Tag: A&F

  • By Brakhage

    By Brakhage

    Another capsule review for the Arts & Faith Top 100. Writing a brief introduction to Brakhage for an audience that might not even be aware of the existence of a-g cinema proved to be a really fun challenge.

    “When film subverts our absorption in the temporal and reveals the depths of our own reality, it opens us to a fuller sense of ourselves and our world. It is alive as a devotional form.”
    —Nathaniel Dorsky, Devotional Cinema

    “If I had a friend who wanted me to teach him how to look at films, I’d begin with a couple of months’ worth of Brakhage.”
    —Fred Camper

    If asked to describe Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers”, most of us would say something like, “It’s a fairly simple painting of flowers arranged in a pot. It’s not especially realistic looking. It’s very two-dimensional. There are no shadows, no depth. Nearly the entire canvas is yellow, and you can clearly see Van Gogh’s brush strokes.” If asked to describe Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane, most of us would probably begin with, “It’s a movie about a man who inherited great wealth as a child and went on to become a publishing giant and a failed politician. The movie begins with his dying word, ‘Rosebud,’ and then we spend the next two hours watching his entire life play out before us, all in hopes of discovering why that word was so significant to him.”

    The differences between the two answers are revealing. Even those of us with little to no training in art feel relatively comfortable attempting to describe a painting’s form: the size of the canvas, its use of color, the composition of elements within the frame, the artist’s technique. Moving images (film, television, video), however, are especially well-equipped to tell stories, which is why when we talk about them we tend to describe what they’re about rather than what they are. The narrative drive is strong in us humans. When engrossed by a story, we have a knack for tuning out everything else, including film form—composition, editing, focal length, shot duration, color palette, lighting, etc.

    This is part of what the avant-garde filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky is referring to in the quote above when he talks about our “absorption in the temporal.” When we “escape” into a movie or TV show, we become inert and inattentive, which has troubling moral consequences. One goal of avant-garde cinema (also referred to as experimental or critical cinema) is to subvert that tendency, to provoke (in the best sense of the word) audiences to become conscious of the act of watching. Doing so, as Dorsky argues, has the potential to make film a devotional art on par with those already long established in parts of the church: music, architecture, glasswork, painting, sculpture, iconography, dance, and drama.

    Including By Brakhage on a list of Top 100 films is a bit like naming an anthology of Shakespeare’s tragedies one of the Great Books: doing so requires some bending of the rules for qualification, and, still, neither collection fully represents the astounding achievements of its author. By Brakhage is neither a film nor a unified series of films like some others on our list: Krystof Kieslowski’s The Decalogue (#2) and Three Colors Trilogy (#15) or Satyajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy (#17). Rather, it’s an anthology of 56 films (out of the 350-400 that Stan Brakhage completed) curated by the Criterion Collection that spans a half century, from one of Brakhage’s earliest short works, Desistfilm (1954), to his last, Chinese Series (2003). They range from nine seconds long (Eve Myth, 1967) to 74 minutes (Dog Star Man, 1961-‘64). There are silent films and sound films, black-and-white and color, documentary-like photographed films, collages constructed from multiple superimpositions, hand-painted films, and films made without the use of a camera whatsoever. In the words of Fred Camper: “More often, a single film will seem to be most or all of the above.” Stan Brakhage is unquestionably the most important filmmaker in the long and fascinating history of avant-garde cinema, and his inclusion in the Top 100 (along with Meshes of the Afternoon [1943] by one of his mentors, Maya Deren) is an important critical statement by the Arts and Faith voters. The avant-garde is not only a legitimate type of spiritual cinema; it’s essential, and it’s been too often overlooked.

    Brakhage first picked up a camera in the early 1950s while a student, and many of his earliest movies reflect the small, independent film movement of the day. Like his contemporaries Deren and Kenneth Anger, Brakhage borrowed occasionally from the formal techniques of an earlier generation of European Surrealists, including Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Man Ray, and Marcel Duchamp. Desistfilm, for example, uses quick, handheld, side-to-side camera movements (pans) that leave faces in tight, blurry, and off-axis closeups. The editing of the film is non-linear (there’s no particular story being told here) and is designed to create a disorienting rhythm in its cuts. What distinguished Brakhage in the ’50s and continued to be a hallmark of his work is that it is deeply intimate and personal. Window Water Baby Moving (1959), which is a kind of ode to the birth of his first child, is an especially beautiful instance of this quality.

    By the end of the 1950s, Brakhage was already moving toward greater abstraction. Mothlight (1963) is a good starting point when exploring these films. Rather than loading film into a camera and exposing it one frame at a time, Brakhage collected moth wings and bits of grass and leaves and assembled them by hand using tape, which he then ran through a film printer. When projected at 24 frames per second, the light passing through the wings creates a kind of dancing kaleidoscope. Viewers of Mothlight are made suddenly aware of the mechanics of film, as we can finally see and understand how a long strip of film moves rhythmically through the gears of a projector. But it’s also a jaw-dropping defamiliarization (“Make it new!” the poet Ezra Pound was fond of saying) of natural beauty. In 2010, Criterion released an expanded edition of By Brakhage on Blu-Ray, which now allows us to see with crystal, hi-definition clarity the attention Brakhage paid to each individual frame of his hand-made films.

    Brakhage’s interest in hand-made films continued throughout his life, and, indeed, one portion of the last stage of his career was devoted almost entirely to painting directly onto film, a technique he’d first experimented with in the early 1960s (see his early masterpiece, Dog Star Man). It’s these films (The Dante Quartet [1987] is a standout example), perhaps more than any others in the anthology, that go the furthest in expanding the borders of what we typically conceive of as a “movie.” In one of the features on the DVD, Brakhage quotes that famous line from Walter Pater, “All art aspires to the condition of music.” In other words, all art would like to bypass the intellect and reach, as Brakhage himself writes, that “non-verbal, non-symbolic, non-numerical” thinking that enables us to experience “the un-nameable or the ineffable.” This isn’t pseudo-hippy rambling. The only limits on film as an art form are those we put on it as consumers. If we expect nothing more from the film-going experience than “escape” and “mindless entertainment,” then there are plenty of studios eager to sell us their products. But, as By Brakhage demonstrates—and demonstrates better than any other DVD on the market—film’s potential as a devotional art is boundless.

  • The Apu Trilogy (1955, 1956, 1959)

    The Apu Trilogy (1955, 1956, 1959)

    Dir. by Satyajit Ray

    Another capsule review for the Arts & Faith Top 100.

    Between 1955 and 1991, Indian director Satyajit Ray made more than thirty feature films, but he’s best remembered in the West for the “Apu trilogy,” which launched his career. Pather Panchali (1955), Aparajito (1956), and Apur Sansar (1959) are based on the novels of Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhya and follow their hero, Apu, from his impoverished childhood in a small Bengali village through early adulthood, when he becomes a novelist, husband, and father. Together, the films constitute one of the cinema’s true masterpieces, a work of Dostoyevskian richness-of-detail and emotional complexity.

    After studying art in college, Ray worked as an illustrator in the advertising industry while also pursuing his amateur interest in film. In the late 1940s he established a film society in Calcutta, and in 1950 he determined to make a small, intimate film of his own, one like those he’d seen on a recent trip to Europe. Of particular influence on Ray were the Italian Neo-Realists, who took their cameras out of the decimated studios and filmed, instead, using natural light in the rubble-strewn streets of post-war Rome. Two of these films are included in the Top 100: Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves (1948) at #28 and Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Open City (1945) at #80.

    Apu doesn’t make his first appearance until twenty minutes into Pather Panchali. Instead, Ray introduces viewers to day-to-day life around the boy’s home: his older sister Durga tends her kittens and steals fruit from a neighboring orchard for her aged “auntie”; his long-suffering mother cooks and cares for her family; his underemployed father daydreams of becoming a great priest and poet. When we do finally meet Apu, it’s an iconic image: Durga wakes him by pulling back a sheet, revealing first just one wide eye before exposing his full, smiling face, all amid a flourish of music from Ravi Shankar (Pather Panchali launched Shankar’s career in the West as well). Over the next five hours, we watch as Apu grows into a promising student, leaves home to live in Calcutta, suffers tragedy, and experiences great joy, all captured by Ray’s curious and compassionate camera. There are frequent moments of jaw-dropping cinematic beauty throughout the trilogy, but Ray is no showman or grandstander here. In these particular films he stays true to the Neo-Realist spirit, privileging the mundane details of life over big-budget splendor and artifice.

    The “Apu trilogy” is also notable for introducing Western audiences to Indian cinema. In the 1950s, Ray, Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu, Ingmar Bergman, Rossellini, and, later, Francois Truffautt, Jean-Luc Godard, and Eric Rohmer were among a group of now-canonized foreign filmmakers who received wide distribution of their work in the United States. Many of these directors are represented in the Top 100. Ozu’s Tokyo Story (1953) at #21 is an especially good pairing with Aparajito, the second of the Apu films. The Neo-Realist line that runs through the Italians and Ray extends all the way to contemporary filmmakers in the top 100 like Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, Abbas Kiarostami, Jia Zhang-ke, and Lee Isaac Chung.

  • Vivre sa vie (1961)

    Vivre sa vie (1961)

    Dir. by Jean-luc Godard

    I’ve been an occasional participant in the Arts & Faith discussion forum for nearly a decade. They recently polled members to determine a Top 100 film list, and the results are notable. In previous incarnations, we used the vague criterion, “spiritually significant,” to determine what did and did not belong on the list. This time out there were no explicit guidelines. Members nominated several hundred films, we voted, and, in my opinion, we came up with a damn fine list. We then volunteered to write blurbs for the Top 100. This is one of my contributions, which is intended for a general reader who is willing to take some risks while exploring the list.

    My Life to Live (1961) opens with a series of closeups of Nana (Anna Karina)—her left profile, her face straight on, her right profile, and then, in the first dramatic scene of the film, a two-minute shot of the back of her head, as she breaks up with a boyfriend in a busy Parisian cafe. The sequence of portraits anticipates much of what will follow, both thematically and stylistically. Subtitled “A Film in Twelve Scenes,” My Life to Live presents a dozen moments in Nana’s life, with few clues as to how much time has passed between them and with little of the exposition or psychologizing one typically finds in a narrative feature film. Jean-Luc Godard, who directed and co-wrote the film, has little interest in traditional notions of storytelling. Rather, his goal is simply to observe a particular woman’s fall into prostitution, experimenting with the tools of cinema as the Naturalist writers of the late-nineteenth century had done with language. (Nana could be a character from Emile Zola, Theodore Dreiser, or Frank Norris.)

    My Life to Live is Godard’s third feature-length film, following Breathless (1960) and A Woman is a Woman (1961). The former is Godard’s elliptical take on the “lovers on the run” genre of American movies he often championed as a young critic at Cahiers du Cinema, the magazine around which the French New Wave was formed, and the latter is his ode to Technicolor American musicals of the Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen, and Vincent Minelli variety. My Life to Live is likewise dedicated to “B Movies” and reflects Godard’s genuine admiration for the “fallen woman” stories that have always been a staple of low-budget American filmmaking. However, while most B movies sentimentalize and/or exploit the subject matter, Godard reveals little of his own attitude about Nana and, as a result, complicates our viewing experience. His camera tracks slowly from side to side, occasionally peering through windows at the world of opportunity and freedom unavailable to Nana, but he almost always remains at a critical distance. Nana is worthy of our admiration and our pity, desperate and trapped in a world outside of her own making.

    Godard has had a long career—his latest feature, Film Socialisme, premiered at the Cannes film festival in 2010—and is among a small handful of the most important figures in all of film history. My Life to Live is by most accounts the masterpiece of the first phase of his filmography, roughly from Breathless to Pierrot le Fou (1965), during which he completed an astounding ten features, all of them quite good, before moving into a more politically radical mode of filmmaking. One of his later films, In Praise of Love (2001), came in at #94 on the Top 100, and it’s also worth noting that the #4 film on the Arts and Faith list, Carl Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc, features prominently in My Life to Live. In the film’s most memorable scene, Nana steps into a theater to watch Dryer’s film, and Godard cuts between tear-streaked closeups of Falconetti’s Joan and Karina’s Nana. It’s a beautiful and typically sticky moment from Godard, as it simultaneously celebrates the cinema, echoes the mugshot-like portraits that opened the film, and draws revealing parallels between these two very different women.

  • Five Spiritually Significant Films

    Five Spiritually Significant Films

    The fine folks at the Arts and Faith discussion forum have cast their votes, crunched the numbers, and released their second annual list of the Top 100 Spiritually Significant Films. I’ve been an on-again, off-again participant at the forum for several years now and was excited to check my virtual ballot. The results, I have to say, are pretty darned impressive.

    I’m especially glad that the main criterion was left intentionally vague. In the weeks leading up to the votes, there was some debate over the precise meaning of “spiritually significant,” but the only consensus reached was that there was little chance of us reaching any kind of consensus, and that that was probably for the best. It brings me great satisfaction (and even a bit of hope) to know that a group consisting largely of American evangelical Christians would include The Gospel According the Matthew, Ikiru, Stalker, and Sunrise among the Top 20.

    In honor of their fine work, I offer my own obvious and predictable Top 5 list:

    My Top Five Spiritually Significant Films

    5. Through a Glass Darkly (Bergman, 1961) — A few years ago I would have gone with the more obvious choice, Winter Light, but Through a Glass Darkly, I think, is the most potent and concentrated expression of Bergman’s agnostic horror. I still think the final scene is a bit out of tune with the rest of the film, but David’s speech to Minus isn’t what we remember, right? It’s Karin’s final lines and that image of her putting on her sunglasses. Devastating.

    4. The Son (The Dardennes, 2002) — I’ve been told that Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne are more interested in the Old Testament than the New. The Son is like a story from Genesis, like Abraham and Isaac. It makes all of those Christian catchwords like “grace” and “vengeance” and “Father” suddenly as strange and ambiguous as the world I live in.

    3. Diary of a Country Priest (Bresson, 1951) — Again, a few years ago I probably would have gone with Au Hasard Balthazar (and I might change my mind tomorrow), but for now the story of this well-intentioned priest is, for me, the more “spiritually significant” of the two. It’s the final scenes that get me. Every time.

    2. Andrei Rublev (Tarkovsky, 1969) — Any of Tarkovsky’s film would fit comfortably in this spot, but I chose Rublev because it is actually about an Orthodox icon painter, and what most moves me in his films is their icon-like mysticism. At the end of the day, Tarkovsky’s film are about artistic creation, but the truecreative act here is always committed in a spirit of idealized surrender and sacrifice.

    1. Ordet (Dreyer, 1955) — I’m a Christian by faith, not just by name or birth or culture, and faith is utterly irrational. I can’t recall at the moment who said it, but I agree that “Ordet is the only filmed miracle.”