences shot in Africa, France, Iceland. The only part of the film that seems less connected to the rest is the one filmed in San Francisco, a trip and an insight into the film ‘Vertigo‘ by Alfred Hitchcock. After all, if we consider this film as an essay, divagations are allowed in this literary and now cinematic genre. ‘Sans Soleil‘ deserves to be seen. It’s a captivating journey into space, time and cultures.
The ‘Exhibition on Screen‘ series gave us yesterday the opportunity to watch at the local cinematheque the great exhibition of Matisse’s works in the final decade of his life, organized five years ago by Tate Modern in London and MoMA in New York. Director Phil Grabsky, a film art specialist, made on that occasion the documentary ‘Matisse Live‘ (known under various titles as ‘Matisse from Tate Modern and MoMA’). A delight.
The formula is the same as that used in other documentaries in the series. We have the opportunity to visit the exhibition (in this case the exhibitions, organized in collaboration by the two major museums one after the other) in the pre-opening hours. Rooms are empty, no crowds. Grabsky takes us from to hall, so the experience is close to virtual reality. The directors of the two museums, the curators and other experts explain in detail the exhibited works. We deal with an experience of a guided tour of a quality competing with the real thing, and I’m not sure which one offers more.
In the last period of his life, covered by the exhibition, between 1941 and 1954, Matisse was immobilized in bed. Far from being vanquished by the limitations imposed by the illness, the artist sought other means of expression – especially the cuts and collages, but also the design of architectural spaces (the Rosary Chapel in Vence) and stained glass. He had the chance to be filmed quite often, and precious film sequences also find their place in the documentary, along with interviews with two of his late-life assistants. ‘Matisse Live‘ thus becomes not only a lesson in art, but also a lesson the desire and the will to create, in the power of the spirit to overcome the limitations of matter. A documentary that I strongly recommend.
‘Documenteur‘ is an interesting essay, but not one of the milestones in the filmography of Agnès Varda. The film follows a French woman, just out of a relationship, looking for housing and than living for a while in a non-proviledged neighborhood of Los Angeles. It’s an interesting combination – fiction inspired from the biography of the director who at that point in her life was separated, the lead role is played by Sabine Mamou, her only film as an actress, while the kid is Mathieu Demy, Agnes Varda’s son (and formidable acting as a kid – he will become later a professional actor). Much of the rest is film in the streets with non-professional actors, with some nude and sex scenes interleaved to make us feel the loneliness of the character. A verbose text translates to us in parallel her feelings. The combination is interesting, but there is no real story here, and the film is too short, and its ending to abrupt to make complete sense. My overall feeling was to have watched a filmed essay, an experimental movie, but not really a full feature film. As I understand, this film is usually screened in tandem with the documentary ‘Mur murs‘ which tells the story of the roots of the street art in Los Angeles and together they cover the period of the director’s stay in California. I would have loved to see the documentary as well, but this was not the case at the screening at our local cinematheque. As a standalone work, ‘Documenteur‘ slightly disappoints, despite of its superb name.
We live in a divided world. There are two categories of inhabitants of the planet between which there can be no compromise of any kind. There are those who like comedies with Rowan Atkinson (and with Jerry Lewis, Lous de Funes, Jim Carrey, etc.). There are those who do not like these comedies. I am part of the first category. My chance (and my unforgivable guilt for those in the other category) is that I can laugh healthily, heartly and without apologizing to a movie like ‘Johnny English Strikes Again‘.
The ‘story’. Britain is exposed to a series of cyber attacks. One of them makes public data and photos of all active spies of the English intelligence services, which makes them unusable. Prime Minister Emma Thompson, a respected lady with a short haircut (any resemblance to a British Prime Minister, respected lady and with a short haircut is a coincidence), has to resort to Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) , the same super-incompetent and super-self-confident guy we know from previous films. At the same time, the Prime Minister plans to entrust all the country’s computer operations to the young owner of a highly successful hi-tech company who already controls much of the world’s cyber-secrets (any similarity with real persons is also a coincidence). With the help of technical gadgets that were sophisticated innovations … 4-5 decades ago, of a Russian female spy who is a superior form of the organization of matter (Olga Kurylenko), and of his phenomenal luck, Johnny English goes on mission to save the world. Does all this seem incredible or laughable? Read the (serious) press and you find more incredible and more laughable news (and personalities) daily.
I had fun and I laughed twice as much as at any other comedy lately. Director David Kerr, a specialist of TV comedies, is at his first feature film, but we do not feel this at all. The action is fluent in the logic of the parodies of super-spy movies such as ‘James Bond’ or ‘Mission Impossible’. The team of actors plays with visible pleasure, Rowan Atkinson carries out the full range of his comic gigs, but we also discover the comedy talents of Emma Thompson on this occasion. What is original and adds to the comic effect of the film is the hero’s preference for the spy retro tools of James Bond’s and Jimmy English’s youth. Tradition (as we know it from spy movies and novels) is confronted with the contemporary world of the Internet and smart phones. Adding Rowan Atkinson, the mix becomes comically explosive.
The retrospective of Agnès Varda‘s films that we have enjoyed for the last month at the local cinematheque gave us the opportunity to see the digitally reconditioned version of her wonderful 1985 film ‘Sans toit ni loi‘ (English title is ‘Vagabond’). The coincidence makes it possible in the same period to watch the retrospective of Wim Wenders, one of the ‘road movies’ masters. Agnès Varda also approached her, but not as programmatic and dedicated as Wenders did. ‘Sans toit ni loi‘ can also be seen as a ‘road movie’, a geographical road that the main heroine travels in a countryside region of France, a personal road which takes to the abyss.
Agnes Varda’s films have the qualities of using original and interesting narrative formulas. The director knows how to tell a story, but her style is rarely conventional. She likes to experiment, but her innovations serve the narrative and highlight the personality of the heroes of her film (women in most cases). ‘Sans toit ni loi’ begins as a detective story. Somewhere, in a winter landscape, near a vineyard, a young girl’s body is found. Police begin to do their job, make measurements, collect forensic evidence, ask those who have found the body questions. It is clear, however, that it is a trivial case, accidental death or perhaps due to the cold weather. The victim seems to be a vagabond, a person of no interest. The case will be closed quickly. Here comes the director and takes over the ‘investigation’. What follows is the reconstitution of the last months of a young woman’s life, months of wandering without purpose, slipping into misery, a journey that has only one possible end. How did she remain in the memory of those who met her? Who was she in reality?
The story triggers multiple questions in the mind of the audience. How much attention do we pay to the people we meet? How many times do we overcome our first impression when meeting strangers based on how they look? Do we even care who they, do we want to know those with whom we cross ways? Then, thinking about the story the movie, who is this girl, what brought her on the roads, what are the sources of her inappropriateness not only to social norms, but also to herself? Many young people take the path of vagabondage, sometimes they do it in protest, but in the case of Mona (the heroine played by Sandrine Bonnaire) we have no sure answer even after the end of the film. The interpretation of the young French actress at the beginning of her career is exceptional, she creates a character that the film’s viewers will hardly forget. The cast includes many non-professional actors playing a full range of roles, a puzzle of humanity and empathy in a world at the outskirts of society – people who work hard, ageing and lonely people, immigrant workers, young vagabonds. The cinematography is also special. Color also plays an important role in this film, as in other films by Agnès Varda. This time the palette is the one of the colors of autumn and later of winter, and the way they are brought onto the screen creates the physical sensation of the cold and the vacuum between the characters and around them. ‘Sans toit ni loi‘ is a movie of a vibrant sensitivity in which the cinematographic techniques of the New French Wave meet at the highest level with the social acuity of Italian Neo-realism. Strongly recommended!
