16 December 2007

Physical Cinema

I have a slight problem. My problem is that although I am a film lover I find myself draw to and the most in love with movies that are seen as some what controversial. I love the emotional impacts of some films that make you look in awe or pull you into the storyline but really its films that not only do that but also physically have an effect on you, and I mean the intended effect not just pure hatred and clenching of fist against crimes of the cinema world (yes Paul WS Anderson I'm looking at you). Comedies do this on a basic level but it can be so easy to garner a laugh from something as simple as a pratfall and this is why I believe the comedy genre is looked down upon in many sectors of the film industry and the same with horror, if you look at the list of Best Film Oscar winners you will find few comedies and only one classed as horror (silence of the lambs). And I can understand why they do garner such basic emotions it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel and sometimes it takes a really special film to truly grab you and let you understand what the genre is about in the last few years only The Descent has actually grabbed me and demanded respect for the emotion it has garnered. But it is movies that have truly shaken me I want to focus on.

One of the first films that I came out the cinema truly physically and emotionally moved by a film was Requiem for a Dream by Darren Aranofsky. It follows the rise and fall of four individuals into the highs of drugs and then the almighty fall that follows. The warm slow glow of the first third entitled "Summer" is quickly shattered by The middle section "Fall" that quickens in pace and in darker ones that give a sense of foreboding in the final Third "Winter" that is intense and visceral all sound tracked by Clint Mansell's brilliant score that builds along with the imagery to the bloody and horrid Climax. I was instantly in love. A friend remarked as we left the cinema "I loved it but I never want to see it again" and I knew exactly what he meant, to see it again would be to go through this terrifying experience again but I needed to and I have seen that film dozens of times and each time I am blown away and now I appreciate every stylistic choice and visual and audio marker Aranofsky has placed and the fantastic performances that may go unnoticed the first time due to its impact. If you haven't seen it I suggest you do even to never see it again.




The second film ever to get this feeling out me is the film I know consider to be one of the greatest pieces in cinema history. Irreversible directed by Gasper Noe and staring real life European super couple Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel, it was hyped as being the continental Eyes Wide Shut before its release but now is know as the movies with "those scenes". In this film the plot and the story are two very different things so to just tease you the plot follows a man as he is looking for a man for revenge for what we do not yet know. In someways Irreversible is the exact opposite of Requiem for a dream, as it is a march towards the light of a upbeat and bright finale coming from dark and brutal confusion as the start of the film, but of course this is a trick played on the audience as the film like memento or the Pinter play Betrayal so really when we see the beautiful green park at the end it is a bittersweet portrait of serene beauty. It is a film that intentionally confuses and disorientates you the camera spins the music is just noise and we begin with a couple of middle aged men one naked talking about having sex with their daughters, these figures are never seen again after that. The film is a gut punch on three counts. Firstly is the complete disorientation at the begging it is simple a mind fuck on celluloid and ends with a brutal act that makes you question whether what you seeing is real or not. From then on for the next twenty minutes to half an hour we are left with the knowledge that an even more violent act must occur to set the actions we see into motion.The act is a rape but unlike one seen before on cinema. It has been accused as voyeuristic and certainly it is (but what cinema isn't?) but it is real and graphic and not titillating there is no quick editing no close ups no thumping soundtrack just a red lit tunnel and a woman screaming for ten minutes begging for help as we watch unflinching at how deplorable an act this is how brutal an inhumane. What makes it worse for the viewer who is trapped within the camera unable to move is the fleeting outline of a man in the background who choose, actually choose not to be involved. It leaves you feeling broken and sickened although I have seen the film several times I don't think I have ever been able to watch that scene in its entirety without looking a way. But by the end it is a celebration of life but this celebration will be short lived. The irony here is that the only person that can give us a happy ending is the director by ending the film on such positive imagery yet the final words are "Time destroys all things" and this is true for even this story as the acts will still unfold and are essentially irreversible.And this is the third gut punch that all the mastery beauty of the locations sets actors and the fantastic ad-libbed dialogue and heartbreaking performances that this happy ending is a facade. You are left going into a dark world after seeing this film even if it is screaming daylight, but that effect it has had on you I find is a rare thing.



The Last film i want to talk about is Pier Paolo Passolini's 1975's Salo 0 le 120 giornate di Sodoma (Salo or the 120 days of Sodom). The film is as controversial today as it was on its release. it is based on the novel by the Marques De Sade but is updated to the fascist landscape of Italy 1944, where 4 men named only The Magistrate, The Bishop, The President and The Duke decide that fascism is the one true power where anything is permitted "We fascists are the only true anarchists" they marry each other daughters kidnap 18 children (9 male, 9 female) and send the next three days listening to stories from middle age prostitutes that are meant to arouse them into action against the children. The power the men show over the children (all virgins) is gruesome and debauchery in the highest order as they sexually and mentally molest them. The film shows how those in power have complete control over the underclass literally feeding them shit to eat and gaining pleasure through their complete destruction. The film is told over three days in sections echoing Dante's inferno. The first day (the circle of manias) concerns the sexual molestation of the children as the first whore tells of her 7 year old plus sexual experience. The second day (The circle of feces) Has the second whore talk of her experience with clients who enjoy bathroom activities in the bedroom and the final day (the Circle of Blood) is the final tortured deaths of those children that have broken the laws set down by there captors. the film is an unease watch and although filled with sex it is all just as deplorable as the act in Irreversible. It is a film about power and commercialisation. It has been described as the "death of sex" with the sexual acts all performed with no eroticism and with no pleasure as not even the captors are seen to be sexually satisfied. it is the act for the act sake and it seems to have foretold the current world we live in where nudity is everywhere to be seen even if just for the hell of it. The foretelling is more evident in day two where a girl is literally forced to eat excrement from the floor and when Passolini was asked what the scene represented he said it was an attack on junk fund that is just "worthless refuse". After all that I find the third day the most brutal as it is pore voyeurism but unlike Irreversible where we the audience we watching we instead see the final tortures through the eyepieces of one captor as he sits on a balcony watching the others scalp, brand, and cut out the tongues and eyes of their victims. It is brutal and executed well enough to make you flinch and be reviled while the watching captor ogles and gains sexual arousal out the situation making it even more sickening for the audience. It is a film unlike the other two with no fleeting moments of beauty it never stops being a dirty piece of cinema.



The funny thing about Salo though is what I saw during the second day. Many commentators on the film and those who i have spoken to about the scenes of forced eating a feces were all adamant about how sickening these scenes were and yes but thematically there are sick and unspeakable but yet I didn't find myself as repulsed as i thought I would be, and I suddenly realized why; i had seen it before on film but used in a different way. To go back to my opening it was a comedy that had used this before - American wedding to be precise. In one scene the character of Stifler is forced to eat dog matter just to stop someone else from it. It serves little purpose other than to get a straight comical (although a "gross-out" one) from the audience. Passolini's statement on mass produced foods a serious point that is intended to make you act or at least think ruined by a throw away laugh. reacting to the second does not make up for my lack of reaction to the latter. Maybe it that's while a comedy can make you react it won't necessarily make you think.


WHICH MEANS MORE YOU DECIDE







The rough translation is:
-Do This
-Now say I have Nothing to eat
-I have Nothing to eat
-Then you will eat shit

No comments: