Da Nuvem à Resistência

The first segment, I thought was awesome, with some great philosophical value in its dialogue and brilliant camera placement. A very odd film indeed, with a narrative of splendid originality. The actor(s) dialogue might appear akward but that is just Straub exploring the boundaries of cinematic expression.

The second segment I didnt get much from. I didnt see the director(s)'s showing parallels between the two - as clear as other reviewer supposedly have.

'From the Clouds to the Resistance' is definitely a new kind of movie for me and I'm looking forward to checking out more of the director's work.

This is truly one of the most careless and poorly made "films" I've ever seen. I use the word "film" loosely because it's basically just a bunch of people reading passages from two books by an Italian author. I can only surmise that the "directors" were moved by these books and wanted to bring them to life on the screen, but had no concept of how to do it. I do not believe for a second that they intended to make the movie this way. So what is it about?

Well, the first section is six sections from a book on classical mythology. Each scene is two actors speaking to each other while sitting or standing in various locations in the Italian countryside. The camera doesn't move at all except once in awhile to shift between speakers. Most of the "actors" speak in monotone voices while looking vaguely off camera. This is because they are very obviously reading their lines from cue cards or maybe even a book being held in front of them. Every scene is literally a static shot of two people dressed in ancient Roman garb walking together or sitting together reading scenes from this book on mythology. It's beyond boring even if you're into mythology which I'm not. The people who say this movie is great are doing so only because they think it's supposed to have some deep meaning and they don't want to be the one who didn't get it. There's no directing here!! At certain points the actors stop speaking and we watch them sit there or walk down the street for upwards of 30 seconds to a full minute which is a long time in a movie without any plot.

The second part of the film is also conversations between actors, but this time they're reciting from a book about how things have changed in Italy since the war. Some of the dialogue is interesting in terms of content, but I know I would have enjoyed it more had I been reading it myself. Instead we're forced to watch two men or a man and child sitting at an outdoor cafe just talking to one other. We have no real idea who they are and no reason to care about them. At certain points, the directors seem to give up trying to create something interesting on screen so the screen goes black while we listen to the actors finish reciting from the book. When we do see them, they all seem to be gazing at something offscreen (cue cards). Toward the end, the main actor gives up pretending he's not reading and we see him with glasses for the first time and he's looking down at his lap as he's speaking. Now we're watching a guy reading from a book without even the PRETENSE that he's learned his lines or that it's something organic. The clever "directors" think they're fooling the audience by not showing the book he's reading from. I would have respected them more if they would have acknowledged the book instead of trying to hide it. In between long conversations and two shots, we watch the actors walk or stare at them staring at each other. At a couple points in the film, several minutes elapsed where there was no dialogue or music and we were watching the backs of two men walk down a dirt road. The directors couldn't be bothered to build a tracking shot so we could walk in front of them and see their faces as they walked! Instead these lazy "artistes" just walked behind the two actors while we counted their hair follicles. This went on for over two minutes and was repeated several times in different iterations (standing, sitting, walking). Disgraceful.

There's nothing artistic about having unattractive people read from a book unless you're at a live poetry reading. I don't know why they didn't just make this into a radio program or some kind of audio art. This was not a movie in any sense of the word. I get that they must really love the author's work, but that doesn't mean they knew how to bring it to the screen. This was painful to sit through and very poorly directed. In fact I find it hard to believe that they even gave the actors any direction at all. Way too many amateur mistakes. I think they figured if they had people saying really deep philosophical things dressed in togas that nobody would notice how bad this was. The sad truth is that some critics actually bought into this thinking that it was so deep that it must be good. WRONG. Good movies should SHOW you, not TELL you. And good movies are there to ENTERTAIN. From the Clouds to the Resistance did neither of those things. If you can find this movie (it's a rather obscure one), just keep on moving. It's not worth an hour and 40 minutes of your life. You'd have a better time watching paint dry.

For a considerable period of time now, I had been hearing the name Straub-Huillet in this forum, a name that was every bit as foreign to my ears as it could be. I had never heard the name(s) before, and even as I decided to start my Straub-Huillet journey yesterday, I was a bit apprehensive, already unsure if I was in shape to tackle the density of their art. Well, I stand stunned after Dalla Nube alla Resistenza, and this delightful petrification is different in nature, even if slightly so, than my normal reaction to masterpieces. No, there is NO question that this is one of the greatest films I have watched in my life, but most definitely this film was made for me, and for every person interested in mythology. But that's just half of it, as the second segment tells a very real story, far apart from the six mythological conversations that make up the first one. The first segment is quite focused or various mythic tales and could be a pain for the non-interested, but if you are familiar, it is an experience that you can never forget. An ode to the medium itself, shot via long takes of sublime beauty and excellent camera placement, it is also a fitting tribute to the power of words, devoid of all tonal variation, another factor that understandably has led reviewers to call it 'talky' but take my word, it's some great talk! The second segment is about a veteran – 'The Bastard' - how WWII had changed lives and relationships. This one, too is shot with great simplicity, and it's almost like we are watching real people, listening to real conversations, actually witnessing the lifelessness within life; the conversations themselves are very interesting if you follow them, but of more enjoyment is how magically, in one stroke, Straub/Huillet manage to tell a story that stretches from creation to demolition, even if it took me a while to get to it.

As this movie ended – I found myself concluding that this was not for everyone but for the mythology nerds – but as I mulled over it, working my head, the magic of the film struck me – how it lazily forms a full circle – from the withdrawal of Gods from Earth, to the first accounts of superstition and bloodshed and then, finally, to the futility of the modern man's violence; it is absolutely brilliant. But yes, the amount of dialogue that flows in the 100 minutes could really put you off; I had to go back a lot of times, because in the maze of the excellent philosophical lines, I did lose a thread or two. But going back was a pleasure, and this is a fabulous must-watch, in my opinion.

This "film" equals 100 minutes of continual, fast, abstract dialogue. Most of the scenes are very long, near-static shots of single characters standing perfectly still, rambling on ad nauseum. There are several long stretches of just a black screen while the monologue drones on. Once or twice the viewer is treated to movement on screen (eg. characters walking while they converse).

I think they should've written a book instead. At least the reader would have a reasonable chance to decipher the point of it. The visuals add very little to the film.

Avoid unless you're on a quest to find the most pretentious film.