Tag: Director: Varda

  • Calls to Conscience and Action

    Calls to Conscience and Action

    Jeffrey Overstreet, who’s writing a book about his experiences as a film critic in/to Evangelical America, has posed the question, “What would you show in a film festival about ‘Calls to Conscience and Action’?” Specifically, he’s looking for “works of art that make us want to put our hands to the plow.”

    Frankly, his question makes me uncomfortable. I say that, in part, because I’m having trouble coming up with one or two specific titles (a topic I’ll come back to later) but mostly because it’s been so long since my hand last touched a plow, metaphorical or otherwise. I’m more the “righteous indignation” type — the guy who carefully positions himself above the fray while the “Red States,” on the one side, react against liberal America’s progressive agendas, and the “Hollywood Elite,” on the other, try to decide which is the bigger evil: racism, homophobia, or, um, Joe McCarthy. I prefer to strike the pose of the humanist aesthete, sniping soldiers on both sides from the satisfied comfort of my expensive home theater. It’s so much easier than, you know, doing something. (Have you ever tried to plow? That shit is hard.)

    Sarcasm aside, I’ll admit to feeling a bit shamed by Jeffrey’s question. That it would arise from a book project addressed to Evangelical readers should come as little surprise. Whatever frustrations I feel toward that world’s cultural and ideological assumptions are always tempered by my genuine love and respect for so many people who have found their spiritual home there. Color me ambivalent. When, a few years ago, I suggested to some friends that we temporarily set aside our Bibles and study art instead, I first had to convince them that the questions we’d been trained to ask would remain essentially unchanged: What does this text (whether Scripture, a painting, or a film) teach us about truth, beauty, and grace? What aspects of God’s character are revealed here? And how do we apply these lessons to our daily lives? Say what you will about Evangelical America’s failure to meet Christ’s standards (and I’ve said more than my share), but that question of application — of putting hand to plow — is more prominent there than in any other American sub-culture I’ve inhabited.

    And so it pains me to review my life as a critic (for lack of a better word) and find so little evidence of my faith/politics/aesthetics translated into practical action. Maybe this hypocrisy (too strong?) is partly to blame for the ferocity of the public debate surrounding the Oscars this year. High-minded talk, whether from the Right or the Left, divorced from sympathy and service will inevitably come off as smug.

    I’m deliberately overstating the case here. Of course my sense of the world, of right action, of human tragedy and grace have been radically transformed by an immersion in the arts. At the heart of the matter, I think, is the simple idea of empathy. (Slacktivist, by the way, has written two great posts on the subject this week.) I wonder, for example, how I would view the war in Iraq if, instead of watching regional, humanist filmmakers like Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf, and Majidi, I was learning about righteous vengeance, sadism, and “freedom” from Hollywood. The creative imagination, as expressed through great art, can be an empathy-making wonder. Christ, after all, was a prophet and a storyteller.

    But to answer Jeffrey’s question: If offered the chance to program a “Calls to Conscience and Action” festival, my opening night film would be The Gleaners and I (2000), Agnes Varda’s documentary about the long-standing tradition of gathering up leftover crops (“gleaning”) after the fields have been harvested. Varda, as much an essayist as filmmaker, explores gleaning as a hypertext of ideas: gleaning is an alternate economy; at times it’s a moral choice, at others a lamentable necessity; it’s both transgressive and communal; and, finally, it’s a metaphor for the artistic process itself. As Jonathon Rosenbaum points out, Varda expresses the ambiguities of gleaning even in the title of the film, though her point is lost in translation:

    There’s a suggestive discrepancy between the French and English titles of this wonderful essay film completed by Agnes Varda last year. It’s a distinction that tells us something about the French sense of community and the Anglo-American sense of individuality — concepts that are virtually built into the two languages. Les glaneurs et la glaneuse can be roughly translated as “the gleaners and the female gleaner,” with the plural noun masculine only in the sense that all French nouns are either masculine or feminine. The Gleaners and I sets up an implicit opposition between “people who glean” and the filmmaker, whereas Les glaneurs et la glaneuse links them, asserting that she’s one of them.

    Regardless of what would follow on the festival program, The Gleaners and I would properly frame the central question of conscience and action, making it a matter of community (or, to satisfy the pomo Christians in the audience, we could call it “kingdom” instead) and foregrounding art as an underutilized means of consciousness-raising, community-building, and (dare I say it) worship.

    I would also program The Gleaners and I for personal reasons. For a large number of viewers, the most memorable sequences in the film involve a young man who, despite having earned a Masters degree in Biology, has chosen to glean his food from a Paris market and to live in a shelter, side-by-side with the newly-arrived immigrants to whom he voluntarily teaches French most nights of the week. I can’t imagine that I would have become an English as a Second Language teacher myself had I not first met so many non-Americans through the literatures and cinema of their countries. My ESL work is as close as I’ve come, I suppose, to pushing a plow, though that metaphor distorts the actual experience. It implies calloused hands, sweat, and sacrifice.

  • Film Trip

    Film Trip

    I spent the weekend in Annapolis with my folks. By coincidence, I was there while the Annapolis Chorale was staging Richard Einhorn’s Voices of Light, accompanied by a stunning 35 mm print of The Passion of Joan of Arc. Passion live was quite an experience. I would guess that there were about 400 in attendance, which was a pleasant surprise. Nice to see the arts supported so strongly in my old home town.

    I think that Einhorn’s score, while beautiful in its own right, is occasionally a bit too much for Dreyer’s film. There are several scenes, particularly near the end, that work better in silence. But, all in all, it was really well done. The four soloists were exceptional — all were visitors, I think, from the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore — and the Annapolis Chorale was more than up to the challenge. My only gripe was with the first cellist, who muffed a few of his solos.

    The 35mm print was better than I had expected. I felt like I was watching the Criterion disc. Seeing it with an audience was really interesting, though. I could feel some resistance at first — particularly from the moron sitting beside me, who tried to entertain his girlfriend by mocking Dreyer’s more stylized images — but for the last twenty minutes, many in the crowd were literally pitched forward in their seats. The best measure of its power, though, was the relative silence of the audience as they filed out of the auditorium. My parents and I were in the car, pulling out of the parking lot, before we said anything.

    An hour before the program, the chorale director gave a short lecture on the film and score. Not much new to share, but he did add something to the story of the mysterious print that was discovered in an asylum. Apparently the print was found with a short printed program that included a brief plot synopsis and cast list. They think that one of the doctors in residence may have been a film buff who requested prints for occasional public viewings, a la Bazin’s cine-clubs. If so, I can certainly understand why he would have stored away a copy of Passion for himself.

    On Saturday, I delivered my Dumont paper to a small but enthusiastic group at the South Atlantic Modern Language Association conference. The other papers were really interesting. The first used Varda as a test case for the possibility of contemporary auteur studies. It included clips from her first film, La Pointe Courte (1956), which looks fascinating — a transition piece from Neo-Realism to New Wave. The presenter, Richard Neupert from U of Georgia, said that he met Varda recently and reported that she is presently involved in restoring her own films and is very enthusiastic about DVD. Hopefully more of her catalog is on the way.

    The other paper was delivered by a Master’s student in the film studies program at Emory, who spoke about American marketing of European filmmakers during the last decade and a half. I wasn’t too interested in her test case, Amelie, but I was surprised to learn that my enthusiasm for foreign films can be attributed, at least in part, to the Weinsteins. She analyzed Miramax’s marketing campaigns for films like Delicatessen and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, Her Lover, which were the very films that piqued my interest in the late-80s, early-90s. Her conclusion was that, right now, the only foreign films that stand a chance in American markets are those that already conform to American conventions — films that can be pitched as “feel good” instead of “risky” or “provocative,” which remained the model even only ten years ago. We all sat around and chatted afterwards and wondered if DVD has completely changed the distribution channels. Folks like Dumont and the Dardennes find their audiences in homes instead of at the theater.

  • Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

    Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

    Dir. by Agnès Varda

    Images: Constant movement, both of the camera and of objects and people within the frame (for instance, the rocking chair and swing in Cleo’s otherwise minimalist apartment). Jump cuts, though not used so frequently as in Godard. Long, overhead shots of Cleo as she wanders through the park (think Antoine and his classmates in 400 Blows). And, perhaps most importantly, the stares of passer-bys on Paris streets. As the camera assumes Cleo’s subjective perception, we, the audience, feel the eyes of men on us.

    • • •

    Cleo (Corrinne Marchand) is a beautiful, spoiled, self-obsessed pop singer. As the film opens, she is having her fortune told by a tarot reader, who is startled to discover death and cancer in the singer’s immediate future. Cleo is quite upset, as she is waiting to meet with a doctor to discuss the results of a medical examination. The remainder of the 90 minute film chronicles Cleo’s afternoon, from the time that she leaves the tarot reader until her appointment at the hospital two hours later. We see her return home to her fashionably minimalist apartment, where she tends her kittens, does her exercises, and meets with her songwriters. Exasperated by the jokes of her friends and by her own worries, she sets off alone through the streets, cafes, and parks of Paris, running errands with a friend and meeting a young soldier, Antoine, who is to ship off for the battlefields of Algeria on the following morning.

    Cléo de 5 à 7 is very much a film about perception — about looking and being looked at, and the warped sensibilities formed when worth is based solely on appearances. In that sense, it also seems to be very much a woman’s film (and one ripe for the Laura Mulvey treatment). This is most obvious in several scenes when Cleo is walking through crowded streets. Vardas cuts constantly to Cleo’s POV, using documentary-like footage of faces turning their eyes toward the camera. As a male viewer raised on the voyeuristic thrills of male filmmakers, it’s a disconcerting experience — feeling all of those eyes on me. The implication is that such an existence has disfigured Cleo’s self-image and stunted her emotional development. Vardas contrasts Cleo’s superficiality with the level-headed confidence of her friend Dorothee, a nude model who finds joy and satisfaction in her body, but not pride.

    The end of Cléo de 5 à 7 has some very effective moments, but suffers from a too tidy conclusion. While walking through a park, Cleo meets Antoine, a soldier who puts a human face on the war in Algiers, a conflict that is acknowledged throughout the film through radio reportsand overheard conversations. My favorite moment occurs when he accompanies Cleo to her scheduled appointment. As they ride a trolley across town, Antoine pulls a flower from a passing truck and places it in Cleo’s hair. Vardas lingers on the image, allowing 20 or 30 seconds of silence between the actors, their two faces framed tightly in close-up. There’s an awkward (but very charming) embarrassment between them. It’s a great example of what the New Wave directors have done best: capturing honest and instantly identifiable images. I think I would find the film more satisfying had it ended there. But in the final scenes, when Cleo learns that she is ill but will recover with a few months’ treatment, Vardas too neatly resolves a plot that is secondary to the film’s larger concern. My frustration is that Cleo, a woman whose worth has been formed by the opinions of the men around her, seems to have only found redemption through Antoine, another man. Perhaps a minor quibble, but one that leaves me less than satisfied.