Meeuwen sterven in de haven

Seen as the first artistic Belgian film A film containing Dutch (Flemish and even more specific an Antwerp dialect), German, French and English, you cannot get more Belgian than this on a language level.

1955 was the year the French, German, English and Italian national film production had resurrected and this was infectious for neighbouring European countries, even those were no film culture had resided. Belgium is a special case (as it is in many, if not most, aspects) for Seagulls Die in the Harbour is the "first artistic endeavour in the art of film in Flanders and even Belgium" (Erik Martens, head of division 'verspreiding filmcultuur' VAF, 2015) and after it, Belgium had to wait eleven years, until The Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short for a film to reach the same standards.

There was no government funding for Seagulls Die in the Harbour, Bruno De Winter had to search for sponsors, who had an impact on the esthetics of the film as they demanded Antwerp and its harbour to be shown in all its glory. This is most present in the flashback, as various famous (maybe I am not the best judge, as I grew up in Antwerp) touristic landmarks are shown. The absence of a government system subsidising Flemish film production is the major cause of the complete dearth of quality films between 1955 and 1966.

Of the three directors Rik Kuypers was the most able to handle a camera, and even he was just an amateur, Ivo Michiels and Roland Verhavert had been film journalists up to that point. The binding factor of these three men was their cinefilia, which is reflected in the esthetic of the film; Meeuwen sterven in de haven (Seagulls Die in the Harbour) possesses a film-noir, expressionistic atmosphere, reminiscent to The Third Man.

The film handles a sensitive subject for most Flemish in the post-war era, namely the sense of guilt felt by the Flemish nationalists and even sympathisants, as the Flemish nationalist party had collaborated with the Third Reich in hope to acquire independence. It would last until the seventies before Flemish nationalism recovered from that fatal blow, but even today people still easily use the word 'fascist' when they speak about the NV-A (the new Flemish Nationalist party).

The protagonist in the film, played by Julien Schoenaerts (yes, he is the father of that one Belgian actor), has a strong sense of nostalgia and melancholy to the times before the war, before the people were physically, but more so mentally destroyed. He cannot live in a country were everyone despises him. This sense of shame is a motive in the works of all the three directors, all held Flemish nationalist ideologies.

The relation between Gigi (the girl of six years old) and the protagonist has only one function, to convince the audience that he has a heart of gold an is in fact a 'good' guy. It would go to far as to purely describe it as an act of revisionism, but it does play a factor.

Yet, for all the importance of this film, historically, esthetically and symbolically, purely as film it is not great. Most of the actors had only acted on stage before, the three directors all made their debut with this film and the film suffers from identity crisis in its effort to portray the beautiful side of Antwerp to please the sponsors, display the shame of the Flemish nationalist and the fact that he in fact is not bad.

The benefit of this identity crisis is the room for different interpretations, as can be seen by the success Seagulls Die in the Harbour attained in Russia; communist could read the role of the American liberators as the primary force of all consequences in the film and anti-communist saw a protagonist rebelling against his government.

Because of this it is likely that more Russian have seen the film than Belgians, because even we almost never care for Belgian films, then and now.

Meeuwen sterven in de haven (1955) was one of the first - if not the first - cosmopolitan motion pictures in Flemish film history. Set in the post-World War II harbour city of Antwerp, this existentialist drama portrays the problematic quest of a tormented tramp (Julien Schoenaerts) searching for salvation. As he pieces together the jigsaw of his calamitous past - due to traumatic war experiences - there are only three people to morally support him in facing the inconvenient present: a six-year-old orphan, a mysterious skipper's wife (Tine Balder) and a concerned prostitute (Dora van der Groen).

Notwithstanding the admirable efforts of the directing triumvirate (Rik Kuypers, Ivo Michiels and Roland Verhavert) to depict their personages in a semi-poetical realism, playing with images, exposure, montage and music, the characters at times find themselves lost in a maze of social sublimation, clairvoyant dialogue, superficial avant-garde and naïve, cultivated conformism. But considered in its historical context, this picture is a step that had to be taken in paving the way for more level-headed Belgian cinematography.

Or, why not, some kind of Jacques Prevert's touch,as the films from the late thirties starring Jean Gabin and Michelle Morgan. I hesitate between the two, maybe more the thirties genre. It is gloomy but beautiful, touching and very well acted. I am glad to have seen it. But it is very daring for Netflix to distribute, show this kind of films that maybe 0,1 % of the young generation of Netflix buffs will watch. The ending will make many of us thunk about ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW and WHITE HEAT.

I saw this film 45 years ago in Leningrad, my home town back in the Soviet Union. I was 17 at the time and belonged to a generation which produced rich crop of Russian dissidents later on. The film instantly became a cult movie among ambitious high school graduates and university students. I was one of them. We would go, sometime in groups, to any movie theater within 50 miles radius where the movie was playing to watch it over and over.

The movie was striking in its sharp black and white cinematographic form, its penetrating haunting sound track and above all in its mood which conveyed a sense of unrecoverable loss, and piercing feeling of loneliness.

Given what we knew of our own history and destiny, the film crystallized our feelings in purest artistic form. But the film also mesmerized us artistically and made us to want to watch it again and again if only to confirm that we did not dream it up. My age, the period, and the place where I discovered the film could have colored my perception. I would be the last person to insist on objectivity (who would?). But I wish I could watch it again now, 45 years later in the USA. I would rent or buy the film at the first opportunity.

P.S. Today is July 26 2009 and I've finally got my very own copy of 'Seagulls". My copy happened to be the very same Russified version which run in Russia in the days of my youth. I am pleased to report that I liked the film just as much as 50 years ago.