Forever Untold...Almost

DAYS OF GLORY

Rachid Bouchareb

Algeria

2006

With the local title as “Indigenes” or ‘indigenous”, literally in English, the movie is a visually sweeping wartime story of discrimination. Interesting nevertheless is the fact that this movie focuses on an internal war on an external historical background. This internal war is so relatively succulent, for discrimination has always been existent in any society, nation, or country. I love the inevitable manoeuvring of this internal war from the external war which is the world war, this makes the film expand its narrative and cinematic elements to a splendid experience accompanied by overwhelming cinematography. The war might be over but this war of discrimination is not yet ending, if not ending, as what the final scene of the film suggests when the old Abdulkader visited the tomb of his fellow Algerian soldiers at the bottom end of the cemetery hill while the one of their commander is located at the peak. I commend the film for being unpredictably non-victorious. While most of the films out there are gravely triumphantly-ended, and most of the better war films also critically acclaimed internationally also share a mate-ended finale, “Days of Glory” stood out because it talks about a different war. Yes there are hints of Communism versus Capitalism, the Allied forces versus the Axis powers, but it never came to a point to overpower the simple yet continuously unresolved ideological mechanic of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity—the French Revolution slogan—that is supposed to be achieved centuries ago.

“Days of Glory” started with the young Said, an Algerian native, convincing her mother to have him joining the French army, Algeria being obviously a colony of France. At the camp, he is surrounded by Abdulkader, the Algerian captain that serves as the superior of them indigenous soldiers but is of course inferior to their French chief. Said is a man who is content, or from a stand point of an ambitious man, he is a fool, a shallow-dreaming even non-dreaming fool content to be a peasant or a servant or a soldier of the lowest rank. He is a representation of the discriminated. Jamel Debbouze as Said, gave a respectable performance. The character he is playing has a greater chance of audience to get annoyed than to get moved, and I got the latter with his naïve performance. His death can be quite a statement though, that under-dreamers are doomed but a lovely character will always be redeemed before everything ends. Said dies as he is trying to aid their discriminating, bed-ridden French chief to escape, who he hopes to die after beating him when he learns that this French official has an Algerian origin but who Abdulkader wishes to be treated and survive until they win this war. The French chief is definitely the bad guy here. Hiding and ashamed of his indigenous past, he has no other direction but from up to the deepest down. Abdulkader, the Algerian captain who dreams of being promoted in the French army is the owner of the final point of view. He is the only who survived among the four Algerian soldiers excluding their French chief. This is another statement that the ones who dreams survive. I admire the twisting of this cliché. Obviously, Abdulkader only survived living until his white-haired age but surviving the battle he used to be fighting—no. But he generates the most important spark of life—hope. Abdulkader’s oldness at the final scene of the film poignantly denotes the timelessness of the battle against discrimination all for the elusive hands of fraternity.

I have always been conscious about points of views. Who possesses the eye, not just of the current scene or sequence but of all the totality of the film? The fewer or the more consistent the point of view is the better the film becomes because they always add to the clarity of what the characters really want, if they have really developed, or if they have really achieved or failed their objectives. Other than that, the more restricted the point of view is, the more attached we become to the characters—look at how people love Harry Potter, Forrest Gump, or even Jamal of Slumdog Millionaire, which inspite of having a lot multi-layered time frame still managed to have a very solid point of view. I usually hate or even despise films with point of view from all over the place, though there are multi-character films that really requires multi point of view so they are exceptions for there are artistic logic for those. In “Days of Glory” the switching of the point of view from Said at the beginning to Abdulkader at the end is one of the most awesome workaround for the point of views I have ever witnessed. The transfer of this subtle cinematic element is realized through the evolution of a discriminated person—Said, who doesn’t want to dream to a discriminated but hopeful person—Abdulkader, and this evolution is what every single discriminated person needs to undergo.

The film has been really good at least for me in a lot of unbelievable ways that I even want to think that this film is made for my cinematic satisfaction. The struggles that these indigenous soldiers are suffering under the same flag they are fighting for, the discriminating offenses to their part from the native French are narratively smooth and proper. I have never spotted a single one that looks and feels so forced that you would think hyperbole in poetry, mediocrity in drama and soap-operas in popular media join together to describe the scene. The scene in the navy ship hall where Algerian soldiers are not given tomatoes because they are only intended for the native French soldiers has a very light and successful yet serious feel. Abdulkader stand up for his fellow Algerians protesting that they also want tomatoes to their French chief, the motivational mother bedrock is serious and the tomatoes are delightful, the first ranting crowd then cheering crowd excites up the battle of tomatoes creating the first evidence in the film that people no matter what time in this million of years living planet has lived by never really became unvisited by humour. For entertainment, the soldiers are given a chance to see a dance show—a ballet show where almost all of the Algerian soldiers walked out. Abdulkader once again stands up against the French chief regarding about the entertainment they are providing who are only really meant for the European French and not for the Muslims, or Africans who they are. This is when Abdulkader, made a promise for himself and all of his fellow Algerians that they are not going to stop until they receive what the French are supposed to be fighting for—Liberty, Equality, and most of all Fraternity.

Alsace, is an important town. Whoever between France or Germany gets hold of that town gets almost ten times advantage in the war. The 7^th Infantry Battalion settle to go and venture but almost halfway the journey, they are trapped into enemy’s landmines. Now that there are only five of them remaining, Abdulkader leads the three remaining able Algerian soldiers. They made their way bravely to Alsace finding the place deserted and worn out by the previous encounter with few villagers happy about their arrival. All they need to do is to protect and guard that small town until back-up French troop arrives. Days are supposed to pass, and enemies are suppose to get closer and closer until one day, the four Algerian soldiers Abdulkader, Said, Messaoud, and Yassir, has to prove they are not fightingin vain and most importantly for Abdulkader, this is a battle that will declare his leadership more than enough to be recognized even better than what the other promoted French captains have done. Four men with the usual armaments they can carry against the five dozens of enemy with extra and heavy arsenals will only win if Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jackie Chan is Abdulkader, but since they are not, destiny has been kind enough to spare the brave Algerian captain’s life until the French reinforcement come. At the aftermath, with the hundred of French soldiers finally getting hold of Alsace, Abdulkder just walks in anonymity. Very much the opposite of what is supposed to happen as he visualized. This scene of uncertainty, personal and original failure in the midst of military success, is heartbreaking.

Rachid Bouchareb’s film is the most visually stunning war film I have ever seen. The respect for rhythm and passionate editing showed well especially in scenes where bombs and guns and even human meats are exploding. The film is generally quiet; it is not overloaded with music. Sound is also respectable. I do not wish to elaborate on editing and music for I must admit I don’t really know much about it. I wish to comment on its cinematography. The greenish-earthy to melancholic yellow to the dull rocks made stunning with African sun hitting the rough surfaces of rocks all sum up to the equatorial beauty of this heartbreaking yet inspiring story. Every frame is so vividly alive, I didn’t watch it in the best television set in the world or in any high-end movie equipment but I still can tell and feel the life captured in every single scene.

“Days of Glory” is a genuinely excellent film, and I extremely mean that. Despite the fact that it is based on a life story, the story still manages to provide a cinematic narrative. The characters are adorable especially when you recognize that they are not just their individual selves but they are every man and woman who feels the same evolving way throughout the history of mankind. This beautiful reflective realization has been made even more beautiful by its outstanding filmic manipulations by its director and all the other geniuses who worked on this 21^st century masterpiece. This film is an artistry emblazoned in the most powerful of cinema.

 

UNFORGETTABLE, THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE

BALZAC AND THE LITTLE CHINESE SEAMSTRESS
DAI SIJIE
FRANCE

 

Romantic, intellectual, and nostalgic coalesce altogether to come up with this lovable story of two bourgeoisie city boys culturally re-educated in the mountains and have the three year experience resound from them on until they reach the present time with their own streak of successes Ma as a violin player in France and Luo as dentist in one of the most advanced hospital in China. Probably, the most colourful and significant three years in their life, Luo and Ma both fell and even continuously falling in love with, a woman they have only known as the Little Seamstress.

The opening scene of the film introduces us in a breathtaking panoramic landscape of Chinese mountains soothingly escorted by a traditional-sounding song allegorizing their great communist leader Mao Tse-Tung. West versus East, Capitalism versus Communism, Industrialized versus Traditional is the compelling force though not very consciously substantial in the film, provides the fundamental forces in this film. I am a fan of films who try to escalate or deescalate the point of experience of this hegemonic supremacy into the more human, hearty and personal familiarity of real people. The film right from the very beginning starts the tension, though peaceful, of the two entities that is believed to be asymmetrical. There are only two obvious results the premise of this film will be—either traditional will be the proclaimed soul-satisfying way of living than the modern capitalistic lives or the Western ideology winning over the ignorance of the very old life of the mountain people. I mentioned about the “not very consciously substantial” for the lop-sidedness of these two opposing forces, and that is because the characters in the film, Ma, Luo, and the Little Seamstress, don’t seem to have been directly affected by these hegemonies. The development in these characters though is very evident, vital, and even moving. The little seamstress moving to the city to find herself in the world of the advanced and the two re-educated city boys falling in love with her until more than 20 years only happened with the need of a cultural revolution for the Chinese population to submit to Communism with the apparent reason of Western destitution

 

Admirable is the film for its poetic, artistic, and comic treatment. “Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress”  is a celebration of many art forms—photography, music, poetry, and even being referential—films.  To watch this lovely film is to fall in love with art. With the authenticity of the oriental life, the western French wit, the merging creativity of the West and the East, and most impressively the universality of passion for art, the film becomes a love story whose physical and motivational background are as gigantic and as timeless as romance and ideology. 

The film is hugely entertaining. The ignorance of the villagers are not pathetically hilarious instead pure. Especially when the little seamstress is pointing out at the hen at the alarm clock of Ma and Luo and when a villager with his cow on their way home stopped to watch Ma playing the violin, they are sweet and purifying ignorance, not annoying and something that you would wish to keep. The adventures of the two city boys, something that you usually see with Hollywood teen flicks about college jocks and college cheerleaders, are also amusing. In the middle of the forest Ma and Luo, the peeping toms that they are over the so called “real paradise” where native girls take a good bath in the falls reminds you of old good movies that is not foolishly repeating or copying these movies but as it appears to me as something like a sonnet dedicated for these old good movies. This youthfulness even gets more brilliant and dynamic when they decide to steal the western or “forbidden” books that an about-to-graduate-re-educated they call ‘Four-Eyes’ for having eyeglasses owns and even when they create a book grotto, as a private place. The reparation of the chief’s tooth is also a lot of fun. The traditional operation of tooth repair is very interesting and unusual, and it is a genius to present this scene comically. Another awesome feature of the film is that it is well researched and the screenplay has provided the film an exquisite structure that merges tradition and the creation of these fictional characters harmoniously that not a single scene I believe is erroneously placed. The scenes where the boys are retelling the movies they have seen in the town cinema are so simply delighting and those scenes requires us to reminisce the days when movies are semi-god treated. A real celebration of art this film is with those few adorable scenes. Poetry has even extended this celebration when Ma has convinced the doctor to perform an abortion with Little Seamstress in exchange of a French novel. This film is a love story not of people; they are only carriers of the real entities who are constituted by many art forms.

The movie title is also fantastic. Titles are of great essence at least for me because they tell you about anything. Just like a name of a person is, a beautiful person deserves a beautiful name and a good film deserves a good title. “Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress” is the best choice for this sweeping epic romance. Balzac is actually the name of the western author to whom Little Seamstress learns that a woman’s beauty is priceless and emancipated her from the life she used to live to the life she only have known through the books read to her by the two city boys. The movie title represents the two forces, the two worlds I am presenting earlier, to which one leaves the other one and move to the other. The decision of Little Seamstress answers which among the two worlds win—and that is the West. Cured from her ignorance, by the two boys, only means the easy is cured by the west. This is subconsciously a capitalistic film though I would argue that I would like to think of this film as a film made for poetry, photography, music, movies, and most of all, for youthful memories, and the hegemonic battle of communism and capitalism is a distant body, like a moon, too foreign if you are not Neil Armstrong but more or less affected by it. Love is at the centre of the film though and I love this film for being as remote as possible but not so remote from this cold war. It is obvious in the film that capitalism wins over communism but that is just the truth in the real world and I even salute this film for being bittersweet in the last part. The scene where the mountains and the three main characters silhouettes are drowned by the waters are so nostalgic. I do not wish to end with who wins between communism and capitalism but instead I would love to close this review with what Balzac said—a woman’s beauty is priceless. Ma and Luo, many years ago spent the three years of their lives that they would like to experience over and over again. The setting, the beautiful mountains where they met Little Seamstress is about to get drowned because of a huge reservoir project of the Chinese government. Ma and Luo together reminisce the beauty of a priceless experience—of falling in love with Little Seamstress.

Death in the Rebirth of Black and White

THE WHITE RIBBON

Michael Haneke

Germany

2009

 

A 2009 film shot in black and white will nevertheless catch any film enthusiast’s attention. Overflowing with classic town-pinning memories from half a century ago whose beauty is as faultless as the sparkling chiaroscuro in the cinematography, “The White Ribbon” is an intelligent narrative about the mysteries of life that creep stealthily in our human psyche and soul. Innocence is at the focal point of the film where a matrix of dreadful secrets,

fretting apathy, and inevitable unkindness converge and rationalize the magnitude of innocence and its alarming decadence. Black and white cinematography has just been so awesome and stunning as it covers the atmosphere of the film in a shadow of mist that spells out the word austere in every single frame of this brave German film, who finally is over with Adolf Hitler movies. It doesn’t end with that yet, for the most captivating aspect of the film is that the genre dynamics of “The White Ribbon” is just so breathtaking that you can describe it as something as a deep human mystery-drama, which is purely dramatic but structured in a thriller-horror template. The cinematic amalgam is so exceptional I don’t think I have seen anything like this yet.

There is no clear main character in the film. Even the young actor you can see on the poster is not the main character, but as far as you consider the narrator as the main character of the film, then that is going to be the school teacher. A lot of weird events have been baffling a small protestant town, the injury of the town doctor who fell from his horse after being tripped by an almost invisible wire tied around two trees, the death a local farmer’s wife after an accident in the rice mill, the kidnap and abuse of the Baron’s son, and of the town’s midwife son, and the most startling of these all is that no one could point out who is behind these disturbing incidences. The school teacher though has construed that the children of the town have something to do with these occurrences. The film ends with no answer and as it leaves the audiences questioning, the story for the greatest human mystery of sympathy and warmth just started—the Great World War.

 

At first, I am very frustrated that I will never know who the criminal is actually. But then I realize that it doesn’t matter anymore because of one simple reason that a mystery is a mystery.  The film end with the start of the 1st World War, which is one of the biggest vagueness that ever happened in land when it comes to human apathy and power indifference resulting to political sabotage and the ultimate destruction of humanity through wars. The children in the film, especially the ones in their teenage years—Anni, Klara, and Martin, their transition from their sweet innocence symbolized by the white ribbon being tied to their arms, hair, etc (which is the title of the film) to the phase of adulthood is the corresponding diegetic story where they will soon experience the mysteries the film is talking about which are revenge, envy, blame, anger, resentment, cruelty, and viciousness. These children are presented as curious and mysterious in the film, what makes “The White Ribbon” foxier and restrained is that the adults are presented almost as curious as the children, and almost equally have the weird incidences in their town at their back, or even under their nose.  Any answers are not necessary in this beautifully choreographed and photographed pre-war drama for answers are never enough for humans. At the beginning of the film, the school teacher says that he is not totally sure about what happened in their town, some he only heard from folks. Stories being woven to make sense, surmises created with gripping results, all going to the boat of unknown and unanswered, of mystery, are what the film is all about.

Death has also been made unabashed by director Michael Haneke, especially in the guiltless eyes of children. There is a scene where the youngest boy of the town doctor asks her older sister—Anni what is death, when does it happen, to whom it happens, and if it will happen to their father, her, and him. The innocent asking another innocent forced not to be, or rather thought to be not innocent anymore but actually is, is a scene overflowing with absolute abstraction of the nostalgic remembering of our childhood when we use to question and wonder, again—life’s mysteries. The five year old asking the fourteen year old about a query even the world’s most brilliant philosophers, philanthropists, and scientists, couldn’t completely answer, marks a real obligation for the fourteen year-old Anni to be responsible for her kid brother, and at the same time to her own self, that after the words she used to satisfy her younger brother’s curiosity, she should understand every single one of them relative to the world of the adults. Another scene where the school teacher sees Martin standing at the edge of the bridge pays great inquisitiveness about death. The school teacher is very worried shouting and running at the boy’s disposal, trying to save him from any horrible accident but even gets more worried when Martin says that he is giving God a chance to kill him. Martin is the teenage boy in the poster of the movie. The most disturbed, at least by how he looks with his bulging eyes and huge eye bags, and with his creepy and slow poked walking, Martin, has been forced by his pastor Father about what he does that makes him so weary, bothered, and unusual. The boy confessed about his sensual awakenings and interests—and I am not so sure though if this what Haneke thinks as the ultimate reason or point from a child’s innocence is corrupted and causes all the attritions in human morality and kindness. 

 

“The White Ribbon” is a poignant picture of a timeless human experience with a very successful historical reference and beautiful revival of the black and white, pre-war, and European cinema. I never quite seen a movie like this, so unrevealing for the characters yet so revealing for its audiences, and from that standpoint I respect this deep and unusual film. The narration in the film by the aged voice of the school teacher is sweeping, complementing the old atmosphere of the early 20^th century German town, and the age-old familiarity of gossips, ambiguities, and human imperfections. The powerful ending in the film as it bitterly welcomes the World War rivets the abyss to engulf the painful memories of villagers, for whatever assumptions that the next generation of mankind will have more throbbing memories or what, this human indifference will thrive our planet as we human beings thrive on it, and this is a vicious cycle, unfortunately. But if there are films recognizing this unbelievable truth (though still relative) then it must not be that bad at all.

Somewhere Over the Blue Sky

PARADISE NOW

Hany Abu-Assad

Palestine

2005

“Death is better then inferiority” Jamal says to Said, who together with long time friend Khaled, carries a time bomb within their fragile bodies with the purpose and with the hope of getting nearer to a revolution that will declare the equality of the Palestinian authorities as with the economically and politically stronger Israel. “Paradise Now” looks into the soul of what the western world calls “terrorists” and what this film calls “humans”, “faithful humans”.

            Everything is well planned, or supposed to be well planned. Said and Khaled will travel from their home town Nablus (part of the Palestinian Authority) to Tel Aviv (a modernized or westernized city in Israel where buildings are as tall as the sky’s horizons, and billboards with faces a hundred times bigger). One of them will go detonate their time bomb and as the police and crowd get occupied in the dreadful scene, the other one will go blow up the second bomb. But this never happened on the way to a covert passing from Palestine to Israel, said and Khaled are separated by a mistaken military vehicle. Khaled goes back to their hideout as Said after waiting for some time continues the mission alone. Khaled searches for his friend. Late that night, he sees Said in the tomb of his father who has been a collaborator (people from Palestine working in conspiracy for the Israelis) and was executed when Said was ten. The two decided that they will continue the mission. Khaled though after a long debate with Suha Azzam, who inspite of being the daughter of Palestinian hero Abu Azzam, doesn’t believe in the aggressive and violent vehicle of the Palestinian’s search for equality and freedom, finds his supposed martyrdom waning after realizing that what if nothing changes after their death and as Suha puts it—what they are about to do is revenge and not a quest for egalitarianism. The next day, the two men are all set up to—they have travelled from the oppressed territory of Palestine to the powerful Israel and the creepy explosives are taped back again in their bodies. Khaled caught up by Suha’s words, decides to go back with Said but the latter continues. Khaled finds himself in the most painful tears. Said sits inside the bus alongside many passengers, camera zooms in his intense, hazel-colored, and determined eyes. 

Simply structured, complicatedly substantiated, eye-poppingly cinematographed, “Paradise Now” could never go less than an interesting film.  The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of those that the whole world is watching, making the subject matter a larger than life production but its detour to the personal perspective makes this divergence ten times a human. I am not going to say that it is the best movie when it comes to stories about humans seeking to live a life that will make them feel like a human, but what this film has is its aggressiveness for such expedition. These aggressiveness and rebellion furthermore, are well-kept by their seamless faith to Allah. If the “terrorists”, in Western terms, are having these soul-deep motivations, then that only means that these people can get as formidable as any a strong a nation. Then that would simply mean that the economically and politically superior nation will never ever have a field day conquering these people.

            The story takes place in three days, ironically juxtaposed with the century old conflict these two nations had been having way back Ottoman and British rule. This transient story frame coheres with what the film devotedly hopes for—a paradise for their smothered Palestine in a soon to a day away time. Khaled asks Jamal what will happen next after the two of them discharge the bomb, and he answered two angles will pick you up—delivers one of the best dialogues or at least one of my favourite dialogues in the many films I have ever watched. The reference to paradise and angels are so unadulterated and with how the Western inform us about how evil and selfish these terrorists are, “Paradise Now” makes us realize that they are human beings only looking for some sense of liberty, under the name of the Lord, their Allah, our God. The paradise and angels mellows and purifies the long time and world-wide stereotyping of these people and this heavenly dream corresponds to the visually sweeping cinematography.

            The camera movement and philosophy though is not as smooth and clean as the cinematography of Coen brother’s movies, which I really adore. But Assad’s film with cinematographer Antoine Heberle is beautifully sparkling that from beginning to end of the film “paradise” has just been achieved visually. The afternoon sunshine is scorchingly exquisite as it burns the red-skinned actors. The yellowish afternoon and sky-bluish morning and even the dark night are competitively differentiated yet threaded by a single edge of being paradise-like.

            The film is one of the few movies that try to reintroduce an understood group of people showing who they are, what they believe, and why they are doing what they do. Though not any film could completely explain and answer what the whole world knows, this movie speaks of only one thing—of paradise; of a place that will compensate for all the sufferings they have gone through here in the planet that seems to be very kind to other people who happen to be their oppressors. The film doesn’t proclaim they have the correct thing in mind, Khaled has even doubted his belief in what he used to be fighting for all his life, after a peaceful piece of advise from Suha Azzad. Abu-Assad in his speech receiving the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2005 said that he is hoping that the award is a recognition for the equality Palestine has been dreaming of for such a long time now.

            “Paradise Now” is a pure film, and I want it to put it is as simple as that. You will understand my simplicity of conclusion if you watch it. 

The Sun Witnesses the Constant War

I Saw the Sun (Günesi Gördüm)

Mahsun Kırmızıgü

Turkey

2009

Turkey has always been a strange place. I mean compared to USA, Japan, UK, France, and Spain, I know much less about the country.  All I know is that Istanbul is its capital city, and that majority of Turks are Muslims and that it is located at the end of Asia almost near Europe. Seeing a movie from a foreign country for the first time is like visiting it for the first time. Difference between visiting through a film is that you will not see the country in its most arrogant edifices, recreations, and weather, instead you will meet its people and you will gain knowledge of what is inside them, be it good or bad, likeable or dislikeable, true or false. The film is one of the best movies I have ever watched. If this is the first Turkish movie I’ve seen, then I can’t wait to see a dozen more. Turks just made me realize how Hollywood gets so pathetic and way beyond overrated.

            At the opening of the film, a message from Che Guevarra is projected, something like--Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. This gave me the idea that this film is greatly universal, ubiquitous in a sense. “I Saw the Sun”, is a story of a family who are forced to live their homeland mountain because of the civil war going on. In the city, Istanbul, they struggle to live as normal as possible but each one of them realizes that the war didn’t leave them, rather it just transformed itself into something we can call a societal war. Generally the film is about brotherhood, and why brothers kill each other—a narrative template of all civil war films, and which parallels the civil war we have here in the Philippines between our Muslim brothers in Mindanao. The film answers that question—it is from beneath (of us).  We kill each other in many ways, whether we mean it or not, whether we are related by blood or not, whether we are bad or not. “I Saw the Sun” swept me off my feet by its unrelenting take about the globally and historically collective humanity that has never been vivid in anyone’s understanding.

            The film has a lot of characters and the first challenge for me is to distinguish one from another especially when foreign people seen for the first time usually have to look the same, and the names Ramo, Mamo, Kado, Berat, Ahmet and Havar are like Turkish counterparts of Peter Piper tongue twister. But what makes it brilliant is that the many characters have conferred a reservoir of experience so huge that mirrors the universality of the film’s theme. “I Saw the Sun” became a great film because it is not a worldwide social-issued film pretending to be one. The film has been so authentic and even exotic all throughout. Second level of its decency is that no matter where these many established characters go they all lead to the same adjoining conclusion that people are always in a war and that as of now its defeat still remains to be very elusive. The sentimental togetherness of a Turkish family is an ingredient that automatically makes us understand how this group of people is spiritually connected to their homeland and that it is where they are supposed to spend the rest of their days. Even until they move to an industrialized Istanbul or even to the European cities of Denmark and Norway, you will still feel the alienation.

            Brothers kill brothers, from the early scene where Davut’s two sons Berat and Ahmet where on two opposing sides—the guerrillas and the Army, we know that the film will be haunted by this premise. And the haunting has been incredibly intelligent, that will make “I Saw the Sun”, one of the most honest and bravest films of all time. Three brothers, Ramo, Mamo, Kadi, together with their father, Ramo’s wife, and six children are adjusting to their life in the city of Istanbul. The conflict between Ramo and Mamo is nought, but Mamo has a stern despise to their queer brother Kadi, who later on transforms herself into a bisexual, though Mamo is more accepting of their brother. Mamo kills Kadi in a very powerful scene . In a deserted bridge, Mamo points a gun to the female-dressed Kadi. The transvestite takes off her clothes, wig, crying and ready to die, as she pulls up a local flower she picked the day they left their native. According to the conversation Kadi had with a transvestite friend, the flower grows every winter and once it sees the suns, it simply withers up and dies. Kadi believes that the flower is in love with the sun. Mamo is so frustrated and mad to see what Kadi made himself into, Kadi daring and unafraid, he asks his brother to shoot him and a bullet at his heart causes him to fall down and Mamo to run after the brother he consciously but unintentionally killed. Kadi has the flower in his hand and before he draws his last intricate breath, sun appears in front of him. The children of Ramo, five women, together with their blind grandfather are left to take care of their youngest and only boy sibling that their father longed for solemnly. By ignorance and innocence, they placed their baby brother into the washing machine to have him washed after a diaper change. This reasons Ramo to almost die, but the astounding understanding of Ramo to the circumstance soars tremendously with what the world is lacking tremendously—forgiveness.

            The film is a collection of parallel stories all leading to the principle that we kill each other and that whether we have the intention or not, we will never be happy about it. Some people will no longer see the spark of sunshine in their life in the lost of a loved one, some people will try desperately to have a grasp of that, but with what people you know do, and other people you don’t know do, there can actually be rainbows at the end of the horizon, a scene that is actually evident in one of the final scenes. “I Saw the Sun” is an extremely purifying film. With soothing music and commendable direction, this film is a memoir of everyone. It seems so vast, so infinitely numerous, but that is the enchanting part of the film. “I Saw the Sun” is going to be timeless work of great passion and deep understanding of a very poignant life.

Understanding Beauty of Death—a Japanese Treasure

Departures
Yojiro Takita
Japan
2008

“Departures” in simple words is the best film I’ve ever watched made in the 21^st century. Passionate, highly-emotional, and enlightening, Takita expands the beauty and importance of this sentimental film by a skilful direction and unmistakable understanding of life, delivered through immense cinematography by Takeshi Himada and a breathtaking music by Joe Hisaishi. Winning the Best Foreign Language Film Award at the Oscar 2008, “Departures” and lots of others from different part of the world, this film celebrates the uncelebrated—the   misunderstanding of a job responsible for preparing a dead person in his coffin; and its opposite—the understanding of such job and which realization is way beyond the most overwhelming warmth of a sunshine.

Daigo (Masahiro Motoki) is desperately looking for a job after the orchestra where he is playing and working for is dissolved. He lands himself in a funeral service. He is hiding his job from his wife Mika (Ryoko Hirosue), but as how it is expected she learns about it, and she doesn’t like it, and she wants Daigo to abscond the job. Daigo though has started appreciating the concealed and undervalued meaning of his job. When a family friend needs the professional service of Daigo and Mika witnesses for the first time how her husband does in his untamed occupation, she realizes and perceives it now the way her husband does so. Daigo never had his father after he was six and this brought lots of prolonged torments to him. When he learns that his father has just died, he is definite to say that he is not going to see him. But Daigo works for the deceased and their loved ones, and he can never really miss the chance of doing what he does so well in his estranged father.

The film is an emotionally monster film. Every single movement in the film is filled with feelings that have gotten themselves from a long journey as long as life. “Departures” is so beautiful that none of all those people who cried in the film looked so hopelessly pathetic, that no single moment in the film is a bore, and that no single scene in the film departed from the very lovable and coherent narrative thread of the story. Wonderful is the film in the sense that the main character Daigo’s (Motoki) life is not the focal source of all the rejuvenating conclusion of tears but rather his character prompts all the supporting cast and elements in the film to be in their most powerful form without overshadowing the lead character. This in return, gives the audience easy time to understand why Daigo has grasped the fulfilling scenery of his employment. The scene where he and his boss prepared the body of the first woman in front of her family is extremely commendable. Takita knows how primacy and recency effect works. The first job assignment of Daigo in the house of an old woman who died unknowingly for already two weeks doesn’t give the so called beginner’s luck for our main man but gives the beginner’s unlock instead. The second assignment, the one I mentioned earlier then provides the compensating nature of the work. The mother who died, aside form having recall from the death of Daigo’s mother, shows off what the film’s strength is—emotions. It becomes really amazing how these people (loved ones of the deceased) grab my towering empathy and feelings despite the fact that we only see them in a single scene or a couple of scenes. Even the scene where a father has died and all his loved ones are women and they all printed kiss marks on the face of their father causing smiles and pure laugh followed by sudden deluge of bereavement causes me to cry as well. Before making a conclusion, I want to add as an example the final scene where Daigo called his dead father ‘dad’, indicating forgiveness. The answer is simply—death draws all of the humanness we humans have inside. It is a powerful anthropological constitution that usurps all the pride and anger from the human heart, and bestows all the love we never thought we had for a person, and even when we think we already love a person very much, in time of the inevitable hour, we will be surprised that we don’t even really know how much we love them because our love for them becomes immeasurable and unthinkable.

 

“Departures” has a very coherent and very complementing form. So rigid that it holds and shapes and guides the viewer’s emotions carefully and precisely. The screenplay is just superb and since I am afraid to use the word perfect then let me just say it is near perfect. There is difference between a story and a screenplay, though many people think that it is basically the same, because the screenplay holds the story. I have to agree, it makes sense. But screenplay is a higher form of story, a more cinematic term for it, where a story is figured to a shape of how the film will become full of life. In simple words, a screenplay is a combination of a good story and good storytelling. “Departures” simply got a heart-warming story but what I am really loving about the film is the storytelling. With that, I am particularly referring to its form, and as according to Bordwell and Thompson, film form is the interconnecting system of all the elements in a film. Daigo as a cellist is a fantastic characterization made for the protagonist because it provides an instant logic to the sound and music that will accompany the film all throughout aside from the fact that the beginning part of the movie looks very sophisticated. Living in Tokyo and moving to his childhood house is also a harmonizing metaphor to a big decision and life-changing future waiting for the two. Daigo’s internal conflict with his father, appends emotional alarm to the story even though what is happening in his life is rewardingly positive. The no-father-figure issue of Daigo keeps us aware that our protagonist won’t be doing his occupation for a long time without being able to do it to someone a part of his life. I was actually expecting either his wife or his boss to be the next person Daigo will be working on to, but to have his father dead is nevertheless a good turning point in the film to release Daigo from all the long-buried pain and as well as his father’s. The film is highly-semiotic: the octopus represents a decision; the bath house signifies an old custom struggling for survival similar to Daigo’s love for music; lifeless people in coffins correspond ironically to the increasing understanding of Daigo’s job; the pregnant Mika positively recoils the relationship of Daigo and his separated father; and the most important aspect of the film—death is a beginning, a departure from the world to a new and better life.

Speaking of death, this actually gives reference to Japanese masterpieces of Akira Kurosawa—Seven Samurai (1954), Ran (1985), and one of my my favourites—Rashomon (1950). These movies essentially include death especially in Kurosawa’s Ikiru (1952). “Departures”, just like its Japanese filmic ancestors, has a good tone affixing humour to drama.  Masahiro Motoki is radiatingly good. His free-flowing movement in his profession ritual is magnificent. He shows awe in dexterity and most importantly the respect he pays for the dignity of the ones who depart. A crying man is a big apple, it has to be treated with utmost sensitivity. With the great direction from Takita, Motoki’s in-tears performance when he was wiping the face of his long unknown and now dead father is as resounding as a masterpiece that is surely going to be timeless. Another great scene from Motoki happens when he is dispirited by his work and he arduously embraced and kissed his wife. A beautiful picture of demonstrating how a man mellows, and how he becomes passionate and how he becomes as helpless as a lost soul resorting to the security of a woman’s love and of her soft body becomes a very memorable part of this exquisite film.

“In the tradition of understanding life and death way back from its great cinematic influences of all Japanese artistry of Akira Kurosawa, delivers a riveting, unbelievably moving, and deeply enlightening interpretation of knowing life in the most unexpected place. Beautiful and heart-warming, simple and truthful, artistic and cinematic, “Departures” is a film that makes me love films more unfathomably.

PUBLIC ENEMIES

Director: Michael Mann
Country: USA
Year: 2009

Oscar Elite Circle

In a couple of months from now, Academy Awards will be again naming the best of the films made in the recent past year of 2009. Film enthusiasts are already very excited about this. That is why many predictions have been made and uploaded in the internet about the movies that may be garnering a nomination or a couple or a number; lucky a movie of course if it will receive a nomination by a double digit. One of the noisiest films as of now expected to be in the elite circle of Oscar finalists is Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies”.

Lead by Academy Award multi-nominated Johnny Depp alongside Academy Award Best Actress winning Marion Cotillard and the most recent actor to play Batman, the popular Christina Bale, how could this movie go wrong?  Based on the book of Bryan Burrough, the movie is about the notorious John Dillinger (Depp) as he lives his life of bank-robbing, and nothing else perhaps after he met the beautiful French-American Billie (Cotillard) and the serious assignment of Melvin Purvis to chase the elusive, gun and escape-wise Dillinger.

The Assassination of John Dillinger by a Nobody

The film is not the best movie I’ve watched ever, but I will be honest to say that it is a  well-made film, and only if it is not a  true to life story the movie could have outstretched its form into something that is absolutely stunning. But since the makers of the film I believe have been stuck to delivering the truest possible platform of the film from the real people within the real happening of the events almost a century ago, which is actually something that I can’t blame, “Public Enemies” though still remains to be a very good film jeopardized its overwhelming potential. I am particularly referring to the ending of the movie where Dillinger was shot. The scene is not a mess, but what happens is a mess, and that is nothing less but the fault of the undistinguishable cinematic roles of the people who are trying to blow the fatal shot to Dillinger. His death is very corrupted, at least cinematically; proof would be the sudden uselessness of Purvis in the film after the incident; and the necessary role of Agent Winstead from out of nowhere. Elemental zero to supporting hero is not welcome though in the world of narrative cinema. I am upset about this one and the only thing that is keeping me from going mad is the fact that it is what really happened in real life.

The Dark Knight versus John Dillinger and the Overrated Role

Having Johnny Depp sided by Christian Bale is an exciting commercial move by Universal Pictures. Casting the two of them in rat-cat plot will automatically create tension even in the slightest-set encounters. In the film though, I was very looking forward to the meet-up of the two. I love the cut to cut sequences of the free and symbolically prisoned John and of the bold and courageous Melvin. The feel that the two of them haven’t met yet but narratively, with the help of technical manipulations to the editing generates tremendous power to a very electrifying climax. I literally couldn’t wait for the two to clash. I ended up getting disappointed. Their first encounter when Purvis take a look at Dillinger at the jail is a very lame respond of director Mann to a supposedly real scorching hot encounter that will mark the beginning of an accelerating pressure to the two sides. Another missing element I came across with watching the movie is the lack of urgency in the part of Purvis to catch the bank notorious criminal. I really didn’t feel the intense, unrelenting, death-defying passion to catch Dillinger. This is something that I have always been looking for in a character after I have seen Jake Gylenhaal in David Fincher’s “Zodiac”, the problem doesn’t lie in Bale’s acting or whatever, he did his job good enough though. The problem is with the realization of the character from the script. The extrinsic role of Melvin Purvis is only a major one from the first hour of the movie and at the end keeps doing nothing but to deteriorate. If we are going to be stricter, I can even say that there has been an over-appreciation to the role that is manifested in the man-of-the-hour-introduction-to-the-press establishment for Purvis after defeating Pretty Boy Floyd, which is the exact reason why the film is eluded by the convincing success but actually irrelevant success of the character. The solution could have been simple—make the most out of Purvis. If only there is no need for keeping the real events in the story, then a more rigid, more nerve-racking, and more competition for survival and achievement could have been pulled up and more solid conflict by a solid protagonist and a solid antagonist. This is major problem in the “Public Enemies”, everything seems to be so clear but as deceiving as a Poison Ivy may be, you truly won’t recognize who these characters are. I am expecting a gigantic face-off between Dillinger and Purvis but it never happened in the film.

John and Billie

A love story within a crime-epic drama is not unusual, but this inclusion to the film makes possible its edge. The scenes between John and Billie are overpoweringly sultry, classy, and steaming. Very passionate making of the scenes for Mann, cinematographer Dante Spinotti,  and even musical scorer Elliot Goldenthal. Also, the scenes of the two during the most private of their times or we can say the times they, especially John is most human. These are also the sequences that we witness the transition of John Dillinger to the simple John. But still on the other hand even though I see John in his purest moments, I still can’t dig up to his psyche. He seems very far, like he has his own world and that there is now ay to unlock it. I am not sure if this is such an intention, but if it is, then I commend the director and Depp for the very good job done, but if it is not, then I don’t commend myself for not appreciating the attempts of both Mann and Depp to make the character be real but I commend myself for recognizing the difference between filmmakers who can deliver any message straightforwardly and those who inevitably experienced an unusual difficulty. This is not my favourite performance from Depp, until now I still believe that his single best performance is really in “Finding Neverland”. He as John Dillinger, is not a bad thing but I don’t think it really helped him in his career because he isn’t brilliant in it at all. He has just been mediocre from start to finish. He looks harassed all the time and this is frustrating for me because I like Depp but his interpretation probably is not really suiting what is supposed to be suit or probably his personality simply just don’t suit that of John Dillinger. Marion Cotillard as Billie, John’s lover, on the other hand is fantastic. She is very beautiful from her initial to final scene. She has persuaded me that she really loves Dillinger, but the frustration commences for I can’t see the reason why she loves Dillinger. Sometimes we are under a wrong impression that when we hate a hate a character and that character is a villain/villain-hero, then that means that the actor had done his job really well. In my opinion, it should not be. You will love a character whether he is a villain or a hero. There is a difference between loving an evil character and hating one

The Sentimental Redemption

John Dillinger is a stiff and austere guy. The biggest challenge is underneath the endeavour of showing that this type of personalities can also feel warmth and that as much as any human being does, he can also love. The axis of emotion depends on his attraction to a woman Billie and I thought it wasn’t enough to compensate for all the apathetic reservoir of Dillinger. After the first hour and a half of the film, I was already worried by the lack of emotions I feel. He is in love for most part of the film however, that love didn’t lead him anywhere though until the time he cried when he sees her girlfriend arrested by the cops and he couldn’t do anything—one of two best parts of the film because it is the only time I realized he is human. The other one would be when he died and he whispered—Tell Billie, bye bye  black bird (Black Bird is the title of the song to which the two loved to dance).

           

Cinematic Versus Historic

Talking about the technical aspects of the movie, sound recording and design are actually impressive. The musical score is also awesome especially when it comes to the chase scenes and the sensational moments between the two lovers. The cinematography is also good. I love the shadows all throughout the film, it is very consistent and complementing to the bank robbery the gang has been doing. The choices of shots are also good. There have right and important calls to when a close-up shot should be given especially when it comes to the flaunting dexterity of Purvis to shoot or when it comes to the craggy skill of Dillinger to fire a larger gun. The technical part is actually the better part of the film than the creative. If the film is going to have a good shot at the Oscar 2010, I am not placing my bet on it, but if ten nominees will be allowed this year, then probably. Technically it is good, and creatively it is not really bad, and it has the “heart” (even though very late in the film it appeared). Personally, I am sure that the final product Michael Mann and his team produced is only 40% of what it can really be had he prioritized being more cinematic than historic. I can’t blame him though for choosing the latter, but if I were him, I just won’t direct Public Enemies.