Jean Renoir - 1951
Renoir in colour means brutal lighting. Really, hard, hard, probably even more with the film stock and the crazt sun and colours of India caught here. The shadows are black. Some deeply beautiful stuff here. Is this India? Yes and no; the story isn't a lot to do, but the place sure is.
The direction is more edit based, isolating charcters (from the sound of it, due to the production conditions).
The voiceover can be a little intrusicve (perhaps, again, necessary by the sound of the conditions).
As for the plot; the birth of women, here various ones seen. Ideas of the cruelty of youth, the natural cycle. Birth comes, as does death. There is a slight element of nature worship and placid acceptance, but also anger that life turns out this way. All are somehow 'flawed' in this world; disability, racial non-acceptance, not being so beautiful; but can purgatory be beautiful? I suspect Renoir wants it to be.
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Sunday, 12 June 2011
The World Of Apu
Satyajit Ray - 1959
Third part of the Apu trilogy. the technique is more settled, still going for influence through the editing of generally discreet people, with large complicated scenes that show a complex environment. There are also some very effective camera movements from in to out, and one wonderful graphic match from a stage into the back of a carriage.
The story is very 'Portrait of The Artist', with a great complexity and an ability, despite some pretty wild twists, to not fall into melodrama. The slow build up, by the focus on the faces, of the burgeoning marriage is a very effective move. Also, the move beyond the simple 'young artist' is well done. Apu grows up, there is a lot more in this world than simply the traditional 'tortured artist' path.
Third part of the Apu trilogy. the technique is more settled, still going for influence through the editing of generally discreet people, with large complicated scenes that show a complex environment. There are also some very effective camera movements from in to out, and one wonderful graphic match from a stage into the back of a carriage.
The story is very 'Portrait of The Artist', with a great complexity and an ability, despite some pretty wild twists, to not fall into melodrama. The slow build up, by the focus on the faces, of the burgeoning marriage is a very effective move. Also, the move beyond the simple 'young artist' is well done. Apu grows up, there is a lot more in this world than simply the traditional 'tortured artist' path.
Aparajito
Satyajit Ray - 1956
Second part of the Apu trilogy. Certainly more settled than 'Pather Panchali', indeed the direction seems more calm, to jump around less. There is more classical narrative in that dailogue plays a bigger role (their are clear problems with direct recorded sound in 'Pather..' and Apu certainly develops a character.
The images, helped by Shankar's refrain, don't follow systematic patterns, but it would be fair to say that a deep staging, and a willingness to decenter framings, are evident here.
How is Ray 'simple' or 'poetic' here? The lack of dialogue certainly contribute to the latter impression, as does the editing of reaction shots, eyeline matches, and cuts to the usrroundings above strict narrative causality. As for 'simplicity', Ray's stories obviously don't overload, and what actually happens is able, within a limited number of things happening, to open onto greater complexities of feelings and, ultimately, life. One could call this simplicity, or indeed one could call it great depth.
Second part of the Apu trilogy. Certainly more settled than 'Pather Panchali', indeed the direction seems more calm, to jump around less. There is more classical narrative in that dailogue plays a bigger role (their are clear problems with direct recorded sound in 'Pather..' and Apu certainly develops a character.
The images, helped by Shankar's refrain, don't follow systematic patterns, but it would be fair to say that a deep staging, and a willingness to decenter framings, are evident here.
How is Ray 'simple' or 'poetic' here? The lack of dialogue certainly contribute to the latter impression, as does the editing of reaction shots, eyeline matches, and cuts to the usrroundings above strict narrative causality. As for 'simplicity', Ray's stories obviously don't overload, and what actually happens is able, within a limited number of things happening, to open onto greater complexities of feelings and, ultimately, life. One could call this simplicity, or indeed one could call it great depth.
Pather Panchali
Satyajit Ray - 1955
Opening film of the Apu Trilogy. An extremely difficult picture to get a handle on, Ray's later style doesn't really seem to be in place except in embryonic form. There is the editing that generally cuts the space into that around the characters. There is perhaps more autonomy of the camera than in late Ray, with shots of the jugs and hands and so on, not necessarilly of the whole person.
The images are deeply beautiful, with a very high contrast and the dapplings of the forest. The interiors, seen around the characters, come across as remarkably dirty in these pitch black, inky tones. The editing is doubtless choppy and, though we hesitate to call it so for fear of such borderline-racist tags as 'naive', it does certainly seem rough, untutored (of course not true; Ray had worked with Renoir) about the shifts of pace and general editing, along with the obviously mediocre quality (in terms of the 'well made film') of equipment used.
The story is also not really following classical outlines, certainly an evocation of mood. The character of Apu is really a cute boy, a tiny beam of light caught by the camera in his eye, staring, while Durga is really the main character. One feature, without wanting to be cruel, is that it remains remarkable to see people quite so ugly, clearly down-at-heel on screen. This may perhaps refelct more on the kind of cinema I watch than on the film itself. Though surely the very fact of focussing on who it does focus on makes this film significant in 1955 and now. Fascinatingly different.
Opening film of the Apu Trilogy. An extremely difficult picture to get a handle on, Ray's later style doesn't really seem to be in place except in embryonic form. There is the editing that generally cuts the space into that around the characters. There is perhaps more autonomy of the camera than in late Ray, with shots of the jugs and hands and so on, not necessarilly of the whole person.
The images are deeply beautiful, with a very high contrast and the dapplings of the forest. The interiors, seen around the characters, come across as remarkably dirty in these pitch black, inky tones. The editing is doubtless choppy and, though we hesitate to call it so for fear of such borderline-racist tags as 'naive', it does certainly seem rough, untutored (of course not true; Ray had worked with Renoir) about the shifts of pace and general editing, along with the obviously mediocre quality (in terms of the 'well made film') of equipment used.
The story is also not really following classical outlines, certainly an evocation of mood. The character of Apu is really a cute boy, a tiny beam of light caught by the camera in his eye, staring, while Durga is really the main character. One feature, without wanting to be cruel, is that it remains remarkable to see people quite so ugly, clearly down-at-heel on screen. This may perhaps refelct more on the kind of cinema I watch than on the film itself. Though surely the very fact of focussing on who it does focus on makes this film significant in 1955 and now. Fascinatingly different.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
The Chess Players
Satyajit Ray - 1977
A pretty slow historical runthrough. Ray paints the self-obsession, inertia, petty intersquabbles of the people as the Brits march into the power vacuum. Ray doesn't ever collapse into unthinking SRS, moving around enough and there's some straight on work. Ray also, throughout his catalogue, likes filming people's backs. Also note the explicit narration, very unlike Ray, who usually rejects even autonomous camera movements.
I found it difficult to really get excited.
A pretty slow historical runthrough. Ray paints the self-obsession, inertia, petty intersquabbles of the people as the Brits march into the power vacuum. Ray doesn't ever collapse into unthinking SRS, moving around enough and there's some straight on work. Ray also, throughout his catalogue, likes filming people's backs. Also note the explicit narration, very unlike Ray, who usually rejects even autonomous camera movements.
I found it difficult to really get excited.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Charulata (The Lonely Wife)
Satyjait Ray - 1964
The space of the confined corridors is extremely well created. The dark walls, the narrow passages and byways the wife is trapped in, give a real physical sense. The light sources always being distant, never properly defined, a window that offers nothing concrete (the binocular eyeline matches are of an alien world) are well done. As are the tight, constrained, small camera movements from a head high postion; as though the camera itself can't leave the confines.
With the wide angle lenses, the deep rooms, the stacked framings, there is again something Wellesian in how the fronts of the frames are used. The deep framings almost always have something at the front, which is the real Wellesian distinction.
We have so many points crossing here, different people caught in the changing, historical times. We have sympathy for the woman, but the husband, well, they're all flawed, but at people.
The space of the confined corridors is extremely well created. The dark walls, the narrow passages and byways the wife is trapped in, give a real physical sense. The light sources always being distant, never properly defined, a window that offers nothing concrete (the binocular eyeline matches are of an alien world) are well done. As are the tight, constrained, small camera movements from a head high postion; as though the camera itself can't leave the confines.
With the wide angle lenses, the deep rooms, the stacked framings, there is again something Wellesian in how the fronts of the frames are used. The deep framings almost always have something at the front, which is the real Wellesian distinction.
We have so many points crossing here, different people caught in the changing, historical times. We have sympathy for the woman, but the husband, well, they're all flawed, but at people.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Nayak (The Hero)
Satyajit Ray - 1966
In a confined environment, Ray has a train teeming with complexities, refelcting social status. He uses many large face framings, depth is used, but not so large here for perhaps obvious reasons. Cutting is generally for emphasis, as usual dividing the characters at times, though there are also some nice two shots.
There are two interesting dream sequences here. The first seems Bergman-esque, with a blank mis-en-scene, long tracking camera, and the skeleton. The second is surely Wellesian, as are some, throughout, of the low framings and wide angled lenses.
This is a pretty downbeat tale from Ray, insofar as happiness, or at least a kind of forgiveness, seems a long way away. Ray avoids the false 'poor him' for the movie star by earning the usual cliche about 'emptiness', rather than just trotting it out. Of course, it still could jar, and probably fits best in comparison to Ray's other work across more diverse social strata than just here.
In a confined environment, Ray has a train teeming with complexities, refelcting social status. He uses many large face framings, depth is used, but not so large here for perhaps obvious reasons. Cutting is generally for emphasis, as usual dividing the characters at times, though there are also some nice two shots.
There are two interesting dream sequences here. The first seems Bergman-esque, with a blank mis-en-scene, long tracking camera, and the skeleton. The second is surely Wellesian, as are some, throughout, of the low framings and wide angled lenses.
This is a pretty downbeat tale from Ray, insofar as happiness, or at least a kind of forgiveness, seems a long way away. Ray avoids the false 'poor him' for the movie star by earning the usual cliche about 'emptiness', rather than just trotting it out. Of course, it still could jar, and probably fits best in comparison to Ray's other work across more diverse social strata than just here.
Abhijaan
Satyajit Ray - 1962
Ray uses a more melodramatic mis-en-scene than for 'Mahangar'. We have music at once charming and obtrusive. Little tracks into faces, some quite dramatic cutting from one big single fact to another. With the wide angle lens, there for the depth inside, these faces look on the verge of distorted.
The deep interior scenes are shot in high contrast. Ray uses the whole frame, coiling figures around the bottom and sides of the frame. Not that they aren't balanced; the eyeline or the direction of the body does that work.
This is again a deeply complex analysis of a time, a kind of person. Trying to pull up from old dignities to the new realities, and soling themselves in the process. There is, on the surface, a way out.
Ray uses a more melodramatic mis-en-scene than for 'Mahangar'. We have music at once charming and obtrusive. Little tracks into faces, some quite dramatic cutting from one big single fact to another. With the wide angle lens, there for the depth inside, these faces look on the verge of distorted.
The deep interior scenes are shot in high contrast. Ray uses the whole frame, coiling figures around the bottom and sides of the frame. Not that they aren't balanced; the eyeline or the direction of the body does that work.
This is again a deeply complex analysis of a time, a kind of person. Trying to pull up from old dignities to the new realities, and soling themselves in the process. There is, on the surface, a way out.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Mahangar (The Big City)
Satyajit Ray - 1964
What a great film this is. Ray's mis-en-scene won't set the world on fire, but it fits perfectly. Lots of medium shots of interiors, often with action stuffed on top of each other, though efforts are made not to overstrain. Depth blocking is throughout, as is a depth of focus, though some racks are used to make up for deficiencies, deliberate or not. The camera is moved about for the postion of the characters, in a smooth and inconspicuous manner. The editing is a wonderfully relaxed rythm, but does not feel the need to have everyone together at once; it often cuts from isolated person to isolated person, looked at one way, or it connects them with eyeline matches and so on, to put it another. There are some lovely individual shots, with shadows and curtains coming across.
This film is about the big city, and Ray takes us to the big city; yet we hardly ever have wider shots of the city. How is this done? There are windows as backdrops used skillfully, but it is really in the quite terrific use of sound. Constant noise of cars, of singing, almost like a radio soundtrack. Whole incidents, studies, take place simply by the sound we hear around a character (a car nearly crossing their path), and by that character's reaction.
Why is this such a fine film? Because we come to trust Ray. His intelligence is clear, setting up a multi-faceted portrait. Indeed 'multi-faceted' seems a good word here; there is no subordination of any of the competing elements, nothing is skirted over. We have the husband's control, his love of his wife, his relations to the family. The woman's naivete, indeed her complusiveness, and her desperate wish to not be misunderstood. She is certaintly the strongest (as in; the most moral) character here, it is her suffering that is centered as the greatest injustice. The old father, we try to understand, we empathize, we fundamentally disagree with him. The boss is allowed to be real, but he is after all a boss....
One interesting question to ask is; is the humanism a bit easy? There isn't a sense of despair here, 'Maltest Falcon' style; if we aren't ensured things will work out for the best, humans will also survive, something will manage somehow. That is the end. But Ray never descends to melodramatic paths; things keep running at this wonderful, lapping pace. Dialogue need not be too fast, because this is the pace of life. A thoughtful, fine, fine, piece of work.
What a great film this is. Ray's mis-en-scene won't set the world on fire, but it fits perfectly. Lots of medium shots of interiors, often with action stuffed on top of each other, though efforts are made not to overstrain. Depth blocking is throughout, as is a depth of focus, though some racks are used to make up for deficiencies, deliberate or not. The camera is moved about for the postion of the characters, in a smooth and inconspicuous manner. The editing is a wonderfully relaxed rythm, but does not feel the need to have everyone together at once; it often cuts from isolated person to isolated person, looked at one way, or it connects them with eyeline matches and so on, to put it another. There are some lovely individual shots, with shadows and curtains coming across.
This film is about the big city, and Ray takes us to the big city; yet we hardly ever have wider shots of the city. How is this done? There are windows as backdrops used skillfully, but it is really in the quite terrific use of sound. Constant noise of cars, of singing, almost like a radio soundtrack. Whole incidents, studies, take place simply by the sound we hear around a character (a car nearly crossing their path), and by that character's reaction.
Why is this such a fine film? Because we come to trust Ray. His intelligence is clear, setting up a multi-faceted portrait. Indeed 'multi-faceted' seems a good word here; there is no subordination of any of the competing elements, nothing is skirted over. We have the husband's control, his love of his wife, his relations to the family. The woman's naivete, indeed her complusiveness, and her desperate wish to not be misunderstood. She is certaintly the strongest (as in; the most moral) character here, it is her suffering that is centered as the greatest injustice. The old father, we try to understand, we empathize, we fundamentally disagree with him. The boss is allowed to be real, but he is after all a boss....
One interesting question to ask is; is the humanism a bit easy? There isn't a sense of despair here, 'Maltest Falcon' style; if we aren't ensured things will work out for the best, humans will also survive, something will manage somehow. That is the end. But Ray never descends to melodramatic paths; things keep running at this wonderful, lapping pace. Dialogue need not be too fast, because this is the pace of life. A thoughtful, fine, fine, piece of work.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
The Oscar Nominated Short Films: Live Action
Five Films that run between seventeen and twenty two minutes, an ecletic mix of comedy, tragedy, and farce that were the academy's selections for the category this year.
Kavi: A bit of a Unicef advert, but an important call-to-attention of the human slavery business in India. It seemed a little like a number of even-tinier films tacked together, but had some fine shots and convincing performances. The music was delightfully different.
The New Tenants: A comedy/ farce that brings up a few laughs, and has one very arresting character (the druggy). However, it is not sharp enough to have consistent comedy, and tries to pack too much in, leaving an unsatisfactory and pretentious ending. Lacks the bite better direction could have given it.
Miracle Fish: Probably the winner we would have crowned, this establishes well and has a wondrous, dreamy quality to both the child's vision and the whole later scenes. Nicely enigmatic, shot with an eye to lighting effects, but quick enough for the format. It rather over-eggs the ending, but all told very impressive.
The Door: Undoubtedly the most boring to watch, and it is unrelentingly gloomy, easy to cast off with a big who cares. One was rather wishing for it to end. Despite this, the auteur would likely make the best feature film of the five. There are some wonderful, slow moving shots of the snow, the weary travellers passing through. Individual scenes, individual pictures (the ferris wheel, the entire packing-up scene) are nicely, calmly evoked. Perhaps with a more focussed sriptwriter, this could be a talent. Not a great short film though.
Instead of Abracadabra: Delightful, funny little piece of Scandanavian whimsy, with strong comedy of embarrasment (in an absurd manner) as well as some near-slapstick. It had cheery music, a bright and breezy aesthetic, and was the funnest to watch out of all the five. It also had an ability to make itself rather touching, the absurdity and silliness cloaking real characterisation. Impressive.
So, we have very different themes in all five, and if none really blew us away then all had some redeeming features. The winner, 'The New Tenants' was the wrong decision; it may not have been the worst to watch, but it was the worst made. We will watch out particularly for the directors of 'Miracle Fish' and 'Abracadabra', though we will also do so for the director of the rather dull 'The Room'.
Short Films are rarely seen, but are a terrific medium that should be brought out of the film school. To reflect on the use of images, slow or fast, to tell no story or a quick one, we look forward to having more experience of the art form.
Kavi: A bit of a Unicef advert, but an important call-to-attention of the human slavery business in India. It seemed a little like a number of even-tinier films tacked together, but had some fine shots and convincing performances. The music was delightfully different.
The New Tenants: A comedy/ farce that brings up a few laughs, and has one very arresting character (the druggy). However, it is not sharp enough to have consistent comedy, and tries to pack too much in, leaving an unsatisfactory and pretentious ending. Lacks the bite better direction could have given it.
Miracle Fish: Probably the winner we would have crowned, this establishes well and has a wondrous, dreamy quality to both the child's vision and the whole later scenes. Nicely enigmatic, shot with an eye to lighting effects, but quick enough for the format. It rather over-eggs the ending, but all told very impressive.
The Door: Undoubtedly the most boring to watch, and it is unrelentingly gloomy, easy to cast off with a big who cares. One was rather wishing for it to end. Despite this, the auteur would likely make the best feature film of the five. There are some wonderful, slow moving shots of the snow, the weary travellers passing through. Individual scenes, individual pictures (the ferris wheel, the entire packing-up scene) are nicely, calmly evoked. Perhaps with a more focussed sriptwriter, this could be a talent. Not a great short film though.
Instead of Abracadabra: Delightful, funny little piece of Scandanavian whimsy, with strong comedy of embarrasment (in an absurd manner) as well as some near-slapstick. It had cheery music, a bright and breezy aesthetic, and was the funnest to watch out of all the five. It also had an ability to make itself rather touching, the absurdity and silliness cloaking real characterisation. Impressive.
So, we have very different themes in all five, and if none really blew us away then all had some redeeming features. The winner, 'The New Tenants' was the wrong decision; it may not have been the worst to watch, but it was the worst made. We will watch out particularly for the directors of 'Miracle Fish' and 'Abracadabra', though we will also do so for the director of the rather dull 'The Room'.
Short Films are rarely seen, but are a terrific medium that should be brought out of the film school. To reflect on the use of images, slow or fast, to tell no story or a quick one, we look forward to having more experience of the art form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)