El toque silencioso

Take away the somewhat ludicrous deaux ex machina of having a young musicologist worm his way into the household of a genius composer by using a divining rod to locate water under his bedroom, and you still have a ludicrous movie. But I enjoyed it. Why?

As we baby boomers enter our older age, it's comforting to see other old guys and gals making out, without chemical assistance. Lothaire Bluteau plays Tony Perkins' all-angst and sensitivity role quite well as his new young love falls to the old guy's wiles and genius. Power is a sexy aphrodisiac and it doesn't have to come from money, this movie would indicate.

That everyone involves subjugates themselves to the birthing (in this case re-birthing) of genius and theoretically great, timeless works of art may have been true in earlier years, and maybe it's because I don't see this in my get-rich-quick, hedonistic pleasure-now, and only-MY- pleasure-counts, forget-the-planet world that I could not put aside my disbelief. How Sarah Miles could live under the same roof with that egotistical randy old fool is more than I can understand, but then I'm not ethereal. Genius must be served.

And yes, I can appreciate Picasso's Guernivica and still know he was a b....d. I can love Wagner and ignore what ends his music was used for. I just don't want to be personnally involved with such people. But maybe, somebody has to do it, and instead of worshipping Picasson, we should instead worship a concatenated set of people who contributed by their suffering, to his greatness. This movie makes you think about such sacrifices.

A composer. A musicologist. A child. And few musical notes. A film as labyrinth. With Minotaurus and Dedalus. With traps and large shadows. A speech. About sacrifices and ambition, about good in skin of bad, about fragility of worlds, about the pressure of words, about night in the memories of evening. A story in which Max von Sydow is same and other. Niances and colors. And the "miettes" of old time. It is not a film. Just a trouble silence. Like a bread. In large slices. With perfect flavor under the touch of knife. A tall who exists, in many forms, in everyone.The letters are different. The music is more subtle or funny. But the scene is the same. Same genius in the fall scrub. And the sacrifice of a Pole. Nothing new. Nothing old. Only, another page.

Stefan is woken from his sleep by an old Jewish melody. He suffers in place of the old man and bleeds, literally, for him, taking on his ills until the old song is reborn into a great piece of music.

Zannussi knows how to craft a tale, always with haunting. The story is real, the hope is born out through earthen, imperfect vessels, and there is suffering. What more could one ask for. I think the best line is judging between the music and life. In the end, transcendence is nothing we can control, only allow.

What would someone do for the person he/she loves? Someone would kill for love. Someone would suffer for love. It only depends on the person.

"Silent Touch" is full of different forms of love. Deep, everlasting love Helene feels for Henry. Stephane's passionate love for art that is incorporated in Henry. Henry's cynical love for himself (and it is also superficial, because he isn't capable to give all his love to anyone). Anette's love for image of Henry. Horn's love for ideal of art that can't be personalised. Stephan's admiring love for Helene the martyr. Henry's mostly sexual love for Anette. Stephan's germ of love (or attraction) for Anette, rejected by her, and given up by him (for the sake of Henry).

The only person that expresses any violence is Henry the artist. He breaks cups when he is angry, he even hurts Stephan (though unintentionally, but with rather severe consequences). Yet, it seems it should be forgiven to him, because he is above all of them, he is the artist. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. But though we might blame Zanussi for this attitude, history shows us countless examples of "great" people who were weird, manic, lunatic, impossible to live with. However, if they were unable to lead such a life probably they wouldn't do (artistic, scientific etc) work they've been praised for. And we neglect their personality because of all the good things they did to all of us.

We have only one character that we seem we should dislike, Joseph the nephew. The man that's been taking financial care of Henry for 40 years. He keeps doing it as his duty, because he is his closest relative (this is something most modern people wouldn't understand unless being Jews themselves). Maybe there were some incomes Henry was gaining for his old works, but as it was classic music it's hard to believe it was a big sum of money. So, when after all these years Joseph dares to mention all what he has been giving and what he is expected do give in future, Henry explodes and destroys tea service (probably bought by Joseph). Finally Joseph refuses to be a sponsor of Henry's new work (because he helped Henry as Jew has to do, but it was Henry who denied Jewish traditions) until a possible loss of income occurred (remember, he's a Jew). No, I don't see why I should like Joseph, but neither why should I hate him. Being a martyr is simply not acceptable for everyone, some people still live in real world.

Max von Sydow gave us again a magnificent role. Sarah Miles as an actress stayed self-denying as her character is. We almost don't notice her, this is not the best for her but it is great for movie (and a great actress like her doesn't have to impose and prove herself anyway). Sofie Grabol had another weird artist-inspiration role. Both in "Silent Touch" and "Ovira" she admires the artist, she is a young girl impressed by the fame (without glamour) of an old composer/painter; but with completely different reactions: von Sydow pays all attention to her, putting her on the altar of his work (and life) while Sutherland used only the shape of her body having her only as a substitute for his absent model.

This chamber drama won't be widely accepted. It is maybe a bit more dynamic than European 60's dramas, but it has the same spirit. I can see no reason for people who put Hollywood movies on their own top-lists to lose time on this movie. They'll only get new evidence that European movies are must to avoid. Others are welcome. They'll get new evidence that European movie, though badly injured by intercontinental missiles, still breathes. Or at least did in 1992.