Akira Kurosawa, François Truffaut and Satyajit Ray

[1SO]

Immediately afterwards I saw the new trailer for Beyond the Black Rainbow. That film is probably going to suck, but it's much more my type of cinema than Pather Panchali.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.  Do you only like one "type" of cinema?  I know you don't.  I don't really understand the 3 stars either.  My understanding is that 3 stars is a pretty high rating for you and yet your review seems to indicate that you didn't enjoy it very much.

I don't believe anyone likes one "type" of cinema. We all like good movies, and good movies can come from anywhere. Cinema can be looked at and broken down from all sorts of intriguing angles, and still there are films that there will be exceptions to every analysis. For purposes here I am referring to how much the filmmaker creates reality for the camera, how much it is heightened and how much it is stylized.

All films start from a base of realism.

"The camera is truth at 24 frames per second." - Jean-Luc Godard
"The camera lies 24 times per second.” - Brian DePalma

Then there is the filmmakers intention. How much are they trying to capture truth and how much are they trying to manipulate it. Take a look at my Top 100 and you'll find the heightened reality of The Godfather, Die Hard, Goodfellas and the complete cinematic fantasy of Brazil, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Perhaps the best example for this post is #16, United 93. Here's a recreation of real events, played out in nearly real time with documentary style camerawork. Yet, that camerawork and editing is extremely stylized, as much as in my #7, City of God, which is also based in reality.

Notice there are no documentaries in my Top 100, and no neo-realism. While I can enjoy both types of films - Ramin Bahrani is one of my favorite directors working today - they're not the kind of films I treasure and seek out. My favorite director is Sergio Leone, who never filmed an unadorned moment in his entire career. I love that about him.

This is where I bring the discussion back to Pather Panchali, and before you say it I'm going to get ahead of myself. I understand that Ray has fictionalized drama in his film. Melodrama in fact during the last 10 minutes. There's an off-handed remark that leads to an edit to a close-up of a particular item that leads to a planned emotional breakdown. Ravi Shankar contributes a memorable score that helps nudge audience emotions. Apu's final act for his sister was great and the final shot is one of my favorites in the film. So even here there is a definite amount of heightening to the realism.

However, what I take away from Pather Panchali in general is a peek into another world and spending time here, as if on a trip. The constant milling and laundry and dealing with the Aunt. The family pride and their harsh day-to-day activities. All of this is presented very well, and that is why I give the film 3 stars. It's a good film with some great moments. In your megathread you write "The film is not plotless, although it is more a series of episodes than a straight point A to point B story." If you have to point out to someone that the film is not plotless, there probably isn't a whole lot going on.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Of course not. That's thinking in absolutes.
Is it something that will make me like the film less? Again not a certainty. I just watched Satantango and Loved It! But in this case with this film, I respected it and I had to admit it was well-done. If someone was to watch Pather Panchali, they would be watching a good movie. But, I did not embrace it to where I'm encouraging others to check it out.

[MartinTeller]

I'm running through Ray's filmography in my mind, and I can't think of one as loose as PP in terms of narrative.  Kanchenjungha, Days and Nights in the Forest and Pratidwandi are somewhat meandering, but in general his films have a clear, solid "point A to point B" throughline.

[1SO]

That's good to know. I was expecting the rest of the trilogy to be similar.

[MartinTeller]

That's good to know. I was expecting the rest of the trilogy to be similar.

Aparajito a little bit, Apur Sansar even less so.

[1SO]

Marathon Update

Sanshiro Sugata

I thought Kurosawa was being swift and brief with his debut, bringing it in under 80 minutes. Instead, there are rather important chunks of drama missing. It's explained through title cards, but this feels like an incomplete film. The main female character is affected the most. It seems her most important stuff didn't make the cut, and what's left doesn't stand on its own.

Despite the butchering and a rather simplistic script, the film is not a loss. Some directing decisions are pretty amazing. There's an opening fight on the edge of the sea that's filmed as a series of pans. Each one stops on an interesting frame and each stop elevates the tension little by little. As someone who's been watching a lot of formal Japanese filmmaking (most of which has been great) the film is a definite break from the norm. There's a new grittier style at play. It's the Japanese version of Mean Streets. Like Brando in On the Waterfront, there is a new less formal approach at work here.

It doesn't all work. You always hear of a fight being like a dance, so Kurosawa stages one major face-off like a waltz. The two fighters grip each other and move back and forth. The edits are a series of dissolves. It ends up looking silly, though it passes once the fight begins.

I wondered how long it would take before Takashi Shimura appeared in a Kurosawa. Turned out he was on board from the start. With thinning hair and a large moustache, he looked physically wrong for the part, but considering the other tough guy is dressed like a dandy, maybe Kurosawa was trying to break from typical fighter expectations. Besides, I'm good with any excuse to watch Shimura act, and he has a great scene after the fight that brings a lot of humanity to what is mostly a paint-by-numbers judo film.
RATING: * * *

[Antares]

I wondered how long it would take before Takashi Shimura appeared in a Kurosawa. Turned out he was on board from the start. With thinning hair and a large moustache, he looked physically wrong for the part, but considering the other tough guy is dressed like a dandy, maybe Kurosawa was trying to break from typical fighter expectations. Besides, I'm good with any excuse to watch Shimura act, and he has a great scene after the fight that brings a lot of humanity to what is mostly a paint-by-numbers judo film.

My favorite actor of all time. I haven't seen the first five Kurosawa films yet, so I'm curious as to your statement about Shimura's physical appearance not being right for the part. It sounds like he plays a similar role in Seven Samurai, and he was completely believable in that role.

[MartinTeller]

I like part two a little more, the first one didn't thrill me much (although I didn't hate it or anything).  It certainly would be nice to see the lost footage, you have to wonder how much more it would have fleshed out rather simplistic story & characters.

[jbissell]

Just noticed this marathon and I'll be very interested in following along, especially since I watched a handful of Ray a few months back (about which I still need to post some thoughts) and you're hitting some Kurosawa that I have also not yet seen.

[1SO]

My favorite actor of all time. I haven't seen the first five Kurosawa films yet, so I'm curious as to your statement about Shimura's physical appearance not being right for the part. It sounds like he plays a similar role in Seven Samurai, and he was completely believable in that role.

Here he's much more of a tough guy out to prove his might. He basically steps forward and brags that he's the one who can put this rising star in his place. You look at him thinking "you?" In Seven Samurai, there's a humility and a wisdom to his character that better fits the age.

It's going to be hard not to rewatch Seven Samurai at some point during the marathon.


@MartinTeller. I was trying to line up the three filmmakers evenly so I planned on skipping over Part 2, because I never hear mention of it. I might watch it while waiting for Aparajito (which is proving to be difficult to track down.) I agree about the missing material. It seemed to contain the best bits of drama.


@jbissell. Glad you found the marathon. Tell your friends. There's lots of great projects going on over here.
Maybe when I post on some of the Ray films you watched you can post your thoughts at that time.

[1SO]

Marathon Update

Jules and Jim
To be frank with you she's not especially beautiful, intelligent nor sincere but she's a real woman.
And she is the woman we love and all men desire.
Why did Catherine, so sought after, offer us both the gift of her presence?
Because we gave her our full attention, as if to a queen.

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl existed long before Zooey Deschanel came into the world. Examples can be found throughout cinema history, but I think the birth of the modern incarnation of that moniker - which includes a heavy streak of self-destructive darkness - starts right here with Jeanne Moreau. Moreau's Catherine injects life, infatuation, a little mystery and a great deal of confusion into the lives of Jules and Jim. At turns she is a lover, a wife, a friend, a child, a lady of refinement. A force of good and a force of not so good. Truffaut presents her as someone who wishes to be independent of men, while also unable to live without them. She needs to be placed on a pedestal. They are drawn to her like moths to a flame and she is drawn towards finding her own happiness above the happiness of others.

This is my 2nd run at Jules and Jim. The first time I was mixed by Truffaut's direction. Hyperactive in moments, but quite leisurely overall, it wears you down. Both times I needed a break from how much content and technique there is to take in. This time, the experimentation definitely feels like the filmmaker who made Shoot the Piano Player, but the characters are far richer, and able to support the experimentation.

The acting and writing are aiming for romantic comedy's highest level of complexity and difficulty, which is where this film leaps past something like (500) Days of Summer. For the record, I do enjoy both films. This one is a more sophisticated blend, but 500 Days is easier to watch and speaks to me personally. My biggest problem here is with Moreau, who has the kind of face that often looks about 20 years older than it is. I'm glad Jules says that she's not "especially beautiful" because mixed with her character's prickly personality I just don't find her to be worth all this trouble. It's clear that while Catherine is very selfish, Truffaut doesn't condemn her for it. In fact he adores her, and Moreau's look is certainly a deliberate choice or else Truffaut could've cast someone like Brigitte Bardot. I can see myself being drawn towards the flame of Summer Finn, but I'm immune to Catherine's charms.
RATING: * * * 1/2

[MartinTeller]

I remember being a bit shocked by what I perceived as a generally low opinion of J&J around here, so I'm pleased to see this.

It's a film I desperately need to see again, and probably will in the near future as part of my "dusting off DVDs" project.  I haven't seen it since 2005.  The first time I gave it an 8, which I bumped up a few days later to a 9.  Second time I gave it a 9 again.  And yet somehow it crept to #19 on my top 100.  I like it being in my top 100, but top 20?  Maybe the movie has lingered so much in my memory (certain parts of it keep coming back to me... perhaps a testament to its influence) that it seems grander than it really was.

It would be completely wrong to cast a Brigitte Bardot type.  Catherine doesn't draw you in just because you want to CINECAST! her.  She's a force of nature, a mysterious allure. 

[Antares]

My biggest problem here is with Moreau, who has the kind of face that often looks about 20 years older than it is. I'm glad Jules says that she's not "especially beautiful" because mixed with her character's prickly personality I just don't find her to be worth all this trouble. It's clear that while Catherine is very selfish, Truffaut doesn't condemn her for it. In fact he adores her, and Moreau's look is certainly a deliberate choice or else Truffaut could've cast someone like Brigitte Bardot. I can see myself being drawn towards the flame of Summer Finn, but I'm immune to Catherine's charms.

Once again, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. As you can see by my avatar, Jeanne Moreau is one of my favorites. Have you ever watched Elevator to the Gallows? If you have, and you still feel this way towards her, then you will never change that perspective on her. You mention that she always looks twenty years old than she is. Well, does she look 54 in that picture from the film you posted above? Because she was 34 when she made Jules et Jim. You mention Bardot, well, check out this picture of Moreau and Bardot from a publicity still from the 1965 film Viva Maria!.





Bardot was only six years younger than Moreau, and to me, it looks about that much in that picture. There is no way that you could say that Moreau looks like she's 57 in that image, which would be 20+ years added to her actual age at the time. Also, if you really look at both of them, you can see a lot more eye make up on Bardot, while Moreau has only enough to accent her eyelashes. To me, Moreau was more the natural beauty as opposed to Bardot, who seemed a little manufactured at times.

It would be completely wrong to cast a Brigitte Bardot type.  Catherine doesn't draw you in just because you want to CINECAST! her.  She's a force of nature, a mysterious allure. 

This captures my sentiments completely

[1SO]

I didn't want my opinion of Moreau to come across as purely a physical assessment. The line I quoted points out that the appeal of Catherine is not solely tied to her physical appearance. There are plenty of women I don't think are beautiful but that exude qualities I find irresistible. (How many times have I gone on about Barabra Stanwyck.) I could probably do a long list of women who fit that quote. Bardot doesn't fit that quote. The problem is I don't think Moreau fits it either. Of course this is a matter of opinion, but these kind of films don't work when the viewer, when I, don't find the person desirable.

I watched Elevator to the Gallows last fall and found the lengthy shots of Moreau wandering around the streets at night uninteresting. Like you said Antares, I don't think this will ever change for me. After watching Jules and Jim I looked up Moreau and found many Viva Maria photos of her and Bardot in matching outfits. I feel like they were going for something similar to the Hayek/Cruz pairing from Bandidas, but Moreau is just outclassed in every way except perhaps talent. (And that's not something you can get from a photo of two women in showgirl outfits.)

I went wildly overboard by saying Moreau looks 20 years older, but there is something about her eyes, a world-weariness, that ages her for me. That photo I used from Jules and Jim, she looks late 40s to me. In that Viva Maria pic, look at the eyes. She just seems significantly older than Bardot. It's not a mysterious allure.  It's a weariness.

[1SO]

Marathon Update

The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail

So this is what it takes to get Akira Kurosawa to make a bad movie. Tiger's Tail is like Lars Von Trier gave Kurosawa five obstructions.

1. A very thin, stagy play
2. Cheap sets
3. Takashi Shimura is in a very small part
4. Songs
5. The guy in the photo on the left

I now know hands down the very worst performance ever in a Kurosawa film. Kenichi Enomoto is the Jar Jar Binks of this picture. The same shameless, unfunny mugging. Distractingly bad in every frame. Only Enomoto is worse because he has the most camera time and the surrounding film might have had a chance without him. Kurosawa does his best to overcome the other four obstructions, but that last one does this film in.

At the heart of Tiger's Tail is an interesting moral drama asking how far would you go to keep someone safe. In the film's center (the only part of the picture that has any drama) the lead is asked to prove to a guard post that they are benign priests. The film builds tension not towards a fight, but towards our heroes escaping. A fight would mean the probable death of them all. So they must play out their deception all the way, no matter what the cost. This part is pretty good.

For Kurosawa completists the film is a bit reminiscent of The Hidden Fortress and some of the shots walking through the forest feel like a warm-up to Rashomon. The final sky is beautiful, but that's really all you get here. No matter how hard I try to forget, the terrible mugging of Enomoto is how I will remember The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail.
RATING: * 1/2

[MartinTeller]

I don't disagree about Enomoto (or the cheap sets, but I chalk that up to wartime budget constraints) but I managed to enjoy it despite him.  To a degree, anyway... probably the equivalent of your 2.5 stars.  I rather liked the use of songs.

[flieger]

"Jerry Lewis in The Big Mouth elucidates the gag -- the affinities between Kabuki and the clown’s art." - Croce.

Sounds amazing.

[sdedalus]

Jeez.  You could at least bother to spell the title correctly.

[1SO]

Thanks. Fixed it.

Kinda funny.

[1SO]

Marathon Update

Aparajito

One thing clear from my DOS Marathon is that I latch onto some directors right away. After two Satyajit Ray films I find the world of Apu to be a combination of banal neo-realism and overplayed melodrama. There's a window into another world, which has a certain amount of interest. Within that world is a mother-son relationship that reminds me of my own relationship with my mother during college. However, the film is light on dialogue, light on visual storytelling and doesn't have a clear idea of where it's headed until about halfway in. I was checking the clock a lot.

That all sounds like a bitter pill, but there is a lot that's good here including some moments where I felt Ray showed a stronger grasp of cinema than before and did things that lived up to the hype. A scene early on involving birds, or rather a smash cut to birds flying, is very effective, creating an emotional connection to human events that reminded me of Malick or Bela Tarr. This is matched by an equally good scene towards the end involving fireflies.

I liked Apu's thirst for knowledge, something you hardly ever see in movies in any realistic sense. As for the mom, well I could recommend seeing this film just for Karuna Banerji's performance. She's got a tremendously expressive face and while in some moments where she lays on the mother's loneliness too thick, I'd say she deserves a CINECAST!ing Academy Award for the complicated relationship she develops here. Apu realizes he means everything to her, but he can't allow that to control his life. If you come down against Apu and think he's being insensitive, I understand. However, the mom is essentially asking for her son not to live his own life. (This also feels very Ozu.) In order to live, you have to hurt parents you love and who love you more than anything.

I didn't just separate Satyajit Ray from my Directors of Shame Marathon because he's such undiscovered country for me. I knew it would be impossible to get a sense of him as a filmmaker after just a couple of movies. His legacy is rich enough that I expected - like John Ford, Ingmar Bergman or Mike Leigh - it would take a marathon of films before I could comfortably grasp his artistry. So don't be put off by my mixed rating. These things take time, and I suspect The Apu Trilogy will fare better once I have a more complete picture of Satyajit Ray.
RATING: * * 1/2

[MartinTeller]

FWIW, Aparajito is my least favorite of the trilogy (and IIRC, Ray himself had some problems with it).  I personally think Ray is a little hard on Apu in it.

But it is utterly Karuna Banerjee's film.  It may be called "the Apu trilogy" but it's more accurate to say it's the "Durga/Sarbojaya/Apu trilogy".