December 31, 2004
Kiarostami's *Taste of Cherry*
Despite the fantastic and variegate discussion we had about the characters, themes, and artistry in Abbas Kiarostami’s Taste of Cherry, we never came to a satisfactory approach to the ending, which I think all of us considered a mystery, and in addition, an unnecessary one at that. My first reaction was to think that Kiarostami was lifting the curtain, distancing or alienating the audience from emotional involvement in the movie. However, I recently read a review of the film by Jonathan Rosenbaum, film critic for the Chicago Reader, who sees the ending as achieving the exact opposite of my first impression:
'The most important thing about the joyful finale is that it's the precise opposite of a "distancing effect." It does invite us into the laboratory from which the film sprang and places us on an equal footing with the filmmaker, yet it does this in a spirit of collective euphoria, suddenly liberating us from the oppressive solitude and darkness of Badii alone in his grave. Shifting to the soldiers reminds us of the happiest part of Badii's life, and a tree in full bloom reminds us of the Turkish taxidermist's epiphany--though the soldiers also signify the wars that made both the Kurdish soldier and the Afghan seminarian refugees, and a tree is where the Turk almost hung himself. Kiarostami is representing life in all its rich complexity, reconfiguring elements from the preceding 80-odd minutes in video to clarify what's real and what's concocted. (The "army" is under Kiarostami's command, but it is Ershadi--an architect friend of the filmmaker in real life--who passes Kiarostami a cigarette.) Far from affirming that Taste of Cherry is "only" a movie, this wonderful ending is saying, among other things, that it's also a movie. And we don't have to remember all of the lyrics of "St. James Infirmary" to know that death is waiting for us around the corner.'
So in essence, Kiarostami with the ending plays the part of the compassionate taxidermist, telling us that that the point of the movie is less about this particular man’s affirmation of life, but more about our own shared affirmation. But that’s only one man’s opinion. Agree if you want, I’m still your friend. Disagree totally, I’ll be your friend, too.
-Robin Stewart
Posted by lyceum at 8:30 PM | Comments (0)
Colin Wilson's Mind Parasites
What a wonderful time we are having! Beginning with yesterday's book discussion group on Colin Wilson's "The Mind Parasites", I was excited to find the high level of acceptance that each of the eight group members demonstrated for what is often a uniquely different point of view from the others. As we are developing, I am often persuaded by another's perceptions to recognize a more refined truth in the books and films we explore. I wonder if we are perhaps like the group presented in the book: people of like mind with individual capabilities joining to enregetically defeat the Mind Parasites of despair, misunderstanding, insecurity and exhaustion.
For those of us who "rode the train" from the book discussion to La Madeleine to the movie discussion, we indulged in a spirited eight-hour discourse.
With our open membership format, it was interesting to see the same number of folks, yet a different mix, at last night's Iranian movie feature, "The Taste of Cherries". Being lovers of synchronicities, those of us on the longer train ride of course noted some similarity in themes of the book and the movie. Once again, I believe we have stumbled into our old friends, Free Will and Fate. In the Mind Parasites, suicide is fought against by an effort of will to develop the mind and seek a Higher Power. In the Taste of Cherries, suicide is surrendered to and left to Fate.
- Elaine
Posted by lyceum at 8:26 PM | Comments (0)
December 17, 2004
Taxi Driver discussion
What a great discussion we had on the film "Taxi Driver." Elaine called me this morning with more reflections and I told her I would open up this thread so she could make her insights known to the readers. I also hope Robin, Eric and Drew will comment on later ideas that might have come up about the film. I have been thinking about the historicial significance of this film: a time when America was adjusting to the trauma of the aftermath of the Vietnam War, massive unemployment and a real questioning of the American Dream. The movie questions the extent to which people can be both moral and free of social conventions and obligations. The freedoms promised in the 70's did not bring about a utopian society but created a sort of laissez-faire social condition which encouraged the "garbage" behaviors that Travis Bickle wanted to clean up. Travis was both without adequate social connections which could have mediated his delusions and a reflection of the split in that very society between the Puritan and the Libertine. David O
Posted by lyceum at 9:28 AM | Comments (3)
December 10, 2004
The "Gritty Realism" of Harmony Korine's *Gummo*
"Gritty realism." Why does *Gummo* seem gritty? Why does it seem "real"? Why does it seem to "capture experience" so well? Why is it shocking? Does it have a story (a beginning, middle, end)? Is there symbolism in the film, whether intended or unintended?
These are just some of the questions that came up in our discussion afterwards. A criticism of the film is that it has no resolution, which the filmmaker defiantly accepts. (It became clear to me after discussing the film that having no resolution is not the same as having no story, because *Gummo* definitely has a story.) Many expect resolution of filmmakers, though some - like filmmaker Peter Greenaway, and apparently Korine - believe that resolution and other trappings of plot machination actually lessen the capability of filmmaking. But if resolution is the typical "payoff" of most films, what is the payoff of a film like *Gummo*? I have ways I'd like to respond, but they're not well-defined.
In any case, it strikes me as interesting that "being grittily realistic" and "capturing experience" go so well with "lacking resolution." It's also interesting that filmmakers who don't give you resolution are so often accused of "trying to shock." (I haven't done a study on this correlation - I'm just following intuition.)
The film begins by making clear that Xenia is a small town which never quite recovered from a tornado. There was much devastation and loss of life. I didn't notice until my third viewing that there is little or no reference by any character to this horrible tornado and also little or no sign of tornado devastation in the town the characters live in. What's interesting is how you don't notice this.
And what's up with the bunny boy anyway?
- Drew
Posted by lyceum at 5:05 PM | Comments (3)
December 6, 2004
Thoughts on Carrington
Recently we screened, in conjunction with the New Orleans Psychoanalytic Institute, the film "Carrington." The reaction from the group seemed very positive as most folks were deply moved by the film. I certainly was. I was struck by our inquiry into the emotional health of Dora Carrington, who loved a number of men but was not able to feel comfortable committing to any of them in a marriage. Some of our group thought this was a deficit in her development - that she could only completely love the unattainable gay man, Lytton Strachey. Others saw her freedom to love whom ever and as long as she wished as a sign of personal strength, especially in Britian in 1916- 1931, when women's autonomy was just beginning to impact social life. I tend toward identifying more with this second position and believe this was the intention of the film makers. I believe she had a fully mature relationship with Lytton despite the implication that they did not share in the sexual aspects. Perhaps this is even up for debate. But her suicide, which was her testimony that a life without Lytton was not worth living, arouses questions as to whether she was not unduly and tragically tied to Lytton to the extent that she was unable to see any possiblities in her life after his death. I raise this question for the blog readers: does loving someone so much that to live without them is intolerable signify some kind of unheathy pathology, or is this the very archetype of the passionate life?
Posted by lyceum at 5:33 PM | Comments (1)
December 3, 2004
Eric Rohmer's La Collectionneuse (1967)
Info on the film: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/la_collectionneuse/about.php
David gave us a little teaser question to think about while watching the movie last night, it being a 60's film: Did the sexual revolution really change the relationships between the sexes? I don't know if we ever came out and said "yes" or "no" to this in the discussion that followed (which ranged in its considerations from Piagetian theory of child development, Swedenbourg's (sp?) moral analysis of existence in terms of light & dark, and, oh yeah, Rohmer's *La Collectionneuse*), but it did seem we could agree that, after the pill and better treatment for STD's, the sex lives of women changed drastically and suddenly in the 60's.
That is, young women were *exploring* their sexuality, something their mothers and their mothers and theirs never did or did at a higher social cost. When asked what she "wanted" in her sexual meanderings from man to man, the central female character in the film, Haydee, said she was "searching" - epitomizing, it seemed, the young woman of the 60's. The main male characters in the film, Adrien & Daniel, seemed unable to handle that. It took them out of their detached search for the simple life on a small estate in rural France. Their desire and resentment of Haydee shattered the existential nothingness they seemed to be pursuing. Out of spite, they disparagingly called her a "collector" of men (oh, and "slut").
There's more to say about all that, but, regarding sexual revolutions, it occurred to me as we talked that I don't really believe the sexual revolution has ended. Many of us are still pondering the basic problem of sexual freedom, except now we have the 60's to look back on as a lesson of what doesn't work in sexual relationships (or any relationships for that matter): chaos. Now there's greater acceptance that some structure will be involved in sexual relationships and for good reasons. But this doesn't mean blind acceptance of the old structures.
In any case, I say all that to indicate why the movie made sense to me, because I feel like I'm still gnawing on the sex and gender problematic that came out of the 60's.
- Drew
(See the film series list at www.lyceumproject.com/eventsmain.html. Note: Next week is Harmony Korine's *Gummo*, NOT: Andrei Tarkovsky's *Andrei Rublev*, which is a bit long.)
Posted by lyceum at 8:37 AM | Comments (0)