34 commentaires
`Wheel of Time' is a very good film, but I admit that it is different from what I expected from Herzog. He is still very talented, but I doubt if the subject matter is best suited to him. `Wheel of Time' concerns many things, including religion, virtue, and faith, which in this case may not be the best subjects for Herzog. But when `Wheel of Time' deals with some strange and crazy rituals, political oppression, and rugged landscapes, these parts of the film are very satisfying.
Some scenes in `Wheel of Time' are magical, especially the scenes which show vast landscapes and people performing strange rituals. Those scenes are Herzogian, I think. Nobody does this kind of thing better than Herzog. If a cinephile watches these scenes, not knowing who shot them, he or she will guess correctly that they were shot by Herzog. These scenes make `Wheel of Time' rise way above television documentaries.
But other scenes are not as magical as I expect from Herzog's films. I think that maybe the religious subject matter of this film doesn't allow Herzog to be as playful in directing as he was in other films. It is very difficult for any filmmaker, including Herzog, to make an interesting documentary about something virtuous like this. It would be much easier to make an interesting film if the film is about `good vs. evil', or about some strange rituals in which people walk on fire and pierce themselves horrifically.
I think Herzog is like a wizard, and one can hardly makes a more magical film than him if the film is about nature-made or man-made madness, brutality, or suffering in life. But because of the subject matter of `Wheel of Time', this film is not my most favorite of Herzog's. I like `Wheel of Time' as much as Herzog's `How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck' (1976) and `The Flying Doctors of East Africa' (1969). I think these three films are very good films, but because the people portrayed in these films are not `very' strange nor `very' crazy, these three films lack some kind of excitement I found in other films by Herzog, especially when compared to Herzog's `Gesualdo: Death for Five Voices' (1995), `My Best Fiend' (1999), `The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner' (1974), and `Land of Silence and Darkness' (1971), which is my most favorite of Herzog's films.
Some parts of Herzog's `Lessons of Darkness' (1992) deal with political madness, and I think Herzog is good at this subject, too. In one scene in `Wheel of Time', a former political prisoner gave an interview about the brutality of the Chinese rule. This scene is very simple. It is just a normal interview. But for me the power of this scene is much more stronger than most scenes in `Wheel of Time'. And it also reminds me of some great scenes in `Lessons of Darkness' in which some people gave their own testimonies to what happened when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I think one thing that makes the scene about the former prisoner stand apart from other scenes in `Wheel of Time' is because this scene talks about `evil forces', while other scenes in `Wheel of Time' are about some kind of virtuous power.
Some scenes in `Wheel of Time' are magical, especially the scenes which show vast landscapes and people performing strange rituals. Those scenes are Herzogian, I think. Nobody does this kind of thing better than Herzog. If a cinephile watches these scenes, not knowing who shot them, he or she will guess correctly that they were shot by Herzog. These scenes make `Wheel of Time' rise way above television documentaries.
But other scenes are not as magical as I expect from Herzog's films. I think that maybe the religious subject matter of this film doesn't allow Herzog to be as playful in directing as he was in other films. It is very difficult for any filmmaker, including Herzog, to make an interesting documentary about something virtuous like this. It would be much easier to make an interesting film if the film is about `good vs. evil', or about some strange rituals in which people walk on fire and pierce themselves horrifically.
I think Herzog is like a wizard, and one can hardly makes a more magical film than him if the film is about nature-made or man-made madness, brutality, or suffering in life. But because of the subject matter of `Wheel of Time', this film is not my most favorite of Herzog's. I like `Wheel of Time' as much as Herzog's `How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck' (1976) and `The Flying Doctors of East Africa' (1969). I think these three films are very good films, but because the people portrayed in these films are not `very' strange nor `very' crazy, these three films lack some kind of excitement I found in other films by Herzog, especially when compared to Herzog's `Gesualdo: Death for Five Voices' (1995), `My Best Fiend' (1999), `The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner' (1974), and `Land of Silence and Darkness' (1971), which is my most favorite of Herzog's films.
Some parts of Herzog's `Lessons of Darkness' (1992) deal with political madness, and I think Herzog is good at this subject, too. In one scene in `Wheel of Time', a former political prisoner gave an interview about the brutality of the Chinese rule. This scene is very simple. It is just a normal interview. But for me the power of this scene is much more stronger than most scenes in `Wheel of Time'. And it also reminds me of some great scenes in `Lessons of Darkness' in which some people gave their own testimonies to what happened when Saddam invaded Kuwait. I think one thing that makes the scene about the former prisoner stand apart from other scenes in `Wheel of Time' is because this scene talks about `evil forces', while other scenes in `Wheel of Time' are about some kind of virtuous power.
The world portrayed in 'Lime' is too beautiful to be real, yet it is too beautiful for me to resist. I give this movie 10/10 mostly because of its choice of music, and also because of its beautiful colors, its haunting black and white scenes, its cinematography, its editing, the performance of Rita Kvist, and its tremendous impact on my emotions.
There are many scenes that I like in 'Lime', including the scenes when the camera focuses on an insect at the window, when Tanja makes her own dress, when she imagines her mother dancing hauntingly, the scene in the forest, and the scene about a wolf. These scenes are not only beautifully shot, but they are also strangely powerful. The heightened colors, the contrast between color scenes and black-and-white scenes, and the appropriate pace of editing lend this movie great excitement, while the story itself is not as exciting.
Giving it 10/10 means I love it so much though I think it still has some flaws. While the role of Tanja is so impressive and gives Kvist a great chance to show her talent, the supporting characters are somehow not fully developed, including her friend, her ex-boyfriend, her new boyfriend, her little brother, her new stepfather, and particularly her mother. 'Lime' chooses to focus only on Tanja, and that makes it different from other recent movies about single mother-teenage daughter in countryside, including 'Tumbleweeds' and 'La Spagnola'.
The second half of this movie is not as intense as the first half, and I have to admit I'm not satisfied with this kind of ending. Thanks to its music, 'Lime' is now one of my most favorite films about teenagers, but because of its possible-but-lackluster resolution, the place for my most favorite teenage film still belongs to 'Busu' by Jun Ichikawa. Though both two films are about troubled teenage girls and are tremendously powerful, 'Busu' gives a feeling of a 'real world', while 'Lime' gives a vividly colorful picture of a 'dream world'. 'Lime', for me, is perfect as a way to escape from reality. Yes, I'm one of those people who wish our own life should have been like Tanja's.
There are many scenes that I like in 'Lime', including the scenes when the camera focuses on an insect at the window, when Tanja makes her own dress, when she imagines her mother dancing hauntingly, the scene in the forest, and the scene about a wolf. These scenes are not only beautifully shot, but they are also strangely powerful. The heightened colors, the contrast between color scenes and black-and-white scenes, and the appropriate pace of editing lend this movie great excitement, while the story itself is not as exciting.
Giving it 10/10 means I love it so much though I think it still has some flaws. While the role of Tanja is so impressive and gives Kvist a great chance to show her talent, the supporting characters are somehow not fully developed, including her friend, her ex-boyfriend, her new boyfriend, her little brother, her new stepfather, and particularly her mother. 'Lime' chooses to focus only on Tanja, and that makes it different from other recent movies about single mother-teenage daughter in countryside, including 'Tumbleweeds' and 'La Spagnola'.
The second half of this movie is not as intense as the first half, and I have to admit I'm not satisfied with this kind of ending. Thanks to its music, 'Lime' is now one of my most favorite films about teenagers, but because of its possible-but-lackluster resolution, the place for my most favorite teenage film still belongs to 'Busu' by Jun Ichikawa. Though both two films are about troubled teenage girls and are tremendously powerful, 'Busu' gives a feeling of a 'real world', while 'Lime' gives a vividly colorful picture of a 'dream world'. 'Lime', for me, is perfect as a way to escape from reality. Yes, I'm one of those people who wish our own life should have been like Tanja's.
Ninja Bugei-cho is a very exciting film, and its excitement, for me, relies solely on its powerful story. It is also a very strange film because it consists of only still cartoon-drawings with voice-over and sound effects. Seeing this film is somehow similar to reading a fascinating comic book or storyboard. While the pictures on the screen are not moving, this film, similar to any comic book, gives freedom to our imagination to move the pictures in our mind.
I'm very impressed with its fast pace. The story is very dense. What is told in its 131-minute length can be told easily in 30-hour-long tv series. Imagine all the excitement in 30-hour-long tv series being compressed into 2-hour movie. There are many climaxes, and I think even the story of each member of the Kage family has the climax of its own.
But while the story is full of interesting characters, it lacks deep characterizations. Most characters are as flat as its material, but I don't think that is a flaw of this movie. It's just a style usually found in this type of story. For a story like this, the movie must last much longer than 2 hours so that each character can be given 'real flesh and blood' or 'real subtle feelings and emotions'. I think its excitement much more than compensates for its lack of 'real life'. What this movie really does best is giving each character different fighting skill, and explaining how each of them acquires that special skill. The story of each supporting character is so interesting that each of them should be expanded into a 2-hour movie.
The two main female characters impress me a lot with their expertise in fighting. I will never forget one fighting scene in this movie which involves one pregnant character. Even a small character such as the lady bandit is very fascinating. Oshima's female characters in this movie are as charming and charismatic as in his other movies. Oshima's female characters are not the type usually found in mainstream Japanese cinema. His female characters are as physically strong, determined, bold, and fatally alluring as Paul Verhoeven's female characters.
There's one scene in this film which is very scary. It's the scene of the 'running earth'. It frightens me so much and makes me feel as if I witnessed the real event and was running away from 'them'. If this movie is a live-action, this scene might cost a lot to make it look real. But this film proves that in order to scare the audience effectively, money is not as necessary as the audience's own imagination. There are also many brutal, gruesome, and gory scenes in this movie, and they make me feel very grateful that this movie is not a live-action. Sketches of blood are much more tolerable than real-looking blood.
The ultimate pleasure and excitement I gain from watching this film are somehow similar to the ones I get from watching 'X-Men' or 'Lord of the Rings'. Each of them has a story full of cartoon-style fighting and many interesting supporting characters. However, 'Ninja Bugei-cho' doesn't give you only excitement. It also lets you exercise your imaginative power. This film is highly recommended for those who don't care if there are 'moving pictures' on the screen as long as they can create their own 'moving pictures' in their mental projections.
I'm very impressed with its fast pace. The story is very dense. What is told in its 131-minute length can be told easily in 30-hour-long tv series. Imagine all the excitement in 30-hour-long tv series being compressed into 2-hour movie. There are many climaxes, and I think even the story of each member of the Kage family has the climax of its own.
But while the story is full of interesting characters, it lacks deep characterizations. Most characters are as flat as its material, but I don't think that is a flaw of this movie. It's just a style usually found in this type of story. For a story like this, the movie must last much longer than 2 hours so that each character can be given 'real flesh and blood' or 'real subtle feelings and emotions'. I think its excitement much more than compensates for its lack of 'real life'. What this movie really does best is giving each character different fighting skill, and explaining how each of them acquires that special skill. The story of each supporting character is so interesting that each of them should be expanded into a 2-hour movie.
The two main female characters impress me a lot with their expertise in fighting. I will never forget one fighting scene in this movie which involves one pregnant character. Even a small character such as the lady bandit is very fascinating. Oshima's female characters in this movie are as charming and charismatic as in his other movies. Oshima's female characters are not the type usually found in mainstream Japanese cinema. His female characters are as physically strong, determined, bold, and fatally alluring as Paul Verhoeven's female characters.
There's one scene in this film which is very scary. It's the scene of the 'running earth'. It frightens me so much and makes me feel as if I witnessed the real event and was running away from 'them'. If this movie is a live-action, this scene might cost a lot to make it look real. But this film proves that in order to scare the audience effectively, money is not as necessary as the audience's own imagination. There are also many brutal, gruesome, and gory scenes in this movie, and they make me feel very grateful that this movie is not a live-action. Sketches of blood are much more tolerable than real-looking blood.
The ultimate pleasure and excitement I gain from watching this film are somehow similar to the ones I get from watching 'X-Men' or 'Lord of the Rings'. Each of them has a story full of cartoon-style fighting and many interesting supporting characters. However, 'Ninja Bugei-cho' doesn't give you only excitement. It also lets you exercise your imaginative power. This film is highly recommended for those who don't care if there are 'moving pictures' on the screen as long as they can create their own 'moving pictures' in their mental projections.
There are many great things about 'La Chinoise', including its political and historical importance, which have been elaborately discussed by film enthusiasts all over the world, so I'd like to add only my very personal thoughts about this film. Personally, 'La Chinoise' stands very much apart from, if not above, all of the films I've seen. While other films of Godard make me feel they are great movies, 'La Chinoise' doesn't make me feel like that. It makes me feel as if I hadn't seen a film, as if I'd just had a very nice and exciting conversation with friends, as if I'd just had a very lively discussion with them, as if I'd just participated in a hot debate, as if I'd just quarreled with some people. No film ever made me feel like this.
Scenes and dialogues worthy of remembering in 'La Chinoise' are as innumerable as in other films of Godard. Forever imprinted on my memory are the scenes when Leaud can't understand what his girlfriend says without the help of music, the droll assassination scene, and most important of all, the discussion on the train. This train scene looks so simple, yet it is very subtle and powerful. I saw 'La Chinoise' the first time four years ago, and I felt very detached from the movie. Seeing it again, I think it is one of my most favorite now.
Scenes and dialogues worthy of remembering in 'La Chinoise' are as innumerable as in other films of Godard. Forever imprinted on my memory are the scenes when Leaud can't understand what his girlfriend says without the help of music, the droll assassination scene, and most important of all, the discussion on the train. This train scene looks so simple, yet it is very subtle and powerful. I saw 'La Chinoise' the first time four years ago, and I felt very detached from the movie. Seeing it again, I think it is one of my most favorite now.
The opening scene of this movie can tell you how the whole film will be like: strange, hypnotic, visually stunning, sometimes disturbing, and powerful. This film is about gangsters in Berlin after WWII. It is mesmerizing, and makes me want to see it again and again after it ends. Though I cannot quite understand the whole story of this movie after viewing it for only one time, its atmosphere really entrances me. The atmosphere is strange and has something undescribable about it, something which is unfamiliar and really makes this movie stand out from other movies. And I think its atmosphere corresponds very well with the mental state of the characters. Besides its superb visual quality, the use of plane noises in this movie is quite interesting and very effective. Moreover, there is a sense of discontinuity running throughout the whole film. It seems like some scenes which might have been important to other mainstream films are deemed unnecessary here, and they are indeed unnecessary. To make a movie full of discontinuities might not be difficult, but in this movie, the feeling of discontinuity seems to fit in very well, seems very appropriate, seems so right, and I think to make a movie like this requires a real great talent. The feeling of discontinuity strongly enhances that undescribable atmosphere and makes the movie much more exciting to watch. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that not only some scenes are appropriately left out, but something which would normally have been the focus of the scene is sometimes curiously missing.
As for the performance, Katharina Thalbach has a suitable and memorable role here. The actor who plays Gladow also gives a stunning performance. I have heard that the film is based on a true story, but I think its style, feelings, and power are unique, and quite different from other movies based on a true story. In my opinion, this movie is not only a `must-see', but a `must-see-at-least-twice.'
As for the performance, Katharina Thalbach has a suitable and memorable role here. The actor who plays Gladow also gives a stunning performance. I have heard that the film is based on a true story, but I think its style, feelings, and power are unique, and quite different from other movies based on a true story. In my opinion, this movie is not only a `must-see', but a `must-see-at-least-twice.'
The use of colors in this movie is quite impressive. I think the colors are truly beautiful, and I feel the use of colors here is somehow different from other movies, but I can't quite tell exactly how it is different. I'm also impressed by another hard-to-describe aspect of this movie: the comfortable distance between the audience and the characters. I find myself enjoy watching this movie many times, though I'm not really interested in the story and these kinds of characters. Why do I enjoy watching it while feeling uninvolved in it? It is because I feel very comfortable watching it. I feel as if there is an emotional space of a very appropriate size separating me from the characters. I don't feel the characters' feelings are too far away from me that I lose interest in them, and nor do I feel the movie pushes the characters' feelings so overwhelmingly close to me that I feel uncomfortable. I don't really know how the director can make me feel like this, and I wonder whether he intentionally created that pleasant distance.
The movie begins with a mesmerizing shot, and it never lets me down after that. 'Cold Homeland' is so warm with humanity and shows many ordinary people who can hold my attention entirely with stories of their lives. But it's not only their stories that are captivating; more importantly, it is mainly the magical directing talent of Koepp which makes this movie extraordinary.
What makes this movie so special to me is that while I was watching it,I felt so drawn into it as if I were also in that place. Koepp can make me really 'feel' the place, not just seeing it. He can transform the screen into a magical door and makes me feel if I walked into that door, I would step into that faraway land at once. He can really capture the sense of the land with his subliminally powerful scenery shots. There are many shots in the movie which represent only landscapes. These scenery shots are not there to show how beautiful this land is, nor they are there just to inform the audience about how this land really looks like. I feel these scenery shots are much more than that. By inserting these shots appropriately in the movie, Koepp let the landscapes speak for themselves. He can make the landscapes-- the trees, the grass, the wind, the stones, the buildings, or even the sunshine there-- reveal their own 'feelings' and make the landscapes embrace the audience with their tender arms. This is pure magic!
Koepp is also very talented in making people speak. Though some people speak little, what they speak means a lot and has strong feelings within it. Other people in the movie speak a lot about their past, and though they tell the stories of their lives calmly, something from their past, something from their hearts makes me cry. I really don't know why I feel like crying when the old woman starts singing. And when she reveals her past, I find her story one of the most impressive and deeply touching. Listening to some people in this movie telling their lives for 2 minutes can stir more powerful emotions and leave long-lasting impressions than seeing some fictional 2-hour movies. Some stories told are really unforgettable, and I don't want to forget them because they make the word 'life' much more meaningful to me than before.
Koepp is also talented in representing some interesting aspects and information about that place, especially the information about the ethnic diversity of people living there. I learn a lot about this astonishing part of the world from this movie. This movie does not only carry the audience on a visual journey through this special land, but it also lets the audience touch the land, feel the land, breathe the air of the land, admire the soul of the land, and admire the spirits of people living there.
What makes this movie so special to me is that while I was watching it,I felt so drawn into it as if I were also in that place. Koepp can make me really 'feel' the place, not just seeing it. He can transform the screen into a magical door and makes me feel if I walked into that door, I would step into that faraway land at once. He can really capture the sense of the land with his subliminally powerful scenery shots. There are many shots in the movie which represent only landscapes. These scenery shots are not there to show how beautiful this land is, nor they are there just to inform the audience about how this land really looks like. I feel these scenery shots are much more than that. By inserting these shots appropriately in the movie, Koepp let the landscapes speak for themselves. He can make the landscapes-- the trees, the grass, the wind, the stones, the buildings, or even the sunshine there-- reveal their own 'feelings' and make the landscapes embrace the audience with their tender arms. This is pure magic!
Koepp is also very talented in making people speak. Though some people speak little, what they speak means a lot and has strong feelings within it. Other people in the movie speak a lot about their past, and though they tell the stories of their lives calmly, something from their past, something from their hearts makes me cry. I really don't know why I feel like crying when the old woman starts singing. And when she reveals her past, I find her story one of the most impressive and deeply touching. Listening to some people in this movie telling their lives for 2 minutes can stir more powerful emotions and leave long-lasting impressions than seeing some fictional 2-hour movies. Some stories told are really unforgettable, and I don't want to forget them because they make the word 'life' much more meaningful to me than before.
Koepp is also talented in representing some interesting aspects and information about that place, especially the information about the ethnic diversity of people living there. I learn a lot about this astonishing part of the world from this movie. This movie does not only carry the audience on a visual journey through this special land, but it also lets the audience touch the land, feel the land, breathe the air of the land, admire the soul of the land, and admire the spirits of people living there.
`The Death of Maria Malibran' is a very strange film. After I have seen this movie twice, I still know very little about Maria Malibran. Everything that happens in this film is beyond my understanding. When I walked out of the cinema, I felt like waking up from a dream. I remember the dream quite clearly, but I don't understand what happens in it, and why it happens like that. All I know is that this is the most enjoyable dream I have ever had in my whole life.
Though I never like opera, I still love this film very much. Though I don't understand what is the plot or the story behind this film, it captivates me entirely. The photography, the art direction, the lighting, and the make-up are of excellent quality. The acting, the editing, and the music are exceptional too. I like it very much that the camera often focuses on the expression on characters' faces. This technique both heighten the beauty of the image, and make it look very funny at the same time. I also like the movement and the positions of characters in each frame very much.
However, `The Death of Maria Malibran' is not just a very strange film. It is not just a film full of beautiful images and beautiful soundtracks. It is not just an experimental film. It means much more than that to me. Many images in this film touch me so strongly that I can't imagine how I can adequately express how much I like it. More importantly, I was completely surprised and overwhelmed with joy to find that many images in this film are somehow like what my friends and I have been fantasizing for a long time. Werner Schroeter is the first guy that I know who can make our fantasy come true.
`The Death of Maria Malibran' really expands the boundary of cinematic empire in my viewing experience. I have never known nor imagined one can make a movie like this. But now that I know a film like this really exists, my hope and my faith in the potential of cinema are restored, and I will go to see a movie with much more excitement and eagerness than before. Cinema can prove itself to me again that it is really unpredictable.
Though I never like opera, I still love this film very much. Though I don't understand what is the plot or the story behind this film, it captivates me entirely. The photography, the art direction, the lighting, and the make-up are of excellent quality. The acting, the editing, and the music are exceptional too. I like it very much that the camera often focuses on the expression on characters' faces. This technique both heighten the beauty of the image, and make it look very funny at the same time. I also like the movement and the positions of characters in each frame very much.
However, `The Death of Maria Malibran' is not just a very strange film. It is not just a film full of beautiful images and beautiful soundtracks. It is not just an experimental film. It means much more than that to me. Many images in this film touch me so strongly that I can't imagine how I can adequately express how much I like it. More importantly, I was completely surprised and overwhelmed with joy to find that many images in this film are somehow like what my friends and I have been fantasizing for a long time. Werner Schroeter is the first guy that I know who can make our fantasy come true.
`The Death of Maria Malibran' really expands the boundary of cinematic empire in my viewing experience. I have never known nor imagined one can make a movie like this. But now that I know a film like this really exists, my hope and my faith in the potential of cinema are restored, and I will go to see a movie with much more excitement and eagerness than before. Cinema can prove itself to me again that it is really unpredictable.
If I were a judge of an award, I would vote for Florence Vignon to get the Best Actress award. She gives a superb, terrific performance in this film. The expression on her face and her eyes convey very well the complicated feelings and emotions of her troubled character, Solange. By her acting, one can feel what Solange feels. One can understand her reasons, her impulses, her changing, and her heart. One can sympathize with Solange, and some might even be able to identify with this character. Vignon really made Solange come alive.
Apart from the acting, there are many other good things about this movie. One is that this heartfelt movie has given some audience the badly-needed encouragement and inspiration to pursue their dream and helped them to restore hope in life. Moreover, though this film focuses on the unreasonably unhappy feelings of a married woman, I find that I have experienced many same feelings, many same moments as this character. The feelings experienced by Solange are really universal. What this character feels is not only reserved for married women, but is also felt by many people no matter whether they are man or woman, married or single, western or oriental, simple people or great philosophers, living in the present or living thousands of years ago. For some people, it is very easy to identify with Solange because sometimes you can feel very unhappy, feel very bored with your life and you don't know exactly why. You don't know for sure which person or which thing is the real cause of your unhappiness. Things around you seem to go smoothly. People close to you are still nice to you. But you know deep inside you are unhappy. You don't know for sure if changing your job or your lifestyle will make your life better or worse. You just know that now you are a living dead and you don't want to go on living like this. For some of you who have ever asked yourself , `Are there more to life than this?', `If I pursue my dream, will it turn out to be just an illusion?', you will find Solange as your kindred spirit. For some of you who have ever hoped someone else will help you change your life, this film might give you a good lesson.
Another thing that I like is that there are no real villains in this movie. Every main character shows both their good and bad sides. Every character here deserves sympathy though they have their own weaknesses and stupidity.
One of the most memorable scenes in this movie is a scene at the car park when Solange let out her long-suppressed anger and frustration. This scene is as powerful and deserves applauding as another car park scene in `Fried Green Tomatoes.' While the audience cannot release their pressure directly like this in real life, Vignon and Kathy Bates help us release it indirectly.
But my most favourite scene is the scene when Solange sit alone in the park. I feel connected to her the most in this scene, though I think it is too short. I wish this scene could be much longer, or could be inserted repeatedly into the story. I understand that scenes like this-character doing nothing-are not necessary at all in the narrative process. Scenes like this have no effect on the story, and including them will make those mainstream audience crying dull or bore and lessen the box office receipts. But for me, scenes like this are the ones that have the greatest emotional impact. I love this film very much, but I think I could have loved it more if it dared to discard `story' and gives higher priority to feelings and emotions of characters. (But if any director do as I wish, it's highly likely he will have great trouble seeking financial support for his next film.)
Eventually, I think Solange made the right decision at the end.
Apart from the acting, there are many other good things about this movie. One is that this heartfelt movie has given some audience the badly-needed encouragement and inspiration to pursue their dream and helped them to restore hope in life. Moreover, though this film focuses on the unreasonably unhappy feelings of a married woman, I find that I have experienced many same feelings, many same moments as this character. The feelings experienced by Solange are really universal. What this character feels is not only reserved for married women, but is also felt by many people no matter whether they are man or woman, married or single, western or oriental, simple people or great philosophers, living in the present or living thousands of years ago. For some people, it is very easy to identify with Solange because sometimes you can feel very unhappy, feel very bored with your life and you don't know exactly why. You don't know for sure which person or which thing is the real cause of your unhappiness. Things around you seem to go smoothly. People close to you are still nice to you. But you know deep inside you are unhappy. You don't know for sure if changing your job or your lifestyle will make your life better or worse. You just know that now you are a living dead and you don't want to go on living like this. For some of you who have ever asked yourself , `Are there more to life than this?', `If I pursue my dream, will it turn out to be just an illusion?', you will find Solange as your kindred spirit. For some of you who have ever hoped someone else will help you change your life, this film might give you a good lesson.
Another thing that I like is that there are no real villains in this movie. Every main character shows both their good and bad sides. Every character here deserves sympathy though they have their own weaknesses and stupidity.
One of the most memorable scenes in this movie is a scene at the car park when Solange let out her long-suppressed anger and frustration. This scene is as powerful and deserves applauding as another car park scene in `Fried Green Tomatoes.' While the audience cannot release their pressure directly like this in real life, Vignon and Kathy Bates help us release it indirectly.
But my most favourite scene is the scene when Solange sit alone in the park. I feel connected to her the most in this scene, though I think it is too short. I wish this scene could be much longer, or could be inserted repeatedly into the story. I understand that scenes like this-character doing nothing-are not necessary at all in the narrative process. Scenes like this have no effect on the story, and including them will make those mainstream audience crying dull or bore and lessen the box office receipts. But for me, scenes like this are the ones that have the greatest emotional impact. I love this film very much, but I think I could have loved it more if it dared to discard `story' and gives higher priority to feelings and emotions of characters. (But if any director do as I wish, it's highly likely he will have great trouble seeking financial support for his next film.)
Eventually, I think Solange made the right decision at the end.
The film is about lives of shopkeepers living on the same street. They were asked the same questions-When did they move here? How did each of them meet their spouse? What is their dream? The film also shows their daily lives-opening the shop, attending to customers, doing their jobs.
The person who impresses me the most in this film is the lady of the perfume shop, whose name I'm not sure if it's Marcele or not. She is really outstanding. She talks the least in this film. She smiles the least. But the expression on her face and her eyes are undescribable. By just being herself, she is mysterious. There's something about her which makes this film extraordinary. She seems to be the living proof of some facts of life. She is the opposite of the word `superficial.' And Varda seemed to realize that while filming. Varda let the camera focus on her many times. And everytime she's in the frame, there's something magical in the air. Moreover, that lady also provides one of the funniest scenes in this movie. But that scene is not only very funny, it also reflects an ironic truth of some people's lives. I don't know whether to laugh or cry for this scene. And I have to ask myself if my life is somehow similar to her.
The last part of the film touches me deeply and strongly. It's the part about their dreams. And the last sentence which Varda said plus the last image of the film somehow move me to tears, though it's not something sad at all. On the surface, the last scene is very ordinary. This scene would have no effect if it stands alone. But when it was put at the end of the film, this scene is emotionally and spiritually extraordinary.
Another interesting thing about this film is that it totally changes my feelings towards a photo. Before I saw this film, I'd seen its promotional photo-the picture of the bakery couples-and I felt nothing. It was just a photo of strangers. But after seeing the film, I look at the same photo again, and I am overwhelmed by some feelings. After you've learned about their lives and their dreams, after you have seen their smiles and observed their daily lives, they are not strangers any more. Looking at the same photo, I have the same feeling as I would have by opening my family albums and seeing photos of someone in my old neighborhood. The photo reminds me of their lives, and makes me wonder how they are now. This film really makes me wonder how lives on that street are now.
Last, but not least, I also like the technique of intercutting scenes of daily lives with scenes on the magician's stage. Varda seems to have a lot of fun connecting these scenes together by some amusing links-such as when both scenes refer to `losing head.' This clever juxtaposition of scenes create a lot of laughter among the audience. But I think the most important effect of this technique is that it makes the audience realize that our daily lives-our normal boring every day lives-indeed have some magic in it. This film has proved very well that ordinary people have so many interesting things to tell, and it also helps some of us to realize how magical life is.
The person who impresses me the most in this film is the lady of the perfume shop, whose name I'm not sure if it's Marcele or not. She is really outstanding. She talks the least in this film. She smiles the least. But the expression on her face and her eyes are undescribable. By just being herself, she is mysterious. There's something about her which makes this film extraordinary. She seems to be the living proof of some facts of life. She is the opposite of the word `superficial.' And Varda seemed to realize that while filming. Varda let the camera focus on her many times. And everytime she's in the frame, there's something magical in the air. Moreover, that lady also provides one of the funniest scenes in this movie. But that scene is not only very funny, it also reflects an ironic truth of some people's lives. I don't know whether to laugh or cry for this scene. And I have to ask myself if my life is somehow similar to her.
The last part of the film touches me deeply and strongly. It's the part about their dreams. And the last sentence which Varda said plus the last image of the film somehow move me to tears, though it's not something sad at all. On the surface, the last scene is very ordinary. This scene would have no effect if it stands alone. But when it was put at the end of the film, this scene is emotionally and spiritually extraordinary.
Another interesting thing about this film is that it totally changes my feelings towards a photo. Before I saw this film, I'd seen its promotional photo-the picture of the bakery couples-and I felt nothing. It was just a photo of strangers. But after seeing the film, I look at the same photo again, and I am overwhelmed by some feelings. After you've learned about their lives and their dreams, after you have seen their smiles and observed their daily lives, they are not strangers any more. Looking at the same photo, I have the same feeling as I would have by opening my family albums and seeing photos of someone in my old neighborhood. The photo reminds me of their lives, and makes me wonder how they are now. This film really makes me wonder how lives on that street are now.
Last, but not least, I also like the technique of intercutting scenes of daily lives with scenes on the magician's stage. Varda seems to have a lot of fun connecting these scenes together by some amusing links-such as when both scenes refer to `losing head.' This clever juxtaposition of scenes create a lot of laughter among the audience. But I think the most important effect of this technique is that it makes the audience realize that our daily lives-our normal boring every day lives-indeed have some magic in it. This film has proved very well that ordinary people have so many interesting things to tell, and it also helps some of us to realize how magical life is.
Gloria is a masterpiece, and shows that Manuela Viegas is a master of storytelling. This film is as great and impressive as 'L'Argent' by Robert Bresson, 'Charisma' by Kiyoshi Kurosawa and 'August in the Water' by Sogo Ishii. Being compared with these three films might help you get an idea about how excellent Gloria is. Unfortunately, Gloria seems to be underpraised compared to L'Argent and Charisma. This is surely an overlooked gem, and Manuela Viegas deserves much more recognition than this.
Actually I have to admit that I don't want to say much about this film, knowing that no matter how much I try to say, it cannot do justice to the virtues of this movie. And I feel that in order to fully appreciate this film, it might require multiple-viewing, but I had only one chance to see it, unluckily.
Gloria tells a story about the volatile relationships between 4 main characters. Ivan, a young boy, goes to live with Vicente, his father, in a deserted town. He becomes a friend of a young girl named Gloria, and the relationship between these characters gets more tangled up when Mauro, the brother of Vicente, appears in town.
While the plot seems so simple, I am reluctant to say what this movie is really about. The brochure says it is about `rite of passage' and `disappearing rural landscape', but it seems like it also concerns something else. Does it concern family trauma? Or growing up and learning to experience love, frustration, and disappointment? Or about the return to/departure from nature ? Or about some deep psychological aspects? It's up to each audience to find the answer for themselves. As for me, apart from the main theme, this movie also shows interesting observation on many things, including the irrepressible nature of adolescence, the tenderness of affection, the horror of jealousy, and the evil.
Another interesting thing in the story is the roles of landscape, water, river and nature, and their connections with some characters, particularly Gloria. These connections are beautifully emphasized in the later part of the film.
Another thing worth noticing in the story is that while the conflict between Vicente and Mauro is obvious, there might also be some hidden conflicts between Gloria and Vicente, and the meaning of these conflicts is worth thinking about. Both Vicente and Gloria have great influences on Ivan's life, but sometimes they are very opposite, especially in the way they treat animals, woods and Mauro. It should also be observed who picks up the umbrella after it was used as a weapon, and what the meaning of this carefully-structured scene is.
Story aside, I want to say I am very impressed by many scenes in this movie. From the beginning scene, I can feel that this is a work of a serious filmmaker. The beginning scene, similar to the following scenes, tells the story not by what you see, but by what you don't see. What is excluded is sometimes more important than what is included. It also happens to the promoting photo of this film. It's a picture of a child with the lower half of the face covered by an arm. Looking at this photo, I cannot guess what the expression on the face is. Similar style is used in this movie. Some images in this movie are not meant to show, but to conceal. From time to time, this movie does not tell the story directly. It just hints at the story. And that's what impresses me the most in this film.
Apart from the opening scene, the scenes that I like very much include the lingering shots of Vicente's injured hands, of discarded shoes, of sheets hanging, of Gloria walking, of the moving bed, of characters and windows, of dirty earth on human bodies, and above all, of the grasping of grass--refusing to let go. These images somehow strike at my heart. `Very beautiful' is an inadequate expression to describe these meaningful shots. Moreover, there are other shots in the film which are quite shocking, or full of suspense and tension. When Gloria is alone in some scenes, one can sense a presence of danger that might lurk out and harm her at anytime. Strangely, this danger is not only invisible, but sometimes it is also non-existent. This movie can effectively bring out fear and tension from inside the mind of the audience. It brings out fear from the audience's own thoughts, not from scaring the audience by some cheap tricks.
As for the shocking scenes, I think the most appalling ones are the ones about beating up, whether it is between children or adults. There are quite a few beating scenes in this film, and though the viewers cannot see the beating obviously, these scenes have quite stronger effects on my mind and are more disturbing than bloody beating scenes in other films. This might be because the obscurity somehow magnifies the horror of it, and also because what quite shocks is not really 'the act of beating', but 'the perpetrator of the act' and 'the impulse of the act.' Other scenes that shock me include the scenes that show the bizarre ways some characters treat each other.
For me, the most powerful scenes arrive near the end. During that part, I dare not blink my eyes. I feel every scene, every cut, every shot in that part is very essential, very important. I feel so thrilled and excited. I fear that if I close my eyes for just 1 minute, I might have missed an important clue. However, after the movie ends, I feel both puzzled and dazzled, thanks to the storytelling technique used in this film. And I think this technique is somehow similar to `fill-in-the-blank' questions in a test.
When I did my English exam, the 'fill-in-the-blank' section is usually the most difficult one on the test. There are no multiple choices to choose from. However, when it comes to movies, movies that leave blank spaces for viewers to fill in are usually the most fascinating and exciting ones for me. So why 'fill in the blanks' tests bring headache and 'fill in the blanks' movies bring enjoyment? It's maybe because for some movies, there are no definite answers for the blanks. All answers can be considered correct. Or it's maybe because you don't have to fill in the blanks at all. These blanks are there for the blankness and for any emotions or feelings which can be originated from the appropriately-placed blankness. There's no need to fill them in.
There are many gaps in the narrative process of Gloria especially in the final part, but with the brilliance of the director, these gaps somehow make the story transcendent, instead of disrupting the pleasure of the viewer. This movie has proved that by showing less, more meanings and feelings are conveyed. Silence, in Gloria, really speaks a thousand words. Moreover, by some magical power of the director/editor, this fill-in-the blank movie somehow fulfills me spiritually. It's a wonder. It's a drink of nectar. I feel so elated after seeing it, and have got two opposing feelings about it. This magnificent piece of art makes me feel so glad that I'm still alive and have a chance to see it, and if I had to die after seeing it, I would rest in peace. But at the same time, I also feel that I wouldn't actually rest in peace as I still yearn to see this movie again and again and still want to keep on living so that I might have a chance to see other films by Manuela Viegas. Such is the power of this movie.
Actually I have to admit that I don't want to say much about this film, knowing that no matter how much I try to say, it cannot do justice to the virtues of this movie. And I feel that in order to fully appreciate this film, it might require multiple-viewing, but I had only one chance to see it, unluckily.
Gloria tells a story about the volatile relationships between 4 main characters. Ivan, a young boy, goes to live with Vicente, his father, in a deserted town. He becomes a friend of a young girl named Gloria, and the relationship between these characters gets more tangled up when Mauro, the brother of Vicente, appears in town.
While the plot seems so simple, I am reluctant to say what this movie is really about. The brochure says it is about `rite of passage' and `disappearing rural landscape', but it seems like it also concerns something else. Does it concern family trauma? Or growing up and learning to experience love, frustration, and disappointment? Or about the return to/departure from nature ? Or about some deep psychological aspects? It's up to each audience to find the answer for themselves. As for me, apart from the main theme, this movie also shows interesting observation on many things, including the irrepressible nature of adolescence, the tenderness of affection, the horror of jealousy, and the evil.
Another interesting thing in the story is the roles of landscape, water, river and nature, and their connections with some characters, particularly Gloria. These connections are beautifully emphasized in the later part of the film.
Another thing worth noticing in the story is that while the conflict between Vicente and Mauro is obvious, there might also be some hidden conflicts between Gloria and Vicente, and the meaning of these conflicts is worth thinking about. Both Vicente and Gloria have great influences on Ivan's life, but sometimes they are very opposite, especially in the way they treat animals, woods and Mauro. It should also be observed who picks up the umbrella after it was used as a weapon, and what the meaning of this carefully-structured scene is.
Story aside, I want to say I am very impressed by many scenes in this movie. From the beginning scene, I can feel that this is a work of a serious filmmaker. The beginning scene, similar to the following scenes, tells the story not by what you see, but by what you don't see. What is excluded is sometimes more important than what is included. It also happens to the promoting photo of this film. It's a picture of a child with the lower half of the face covered by an arm. Looking at this photo, I cannot guess what the expression on the face is. Similar style is used in this movie. Some images in this movie are not meant to show, but to conceal. From time to time, this movie does not tell the story directly. It just hints at the story. And that's what impresses me the most in this film.
Apart from the opening scene, the scenes that I like very much include the lingering shots of Vicente's injured hands, of discarded shoes, of sheets hanging, of Gloria walking, of the moving bed, of characters and windows, of dirty earth on human bodies, and above all, of the grasping of grass--refusing to let go. These images somehow strike at my heart. `Very beautiful' is an inadequate expression to describe these meaningful shots. Moreover, there are other shots in the film which are quite shocking, or full of suspense and tension. When Gloria is alone in some scenes, one can sense a presence of danger that might lurk out and harm her at anytime. Strangely, this danger is not only invisible, but sometimes it is also non-existent. This movie can effectively bring out fear and tension from inside the mind of the audience. It brings out fear from the audience's own thoughts, not from scaring the audience by some cheap tricks.
As for the shocking scenes, I think the most appalling ones are the ones about beating up, whether it is between children or adults. There are quite a few beating scenes in this film, and though the viewers cannot see the beating obviously, these scenes have quite stronger effects on my mind and are more disturbing than bloody beating scenes in other films. This might be because the obscurity somehow magnifies the horror of it, and also because what quite shocks is not really 'the act of beating', but 'the perpetrator of the act' and 'the impulse of the act.' Other scenes that shock me include the scenes that show the bizarre ways some characters treat each other.
For me, the most powerful scenes arrive near the end. During that part, I dare not blink my eyes. I feel every scene, every cut, every shot in that part is very essential, very important. I feel so thrilled and excited. I fear that if I close my eyes for just 1 minute, I might have missed an important clue. However, after the movie ends, I feel both puzzled and dazzled, thanks to the storytelling technique used in this film. And I think this technique is somehow similar to `fill-in-the-blank' questions in a test.
When I did my English exam, the 'fill-in-the-blank' section is usually the most difficult one on the test. There are no multiple choices to choose from. However, when it comes to movies, movies that leave blank spaces for viewers to fill in are usually the most fascinating and exciting ones for me. So why 'fill in the blanks' tests bring headache and 'fill in the blanks' movies bring enjoyment? It's maybe because for some movies, there are no definite answers for the blanks. All answers can be considered correct. Or it's maybe because you don't have to fill in the blanks at all. These blanks are there for the blankness and for any emotions or feelings which can be originated from the appropriately-placed blankness. There's no need to fill them in.
There are many gaps in the narrative process of Gloria especially in the final part, but with the brilliance of the director, these gaps somehow make the story transcendent, instead of disrupting the pleasure of the viewer. This movie has proved that by showing less, more meanings and feelings are conveyed. Silence, in Gloria, really speaks a thousand words. Moreover, by some magical power of the director/editor, this fill-in-the blank movie somehow fulfills me spiritually. It's a wonder. It's a drink of nectar. I feel so elated after seeing it, and have got two opposing feelings about it. This magnificent piece of art makes me feel so glad that I'm still alive and have a chance to see it, and if I had to die after seeing it, I would rest in peace. But at the same time, I also feel that I wouldn't actually rest in peace as I still yearn to see this movie again and again and still want to keep on living so that I might have a chance to see other films by Manuela Viegas. Such is the power of this movie.
Though I like costume-period movies with lavish sets and all the extravaganza, I often wondered if the stories in those movies could be told in another way, if they could be told in a minimalist style, using shoestring budget, if the visual element of those movies really has to be breathtakingly beautiful and spectacular. Are there any other ways? I also wondered what the result would be like if one dared to take a different approach to tell the same story. After seeing `La fausse suivant' be Benoit Jacquot and `Theodor Hirneis,' I know I've found the answer, and I know I've found what I'm searching for. These two movies, the former presenting characters without sets, the latter presenting sets without characters, are as effective, funny, and entertaining as, if not more than, the best costume-period movies. `Theodor Hirneis' deserves a lot of praise not only because it represents the boldness of the director, not only because it is innovative, not only because it is `different', not only because it cost so little, but because it also has many other good things about it. I love many things in this movie, and what I'm writing here can represent only `a part' of its virtues.
I have to admit that I'm not familiar with `Syberberg' at all, so what's innovative in my point of view might be an old storytelling method used in many other movies that I've never seen. However, for me, this is the first time I encounter this method. This movie tells a story of a court cook under King Ludwig II based on the memoir of the cook. This memoir can be easily adapted to make a costume-period movie, but Syberberg didn't choose that way. He chose to have a narrator walking through many beautiful palaces in the present time, quoting the memoir and giving his own comments from time to time. All is said in monologue. Thus, this movie has both the feelings of seeing a documentary and reading a book at the same time, but it also gives so many other feelings.
One of the many good things about this movie is its humour. Because the memoir tells about the madness of King Ludwig, one can't help laughing a lot at his crazy activities, but still feels sympathy for his servants. Apart from this amusement which can also be achieved by a much-more-expensive costume-period movie, I am more impressed by what this movie can achieve, but costume-period movie can never achieve.
Though I can't understand 100 % of the English subtitles as I'm not a native English speaker, it is not difficult to follow the story of the cook and his King, and when can follow the story, one can see `the story' played out in his mind, in his own imagination. Thus, seeing this movie is like seeing two movies at the same time: one you see with your eyes, the other you envision in your mind. I have never experienced something like this before. How can the simplest technique in storytelling create something so extraordinary like this? A costume-period movie can only make me see or experience one movie, not two simultaneously.
For me, this kind of technique results in at least two great advantages that costume-period movies can never achieve. One is that you can see the differences between the movie you see and the movie you envision. Your eyes see the present, but your mind sees the past. Your eyes see the empty room, but your mind sees people in that room. Your eyes see a calm and peaceful atmosphere in the film, but your mind senses the turbulence, the tension, the fear, and the deadly mystery in the story. Your eyes see the smile and friendly attitude of the narrator, but your mind sees the madness of Ludwig and the sorrow state of people who had to work for him. This movie has proved that to tell effectively the absurdity of people who had too much power or money, you don't have to use much money. You can tell it by the cheapest way possible. However, this technique of contrasting the present and the past doesn't always make the audience feel bad for King Ludwig, because I think the contrast becomes most striking, the difference reaches its climax, when the narrator says,'Without the King, the magic is gone.'
The other advantage of this technique is that by letting the audience imagining by themselves, the audience have the same pleasure as they would have by reading the memoir. While most films don't give the audience a chance to imagine, this film provides plenty of chances, and seeing this film has become a unique experience of filmviewing--It's a liberation. While the film itself is a kind of liberation from the normal rules of filmmaking, the audience's power of imagination is also liberated. King Ludwig can look as handsome as you wish he could be; the food can look as delicious as you want it. What picture can satisfy you more than the picture in your own imagination? Everything you see in your mind corresponds to your desire. You don't have to complain about the lighting, the costumes, the faces of actors, as you'd probably do with costume-period movies. And the act of imagining also has some fun in itself. However, while I feel liberated seeing this film, I still feel the oppression of the King's servants at the same time.
Seeing this film somehow makes me feel like I want to compare films with food. While most films can be compared to 100%-ready food that the audience must consume it as it is, this film is like 50%-ready food. The filmmaker provides you the ingredients and invites you to help him cook (by envision another movie), and you have some fun already while cooking it. And because you cook it by yourself, the taste of the food will totally correspond to your taste (everything looks the way you want it to be in the movie you envision).
However, What I'm impressed the most in this film is some feelings I can't describe, something I can't explain. Apart from the feeling of liberation and the fun of imagining, at the same time I also feel as if this film gives me a warm and cosy place to rest. While most films make me feel as if I see a room full of many things, this film makes me feel as if I see a space, and this space welcomes me to go into it. Moreover, this film gives me pleasant, comfortable, and friendly feelings. Seeing this film makes me feel as if I just had a walk in a beautiful park with a friend - a friend who doesn't force me to think the way he wants. Hardly a film can make me feel as if it is a `friend.' I feel as if the task and role of filmmakers have been expanded by this film. The definition and realm of movies have been broadened. Film is not only a carrier of messages and themes. It can also be a friend of the audience, or maybe something more than a friend, something no word has yet been assigned to. And I don't know exactly where these feelings come from. Is it because it lets me imagine? Is it because of the smile and the characteristics of the narrator? Is it because of the story? I don't know which elements (ingredients) of this film (food) that makes me feel like this. Maybe it's because of the talent of the director--If food were film, he must be a real great cook.
I have to admit that I'm not familiar with `Syberberg' at all, so what's innovative in my point of view might be an old storytelling method used in many other movies that I've never seen. However, for me, this is the first time I encounter this method. This movie tells a story of a court cook under King Ludwig II based on the memoir of the cook. This memoir can be easily adapted to make a costume-period movie, but Syberberg didn't choose that way. He chose to have a narrator walking through many beautiful palaces in the present time, quoting the memoir and giving his own comments from time to time. All is said in monologue. Thus, this movie has both the feelings of seeing a documentary and reading a book at the same time, but it also gives so many other feelings.
One of the many good things about this movie is its humour. Because the memoir tells about the madness of King Ludwig, one can't help laughing a lot at his crazy activities, but still feels sympathy for his servants. Apart from this amusement which can also be achieved by a much-more-expensive costume-period movie, I am more impressed by what this movie can achieve, but costume-period movie can never achieve.
Though I can't understand 100 % of the English subtitles as I'm not a native English speaker, it is not difficult to follow the story of the cook and his King, and when can follow the story, one can see `the story' played out in his mind, in his own imagination. Thus, seeing this movie is like seeing two movies at the same time: one you see with your eyes, the other you envision in your mind. I have never experienced something like this before. How can the simplest technique in storytelling create something so extraordinary like this? A costume-period movie can only make me see or experience one movie, not two simultaneously.
For me, this kind of technique results in at least two great advantages that costume-period movies can never achieve. One is that you can see the differences between the movie you see and the movie you envision. Your eyes see the present, but your mind sees the past. Your eyes see the empty room, but your mind sees people in that room. Your eyes see a calm and peaceful atmosphere in the film, but your mind senses the turbulence, the tension, the fear, and the deadly mystery in the story. Your eyes see the smile and friendly attitude of the narrator, but your mind sees the madness of Ludwig and the sorrow state of people who had to work for him. This movie has proved that to tell effectively the absurdity of people who had too much power or money, you don't have to use much money. You can tell it by the cheapest way possible. However, this technique of contrasting the present and the past doesn't always make the audience feel bad for King Ludwig, because I think the contrast becomes most striking, the difference reaches its climax, when the narrator says,'Without the King, the magic is gone.'
The other advantage of this technique is that by letting the audience imagining by themselves, the audience have the same pleasure as they would have by reading the memoir. While most films don't give the audience a chance to imagine, this film provides plenty of chances, and seeing this film has become a unique experience of filmviewing--It's a liberation. While the film itself is a kind of liberation from the normal rules of filmmaking, the audience's power of imagination is also liberated. King Ludwig can look as handsome as you wish he could be; the food can look as delicious as you want it. What picture can satisfy you more than the picture in your own imagination? Everything you see in your mind corresponds to your desire. You don't have to complain about the lighting, the costumes, the faces of actors, as you'd probably do with costume-period movies. And the act of imagining also has some fun in itself. However, while I feel liberated seeing this film, I still feel the oppression of the King's servants at the same time.
Seeing this film somehow makes me feel like I want to compare films with food. While most films can be compared to 100%-ready food that the audience must consume it as it is, this film is like 50%-ready food. The filmmaker provides you the ingredients and invites you to help him cook (by envision another movie), and you have some fun already while cooking it. And because you cook it by yourself, the taste of the food will totally correspond to your taste (everything looks the way you want it to be in the movie you envision).
However, What I'm impressed the most in this film is some feelings I can't describe, something I can't explain. Apart from the feeling of liberation and the fun of imagining, at the same time I also feel as if this film gives me a warm and cosy place to rest. While most films make me feel as if I see a room full of many things, this film makes me feel as if I see a space, and this space welcomes me to go into it. Moreover, this film gives me pleasant, comfortable, and friendly feelings. Seeing this film makes me feel as if I just had a walk in a beautiful park with a friend - a friend who doesn't force me to think the way he wants. Hardly a film can make me feel as if it is a `friend.' I feel as if the task and role of filmmakers have been expanded by this film. The definition and realm of movies have been broadened. Film is not only a carrier of messages and themes. It can also be a friend of the audience, or maybe something more than a friend, something no word has yet been assigned to. And I don't know exactly where these feelings come from. Is it because it lets me imagine? Is it because of the smile and the characteristics of the narrator? Is it because of the story? I don't know which elements (ingredients) of this film (food) that makes me feel like this. Maybe it's because of the talent of the director--If food were film, he must be a real great cook.
After seeing this movie, my friend told me why he liked this movie so much. He said it was because the characters in this movie symbolized very well the situations of some countries. After he explained it to me, I came to realize that this movie has a skillfully-structured, multi-layered story. That's just one of many good things about this movie, because, more importantly, I think it also succeeds in another level. I said that because I had already loved this film wholeheartedly before I was told about the symbol systems in it. I think this movie represents very well the essence of feelings some people experienced in their childhood. The agony, the pain, and some undescribable feelings of the boy and the girl, especially during the second half of the film, really appeal to me. All these feelings of the characters bring back the memory of my childhood. I feel like I want to reach out my hands to the boy and the girl. I feel like I want to tell them that I once felt the same way too. I wonder how the director can successfully convey feelings like these to the audience. I really respect and admire this director. Moreover, I completely love the ending of this movie. I feel it is very appropriate to end like this. This movie is great in both the symbolic level and the emotional level. I hope I will have a chance to see other works of this director in the future. This movie has proved that Zoran Solomun has the potential to be the world master.
Though I have no knowledge about the political background of Germany during the Nazi era, and though I don't have any ideas about what "Cat and Mouse" stands for, I still think this film is truly great. What I like the most about this film is the techniques. There are many surreal scenes in this film. These surreal scenes, which contain some deep meanings unknown to me, are sometimes very funny, sometimes very haunting, and most of them are full of undescribable feelings. Many scenes are shocking, sad, nostalgic, and beautiful at the same time, especially the scenes when the characters are suddenly and amazingly transformed into deformed dolls. I feel like laughing everytime the cat appears, though I don't know why the cat has that effect on me. The scene when the boy is dancing on the ship is also outstanding. I wish this film or its director could be as famous as, if not more than, "The Tin Drum" or "If." "Cat and Mouse", while as sharply satirical as those two films, still has a profound effect on personal feelings. Though I don't know how well this film reflects the political, military, social, or historical issues, at least I know that, after seeing this movie, I looked at cats in a different way for some time.