Dirty Pretty Things (2002)

Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a Nigerian illegal immigrant in London. This brooding man drives a taxi by day and works as a porter at a plush hotel in London by night. He supposedly never sleeps and chews on some kind of leaves to keep himself awake. He is a kind man; popular and well-loved amongst fellow immigrants who live a hand-to-mouth existence in the city doing odd jobs as custodians, cleaners, cooks, cabbies. Okwe also helps out his friends and other poor immigrants with their ailments; apparently he has some history working as a doctor in his home country!

Okwe has an arrangement with another illegal immigrant, a shy, Turkish woman named Senay (Audrey Tautou), wherein he uses her couch in her small room to catch a few winks during morning time when she reports to work in the same hotel he works in. He also likes Senay and she likes him but nothing has been said yet. Senay is too reserved and shy and fears the neighbours. She does not want to attract unwanted attention, especially from nosey gossipers! Any wrong move can lead to her deportation; the immigration officials are already harassing her.

A dramatic change of events occurs one day and it sets off a series of episodes that threaten to change the lives of Okwe and Senay forever. A prostitute Juliette (Sophie Okonedo) asks Okwe to check a room she has been in. Okwe inspects the room and finds that the toilet bowl is blocked and overflowing. He is shocked to discover that the cause of the blockage is a human heart stuck in the pipes! The Spanish night manager Senor “Sneaky” Juan (Sergi Lopez) seems to be well aware and tries to bribe Okwe to keep his mouth shut. Okwe gradually discovers that there is something sinister and “dirty” beneath the “pretty” hotel exterior.

“Dirty Pretty Things” is a tale about dreams. It is about those countless immigrants who dream of making a better living in a rich, developed country; of having the kind of life and freedom they could never have in their home countries. It is about how they would give their eye and teeth to have a legal status! Survival is on the knife’s edge as is the case for any illegal immigrant in a big city, who wants to ‘escape’ to paradise. Steven Knight’s screenplay is refreshingly original, barring some minor clichéd characterization and blatant racial stereotyping which prove to be the glitches in an otherwise superb work of writing (It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay). Stephen Frears turns Knight’s script into an intriguing thriller, that’s also a gut-wrenchingly potent drama centered around illegal immigrants in London.

The story is told in a crisp fashion with some beautiful cinematography and commendable shot composition, and the preliminary scenario is established rather quickly but doesn’t seem hurried or forced in any way. It hardly takes any time for the plot to take off which works in the film’s favour. The character of Okwe quickly strikes a chord with the audiences, with most of the first few minutes revolving around him and his deeds. What doesn’t work is how most characters (including Okwe, to some extent) are instantly recognizable as either “good” or “bad” or “kind” or “unkind” and don’t deviate from these traits of theirs! Okwe, for example, is shown to be such an impossibly noble and kind soul that you can’t possibly think he can harm anyone. On the other hand there’s 'Sneaky' Juan, who is like the ultimate personification of 'slimy', staring you in the face! Some lines of dialog including some oozing racial stereotyping are just too blatantly rude to be taken seriously.

And then there are some character clichés like the helpful buddy (Guo, an Asian man who works at the hospital mortuary), the hooker with a heart of gold (Juliette), Senay’s fat and horny old immigrant employer (Barber Ali, a sweatshop foreman) who not-surprisingly asks her for sexual favours in return for not revealing her identity or whereabouts to the hot on the trail immigration officials.. ! Hand it to the filmmaker and the actors though, that despite these clichés, the viewer ultimately ends up rooting for them anyway! Audrey Tautou is in fact miscast as a Turkish woman, and although one really wonders why someone from Turkey would have to go through all the tough ordeals to secure a status for themselves in London, she delivers a kind of performance that you can’t overlook and can’t help but applaud. Senay’s predicament and her dealing with the whole situation is pulled off in a sincere effort by Tautou. Ditto for Sergi Lopez as the crooked hotel manager who has something dirty up his sleeve. The guy is despicable to say the least and portrays his one-dimensional character in an extremely convincing manner.

But the big winner in the performances department is of course, Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Okwe. His character is written in a manner which will surely evoke great empathy. Ejiofor makes the character his own and steals the show from right under everyone’s noses with a fabulous performance and manages to instantly connect with the viewer. He is a helpful, kind, selfless man but you very much know that he has a great sadness about him. It is a brilliant portrayal of a tortured soul; an epitome of self-sacrifice.

It is worthwhile to check out Stephen Frears’ “Dirty Pretty Things”. While it may not be perfect, it is a fine work of cinema that is gripping as well as emotionally affecting and will keep you hooked ‘til it reaches its bittersweet conclusion.

Score: 8/10.

The War Zone (1999)

Prima facie, “The War Zone” comes across as a misnomer for this brutally disturbing drama directed by Tim Roth. This reviewer thought it is set against the backdrop of a war, but when the film unfolded, the underlying meaning of the title became clearer; the only war this film deals with is a personal war; a war within!

15-year old Tom (Freddie Cunliffe) is the hero of this sad story. His family, consisting of 18 year old sister Jessie (Lara Belmont), Dad (Ray Winstone), and Mum (A bloated Tilda Swinton) have moved to the Devonshire countryside to live on an isolated property, leaving their London city life behind. Tom is bored and feels lonely, clearly misses London. There hardly are neighbours; the area is mostly desolate. Pregnant mum just delivers a baby amidst difficult circumstances (a car accident!) and yet the baby is born healthy. Everyone is slightly injured, but in the end it’s all hunky dory and life goes on. The isolation and modest living conditions have also made these people used to casual nudity around the house. Tom is a curious teen, and he seems to have taken fancy to a neighbouring girl, Lucy (Kate Ashfeld).

The seemingly peaceful environment in the family is disrupted one day when Tom comes face to face with a shattering truth about an incestuous relationship between his Dad and sister…

But haven't we seen so many other films that deal with incest? Maybe so, but what makes "The War Zone" distinct, is in its non-adherence to rendering simplistic treatment to its characters. These characters are complex, they aren't necessarily pigeon-holed to predictable traits. So then, when we witness the dynamics of these characters we are forced to ask ourselves several questions. The dad seems to be a really nice and loving father. Why then, does he develop the sick desire to sexually abuse his own daughter? Is he even aware of what he is doing? Is he aware of the gravity of his heinous act? Or is it rather casual to him; ....perhaps he himself has a history of abuse dating back to his childhood?

And then there's Jessie; she is well aware of the implications of the deeds she is involving herself in. Or is she? Maybe she is going along with it, maybe she is enjoying it. Or perhaps suffering (?) silently, because she is too afraid to bring it out in the open; maybe just too ashamed. And the mother is blissfully unaware of what is happening....will she be able to take it once she realizes?

 

Which brings us to Tom, who is at the epicenter of this explosive situation. It is actually through his eyes that we see the film. You can't help but yield to a hint somewhere in the middle of the film that there's a curious voyeur inside him who wants to videotape the action. And you wish deep within that it is only to expose the sick act. But it can't be ignored that Tom is a 15 year old teen struggling with his own transition into adulthood. And call it a case of bad timing; fate is playing a cruel joke on the boy by invoking the adult inside this vulnerable teen by bringing him face to face with the most aberrant of sexual acts inside his own home! At a point of time the sister almost hits the nail on the head after a confrontation, "This isn't just about me and dad is it?" further insinuating that actually Tom wants to know about sex and himself wants to experience it!

Tom is thus, a soul torn apart. Maybe he knows the difference between right and wrong but is finding himself succumbing to a perverse temptation, given his unstable transition phase! Jessie tries to put her assumption about Tom to the test in a bizarre episode at her friend Carol's place in London; then again, perhaps her intentions are different altogether! Her eventual action further clouds any hopes the viewer may have about gaining an insight on Jessie's thought process. It is in this unpredictability of the characters that most of the success of this excellent handling of a fine screenplay by Alexander Stuart lies. Tim Roth, a fine actor of our time, proves that he can handle the director's job with an equal finesse. He clearly understands his characters' complexities and his vision of the characters' personae enables him to deliver their perfect transition to the motion picture.

The soul is all there, but what about the body? No complaints there either; Roth captures some of the finest images of the isolated, rain-soaked country side and the rocky seashore. The feeling of desolation is further enhanced by the achingly beautiful score by Simon Boswell. The choice of actors is spot on. Winstone and Swinton are simply great in their respective roles. But special mention must be made of the actors who play the siblings, Lara Belmont and Freddie Cunliffe who had no prior acting experience but emerge winners with their effortless performances.

Do not miss Tim Roth's "The War Zone". It is a disturbing look at something as warped as incest but a patient and an open-minded viewing would ensure that instead of turning your head away in shame, you'll end up thanking yourself for subjecting yourself to this mind-numbing yet rewarding film experience.

Score: 9/10

Monsieur Hire (1989)

He is a quiet man, Monsieur Hire (Michel Blanc). A balding, middle aged fellow, a misanthrope and a recluse, he doesn’t socialize much. None of the neighbours talk to him either; conversations die down and they start whispering as he passes by. A tailor by profession, Hire is particular about his appearance. He keeps some pet white rats at home. When one of the pet rats dies, he carefully wraps it in a piece of cloth and gives it a respectful water burial! He seems to be a good, honest man, but no one really knows much about him. Perhaps they don’t want to know. But they don’t miss a chance to sneak a curious peek at him like he is some alien being. When Hire realizes this, he promptly snaps back “Want a photograph?” Some neighbourhood kids make fun of him by throwing flour on him or making fun of him. He just brushes all of this off and holds no grudge against anyone. He just isn’t bothered; wants to be left alone, as always.

It is no surprise then, that when one young woman is found murdered in the vicinity, he automatically becomes the prime suspect. Blame it on the neighbourhood! And more so, because a taxi driver saw a figure somewhat matching Monsieur Hire’s description run towards the same block where Monsieur Hire resides. The police detective starts pursuing his suspect; there’s no evidence yet that can implicate Hire, but the detective is in hot pursuit.

Monsieur Hire seems unperturbed, though. There is nothing that can possibly connect him. He has just become an easy target because he is “not sociable; and people don’t like that”. So Hire goes about his daily, mundane, boring routine; amongst his pastimes and necessities is a visit to the bowling alley, he is a champion at the game and is well admired by onlookers who give him a round of applause for he never misses scoring a perfect strike, even when blindfolded. He acknowledges their adulation with a forced smile. He also spends time at a brothel once in a while to satisfy his sexual needs but seems to be getting increasingly weary of it. 

And then there’s Alice (Sandrine Bonnaire), his object of affection who stays in the neighbouring apartment complex. He spends most of his time standing in his window, simply observing Alice through her open window directly in front of his. She has never noticed; has in fact, always thought that Hire’s apartment was empty and therefore never felt the need to put up drapes! Hire observes Alice’s every move, as she dresses, undresses, eats, sleeps, and once in a while makes out with her no good fiancé Emile (Luc Thuillier). Hire also is a lover of music and plugs in the same record on his player, the soulful Quatuor en Sol Mineur Op. 25 de Brahms, every time he stands to watch Alice. Hire just wants to watch. He is in love, but he knows there isn’t much he can do about it. He just watches. It becomes apparent that Emile doesn’t seem to be serious about marrying Alice. Alice knows this, but she loves him. Everything changes one day when Alice finally gets a good look at the ghostly face that has been staring at her all this time....

Director Patrice Leconte’s effortless storytelling does a laudable job of building Hire’s character for the viewers in a considerably short time. Right from the first frame, as the body of the young woman is discovered, Leconte’s 1989 film “Monsieur Hire” has the power to grip! Sure, there is a murder. But solving the murder is least of film’s concerns. Who did the killing is secondary. The murder acts as a catalyst and alters the status quo. How this killing decides the fate of our two central characters; that forms the crux of this heartwrenching story.

In its modest running time of about 1 hour 17 minutes or so, there is not one wasted moment and we can instantly connect to the two lead characters, Hire and Alice. These characters are both very human. They have their secrets, they have their ambitions, they have their motivations and in the end they have their secret desires! And therefore, not everything is out in the open; not just as yet. There is a lot going on in these characters’ minds which we aren’t given a peek at. The voyeur in us doesn’t have the kind of luck Monsieur Hire has, as he gets to see Alice’s life like a Live reality show! But Leconte has a purpose. For deep within the layers of this deeply moving psychological drama lies the darkest of human traits; motivations that drive a person to take the step they take, that might shatter all beliefs, all the hope one has instilled in humanity. There are important lessons to be learnt. Oft-stated idioms “Don’t judge a book by its cover” are reinforced. Appearances are indeed deceiving. Your curmudgeonly, neglected next door neighbor could perhaps be an angel in disguise! But then there is the bigger question of trust and inherent cynicism that we social beings have to live with. How much can we know at face value? In the end, we are only human!

Michel Blanc instantly makes an impression; his pale, round face, although deadpan most of the times, speaks volumes at its most vulnerable. Sandrine Bonnaire does justice to the kind of unreserved character she is playing.

There is a strong chance that no matter how surrounded you are by people, you will end up feeling all alone when you reach the film’s shattering climax. “Monsiure Hire” is a melancholic character study of a lonesome man who falls in love. But at what price?

Score: 9/10

Possession (1981)

In one scene in Andrzej Zulawski’s “cult” horror thriller, “Possession” (1981), Sam Neill’s character Mark tells Isabelle Adjani’s character Anna, “I think of you as an animal, or a woman possessed…”! It wouldn’t be entirely inappropriate to say that this is true of almost all the characters in this substandard mess of a horror film cum “intense” drama, for all the primary characters behave like mentally deranged morons or appear stoned whenever they are on screen.

We begin with a creepy background score during the title credits when Mark (Sam Neill, at his very worst) arrives from “far away”, back to his son Bob (Michael Hogben) and wife Anna (Isabelle Adjani). Their first meeting after a seemingly huge gap seems awkward; all is clearly not well with their marriage. Later there is some vague talk between the couple, trying to explain the lack of intimacy. “There is always someone else, when these things happen”, Mark insinuates that Anna is being unfaithful. She denies in the beginning, but later admits to having an affair. A shattered Mark soon finds out that it is a man named Heinrich (Heinz Bennet), an Anthony Hopkins lookalike, sexually ambiguous character. But Heinrich and his mother both admit that they haven’t seen Anna for “weeks”! The mystery deepens and there could be something/someone else contributing to Anna’s continuous absence and increasingly erratic behavior. Mark hires a private detective Zimmerman (Shaun Lawton) to follow Anna and very soon a bizarre secret is unearthed, which is somehow linked to a mysterious tentacled monster..…

“Possession” begins on an alarmingly wrong note. The horrible dialog and the actors’ over-the-top dialog delivery are largely to blame. A serious conversation seems very dramatic, awkward and fake and therein lies the biggest problem with this film. Senseless ramblings and non sequiturs abound! The lead characters are going through a bitter married relationship, yet one fails to connect to them or feel any sympathy, thanks to the abysmally bad acting, especially by Sam Neill! He is horrendous here, and while Neill’s later performances are quite good, he is simply unbearable in this early acting venture of his. Then there is Isabelle Adjani who can emote very well in some scenes, but again, falls flat while delivering some vital lines of dialog. And when she isn’t doing that, she is mostly convulsing hysterically and trying hard to be the scream queen of the century. There is so much of cacophony, fighting and yelling, bickering and beating about throughout the film that it eventually gets on the nerves! It is just too jarring, shrill and unintentionally comic at times to be taken any seriously! A lookalike (a doppelganger?) of Anna shows up as a green-eyed, more quiet Helen (Adjani again) who is a teacher to Bob. It is with this role that Adjani gets to have a breather for a change, because otherwise it must’ve been a hell of a tiring shoot for her, shredding her vocal cords off and throwing herself all over the set!

The film’s plot has an ambiguous nature. A lot of vague information is exchanged; fleeting mentions of “pink socks”, “faith”, “chance” and “divinity”. The happenings in the film aren’t supposed to be taken in the literal sense. There is supposed to be some deeply allegorical meaning within, pertaining to marriage and divorce and finding God and happiness; yet any kind of interest to find a deeper meaning is overshadowed, thanks to the god-awful script and the embarrassing situations Zulawski puts his actors into. Imagine making all of them act like they do, it boggles the mind. 

Heinz Bennet is another such actor whose Heinrich character seems to be perpetually stoned and delivers lines of dialog as if he is delivering a sermon, rehearsed too! A couple more characters like Margit Gluckmeister (Margit Cartensen), Anna’s best friend, and a detective (Carl Duering) sent to find out Anna’s whereabouts, do their bits in being the jesters in this circus of madness. Caricature-like characterization, to a great extent, and a substantial lack of suspense mar any prospects the film otherwise had owing to its intricate plot which is again, mostly incoherent in the preliminary viewing but makes some weird sense after a bit of analysis.

And then there is the “creature” (no spoilers there; the creature and its special effects creator, Carlo Rambaldi are already announced in the title credits); a slimy octopus-like monster that appears in some 3-4 scenes. But unlike other B-horror films in which such creatures usually slither around, attacking people, this creature just sits there, which is a welcome relief. Its origin and purpose of existence become clearer as the blood-soaked climax of the film approaches.

There are a few redeeming qualities in “Possession”, like the aforementioned, deliberately equivocal plot that offers some good food for thought and room for multiple interpretations, and a couple disturbing moments, like the scene in the subway when Anna experiences a violent seizure of sorts like she is possessed by an unseen power…a terrific display of an uninhibited and energetic performance in that one scene wins Adjani all the points she deserves (and only she deserves points, if at all) in this otherwise doomed venture.

Score: 5/10.

Blind Beast (1969)

There are sometimes films which are depraved for the sake of being depraved. There is some seriously disturbing stuff happening on the screen but the progression of the narrative to reach that extreme stage seems so contrived that you ultimately end up somewhat dissatisfied in the end!

Based on Rampo Edogawa’s story, Yasuzo Masumura’s “Blind Beast” (1969) falls in this category. Michio (Eiji Funakoshi) is a blind sculptor (blind since birth) who has, over the years, developed the “sense of touch” to the fullest to satisfy or please himself. All other senses like sound, smell and sight are of no use to him because they aren’t the real deal and "sight" he has never known! He has come to learn a lot about how things may look and has developed his own understanding of the forms of various objects around him. Most notably he has become obsessed with the female body as he finds it the most beautiful creation and feeling up the female body parts gives him the most pleasure(!). He has a studio built out of a warehouse and it contains a lot of sculptures of the female body and the individual parts as he has perceived them using his sense of touch! And now he has made "pioneering the art of touch" his life's mission! "An art form for the blind, by the blind" as he describes it!

Enter beautiful model Aki (Mako Midori), stories of whose beautiful body Michio has heard! A desire to feel up Aki’s exquisite anatomy and to use her as a model for his latest sculpture drives Michio into kidnapping her with the help of his mother and holding her captive in his studio. Aki tries her best to flee but is overpowered by the blind sculptor and his mother. Amidst the labyrinth of giant female body parts including eyes, lips, nose, breasts, hands, legs, he starts building a sculpture, feeling up a reluctant Aki once in a while and then moulding his clay accordingly!

Aki starts thinking up ways to escape and even makes several attempts to trick the mother-son duo into letting her go. But a dramatic change of events turns this kidnap drama into a strange tale of macabre fetishism, as the kidnapped starts identifying with her captor and finds herself embracing his perverse ways…..

“Blind Beast” surely has the power to grip from its very first frame. The initial few sequences after the kidnapping are very well filmed and give a distinctly eerie and claustrophobic feel as Aki fumbles and stumbles in the surreal studio full of sculpted body parts. It is also commendable that the film doesn’t follow the oft-trodden path that kidnap dramas usually take. The final half hour takes an entirely different direction and that’s a good thing. What isn’t very appealing, however, is the abrupt manner in which that direction is taken! The jump or transition is somewhat half-baked. It is not entirely unusual for kidnap dramas to portray their victims as utterly stupid and clumsy idiots whose repeated attempts to escape always predictably fail, because if the escape really happens, then there is nothing left to film! “Blind Beast”’s Aki is no different, as in spite of some clever tricks she plays to fool the mother-son duo whilst trying to escape, she always manages to bungle up in the end. That’s not all, what’s more frustrating is how she even gets overpowered by a completely blind man and sometimes even misses some blatantly obvious chances of getting the better of him….all for the sake of movie continuity perhaps?

It also doesn’t help that the otherwise efficient blind person who is very adept at sensing a presence from their smell, footsteps and breathing sounds, lacks consistency and behaves in the clunkiest manner at times. Towards the third act, as the film gets to its focal point in a bizarre twist to the proceedings, we, the audiences wonder…how did things even get so far? It just doesn’t quite cut it.

But for all its worth, “Blind Beast” is a watchable film and manages to disturb the viewer in the final act, with terrific performances from the two leads Mako Midori and Eiji Funakoshi. One wonders though, whether this film was an excuse for the filmmaker and the lead actor to simply to feed their nasty appetite of fondling their lead woman, because moments when she ISN’T groped in this film are few and far between!

Score: 7/10.

Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)

A small town. A drunk room; a rather dreary bar with two big lights hanging from the ceiling. Village simpletons falling all over the floor with an overdose of drinks. “You tubs of beer”..the bartender calls them! At closing time, a wide-eyed, gaunt, but seemingly popular young man walks in. He is Janos Valuska (Lars Rudolph). He uses the drunks at the bar as props and demonstrates the Solar Eclipse and the effects of this phenomenon on the behavior of the mortal beings of the earth. The scene lasts for the first 10-12 minutes and ends with a melancholic, haunting score by Mihaly Vig. This single scene is so beautiful, it sets the tone for what’s to come.

There is a shroud of ambiguity over Hungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr’s “Werckmeister Harmonies” (co-directed by Ágnes Hranitzky). There is communication that is very vague. Things are spoken about something bad that happened before and something terrible that’s perhaps about to happen. And in some towns, they say it has already begun. Is it the advent of the apocalypse?

At the center of this mystery is a stuffed giant whale, a part of a “circus” that has arrived in town. This circus also features the enigmatic “Prince”. With the coming of the whale and the Prince there is suddenly a ‘lack of harmony’ within the quietude of the town. Foreigners have started encroaching. There are stories that they have started rioting and looting. The whale is perhaps the reason. Most people seem to regard the whale as an abomination. Only Janos sees it as a bounty of nature, a miracle of God…Janos is clearly an optimist. Or is it the Prince who is behind all the turbulence? There are all kinds of stories. The dead whale and the Prince are somehow responsible for creating ripples in the otherwise still waters of the quiet little town. They have already spread their wings on other parts of the country. But are all these just urban legends?

One of the main characters, György Eszter (Peter Fitz), speaks about how the musical intervals and harmonies as we know them over the centuries are “false” and the result of a huge scandal brought about by a certain Andreas Werckmeister. The title alludes to the harmonies or lack thereof owing to some funny business brought about by Werckmeister as a result of an “unhinged arrogance” that wished to take possession of the natural harmonies of the Gods! This one scene and the philosophy within has a strong connection with the overall theme of the film…lack of harmony and how it is brought about!

Eszter’s former wife Aunt Tunde (Hanna Schygulla) has an agenda of her own…she is out to initiate a “clean town” project with the help of her current lover, the Police Chief, for which she needs her former husband’s help. “Our Janos” (as he is referred to by all townsfolk who like him) is entrusted the task of convincing Eszter to use his command and popularity to get support of the movement. Eszter reluctantly agrees. “I've paid for it and I may pay for it all my life”, he says. But what exactly? Tarr doesn’t think that is important. We never get to know. He clearly loves ambiguity.

Tarr also loves extremely long takes, stark Black and White cinematography (beautiful at that), a somber mood, melancholic score, a languorous pace, bleak imagery and an overall sense of doom and despair. There are long philosophical monologues which are almost poetic and need to be heard at least twice to grasp. There is a distinct “meditative” feel to the proceedings. It is not difficult to spot the heavy Andrei Tarkovsky influence here, just as in other films of his. But Tarr’s pictures are less abstract than those of the great Russian filmmaker. “Werckmeister Harmonies” is mostly materialism heavy but there certainly is some symbolism embedded in the narrative. The “Prince” who travels with the whale, for example, is a mysterious faceless creature who seems to have immense powers. A clock that was dead for years started ticking again as he went past! And he apparently also incites rioting. He doesn’t believe in any greater power or authority either. Is he then the “Prince of darkness” with a thirst for destruction?

Tarr demonstrates his ability to create a powerful impact through the marriage of visuals and sound. On one hand there is the scene in which Vig’s soulful music accompanies, like Janos appreciating the whale and being awestruck by its enormity. And then there is the scene in a newspaper factory. Long monologues and ambient sounds serve as a background to Janos’ mundane activities being filmed, and later the camera slowly pans to the person delivering the monologue! Then, of the several long tracking shots, a particular shot of Janos and Eszter walking adjacent to each other in an almost synchronized march of their feet (with only the sound of their feet and a lunch box providing the sound…carrying on for a good 2-3 minutes!) can’t help but bring a smile on your face. Apparently, for one other scene, in which a lot of people are marching together to reach a destination, Tarr was asked why the scene is that long. Tarr simply answered “that’s how long it took to get there!”

“Werckmeister Harmonies”, like any other Bela Tarr film, is surely not for the impatient viewer. It is for that segment of film lovers who love their films grave; and who don’t mind the scenes playing out real time, with the editing process being allowed to take the back seat as long as the final product delivers. Suffice to say, Tarr manages to engulf the viewer under his spell and guarantees a hypnotic audiovisual experience, one that culminates into a powerful ending that leaves a lasting impact….

Score: 10/10.

Week End (1967)

When was the last time you had a hell lot of fun while watching a film? And we aren’t even talking escapist, commercial popcorn flicks or sitcoms! Far from it. We’re talking about an avant-garde surrealist film, highly disturbing yet darkly humorous at the same time….in French New Wave style!

Jean-Luc Godard’s “Weekend” (sometimes written “Week End”) will guarantee a delightfully macabre ride through hell, as a husband and wife cheating on each other decide to ride to the country to secure inheritance from the parents of the wife, by possibly murdering her father! Sounds crazy? Not half as crazy as what ensues next as their journey turns into an outlandish odyssey through a nightmare full of traffic jams and gruesome car accidents and terrorists and hippies and cannibals!

What “Weekend” is about is difficult to pen. Perhaps it is about Godard’s bizarre vision of the apocalypse; of a bleak future that’s going to see the end of civilization as we know it; a world in which people will turn on one another and start raping and looting and killing and eating each other! A world in which the bourgeois society will bear the brunt of its own materialistic trappings…when people will become so insensitive, they will even steal stuff off of dead bodies rather nonchalantly!

Or perhaps “Weekend” is merely a black comedy built around everything Godard personally hated and wanted to make fun of, through the medium he knows best…cinema! And he pulls it off like there’s no tomorrow! Sometimes he also resorts to self-parody! And for that, he uses some insane yet subtle absurdist humour. Blink and you may miss some of the gems and golden lines uttered in this film. Sample this: Roland (Jean Yanne) abandons (or loses) his car and starts out on foot with his wife Corinne (Mireille Darc ). On the way there are numerous mangled bodies, victims of car accidents and the remains of their vehicles lying around, but they are just casually ignored! Roland tries to ask directions to another character in the film, gets some loony response in return and comments “What a rotten film! All we meet are crazy people!”

Godard, an eccentric auteur that he is, makes sure he frustrates his audiences as well as keeps them hooked with his bravura writing. Usage of intertitles isn’t uncommon in a Godard film, but in “Weekend” they take on a new, entirely free form, get sprinkled arbitrarily between scenes, interrupting randomly yet trying to say something about the scene at hand. But they don’t always take a serious form; sometimes some of the dialog uttered takes the form of intertitles, sometimes Godard tries to be funny by adding title cards like “A film found on scrap heap” to describe this motion picture! At other times we see some sharp political jibes.

Then there are the typical Godard idiosyncrasies including a background score that sometimes drowns the dialog and appears out of nowhere and disappears just as suddenly as it appeared; some deliberate repetitions of scenes and dialogs as if it’s some editing flaw! And let’s not forget the over 8 minutes long tracking shot of a traffic jam accompanied by blaring car horns in the background and car drivers cursing each other in the foreground! This shot ends in an ironic fashion that reveals the cause of the jam! The film takes dramatic turns with one bizarre event after another, subjecting us to a savagely funny ride, with senseless political speeches, oddball camerawork and ultimately  an allegorical, chaotic finale…..the aim was clearly to alarm the viewer and leave him/her in a jaw-dropped state!

There are notable movie references....although it is difficult to say in one case; a “Persona”-esque (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) monologue of Corinne narrating a particularly wild sexual adventure, and in a nod to Luis Bunuel, perhaps, a title card that reads “The Exterminating Angel” (1962). Speaking of Bunuel, it is not difficult to find some creative similarities between “Weekend” and Bunuel’s “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie”. Nonetheless, this could be a first film of its kind for Godard (it is a significant departure compared to his earlier 60s works) and he makes sure he leaves no stone unturned in delivering a masterwork. “Weekend” could very well have been rechristened “Week End” (as it is known in some countries) owing to the fact that this was Godard’s final film of his most celebrated cinematic period.

Highly imaginative, but pure Madness; Godard’s “Weekend” = Luis Bunuel on steroids!

Score: 10/10 (Hands down!)