The River

"The River" is a welcoming film, as if it's greeting you with open arms at the very beginning. It's a warm glowing film filled with life, color, and a vibrant world. "The River" is a film that flows humbly and peacefully along, a quaint little slice of life that in its own way is perfect.

"The River" was directed by Jean Renoir and it is perhaps his most beautiful looking film ever made, possibly the most beautiful looking one in technicolor anyway. The story was a passion project for Renoir, he had obtained the rights of the novel, which was wrtiten by Rumer Godden, and held onto it for many years. His hopes for the film languished for two years until he was able to find financing from a novice producer named Kenneth McEldowney. He filmed it on location in India, where he was able to gather rich images of the life there, a whole culture which inhabits the world of "The River".

The story is told through the eyes of a young English girl named Harriet (Patricia Walters), she lives near the Bengal River with her large family. We are introduced to Harriet's mother, father, her siblings, and her little brother Bogey. But the story also involves two other girls, they are Valerie (Adrienne Corri) another English girl slightly older than Harriet, and Melanie (Radha), an girl of mixed blood, who's mother was hindu, and her father is English.

A new man comes to live in Bengal, an American named Capt. John (Thomas E. Breen), he was a soldier in the war, who's one leg was amputated. The three girls Harriet, Valerie, and Melanie all see Captain John, and in some way or another fall in love with him. Harriet is the youngest of the three, and probably the most romantic, she sees herself as an ugly duckling who wants desperately to become a swan. During a festival dance, Harriet becomes jealous when she sees Captain John pay more attention to Valerie. However he is also drawn to Melanie, who he seems more comfortable to confide in. Melanie is of mixed race and doesn't know where she fits in, she has an Indian suitor and it would be customary in the culture for her to marry him, however she is conflicted. Captain John is an outsider as well since he lost his leg, we find out he is proud, and hides away from anyone's pity; he wonders not knowing quite where he belongs, some of the most painful moments in the film come from the harsh reminder that Captain John has a handicap.

For Harriet however, she is too young to understand this, for her, Captain John is her first love, and although he feelings probably seem childish, Renoir makes it plain that they mean the world to her. She herself confides in Captain John, and shows her the little cubbie in her house that is her escape. She writes poetry and shows them to him, she opens herself up, but of course he is much too old to think of her as anything but sweet. She sees him spend more and more time with Valerie, which makes her bitter, a little while later, she along with Melanie see Captain John and Valerie kiss. "That was my first kiss", says Harriet, "but received by another".

Despite the innocence of a first love, there are darker illusions throughout the film as well, and by the end, we do experience a very tragic death which strikes very close to home for Harriet, and she will have to do some growing up.

The time line of "The River" takes place through one year in the life of this English family in India, but it feels almost like an endless summer day. The film is bathed in beautiful warm light, and there is always a feeling of rebirth in the air. Renoir was the son of the great painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir who's art was full of vivid portraits of people, I would call them slices of life. With this film, it almost seems like Renoir is trying to duplicate his fathers' work, the way he composes his people, and how he captures the gentle humanity in each of their faces.

As with most cases, Renoir had trouble getting this film off the ground. The master filmmaker had made his two masterpieces "Grand Illusion" and "Rules of the Game" in the late thirties, but by the time he made "The River" in 1951, he was no longer considered a bankable director. The film was supposed to be Renoir's first major Hollywood production but contained a rather small budget and didn't go so smoothly with his inexperienced Producer at the helm. However Renoir persevered and insisted on shooting in India, his cast had to consist of unknowns due to budget constraints, and in some cases had to cast non-actors in some of the prominent roles. However none of this is noticeable in the finished film, it's an organic and natural experience.

"The River" is a very serene film, it doesn't bother with trying to be over dramatic, it's more interested in the nature of life and how it rolls along and keeps going. The film begins and ends with the river and how it keeps moving throughout the years, it's an ongoing circle. Nothing is quite resolved at the end of the film, there is no sense of finality, it simply ends with a new beginning, everything starts over. There is a scene in the film that does illustrate this idea; Harriet is telling a story to Valerie and Captain John, when she is finished the story, she asks "How do you spell conclusion?" Captain John replies "Why don't you just say the end?" to which Valerie replies "Because it isn't the end, it starts all over again." That's what this film is all about, life and how it keeps going despite the changes it encounters.

Pickpocket

The thing I remember most about "Pickpocket" is the faces; I watch it and become convinced that an interesting face is all you need in a film, the rest is all filler. The protagonist of the film is Michel (Martin La Salle), he doesn't do much with his face, it's there, but he's not meant to emote. He's left mostly as a mechanical presence, we are denied a real performance, a direct link of empathy, yet the face remains fascinating.

In the film, Michel plays a pickpocket, he lives alone in a small apartment, filled only the a few necessities. Michel is obsessed with becoming a pickpocket, while he's alone he tries out different maneuvers, he uses the post of his bed to practice taking a watch off the wrist of men's hands, he uses a suit to see if he can take out a wallet with a newspaper undetected. It is implied that Michel is probably suitable to have a regular job, and live a non-criminal life, but he chooses to remain a pickpocket. Later he falls into a gang of pickpockets who teach him new tricks, and together they pull off more elaborate crimes. Michel, who narrates the story says he doesn't become close with these men, they only talk of the next crime, and different pickpocket techniques.

Michel does have a life outside his crime one, he has a mother whom we are told is sick, she is dying. She is cared for by her saintly neighbor Jeanne (Marika Green), a young girl who who becomes prominent in Michel's life, she in fact becomes his one saving grace and his only chance for redemption. At first Michel chooses not to see his mother, it's never spelled out for us as to why he doesn't, to his friend it seems like a selfish act, but when he's questioned about his love for her, he answers "I love her more than myself".

Michel is an example of emotional detachment, he's alone in the world, he feels no emotion and we get the sense the only time he does feel alive is when he is stealing. There's a moment early on in the film where Michel is at the racetrack, he's close around a large crowd of people. We see a close-up of his hand as it moves through a man's jacket, Michel's face remains neutral yet there is the feeling of anticipation, and danger, of being alive. When Michel is close to obtaining the man's wallet, there is a small slight movement in his face, maybe a blink of the eyes, or an opening of the mouth, it's small but it's there. We can sense that pure exhilaration in Michel as he commits his crime, and suddenly he becomes less mechanical and more of an individual.

"Pickpocket" is the special kind of film, in that it doesn't act like a usual one, it was directed by the great french filmmaker Robert Bresson, who many people consider to be very spiritual and philosophical in his films. In the criterion version, filmmaker, and critic Paul Schrader, who does the introduction describes Bresson as being a rather perverse director, but it's only in the way he uses filmmaking not in the usual sense. Bresson plays with the audience expectation of what film is supposed to convey, there is not empathy or emotion in the conventional sense, Bresson takes this away by using non-actors. The actors are not meant to give a performance, they don't react, Bresson doesn't even give them the luxury of a close-up. With "Pickpocket", this technique becomes very useful to the story and transcends the film into something much more meaningful.

It's the face of Michel that we remember, it says nothing, and does nothing, he looks bored, lifeless, it's as if his whole being has been sucked away; it becomes easy to identify with him being someone who steals just for the shear thrill of being alive. The only close-ups Bresson does give us are the hands of the pickpockets as they move rhythmically, and seductively through various people's jackets, it becomes a very erotic thing. The most thrilling sequence comes through a montage of thefts while at a train station, Michel and his cohorts steal from various people while the camera shows off their skills, it's a thing of beauty all edited together seamlessly. Bresson is capturing the poetry and the elegance of the art of the pickpocket, and it's here where I felt direct empathy with Michel, he must feel the excitement of it all as we do, which is why he does it.

"Pickpocket" becomes this story about how one can carry on a life of crime without any remorse or regret, Bresson asks the question but he doesn't have an answer for us. What he does have is a chance of redemption for Michel which comes with the presence of Jeanne, and the films most famous scene is in the finale where the two are united, it's a burst of emotion that isn't seen in the film other than when Michel is stealing. Yet Bresson doesn't push the fact, he still holds back, there are gestures of affection but they are refrained from any melodrama.

It's difficult to peg a director like Bresson, he seems to transcend all sorts of types you would associate with a filmmaker. His films don't seem to fall in the category of theatrical or realism, they work on a different plain. With "Pickpocket" Bresson is tackling feelings that are very internal which film is not commonly known for conveying very well, but it's what makes his films unique. "Pickpocket" seems to make an argument that films can use images to express the inexpressible, it's ironic then that Bresson is able to accomplish this by wiping away any type of emotionon a person's face. What we are left with is what we can only conjure on our own, Bresson gives us the images, we take them in, we respond to them truthfully, it's a unique film experience that shows us a new way to interpret things.

"Pickpocket" is the same kind of film like Ozu's "Tokyo Story" that came to me with a new idea on how films should be made. I think I was tired by most of what I was seeing, but here came a new way of filmmaking, by not telling us exactly how we should feel, but just letting us make up our minds, "Pickpocket" is brave enough to leave what is only necessary and let us fill in the blanks.

Some Comments about The Avengers and Super Hero movies in general.

I have not lost all hope for Super Hero movies, but they are starting to annoy me a bit. Despite popular opinion by fans of the genre (yes it has become its own genre now), I don't think super hero movies have done much that is all that interesting, yet that doesn't mean they can't still be fun.

A perfect example of this would be the recent release of "The Avengers", a film not without its faults, but is able to sustain your interest with fine acting from most people, and clever dialogue written by "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" scribe Joss Whedon.

But the film itself did not break new ground, in fact it reeks at times of the all too familiar. In the film, there is a threat, the super heroes assemble, and the threat is vanquished in a rather large battle. There is nothing wrong with this formula, and a clever guy like Whedon does his best and giving us scenarios that are entertaining, yet it seems to be a missed opportunity.

A few years ago, I wrote about how super hero movies, had much in common with the latter day western, which had its heyday in the 40s and 50s. The western hero like the super hero was usually an outcast, a loner, and he was driven by some sort of honor or duty, or maybe vengeance. If you replaced the cowboy hat and the six guns with super powers and tights, I could be explaining the same archetype.

Since I wrote that piece, many super hero movies have come and gone, some of them good, some of them crummy, but I would argue none of them have become transcendent. We have become stuck in a pattern with super hero movies, they have become less about story and more about the conglomerate. "The Avengers" is a product, owned by Marvel studios in association with Disney. They are servicing the fans needs to see the characters on screen, and defeating their enemies. That's all fine and good, what we have is a nice B-movie, not unlike old serials from the 30s and 40s, only this time with a big budget and huge special effects.

Maybe that's all the fans ask for, and that seems to be what Marvel Studios is willing to do for them, but as a movie goer, I don't think super hero films will sustain themselves for very long if that is the case.

I had the same feeling watching "The Avengers" as I did with "Thor", "Iron Man 2", and "Captain America", it was difficult to tell them apart. Each film was structured the same way, there was a big bad, and the hero had to vanquish it. "The Avengers" doesn't stray from this formula, other than giving you more bang for your buck. In this case, all the super heroes are in one movie, and it just means more action than most.

As I said I liked "The Avengers" but I will still call this a missed opportunity, here's why: Joss Whedon. Whedon, is a clever guy, when he is taken off his leash and able to do his own thing. Look at "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", which was a complex coming of age drama/comedy, disguised as a campy genre show. Whedon has proven himself capable of creating complex ideas and themes hidden within genre. Even though Whedon wrote and directed "The Avengers", I didn't see much of his own stamp on the finished product, albeit it was a nice surprise to see much screen time given to Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow, a testament to Whedon's affection for female heroines. Whedon, for the most part acts like a director for hire, doing a by the numbers Marvel movie, which is given life with his flare for wit, and humanity.

Whedon has the talent to dive deeper and further in the Marvel universe, and perhaps he was struggling with his own instincts and what the Marvel overlords wanted in the end, which was a harmless blockbuster. It's a shame because knowing what Whedon is capable of and what we are given does not measure up. And this has become the case for super hero films in general, there doesn't seem to be a risk.

This lack of risk taking is probably due to the huge amount of money these films cost, which makes it more and more difficult to take any chances.

There doesn't seem to be much hope that super hero movies will tone down their spectacle and unlimited action anytime soon, which might make room for a more intimate and compelling film, and I could sense there were a few scenes where Whedon was trying to express that.

Recently I re-watched Howard Hawks' masterpiece "Rio Bravo", a western which is all about relationships, how men talk to eachother, and the comaraderie that comes with that. The final shoot-out at the end of the film comes and goes without much fuss, it was there, but without much importance, it was all about the characters. There's a special laid back feel to a film like "Rio Bravo" about guys going through the motions and enjoying eachothers company, but it's so very much entertaining. Can there be a super hero equivalent? Not so far, but how interesting that would be.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God

A couple of years ago I was floating down a ferry boat through the misty forest of Vancouver Island; it was a three hour trip across the river. The day was cloudy, cold, and dark, we were expecting rain, yet the scenery was eerily beautiful. There were heavy mountains on both sides of the river, all covered with forest greens, and light fog gliding through the tops of them. It was a serene and peaceful trip, but the picture of nature that day made it look foreboding. At times it felt as if we were the only boat on the river, and an uneasy feeling of isolation gripped me. What I was remembering in my head were the images I had seen in "Aguirre: The Wrath of God"; the same greyness in the air, the same haunting dreamy quality, a beautiful nightmare of madness personified.

"Aguirre: The Wrath of God" isn't usually qualified as a horror movie in the strictest sense, but it fills me with the sense of dread and doom for its characters as any one could. Only the horror in this film seems much more real, it's main character must surely be one of the greatest monsters in movie history. The horror here inhabits the madness people are driven to as they try to obtain power and glory.

The story is set in 16th century Peru as it follows a Spanish Expedition's quest to find the ancient city of El Dorado. The opening shots of the film show the explorers struggling in the jungle, they must carry with them, horses, a cannon, and two ladies in waiting. They have Indian guides to help them, and one black slave; but it all seems so futile, they are not fit for the jungle. The leader of the group can see this, he doesn't see much point in going on, still he selects a small group of men to carry on the expedition up river, perhaps with the hope of more luck. He puts a Spanish nobleman named Don Pedro de Ursua in charge, with his second in command being Aguirre (Klaus Kinski). Other people in the group will consist of a priest, who keeps a diary throughout the journey, Ursua's mistress, and Aguirre's young daughter.

As the journey begins there is almost no question of the doom, the group has in store for them. They divide eachother into three rafts, one of which gets caught in a whirlpool, and they can't snare themselves free, Ursua makes the gesture of sending a party to save them, but it is all for naught. As the morning approaches, all the people in the raft are dead.

Soon mutiny is in the air, lead by Aguirre, Ursua is wounded, and Aguirre nominates a glutinous soldier named Guzman to be their new leader. Aguirre is still second in command, but it's obvious, he is the one pulling the strings, he will not relent in the journey.

Other things happen along the way, there are attacks by natives, a run in with some cannibals, and soon starvation, fever, and death. This was a destiny that was pre-written for them at the very beginning; a lost cause, which is driven by men's mad determination to defeat nature.

At the heart of this film is the character of Aguirre played with mad vigor by Kinski (Kinski himself has had flights of madness in his lifetime on many occasion). Aguirre is perhaps the most dangerous of men, a madman with power, and an insane quest of obtaining more. He is ruthless with his men, not caring what it takes to reach his goal; the only creature he cares for is his daughter, with whom he carries an incestuous affection for. The close-ups of Aguirre are all you need to know what he's thinking, Kinski gives him a walk that is somewhat lop-sided, that reminds one of Shakespeare's "Richard III". Aguirre can be thought of as the personification of all powerful, and evil men who have sacrificed innocents in their mad search for glory, and or immortality.

The film was directed by Werner Herzog, who is definitely one of the greatest living filmmakers we have today. Many his films deal with characters who's madness either bring them to the brink of destruction, or destruction itself."Aguirre" was his first important film, and perhaps still his greatest, it's more a film about images, and atmosphere, than one about people. Aguirre is mainly a man of evil than anything else, I'm not sure there is anything else there, Herzog makes that known, particularly with the final images.

I remember seeing the film at a young age, and not quite grasping what it all meant. I had heard of a movie about a journey to find El Dorado, expecting maybe a harrowing adventure tale, but instead I got a deeper, unsettling experience. There are moments in the film that feel like they are out of a dream, and occasionally Herzog captures nature's beauty throughout all the dread, but perhaps that comes from the delusion that the men will actually find their city of Gold.

"Aguirre: The Wrath of God", continues to haunt me, with it's mood, it's atmosphere, and the face of Klaus Kinski. It's a fierce film that doesn't let you go, it's a whirlpool, a nightmare, but it's hypnotic in a strange and beautiful way. I can say without exaggeration, its images have stayed with me, and they can lock me into its world like no other film.