jameskinsman

Ostensibly simple on first analysis, Wild Strawberries, alongside the work of Bresson, Dreyers Le Passion De Jeanne D'Arc and Murnau's Sunrise, is one of those very special, transcendent assets of cinema able to inspire us in a deep and spiritual way. Bergman's achievement to tell a heartfelt story with a very human message juxtaposed with image after image of stunning beauty is something so rare and so very remarkable. I wont go into a deep analysis of this beautiful masterpiece, as many other users on here have done so. All I will do is simply describe one of the films most lyrically sublime scenes.

Near the end of the film, as Isak Borg lies in bed, his son asks him how his heart is (meaning his physical health). Being a doctor of considerable talent and having a tradition of being practical and sensible in his work, you would expect him to tell his son of his failing health. However after his subsequent journey, both physical and spiritual, his attentions are now turned toward his emotional and spiritual well being, a part of himself he has neglected for many years. He simply replies that his heart is fine, and that he is happy and content. In this single moment, we understand that Isak has reached a moment of catharsis, but it also tells us something about every one of us. We strive constantly for physical wealth and materialistic products of our lives and jobs, but we must remember the simple but extremely rewarding pleasures that determine the happiest of individuals.

Journal d'un cure de Campagne is about a young priest who, whilst suffering from an illness, is assigned to a new parish in a French country village. The story is told by the priests recounting of his experiences in his diary. This itself is a powerful narrative device, as we not only understand the experiences of the protagonist, but also how he reflects upon them with hindsight, relating his observations to faith and human nature. As he carries out his duties in his new parish though, he is treated with animosity and hatred by many of the villiagers, because they see him as an unwanted intrusion into their lives. As he becomes estranged, and to an extend outcast by the townspeople, he increasingly relies on his faith for strength and comfort, however even this begins to fade as he witnesses the townspeople purvey sinful and malicous behaviour, damaging his faith in human nature.

The films of Robert Bresson, although wonderful, can at times seem austere almost to the point of being drained of any emotion. Before passing judgement though, it is important to understand his aims and understanding of film making. Bresson believed that the theatrical performing of actors had no place in cinema, and so typically cast non-actors for his films. The reason for his desire to suppress performing, was to avoid the melodramatic histrionics common with conventional acting as he believed it shortchanges the complexities of human emotion that in real life are much more subtle and not always on the surface. A large part of who we are he believed, is determined by experience, circumstance and environment. These elements affect the way we 'perform' and obscure who we are at the core essence of our being. Bresson was much more concerned with this person, whom we are when all our affectations are removed and we are laid bare. In Diary of a Country Priest, Bresson had Claude Laydu repeat scenes many times in order so that he would rid himself of all natural desire to perform. This suppressed emotion re-introduces the intricately nuanced expression, replacing the scenes with a delicate and contemplative lilt. Like Ozu, another master of character expression and portrayal, Bresson proves that by adopting this method in conjunction with his wonderful compositions, it forces the viewer to replace the lack of gratuitous emotion with their own feelings, resulting in moments of genuine pathos and emotion.

The Battle Of Algiers documents the Algerian peoples fight for independence from the French in the 50's and 60's. Heavily inspired by the Italian neo-realist movement, Director Pontecorvo used hundreds of non-actors and shot the entire film on location. This all adds to the documentary like photography with which the account is presented, setting it apart from all other war films, imbuing the action with a shocking sense of realism comparable to a news report of a real terrorist demonstration. Despite being a docu-film on the Algerian insurrection against the French, a conflict that has long been resolved, the film still remains extremely significant today, particularly due to the current American occupation of Iraq.

Although I enjoy and appreciate more mainstream war films such as Apocalypse Now and Platoon, The Battle Of Algiers uncovers the pointlessness of conflict and the harsh repercussions of it, like no other war film I have seen. Taking a deliberately impartial stance, the torture based methods of interrogation employed by the French troops are juxtaposed with the violent terrorist attacks of the Algerians. This powerfully illustrates the destruction caused by both sides, and how their tactics, although different in nature, are united in their ugliness and betrayal of humanitarian values, causing nothing but death and suffering. In this respect, the film documents like no other the sad foolishness of trying to solve conflicts with violence, causing maximum loss on both sides, perpetuating conflict rather than preventing it. The Battle Of Algiers is also instrumental in emphasising how the actions of an extremist group using violent methods, can result in a racial hatred of an entire ethnic minority. This occurrence resonates powerfully across western civilisation in a supposedly enlightened 21st century, where hundreds of innocent civilians are labelled as potential terrorists because of a select few who choose to cause destruction.