The international military engagement in Afghanistan after 9/11 is nearing the 20th anniversary. It seems quite surprising to me that very few films have been made on this subject, about the impact that the foreign intervention has had on the lives of the Afghan people, about the traumas suffered by many of the foreign soldiers or civilians involved in the actions there. A few American movies, most of them in the ‘action’ genre, the British series ‘Our Girl‘ about which I wrote here, and that’s all I know about. I may be missing some, of course. ‘Moon Hotel Kabul‘ is the first attempt of the Romanian cinema in this direction. A fascinating theme. Although only the first sequences in the film take place in Afghanistan, the Center-Asian country is present throughout the film of director Anca Damian because of its impact on the lives and death of the people who have been there.
Ivan Senciuc (Florin Piersic Jr. ), a reporter at an important Romanian daily newspaper returns from Afghanistan after having spent the last night in Kabul at the Moon Hotel with the young translator Ioana Preda (Ofelia Popii ). Two days later he learns that the young woman has died, supposedly having committed suicide. As the hero oscillates between his instincts of reporter and the desire to bring a last homage and lead to the eternal rest a woman who faced alone the big world, and film oscillates stylistically between a hesitating thriller anchored in actuality and a journey into the ‘deep Romania’ towards the village where the coffin is awaited by Ioana’s mother (Rodica Negrea ) and brother (Alexandru Nagy).
This combination hides both the promise and the failure of this film. I see director Anca Damian and scriptwriter Lia Bugnar following a trend that is common to many directors and scriptwriters lately. Their films try to deal with too many subjects at once, to adopt influences and to use styles from different directions. It is good sometimes not to be able to categorize exactly the genre of a movie, but in some cases it seems that the director, screenwriter and producers have not decided what kind of film to make, or may have wanted to please spectators with different preferences. Part of ‘Moon Hotel Kabul‘ explores the Romanian actuality from the original angle of the traumatic impact suffered by the few Romanians exposed to the wars of Afghanistan and other parts of the world. Another part of it would be a thriller combined with criticism of press opportunism, but the film ends exactly when this part becomes more interesting. The binder is the minimalist style, characteristic of Romanian films in the last 10-15 years, with attention to detail and based on fine actors performances. The actors are indeed really excellent. Florin Piersic Jr. gives a strong and yet introspected performance in the lead role. Alexandru Nagy creates a role of composition that reminded me of Florin Piersic – father in one the best roles of his career in ‘Of Men and Mice’ on the stage of the National Theater about half a century ago. Seeing again Rodica Negrea after a long time was a delight. Ilona Brezoianu and Adrian Titieni accurately sketched two memorable supporting roles. I also liked the cinematography, with a Bucharest filmed with a dusty yellow filter that made me breeze the air pollution I so well know. The oscillation between two different genres of movies, plus some insertions belonging totally to another style (fantastic cinema) left me however with a feeling of inconsistency. ‘Moon Hotel Kabul‘ is a puzzle made up of many interesting parts, but an unfinished puzzle in which some pieces are missing, and the existing ones do not fit perfectly.
Time has its own ways also in terms of movies. I have just finished watching ‘Senilità‘ (the English title is ‘Careless’) directed by Mauro Bolognini, a prolific and well-known Italian director at the time, author of 46 films between 1953 and 1995, a collaborator of Pasolini who was the script-writer of some of his films. ‘Senilità‘ was released in 1962, the year in which in Italy Michelangelo Antonioni made ‘L’Eclisse‘ and Vittorio De Sica ‘The Condemned of Altona‘. In many ways, however,’Senilità‘ seems to have been made in another era.
Time plays an important role in the concept of this film. Bolognini brings to screen a novel by Italo Svevo, whose action takes place in Trieste, but moves the story from the end of the 19th century to 1927. The change is significant not only from a historical point of view, the Adriatic city changing its belonging from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to an Italy hesitating between liberalism and Fascism in the period between the two world wars. Placing the story in a slightly closer era gave to Bolognini the opportunity to shoot in a location in a Trieste that still retained many of the city’s characteristics between the two wars, and the resulting cinematography is the most successful part of the film in my opinion. Today the black and white film is used to create ‘artistic effects’, but in 1962 it was still a bit cheaper than the color film, and the choice was, I think, economical. A decision with a good artistic result.
Changing the place of the story from the introverted Austro-Hungary of the end of the 19th century to the liberated post-World War I atmosphere is not just a change of background. The moralist perspective and the psychological introspection in Sveto’s text gain psychoanalytic tones amplified by social differences that remind Neo-realism. We are dealing with a ‘romantic square’, two men and two women who can not overcome the social and psychological barriers to consume their passions. Sveto’s dialogues sound artificial and conventional, and they do not fit well in the period in which the film is placed. The actors’ performances are also rhetoric, with the brilliant exception of Claudia Cardinale‘s appearance. The Italian actress already on the road leading her to super-star status seems to come from another world, not only because of the character’s beauty and vulnerability, but also because of the quality of her acting. It’s for her and for the cinematography that ‘Senilità‘ is a movie that deserves to be seen.
‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.‘ had all the premises for a successful entertainment. It’s an action and espionage film, a combination of genres that I like. The action takes place during the Cold War, a very interesting historical period for me, which has been the background of many successful books and films, and a pretext for the retro-espionage style that has created some successful comedies. The cast features Alicia Vikander, an actress who is as beautiful as she is talented. And yet, I have not managed to resonate or have fun with this movie. Whose fault was it? Maybe mine, though I have doubts that this is the reason.
The film begins with a spectacular car chase in the Wall-divided Berlin in the 1960s, reminiscent of the style of ‘Mission: Impossible ‘. We are dealing not with one super-spy but with two of them, who will continue their stunts in Rome, Italy, and on the Mediterranean shores. One is CIA, the other is KGB, and their bosses have decided that they have to work together to save the world, which does not prevent them from fighting with each other during the breaks. There is also an evil scientist of the Nazi era, plus one sadistic ‘doctor of death’. The scientist also has a very beautiful daughter for whose charms the two spies will also exchange some other punches. As many spices as for a rich salad, but too many for one film.
‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.‘ is based on a television series of the 60s that was not, of course, broadcast in Romania where I was living at that time. I believe that if the retro line would have been followed more carefully, it would have had the chance to be a better movie. As it came out, director and co-writer Guy Ritchie seems to have tried to combine too many genres without succeeding in doing a good job in any of them. The action scenes are rather sloppy, except for the sea race close to the end of the film, where the split screens work very well. The spy intrigue a la Le Carre is confusing. The gags and comedy scenes rarely and with difficulty smash a smile. The romantic line is atrophied by the actors’ flat play. Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer, are forgettable super-spies. Neither for Alicia Vikander nor for Hugh Grant in a supporting role, ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E.‘ will be a film to remember in their careers. After all, if I think better, I do not believe that I am to blame for the missed entertainment.
The Wim Wenders retrospective at our local cinematheque ended with one of the most interesting films of the German director. ‘Der Stand der Dinge‘ (the English title is ‘The State of Things‘) is very representative for his career, including many of the features that make up the charm and interest of Wenders‘ films, as well as some of the elements that make his movies difficult. In other words, we can find here the reasons why we love him, but also part of the motives because of which some do not like Wenders.
Movies about movies are a special genre. Many famous directors are at their best in movies that talk about their job. Wim Wenders also approaches the genre in some of his films, but Wenders being who he is, these creations look different than the rest. In ‘Der Stand der Dinge‘ we’re dealing with three movies. The beginning seems to belong to the genre of post-apocalyptic horror films, but after a few minutes we realize that it is a film in film, we actually witness the filming of a production titled ‘The Survivors’, somewhere in Portugal. Shortly, the shootings will stop, because the team is left without the precious black-and-white film. Gordon, the producer of the movie, disappeared without a trace, and Friedrich, the director, beckons how to find him and maintain the morale of the film team. As they are logged in a deserted hotel near Lisbon, actors and technicians plunge into boredom and alcohol. This part, taking place in the hotel is the second film, maybe a homage, maybe a parody or perhaps a combination of homage and parody of Bergman’s and Antonioni’s existentialist cinema. When a desperate Friedrich embarks on a trip to Los Angeles in search of the producer in order to save his film, the style and ambience change altogether. The third film has all the features of a ‘film noir’ with gangsters and … filmmakers on the background of Hollywood.
The main problem of the film is the length of the second part, which is likely to make victims among those who are not passionate about existentialist cinema, or have not enough patience and confidence that Wim Wenders will reward them in the end. In the cinema theater where I saw the movie, about half of the spectators left about halfway through the screening. I believe however they have reason to regret it, because the end is not only cinematically gorgeous, but it also gives a rationale to everything that has happened before, while asking some perene questions about the relationships between directors and producers, between tradition and modernity, between American commercial cinema and European ‘art’ cinema. The acting of the whole team is excellent, even if some characters are just sketched. The cinematography partly belongs to Henri Alekan, an operator who brought his talent to some of the masterpieces of post-war cinema, both in Europe and Hollywood. The music combines jazz and rock, with Jim Jarmusch being one of the composers, at the time when his brilliant and original directorial career was just taking off. ‘Der Stand der Dinge‘ is a very interesting film, with many cinematic references, an intellectual challenge to the viewers, who will be rewarded if they show enough patience.
It’s only now that I had the opportunity to see Marian Crisan‘s ‘Morgen‘, a movie made in 2010. It’s a film about a Turkish migrant trying to make his way to Germany, the story happening a decade ago. At that time the problem of migrants in Europe existed but was far from the proportions it would reach a few years later. The political reactions that were to shake the entire political system within and between the countries of Europe were not yet visible. But something was preparing, cooking on low fire, as they say. ‘Morgen‘ captures exactly that stage and is an interesting film from a documentary and human point of view, maybe one of the first films to tackle this issue in European cinema.
The story in the film takes place in Salonta, a small city in the border area between Romania and Hungary, near a the sleepy border crossing where Romanian and Hungarian customs officers share the same booth. It is, however, still the European Union’s border, which the Turk migrant Behran (Yilmaz Yalçin) cannot cross on his way to the Germany where he is supposed to reunite with his family. He finds refuge in the house of Nelu (András Hatházi), a security guard at a local supermarket. The film deals with the confused world of the Eastern Europe, for which the end of communism meant a freedom that people do not know how to use, while the economic situation has remained rather precarious. A strange relationship forms between the two men. Mistrust and prejudice are amplified by communication difficulties due to the language barrier. The Romanian assumes some risks of sheltering an illegal migrant and helping him to continue his journey in a Europe still divide for foreigners. However, he can not do otherwise, as he would violate a deeper and more powerful human code, older than laws and borders.
The story is simple up to the point that it seems linear and rather idealized. Still, the film manages to impress because of the performances of the two actors in the main roles and of the realism with which it describes the world in which the action takes place, its geographic and human landscape. It feels like we are more in the Balkans than in Europe, in a world where the law is not fully respected, but the prejudices are also not taken until their tragic conclusion. The cinematographic style belongs to the minimalist style of the Romanian ‘New Wave’, although the technical conditions of the film remind more the Romanian films of the last century – the image is not of the best quality, the sound sometimes makes the dialogs hard to understand even for a native Romanian speaker. However, the human message of the film remains actual today, when in Europe the physical walls and the walls of prejudice not only that they did not disappear but they became even higher.
Între
aniversările anului 2019 se numără o aniversare literară care este
demnă de a fi celebrată. În iunie se vor împlini 70 de ani de la prima
ediție, publicată în iunie 1949, a romanului ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four‘ (‘1984‘).
Cea mai mare parte a cărții fusese scrisă între aprilie 1947 și
decembrie 1948 pe insula Jura, unde autorul cărții, George Orwell, se
retrăsese pentru a se îndepărta de tumultul lumii și pentru a se îngriji
de tuberculoză. Cartea s-a bucurat de un remarcabil succes încă de la
prima ediție. Orwell nu avea însă să-i supraviețuiască decât șapte luni,
stingându-se din viață la 21 ianuarie 1950.
Nu există probabil vreun clasament al celor mai semnificative cărți ale secolului 20 din care să nu facă parte această carte. ‘Orwelian’ și ‘Big Brother’ au devenit concepte familiare tuturor. Viziunea unei societăți aflate în permanent război, în care viața particulară a fiecărui cetățean este supusă unei supravegheri continue și este controlată în cele mai mici detalii, în care propaganda înlocuiește informația se află din momentul publicării cărții până astăzi în permanentă dezbatere, și este folosită pentru a sublinia aspecte diverse ale realităților lumii în care trăim. Cât de reală și cât de corectă este această comparație astăzi? Cât de adevărată este afirmația că ‘1984 este acum’? În acest articol al rubricii CHANGE.WORLD voi aborda câteva dintre aspectele tehnologice și aspectele sociale legate de epoca vizibilității totale sau, dacă vreți, a supravegherii omniprezente, în care se pare că ne aflăm deja.
Se
estimează că în anul 2020 peste 6 miliarde de locuitori ai planetei vor
avea aparate telefonice cu capabilitatea de a capta imagini. În fiecare
zi sunt făcute miliarde de fotografii și filme video. O mare parte
dintre acestea sunt păstrate pe Internet. Suntem filmați și fotografiați
permanent atunci când ne aflăm pe străzile orașelor sau pe șosele, de
fiecare dată când folosim un aparat bancar pentru a retrage numerar sau
când intrăm sau ieșim de pe o autostradă cu plată. Tehnologia de
televiziune în circuit închis (CCTV) este folosită de aproape trei
decenii, în scopul de a asigura securitatea personală pe străzi, în
clădirile publice, bănci, aeroporturi, mijloacele de transport în comun.
Sisteme sofisticate ne ‘scotocesc’ bagajele în aeroporturi și ne
scanează automobilele la punctele de frontieră și de vamă. Societatea
noastră se află, folosind expresia sociologului William Staples de la
Universitatea din Kansas, într-o ‘stare de permanentă vizibilitate’.
Abordarea legală și atitudinea publică diferă de la țară la țară.
Anglia, de exemplu, este una dintre țările în care ‘permanenta
vizibilitate’ se bucură de o relativă susținere (sau de mai puțină
împotrivire) în rândurile populației. Londra este probabil orașul cu
cele mai multe aparate de filmat și sisteme CCTV din lume, rezultat al
confruntării cu terorismul organizației IRA încă din anii ’80 și ’90 ai
secolului trecut și mai recent cu terorismul islamic. Legiferația
europeană pune însă accentul pe protecția spațiului personal privat,
ceea ce plasează limitele expunerii sub o supraveghere continuă. Peste
Ocean, în Statele Unite, sanctitatea spațiului privat și prioritatea
drepturilor individuale față de autoritatea guvernamentală centralizată,
apărate în Constituție, impun limitele lor specifice supravegherii
generalizate. La întrebări ca ‘în ce fel de societate dorim să trăim?
este acceptabil să fim permanent fotografiați și filmați, să ne
fotografiem și să ne filmăm permanent unii pe ceilalți? care este limita
la care suntem pregătiți să renunțăm la spațiul nostru privat pentru a
ne asigura securitatea personală?’ răspunsurile diferă de la țară la
țară, de la lege la lege, de la persoană la persoană.
Suntem
supravegheați, filmați și fotografiați, noi și lumea din jurul nostru
nu numai de pe Pământ, ci și din spațiu. Mai mult de 1700 de sateliți
orbitează deasupra noastră la înălțimi care variază între câteva sute
până la 160 de mii de kilometri. Ei colectează permanent imagini și
informații, fac măsurători, urmăresc mișcările mijloacelor de transport,
uneori interceptează comunicațiile. Cam jumătate dintre acești sateliți
sunt lansați de guverne, restul de organizații particulare. Un număr
crescând de țări și de firme particulare au capacitatea de a lansa
sateliți. Un exemplu semnificativ: peste 200 dintre acești sateliți
aparțin unei firme numite Planet, cu baza în San Francisco, înființată
de doi foști salariați NASA, Will Marshall și Robbie Schingler. Cei mai
simpli sateliți lansați de ei sunt foarte asemănători telefoanelor
inteligente. Planet furnizează servicii de supraveghere spațială unor
clienți dintre cei mai diverși, de la organizații ecologice, care
urmăresc fenomenul de distrugere a pădurilor în zona Amazonului, la
Amnesty Internațional, care documentează tragedia populației Rohingya în
Myanmar. În lipsa unei legislații internaționale, firma Planet susține
că respectă norme etice proprii riguroase în ceea ce privește utilizarea
tehnologiei și furnizarea de servicii bazate pe aceasta. Supravegherea
și identificarea personală nu fac parte din gama de servicii oferite. De
altfel, în acest moment, pentru a identifica o persoană dintr-un
satelit aflat la 500 de kilometri înălțime ar trebui un aparat de filmat
de dimensiunile unui autobuz, nu ale unui telefon, susține Will
Marshall. Pericolul însă există. Tehnologia este accesibilă și în
continuă perfecționare, legislația internațională este aproape
inexistentă.
Semnele
de întrebare și motivele de îngrijorare se multiplică atunci când luăm
în considerare avansul considerabil făcut în ultimii ani de tehnologia
identificării faciale. Utilizatorii Facebook sunt familiarizați de
câțiva ani cu identificarea și aplicarea de ‘tag’-uri persoanelor care
apar în fotografii (este o opțiune care poate fi dezactivată). Sistemele
mai avansate bazate pe această tehnologie sunt considerate astăzi
suficient de fiabile pentru a fi folosite în aplicații de securitate și
în identificarea biometrică a persoanelor. Informațiile geometrice sunt
coordonate cu analiza texturii pielii și cu informația detectată de
senzorii termici, asigurând o precizie din ce în ce mai mare. Ca aproape
orice altă invenție, și identificarea facială poate fi folosită în
scopuri bune și mai puțin bune. Securitatea personală și combaterea
crimelor și a terorismului sunt, desigur, aplicații importante, dar
aceeași tehnologie poate deveni un instrument de urmărire și represiune a
opozanților atunci când se află în serviciul unor regimuri politice
totalitare. Una dintre țările cele mai avansate în acest domeniu este
China, firmele chineze combină identificarea facială cu inteligența
artificială, și guvernul chinez este un beneficiar și utilizator
important. Să luăm încă un exemplu, cel al companiei WeWork, fondată în
2010 de israelianul Adam Neumann și americanul Miguel McKelvey și
evaluată în ianuarie 2019 la 47 de miliarde de dolari. WeWork oferă
spații comune de lucru (fizice, dar și virtuale) unei game largi de
clienți de la start-up-uri și birouri mici la companii imense. Unul
dintre proiectele avansate dar și controversate ale companiei include
folosirea de senzori și aparate de captat imagini cu capabilități de
identificare facială și programe AI, de interpretare a imaginilor, care
să permită monitorizarea felului în care salariații firmelor din
clientela lui WeWork folosesc spațiile fizice de lucru. Sunt colectate
informații diverse, de la felul în care cei care lucrează în aceste
spații își aranjează scaunele și reglează iluminarea, până la modul în
care utilizează timpul de lucru, cât se mișcă, cum interacționează cu
colegii. Informația este corelată la nivel de grup, și salariații nu
sunt urmăriți în mod individual, scopul fiind adaptarea optimă a
spațiului de lucru pentru a atinge maximul de randament. Pericolul
controlului în scopuri diferite de cele planificate însă există.
sursa imaginii: BraveNewWorld_FirstEdition
În genul distopiei, ‘1984‘ are un concurent semnificativ în cartea ‘Brave New World‘ a lui Aldous Huxley, apărută în 1931, tradusă și publicată în românește (ultima dată în 2011 de editura Polirom) sub titlul ‘Minunata lume nouă’. Scriitorul și educatorul american Neil Postman (1931 – 2003) a comparat cele două viziuni în cartea sa din 1985 ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’:
‘Orwell
se temea de cei care ar interzice cărțile. Huxley se temea că nu ar mai
exista nici un motiv să fie interzise cărțile, deoarece nu ar rămâne
nimeni care să vrea să citească o carte. Orwell se temea de cei care
ne-ar lipsi de informații. Huxley se temea de cei care ne-ar da atât de
multe, încât am fi reduși la pasivitate și egoism. Orwell se temea că
adevărul va fi ascuns de noi. Huxley se temea că adevărul va fi înecat
într-o mare de irelevanță. Orwell se temea că vom deveni o cultură
captivă. Huxley se temea că vom deveni o cultură trivială, preocupată de
surogate ale emoțiilor, de orgii și de jocuri lipsite de reguli. … Pe
scurt, Orwell se temea că frica ne va distruge. Huxley s-a temut că poftele sunt cele care ne vor distruge.’*
Orwell
sau Huxley? Prea puțină informație sau prea multă informație?
Supraveghere continuă sau o lume fără frâuri? Va fi omenirea capabilă să
scape de vreuna dintre aceste viziuni distopice? O va spune viitorul.
(Articolul a aparut iniţial in revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
‘Shoplifters‘ by Japanese director Hirokazu Koreeda confuses its audiences for much of the length of the film. For about three quarters of the duration of the screening, it looks like we are dealing with a family drama that takes place in medium of the poor classes of a contemporary Japanese metropolis. We see a needy family living in a kind of barrack, with the father and mother of the family performing poorly paid manual labor, which they actually lose one after the other, while serenely complementing the income with shoplifting in stores. They live together with a mother (or maybe grandmother) in her elderly age, and the woman’s sister who works in a striptease parlor. Their boy does not go to school and is told that ‘only those who can not learn at home go to school.’ His ‘education’ includes dexterity in shoplifting. When a girl subjected violence in her family is adopted we seem to enter the realm of social melodrama. Something happens late in the story, I will not reveal what, and everything changes – the style of the film, and the image we acquired about this family that is far away from the image of a ‘traditional family’.
Leo Tolstoy warned is that happy families all look alike. The truth is, however, that the family in ‘Shoplifters’ seems to be too happy despite what they have to go through in order to survive. The details of the lives of those on the outskirts of society are rendered carefully and accurately. Social conventions that play such an important role in Japanese life and in Japanese films do not seem to work here. Although there are some premonitory signs here and there, the change in perspective comes as a surprise to us, spectators. The story is written and told in such a way that questions all the stereotypes that we may have about good and evil, about morality and legality, about death, but especially about family and children education.
The tone of the film is generous and optimistic, and this is a sublimation of a message that we may find shocking after watching it all. I liked the cinematography, the actors’ performances, the vision of a Japan different than the one we know as tourists or by watching the majority of the Japanese films. The risk, however, that director Hirokazu Koreeda has assumed is that the “conventional” part of the film takes too long. I confess that at some point I lost interest. The shock of the revelations in the last part of ‘Shoplifters‘ woke me up, but the thread was already broken and it was not easy to find it again. However, the effort was rewarded. It’s a movie that I recommend, a non- conventional Japanese film.
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?
