A selection of intelligent cinema from around the world that entertains and provokes a mature viewer to reflect on what the viewer saw, long after the film ends--extending the entertainment value
Naomi Kawase stated that she expected to win the Golden Palm
at the 2014 Cannes film festival for her film Still the Water during a press conference but she was disappointed.
All the awards and attention were instead grabbed by the Russian film Leviathan and the Turkish film Winter Sleep, both competing with the
Japanese film for the honors. But a close evaluation proves there was very
little differentiating the three awesome films, except for the cultural differences
of the subjects in each of the three films.
Trees and the sea enveloping growing minds
This critic had described Ms Kawase as the Terrence Malick
of Japan on this blog in February 2012 while reviewing her previous work Hanezu, which had lost out to Malick’s The Tree of Life at Cannes for the top
honor of 2011 at that festival. But if you ask a Japanese cineaste about
Terrence Malick he or she is likely to call Malick the ‘Kawase of USA.’ And for
good reason—Kawase’s 2007 film The
Mourning Forest was about loss of loved ones, death and regeneration, while
Malick’s 2011 film The Tree of Life also
dealt with death and reconciliation with a larger cycle of life. Both dealt
with the sun and the trees/forest. Only for Malick the loss is often of the young,
while for Kawase, the loss is often of adults. For Malick, the references are
Christian theology and scriptures; for Kawase it’s Buddhist scriptures and
shamanism. For both directors, nature
teaches humans to live a better life by observing nature, not resisting it.
Kyoko swims in the sea wearing her school uniform
Still the Water begins
with visuals and sounds of the wrath of the sea only to be followed by visuals
of the quiet sea where a schoolgirl goes swimming in her school uniform. Yes,
the waters can be stilled, philosophically. What matters is our attitude.
Like most Kawase's films, there is a death of an elder that
provides the fulcrum of the film. Kawase’s choice of the beautiful Makiko
Watanabe (who plays Kyoko’s dying mother in Still the Water and a minor role of Wakako in The Mourning Forest) is laudable and elevate the quality of both
films. Preceding the death of the elder in Still
the Water is a cruel, unsavory killing of a goat by an old man watched by
a young person that almost makes you leave the auditorium unless you know
Kawase’s visuals have a purpose beyond shock and gore. The old man pats with
affection the goat that he has just killed. (This is the second important film in recent
times that begins with the graphic killing of an animal, the first being Emir
Baigazin’s Kazhak film Harmony Lessons
(2013), winner of a Silver Bear at the Berlin film festival, only to be followed by a contrarian humanist story.) While the gore repulses the viewer, the films
use these scenes to prepare the viewer for deeper thought as the films unspool.
The death of goat/sheep is contrasted with peaceful death of young Kyoko’s
lovely mother dying in the company of her caring husband and daughter from an
unspecified disease. The ‘waters’ of the film are metaphorically stilled. “Mother’s soul will be part of you,”
Kyoko is told in consolation. A large banyan tree, occupies some space in the movie's script and visuals, with drooping branches and
aerial prop roots that grows into thick woody trunks making it difficult to
distinguish them from the main trunk.
Wisdom of the elders for the young
Much of Kawase’s films have autobiographical touches.
Kawase’s father had abandoned her when she was young and she was brought up by
her grandmother. In Still the Water, the
young shy boy Kaito, is being raised by his mother after his father has left
the village to live in the city blaming the circumstances on ‘fate’. Thus both
the youngsters in the film suffer from a missing parent whom they love. The
girl loves the sea, while the boy is afraid of water. Early in the film a wise
old man comments: “These kids don’t know what lies in thesea.” Animate and inanimate
objects have relevance in the films of Malick and Kawase in equal measure. Both are visual poets of nature, life and
death.
Halcyon days: Father, daughter, and the sick mother during a light interlude
Kawase’s handling of Kyoko’s mother’s death is truly unforgettable.
The mother, a shaman, dies holding her daughter’s hand as the villagers sing the
mother’s favorite song. Friends come to sing and dance as the mother dies
reminiscent of an Irish wake.
For Kawase, memory of successive generations lives in trees and
forests (The Mourning Forest and Still the Water), and rocks (Hanezu) and life is eternal (the
arachnids of Hanezu and roots of the
banyan trees in Still the Water.) The most interesting line Kawase provides in Stillthe Water is “Young people
should be brave to leave us elders to pick up the pieces.”
The banyan tree as a metaphor of life
The tale of life, death and love as it affects two young
people in a Japanese village on the forlorn island of Amami is scripted by the
Japanese director herself. The appeal of what she provides as cinematic visuals
and storyline could be eclectic to Occidental viewers but it would appeal more
to the Oriental mind that seeks spiritual connection with nature and respects
the forces of nature. She might not have
won the admiration of Cannes with Still
the Water but this work is her most engaging work since she made The Mourning Forest. The love tale of the boy and the girl is
submerged by the sea of philosophical thought the film attempts to provide.
Most other directors would have been inclined to do just the opposite. The unknown killer of Kyoko’s mother’s lover
is never revealed. The detail is
peripheral for Kawase; instead the effect of the death on other characters is more important for
her. That is where we need to admire Kawase, she is different from the regular
filmmaker. For this critic, Kawase is
the finest living active filmmaker of Japan today.
Winter Sleep is
one of the outstanding cinematic works of 2014.
Winter Sleep is a
daunting 196 minutes long movie and could put off an uninitiated, immature
viewer craving for action, sex and thrills. The Turkish director Ceylan, speaking
to a packed audience that had earlier stood in long, winding queues on a humid December
morning in Trivandrum city in India to view the award winning cinematic work
and glimpse the accomplished director, during the International Film Festival
of Kerala, India, stated with a note of apprehension “I hope all of you slept well last night as my film is more than 3 hours
long.”
Interior lighting that embellishes the film
Winter Sleep, as
in the case of the director’s previous two films—Three Monkeys and Once Upon
a Time in Anatolia—proved one fact, it was a work of a contemporary master
of cinema, while requiring a viewer’s undivided concentration to savour all the
multifaceted morsels of delectable cinematic treats the film offers in the form
of amazing performances, cinematography, choice of classic western music, and
last but not least impressive script and direction. Winter Sleep deserved the two awards it won at the Cannes film
festival—the Golden Palm for the best film of the festival and FIPRESCI prize
for the content.
Winter Sleep is a
film about several subjects of conflict and their resolution moulded into one
tale, constructed with immaculate care.
The Script and the Scriptwriters
The husband-wife team of Ebru and Nuri Bilge Ceylan has been
responsible for the last three masterpieces of director Ceylan. In all the three
films, they have developed and presented varied types of husband and wife
relationships. (Their collaboration is quite like another notable contemporary screenplay
collaboration team made up of the Russian film director Andrei Zvyagintsev and
scriptwriter Oleg Negin on their respective last three Russian masterpieces that
culminated in Leviathan, a film that
competed with Winter Sleep at Cannes
and had to settle for the Best Screenplay Award, losing out on the top award to
the Turkish contender).
The fascinating bit about Winter Sleep is that a real life husband-wife duo have come
together to write about the fictional see-sawing relationship of a husband and a
wife, who in this film are not cheating on one another and on many counts can
be well considered as admirable individuals and perhaps from certain
perspectives even as a devoted couple.
Husband Aydin (Bilginer) and wife Nihal (Sozen)
in delicate hues of light and shade
The husband in Winter Sleep is a retired actor named Aydin
of certain national repute. He has co-inherited, with his sister, a boutique
hotel in a fascinating natural rocky setting of Cappadocia in Turkey attracting
international tourists. Aydin’s wife is
Nihal, an attractive young lady, who is evidently not as financially secure as
her husband, whom she had admired in the past as an actor of repute and has
been married to for a while. Nihal now
finds Aydin to be “an unbearable man.”
They have no offspring. Apart from helping
run the small hotel, Nihal takes a proactive interest in the improvement of a
local school and its affairs. Her husband has apparently never shown interest
or an inclination to help improve the functioning of that school, which has
caught the attention of his wife. He is busy writing a column for a small
newspaper with limited readership, cocooned in his study filled with books and
memorabilia of plays and films that he was associated with or liked and dreams
of writing a book on the history of Turkish theatre. He has even named his hotel “Hotel Othello.” The
script of the film shifts gears with the arrival of an electronic mail from a
female reader of Aydin’s column. She respectfully requests Aydin’s help in
improving the deplorable conditions of a school in a not-so-distant village by
either providing direct monetary help or by Aydin, as a respected citizen,
contacting influential government officials to provide more financial resources
for the school. Aydin, who has never
been interested in supporting Nihal’s pet school, suddenly wonders if he should
respond positively to this distant admirer of his column. What follows in the film, provide sufficient
details to show the cracks in the marriage of two otherwise admirable educated
Muslims, Aydin and Nihal, both having diverse social acceptance by different
sets of people. Unlike George and Martha of Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? where the husband and wife spewed
venom at each other, in Winter Sleep, Aydin
and Nihal are overtly caring and respectful to each other, taking great care
not to tread on each other’s toes. Even
the most hurtful comments made by Aydin’s sister Nacla towards her brother are
gently-spoken, well-chosen words though sharp as knives. One unforgettable line
from Nacla to her brother is “I wish my
level of self deception was as low as yours.” So, too,
are those of Nihal addressed to her recently divorced sister-in-law---subtle
words and inflections of speech that drive home the intended critical message,
without seeming to be ugly, even to the ears of the hotel‘s main employee who
was in earshot. And like the Albee play (made into a memorable Hollywood film
by Mike NIchols) there is reconciliation at the end, but in a quite unusual manner for the average Muslim male ego one often associates
with the contemporary Middle East.
Mature performances are the mainstay of the film
This critic, who was able to throw a couple of questions at
the director, during a post-screening public interaction, specifically asked
Ceylan about his three film long collaboration with his wife Ebru in
scriptwriting--all of which resulted in three consecutive major award-winning films
at Cannes. The response was revealing and startling. Ceylan stressed the fact
that Ebru an accomplished Turkish actress (she also acted in Ceylan’s early
films Distant and Climates) and filmmaker had taken to
scriptwriting very well. Ceylan explained that he himself was influenced by
literature, specifically Russian literature and that Winter Sleep is very similar to Anton Chekhov’s short story The Wife. Ceylan, who was influenced by
Ingmar Bergman’s The Silence when he
was a young man, evidently continues to develop and construct scenes reminiscent
of the Swedish maestro. While developing the script, Ebru kept reminding her
husband Nuri Bilge that the script was way too long and the length needed to be
reduced. Nuri Bilge Ceylan finally decided
not to reduce the length as all the small details were important for him. As a
jury member at Cannes, Ceylan recalled he wished Michael Haneke’s lengthy Austrian
film White Ribbon could go on and on
as it was great cinema just as he wishes certain badly made 80 minute long films
would end quicker than their intended full duration. With remorse, he added to
this critic, Ebru, his wife, might not work on a film script with him again
after this decision to retain the film’s length and its myriad details. He added
that he found women were stronger than men intellectually.
This critic decided to read the Chekhov story and compare it
with Winter Sleep. In the Russian story there are similar
characters and a parallel ending, when you compare it with the film. In the Russian
story, the lead character wished to write a book on the history of railways,
while in the movie the lead character Aydin wishes to write a book on the
history of Turkish theatre, which both pursue in the separate creative works.
But more importantly, both works look closely at the social divide, in Russia (in
the short story) and in Turkey (in the film). The social divide leverages the
emergence of the fissure in the husband-wife relationship in both the movie and
short story and therefore serves as an important sub-plot in both tales.
Social Commentary of Chekhov and of the Ceylans
In Winter Sleep, asin theRussian short story, the social divide is all pervasive. The
landed gentry live in comfort concerned only whether their tenants pay their
rents on time and do not hesitate to take corrective action if they are not paid,
blind to the financial conditions of their tenants. The Ceylans, in their
script, weave in the reactions of children and old women in the family of the
tenants (an aspect Chekhov never dealt with) deprived of their TV by the owners
because the rents have not been paid. For Chekhov, the peasants were hit by
famine; for the Ceylans, it is a population who sought refuge after calamities
decades ago. The Ceylans’ script even details the reaction of the landed gentry
to the smelly socks of a tenant, oblivious of the fact that the poor tenant has
walked miles to make a token payment. Even the employees of hotel treat the less financially
supported tenant with disdain by
bringing small female slippers for a male adult tenant, who has left his muddy
shoes outside, when Aydin asks the employee to bring slippers to protect the
visitor’s feet from the cold floor. The
boiling anger of the socially deprived folks towards the well-heeled landowners
reminds one of Dostoevsky’s literary works, just as a swooning young boy in Winter Sleep reminds one of passages
describing an epileptic in The Idiot.
In Winter Sleep, the husband Aydin
passing value judgements on the lack of cleanliness of the poor is contrasted
with his wife Nihal who is a naive do-gooder who senses the pain of poorer
sections of society. Both have differing attitudes and perspectives of the
poor. Nihal does painfully realize that “hell
is paved with good intentions.”
Aydin writes his column while sister Necla (background) provides bitter criticism
Shakespeare in Winter Sleep
There is no Shakespeare in Chekhov’s story but Ceylan’s love
for Shakespeare goes beyond the name of the hotel in Winter Sleep. There are two
references to Richard III in the movie.
The title itself connects with the famous line of the play “Now is the winter of discontent...” and towards
the end one of the minor characters verbally attack Aydin with the quotation
from the same play “Conscience is but a
word that cowards use devised at first to keep the strong in awe; our strong
arms be our conscience, swords our law.”
Winter Sleep may
not be an obvious treatise on conscience of the rich and powerful but on some
reflection the film is indeed on this subject.
It is not without reason that the Ceylans have called the film by that
name and introduced Richard III’s
lines into the script.
The ambiguous, reflective visage of Nihal (Melisa Sozen), the wife,
at the end of the film
Religion in Winter Sleep
Turkey is a Muslim country and it is inconceivable to make a
realistic feature film without touching on religion. In answer to another pointed question from
this critic on the references to religion in the film, Ceylan noted that
intellectuals worldwide are not worried about religion. In the film Winter Sleep, the rent defaulting tenant is an Imam, a
religious figure, who curses the inconsiderate rich landlord under his breath,
while literally going the extra mile to grovel and appease his landlord. The
Ceylans’ script makes Aydin realize that his roles on stage as an imam were all
wrong after his brief interactions with his tenant imam. The former actor Aydin
is taunted by his acerbic sister Necla as she describes him as a Muslim who
never goes to a mosque to pray and yet writes about the importance of
cleanliness by the devout. Another taunt
by Necla that deeply hurts Aydin is “Philanthropy isn't tossing a bone to a hungry dog. It’s sharing when you are equally hungry.”
And by stark contrast, the Chekhov short
story has no mention of religion.
Ceylan, the Director, and Animals as Allegories
The cinema of Nuri Bilge Ceylan has increasingly used animals—the
role of dogs in Once Upon a Time in Anotolia
is easily recalled. In Winter Sleep, horses, a dead dog and a
hare get attention. And interestingly, this is purely the Ceylans’
contribution, not Chekhov’s. Aydin, the
retired-actor-cum-hotel-owner, never owned a horse. Since a hotel guest points
out to him that the hotel’s website shows horses, Aydin is persuaded to
purchase a wild horse, which is subdued and kept in the hotel’s makeshift stable.
It does not require the brains of a rocket scientist to see the parallels between
the horse and Nihal as what happens to the horse is related to the husband-wife
relationship. So do the allegories of the dead dog’s carcass and the waiting carrion
birds on the tree branches connect up with the film’s plot. And the final quixotic proof of ability to hunt
game by killing a hare and showing the trophy to his wife Nihal provides
considerable visual treats for the viewer to mull over the ambiguous ending.
Profile of Aydin in reverse before he spots the dead dog
Ceylan’s Actors
Winter Sleep is a
tale of a retired actor Aydin and his wife. It was imperative that Aydin’s character
be played by an able performer. Ceylan achieves this by casting Haluk Bilginer,
a Turkish actor with considerable experience on the British stage and TV, who is
a delight to watch as he interprets Aydin on screen. So are Melisa Sozen as
Nihal and Nejat Isler (who was equally impressive in Semih Kaplanoglu’s Egg) as Ismail, the elder brother of
the Imam. While these three performers
are top-notch, the other minor characters such as the Imam Hamdi, his nephew
Ilyas, and Aydin’s sister Necla will not fail to impress a perceptive viewer. Winter Sleep is not a film held
together by one actor, it is held together by an ensemble of quality actors
well chosen by the director.
Cinematography in Winter Sleep
No discussion on this remarkable film would be complete
without praising the cinematographer Gokhan Tiryaki, who has been a regular
collaborator of Ceylan and has been responsible for capturing effective
external and indoor scenes with dramatic effect, more so in the latter. His use
of light and shadows in interior shots will remain in a viewer’s memory, film
after film. In Winter Sleep, his reverse angle shots of Aydin and slow zoom in on
Aydin’s head at key junctures in the film are remarkable. The rock thrown at Aydin’s Landrover can be
seen in flight before the ultimate impact and one doubts if special effects
were employed.
Reverse shot of Aydin (Haluk Bilginer) in light and shadows
Lastly, the final shots of both Winter Sleep and Zvyagintsev’s Leviathan (cinematographer Mikhail
Krichman) are almost identical wordless shots of rocky snowy landscapes. Both
films are outstanding and comparable. Winter
Sleep won the top award at Cannes but failed to reach even the final
nomination stage at the Oscars. Leviathan won the Golden Globe, an
Oscar nomination, and the Cameraimage Golden Frog award, the most prestigious
award for cinematographers.
Music in Winter Sleep
The choice of music in a film by the director is often
missed out by viewers. In Winter Sleep,
music is sparsely used, but when it is utilized it embellishes the cinematic work.
The piece of music Ceylan uses is Schubert’s Sonata no. 20 in A major the very same piece of music used by Robert
Bresson in his French classic Au Hazard
Balthazar. By a coincidence, the French classic is one of Ceylan’s
favourite films.
Concluding Remarks
Though this critic is a great votary of Nuri Bilge Ceylan and
considers him to be one of the finest directors alive and making films, the
best work of Ceylan remains Three Monkeys,
the first movie the director collaborated with his wife on the script. Both
Nuri Bilge Ceylan and Semih Kaplanoglu, two remarkable Turkish directors, have
injected a new life into Turkish cinema to take it new highs in world cinema.
P.S.Winter Sleepis one of the top 10 films of the author in 2014.Three Monkeys (2008) andOnce Upon a Time in Anatolia(2011) have being reviewed on this blog earlier.
Three Monkeys is the lone Ceylan work on his top 100 films list. A report of a brief interaction between the author and Nuri Bilge
Ceylan in December 2014 at Trivandrum’s International Film Festival of Kerala
published on the Dear Cinema website can
be accessed at http://dearcinema.com/article/men-intellectually-not-strong-women-nuri-bilge-ceylan/1346 Zvyagintsev'sLeviathan(2014) and Nichol'sWho's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), mentioned in the above analysis, have been also earlier reviewed in detail on this blog. Mr Ceylan is also one of the author's 15 favourite active filmmakers
The Dardenne brothers’ work Two Days, One Night is typical of a movie that makes you think
beyond its apparent light-hearted positive ending that closes a tense and bleak
scenario of sudden impending unemployment. It is a film that makes the viewer ponder if a positive ending is
indeed so beyond what the film’s official ending suggests for the viewer’s
benefit. More importantly, the film presents a grim situation that could be universal
in democratic environs.
The facts are stacked against the film’s protagonist Sandra
(Marion Cotillard) in Two Days, One
Night. Sandra, a factory worker, has been hospitalized for depression and
has now been discharged to resume work. While she is on leave getting treated, her employer who
runs a solar panel manufacturing plant, realizes that his company needs to
tweak its workforce to stay profitable and a sick employee like Sandra is not helping
matters. One way out for the employer would be lay-off Sandra and ask the other
employers to work more hours and compensate them with an attractive bonus for
their additional sweat. The small company could then stay afloat and make
profits and share some of it with the employees.
Now the Dardenne brothers, who write their own original scripts, when
presenting the tale of a mentally fragile lady worker in Two Days, One Night, are also presenting the fragile Belgian economy
(or for that matter, the world’s). That’s the charm of the directors who are in
their sixties and perceptible of changes in their own neighbourhood. What you
see is a lot more than what you think you are viewing. The film is more than the depiction of 2 critical days
and 1 night in Sandra’s life. The larger perspective the film offers is the dilemma of Belgian industries that have to trim their costs
to remain competitive in a global economy. And in a democracy, it ought to “appear”
that the workers are increasingly a part of the decision-making process. And
the decision the workers make is to bring in more money for their own stretched
monetary household budgets by working more hours. That decision results in the
employer giving the pink slip to the worker Sandra recently hospitalized for
depression. Thus 16 families stand to gain from the promised bonus; the
employer presumably spends less on the gross salary outgo for his healthy 16 employees;
and his factory remains financially viable. Only the 17th family,
the family of Sandra with her caring husband and two school-going kids are to
face a financial tsunami, with Sandra unemployed. The ethical question is
whether a sick employee, vulnerable on several fronts, physical, financial, and isolated by her guilty co-workers, can be shown the door. At the same time a sick employee reduces the
profits of the company, which in turn cannot be expected pay bonuses to its
healthy workers due to decreasing profits.
The Dardenne brothers seem to be attracted to the subject of
unemployment and its ripple effect on society, both social and psychological. An early Dardenne brothers’ work Rosetta (1999), which also dealt with
unemployment, not merely won the director-scriptwriter duo the coveted Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival but
the film had the honour of being associated by the Belgian Government to a bill
already in Parliament which ultimately became the Rosetta law (after the
movie’s name), a labour law protecting young workers similar to the movie’s
protagonist Rosetta. Two Days, One Night,
is yet another delectable film that looks at unemployment in Belgium or
rather the fear of unemployment for employed workers universally.
Absence of solidarity: A scene that captures it all--the sadness, the guilt,
the empathy, and the self interest
While the script and direction of the Dardenne brothers lead
the viewer to gently slip into the viewpoint of Sandra (so often in the film
the camera is either behind Ms Cotillard or facing her) so that we are led to empathize
with Sandra, a sick lady who is almost forced to beg her 16 work compatriots to
forgo the bonus that has been assured, which understandably would make a big difference in
their quality of lives with Sandra’s exit and their extra hours of labour at
the plant. While the viewer is cajoled to see 16 different views to the options
before the workers, ethical issues are cleverly reversed on the victim. Sandra
is forced to see a dozen or so viewpoints of her co-workers about the choice
she would have make if she were in their shoes.
The overall brilliance of the film again rests with the
scriptwriting-director duo who are able to bring on the table differing
reactions. One reaction is of fear of losing his/her job if Sandra is retained
in the plant. Another interesting reaction is the nagging emergence of guilty
conscience of voting against Sandra when she had hid a co-worker’s mistake to
help him retain his job and covered it up by saying she was responsible instead
for the mistake. Yet another reaction comes from another
co-worker who wants to flee a spouse who forces her to make decisions as he
wants them made. Subtleties of the Dardenne brothers’ cinema are many: parents
don’t want their children to hear as the adults make their unethical decisions,
employers like to pass on the brunt of their unethical decisions on the most
vulnerable of their workforce at each given time.
The Dardenne brothers have stated that they always wanted to
make this film but the global economic upheaval that began in 2008 spurred them
on. According to their interview given to Larry Rohter in the New York Times, the seed of movie
germinated when they read a sociological book called The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society
edited by Pierre Bourdieu. Apparently one case study in that book dealt with a
non-productive worker. The idea of the managers influencing the workers to push
such a worker aside with the carrot of bonuses for the productive workers in Two Days, One Night comes from that
case study. To have built the complex tale of Two Days, One Night from a sociological case study is a creditable
feat, especially when the viewer is privy to the interesting twist the employer
provides Sandra in confidence towards the end of the film. It reverses Sandra’s
position so dramatically.
The vulnerable and the more vulnerable worker
The importance of Two
Days, One Night lies in two distinct departments of the movie: the
scriptwriting and the acting. The scriptwriting reveals the importance the
brothers give to psychology of the personalities in the film. The honest
conversations are always in the open space. The unethical conversations are in
closed environments, with no witnesses. The Dardenne brothers allows for the
discussion on the lack of sex between Sandra and her husband to be discussed in
the open areas but in stark contrast Sandra’s employer makes his final deal
with Sandra in closed space. In the
final moments of the film, there is an awkward optimism. But is it real? We always tend to believe the employer is a villain but in the evolving management scenario the co-worker can be an equal villain--all for self-interest and self-preservation.
The best and most effective role of the script is pushing
the viewer to make choice at each stage of the film as what he or she would do
in that particular situation when Sandra meets up with each of her 16
co-workers rather than the viewer making value judgements on each character.
That is what makes this film remarkable.
A sleepless night spent to seek support from co-workers
It appears that Ms Cotillard was approached by the Dardenne
brothers for this role while they were producers of Ms Cotillard’s earlier work Rust and Bone and she agreed. Her work
in Two Days, One Night is amazing as
she is deglamorized and has to combine mental fragility and resilience. The
complex emotions required of her are truly phenomenal. She richly deserved her Oscar
nomination for this demanding role.
The effect of unemployment on caring spouses
The Dardenne brothers ought to have been recognized
for their admirable script. The film may be bleak, but it throws up important
and relevant questions applicable to all of us. It is good to have directors
like the Dardenne brothers making such rich thought-provoking cinema offering catharsis
for the viewer just as the Greek playwrights of the distant past.
P.S. The film won the best film award at the Sydney film festival. The film is one of the author's top 10 films of 2014. Marion Cotillard, nominated for the Best Actress Oscar for her role in this film, did not win the award. The Dardenne brothers are also on the author's list of 15 favourite active filmmakers
“I saw a drive in him”
—Terence Fletcher in Whiplash, referring
to his former student Sean Casey
“The next Charlie
Parker would never be discouraged” —Terence Fletcher in Whiplash
A quick assessment of Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash would be that the film is about a music student carving
out a drumming career in a jazz band. Another would be classifying the film as
a tale of a musician’s long and winding journey to acquire recognition by the
critics who matter. Others would only
remember the film as one that forces the viewer to hate and cringe at the
actions of an inhuman mentor, a perfectionist, who wrecks the lives of young
creative diligent minds by physical and verbal abuse, all for his own goal in life. While all these are justifiable
perceptions of the film, young Damien Chazelle’s script and film offers more
than the obvious.
The film’s opening sequence is of the camera (the viewer’s
point of view) entering a darkened corridor at the end of which the student Andrew
Neimann (Miles Teller) is religiously practicing on a drum and cymbal set. Concentrating on his music, he is oblivious
of all else around him. The lighting and
camera movement innocuously provide the prologue for what is to follow without
a word spoken. Chazelle’s poster of the film too captures that very mood. The
spotlight is on the drummer. And that is
what could mislead the viewer. The film is equally about what is not under the
spotlight, the shadowy part of the space, surrounding the drummer.The film is as much about the various characters (the teacher, the father and the lover) in the film who directly and indirectly shapes Andrew to what he becomes ultimately.
Fletcher (Simmons) (right) exacting what he wants from the drummer
The prologue over, from the darkened closed doors emerge a
man in black Terence Fletcher (J K Simmons) like a cat’s stealthy entrance, followed
by a defining staccato conversation and
the removal of his jacket (denoting that he is at work), and an equally dramatic
exit slamming the doors only to reappear again apologetically to retrieve his
jacket. Most viewers will be transfixed by the overpowering presence of the man
in black (Simmons), but a keen viewer will note the effect is totally
orchestrated by the scriptwriter and director Chazelle. It is not Simmons who
has grabbed your attention; it is Chazelle who is really shaking up the viewer,
with the lighting, Fletcher’s clothes, the quiet entry and the loud exit.
Chazelle by getting Fletcher to remove his jacket for such a short time has
told the viewer that the man takes his job very, very seriously. Whiplash
is more than a movie about music; it is a lovely work exploring the
ultimate Svengali bringing out the best of drumming in a wannabe using insults,
intimidation, skulduggery and psychological manipulation. While Andrew takes the
spotlight, Fletcher is the less assessed ogre lurking in the shadows.
Developing the Charlie Parker in a first year student with 'a drive"
The viewer is manipulated by Chazelle to hate Terence
Fletcher, who does everything to ensure his jazz ensemble is the best of the
best. He spots the “drive” in a former trumpet player Sean Casey when the rest
of the Schaefer School of Music faculty was telling him “Maybe this isn’t for you “ (who the viewer never gets to see on
screen), picks him for his ensemble just as he does Andrew the drummer, to push
them to the limits psychologically and physically to bring out the best. Sean
Casey ultimately becomes the first trumpet at Lincoln Center. Only Casey dies shortly after “in a car
accident” according to Fletcher. Casey’s
Svengali—Terrence Fletcher (Simmons)—is sorry and provides a eulogy for the
departed in a touching manner by making his entire ensemble listen to a CD of
Casey, with the name Sean scribbled on it, playing. Evidently, Fletcher had
recorded Casey’s musical output and kept the recording with him. There is a
human side to the beast, who spits out venom at his students, and yet spots the real potential talent, shapes that, and makes them famous. Much later in the film, we learn that Sean Casey
did not die in a car accident but hanged himself. Fletcher can lie as well. The spacing and timing of the two differing bits
of information about Casey's death provided to the viewer is clever. The original details that Chezelle provides work as an
antidote to the evil sketch of Fletcher elsewhere in the film. The revised information on Casey’s death makes
the viewer to reappraise Fletcher and his tactics. So are the innocuous yet
brilliant lines written by Chezelle and mouthed by Fletcher “I never really had a Charlie Parker. But I tried. I actually fucking tried. And
that’s more than most people ever do.” The man in black is not all black. He
too has a talent to spot the Charlie Parkers of the future and chisel them into
a live Charlie Parker. And he does transform Andrew into a Charlie Parker, Andrew’s
ideal musician.
Who is this Charlie Parker mentioned again and again in this
movie? Charlie Parker is a legendary jazz saxophonist who often combined jazz
with blues, Latin and Classical music. The recurring references to Parker in Whiplash relate to a real incident
involving Parker, the jazz saxophonist. Apparently a real drummer colleague of the
teenage Charlie Parker named Jo Jones threw a cymbal at the floor near Parker’s
feet because Parker didn’t change key with the rest of the band (according to Wikipedia)
, just as Fletcher threw a cymbal close to Andrew’s head in Whiplash. In real life that incident apparently
inspired Charlie Parker to practice inordinately until he became a legend in
music. In Whiplash, Charlie Parker
is first mentioned over dinner by Andrew. Then you hear Fletcher wishing he had
a Charlie Parker to mentor. And finally you see Andrew transform into a Charlie
Parker not with a saxophone, bit with the drums. Again, if one looks at the
film closely it is the brilliant screenplay that comes out trumps.
Light and shadows effectively used by Chezelle
There are aspects of the Svengali’s manipulation that one
has to conjecture from what is not shown in screen. One of them relates to the mysterious
disappearance of the musical notes folder of the drummer Fletcher decides is
better than Andrew. Fletcher tells the band never to lose the notes. Then director/scriptwriter shows Fletcher
noticing Andrew sitting by the drummer turning pages for the drummer. This is
followed by the mysterious disappearance of the folder. One can only surmise
that it was Fletcher who ensured the disappearance so that Andrew could play
without the notes. If the viewer takes
the incident to be happenstance, one is missing out on the brilliance of the
screenplay (Chezelle) and editing (Tom Cross) in Whiplash.
It would be short-sighted to view Whiplash as a duel of egos between the mentor and the mentored. Whiplash is more about levelling of the
egos between the two. A keen viewer will note the camera perspective that
allowed Fletcher to tower over ensemble players throughout the film making a defining change in the point of view
at the end when drummer seems to
be looking down at the conductor Fletcher, and finally having both Fletcher and
Andrew appear at the same visual level,
each appreciating the other. So much is said in the film without the spoken
word—in a movie where spoken word seems to be overarching at key moments. Are
the words of Fletcher, “Not my tempo”
more memorable in the film or the door opening precisely when second hand of
the clock moves to 9 o’clock? There are invisible aspects of Fletcher the
Terrible not so subtly brought on screen by the scriptwriter/director. The reconciliation between the tormentor and the tormented, the mutual admiration of each others talent and the manner in which the unusual ending shows the gains of the lies, torture, and manipulation that helps another Charlie Parker arrive on the music scene are laudable.
The Svengali in black merges with the shadows
Ironically Whiplash
is competing with one another film at the Oscars that deals with another obsession
of another character, that of the real life Alan Turing the mathematician
turned inventor of the world’s first computer in The Imitation Game. In both films, a flat tyre delays two different
characters to make the films interesting. In both films, the love interests are
peripheral to the tale but add considerably to the character development. In both films, the protagonists are loners in school with no friends. Only Whiplash does it all with subtlety, an
aspect bereft in the competing film. But then most audiences do not appreciate
subtlety.
The shadows/lack of lighting gains importance in the final
drum sequence as in the prologue as lights seems to go off before Andrews drum
solo takes centre stage. Fletcher is shadowed
out, the ensemble is not lit, and slowly the drums are lit by the spotlight. Then follows the amazing solo by Andrew which
at times are not heard (by the human ear but heard by the mind’s ear) but only
seen (a brilliant exhibition of sound mixing in the history of cinema and
deserving of the Oscar nomination). First, Chezelle shows us the sweat drops on
the cymbals and later a few drops of blood. Fletcher is shown lending a helping hand to set Andrew's cymbals right. Fletcher takes off his jacket during the solo as in the first
scene of Fletcher in Whiplash. Fletcher is in business again, he has spotted
the real Charlie Parker. Such importance
to details make Chezelle’s work truly amazing. The final body language between
Fletcher and Andrew is one of mutual appreciation. A Svengali is sometimes needed.
Somewhere in the shadows, Andrew’s dad’s visage changes from concern for his
son’s physical agony to one of celebration. What a film! It is one of the
finest films from USA in a long while with incredible attention to
scriptwriting, editing, sound mixing (that includes patches of near silence)
and cinematography. The contribution of
Simmons as Fletcher is overarching in this lovely film. Chezelle deserved a nomination
for direction as well, despite the Oscar snub. One wishes the 30 year old Chezelle, with just two feature films behind him, proves to be a Charlie
Parker of cinema.
P.S.Whiplashis one of the author's best ten movies of 2014 and the only one from USA. The film won 3 Oscars-- Best Editing, Best Supporting Actor (for J K Simmons) and Best Sound Mixing. Ithas won the Golden Globe award and the BAFTA award for Best Supporting Actor for J.K.Simmons who plays Fletcher. At BAFTA, it picked up awards also for editing and sound. At Sundance Film Festival it won the Grand Jury Prize and the Audience award.
Wild Tales is a
gem of an entertainer made up of six stand-alone, dark, comic tales. It is a
portmanteau film with a difference; all the six tales are written and directed
by one man--Damián Szifrón. He is also
the co-editor of this impressive work. Surprisingly, this Argentine director is
only in his late thirties and he has made a film that belies his age. Most audiences
will love it because there are elements in the six tales they will easily
identify with, irrespective of where they live on this planet. Interestingly, the film was co-produced by the
Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar, who must be delighted that he has invested his
money well.
It is “wild” because it
depicts extreme reactions of ordinary individuals, who are frustrated by present
urban societal pressures and the outcomes are quite plausible if the frustrated
individuals are left with little or no choice to correct their predicaments,
created often not by themselves but by others. Damián Szifrón may be zooming in
on frustrations in urban Argentina but a global viewer would easily identify
the situations as universal.
"Pasternak": Wild revenge of a snubbed creative mind
The opening segment “Pasternak” is a prologue to the main
film before you see the film’s credits hilarious credit sequence. The prologue is
essential for the viewer to appreciate the comic elements in the illustrated
animals shown in the credits. The humans
in the film Wild Tales are not far
removed from the colorful wild animals in the credit sequence. The humans are ordinary
people who can indeed become wild.
Without providing spoilers for those who are yet to enjoy
the film, it is important to note ’’Pasternak” is a tale relating to the
frustrations of a budding music composer named Pasternak, who finds his
creative output is trashed by critics/professors and his life is gradually ripped
apart by several people in his life. And the brilliant part of this segment is
that you never get to see Mr Pasternak—you only get to see those who have
ruined him.
"The Rats:" How to deal with rats in a restaurant
The next segment “The Rats” is set in a restaurant but the
rodents are human. The human rat is a
social climber who has succeeded in life by trampling down on poorer sections
of society, often wrecking their lives with impunity and killing the bread
winners of marginal lower middle class families who cannot survive the economic
pressures. This segment also presents
the flip side view of lower middle class family members driven to prison for
offences created by economic strains and eventually preferring to remain behind
bars with basic food and amenities rather than succumb to “human” rodents who wreck
your life outside prison.
"The Strongest": Class wars on the road
The segment “The Strongest” is all about road rage of two
individuals with a difference. Director-writer Damián Szifrón adds the element
of social economic disparity—one is driving a high-end car, the other a jalopy,
both using the same highway. The rich
look at the slow moving jalopy refusing to give way for fast moving cars with
disdain. The poor look to avenge the cocky rich. Who is stronger? The best part
is the finale of the segment where the policeman makes an ironical statement.
Kudos to the writer Damián Szifrón! The audience anywhere will erupt when they
hear that line. (This critic is intentionally not reproducing it as it would be
spoiler!)
"Little Bomb": The expert demolisher (Ricardo Darin) demolished
Argentine actor Ricardo Darin is impressive in every role in
every film that this critic recalls having seen him in and the segment “Little
Bomb” in Wild Tales is no exception.
Ricardo Darin plays a well-paid demolition expert, married and a father of a lovely
girl. His well heeled life is slowly demolished by a private sector Buenos
Aires traffic entity responsible for ensuring cars are parked only in
designated places and having the authority to tow away those that do not comply
to the rules.
But such entities can get
high handed and citizens can get high strung, if they are convinced that they
did not break any rules but have option but to pay the large fines. This segment
also reveals writer Damián Szifrón’s empathy for the parking woes of car owners
in Buenos Aires and how a “terrorist” can become a local hero. Damián Szifrón’s
characters here and elsewhere act and react as ordinary individuals driven up
against the wall by forces un-intentionally created by a well-meaning society.
The segment “The Proposal” reiterates Damián Szifrón’s
interest in the class divide and how the rich try to use the poor to get out of
nasty situations such as a rich family member causing a car accident leading to
a death of a poor citizen. As in the
earlier segment “The Rats,” Szifrón’s script deals with corruption but in “The
Proposal” that aspect is openly shown with amazing humor. The black comedy
takes a U-turn when the righteous, scarred public avenges by “wildly” killing the
wrong person.
"Till Death Do Us Part": The bride confirms the bridegroom's infidelity
The final segment titled “Till Death Do Us Part”—the famous wedding
phrase used in Christian weddings--is about a wedding reception for the
newlyweds in a hotel in Buenos Aires.
The bride stumbles on a hidden relationship the bridegroom has with one
of the invited guests and what follows is best described by Shakespeare’s words
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
The resulting “wild” roller coaster events during the wedding reception constitute
black comedy, sinister and yet hilarious.
While we laugh at all the six segments, there are pointers
from the film to take home. Can critics destroy creative minds? Can the
upwardly mobile successful citizens realize who they have trampled along the
way? Can we project our road rage towards people who are indeed
breaking rules without considering the consequences? Can the private and public sector perform with a heart towards society?
Can public rage against corruption and the wrongdoings of the rich go sadly wrong?
Can spouses who fall deeply in love
forgive each other’s weaknesses?
Wild Tales is a
combination of intelligent original screenplay writing and good direction. This
wild film is a social critique of Argentina today, entertaining the audiences
in its stride. Intelligent comedy is not easy; Wild Tales makes it look easy. The numerous audience awards it has
picked up at film festivals globally testify to its universal appeal and for Argentine
cinema, rare indeed is a film that has won a staggering tally of 15 national
awards. Damián Szifrón has arrived on the world cinema map.
P.S. Wild Taleshas wonaudience awards at the San Sebastian film festival, the Sao Paulo film
festival, the Sarajevo film festival, and the Oslo Films of the South film
festival. Its box office returns have already exceeded 7 times its production cost. It is
one of the 5 films that made the final list of nominees for the Best Foreign Film
Oscar 2015 but did not win it. Wild Tales is one of the author's top 10 films of 2014.
“During the time men live without a common
power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war,
as if of every man, against every man.” Thomas Hobbes, in his political
book on statecraft called Leviathan,
published in 1651
“Can you pull in
Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through its nose or pierce its jaw with a hook? Will it keep begging you for mercy? Will it speak to you with gentle words? Will it make an agreement with you for you to take it as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of it like a bird or put it on a leash for the young women in your house? Will traders barter for it? Will they divide it up among the merchants? Can you fill its hide with harpoons or its head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on it, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing it is false; the mere sight of it is overpowering." Book of Job, Chapter 41, 1-9 in the Holy Bible (Job is referred to as Ayub
in the Holy Koran) (This quotation is recalled in part by the priest in Zvyagintsev's film Leviathan)
All the four Andrei Zvyagintsev feature films—The Return, TheBanishment, Elena, and Leviathan provide an unusual amalgam of family
relationships, politics, religion, philosophy, literature, psychology, sociology, visual metaphors and music. Each element grips the viewer when
recognized in each of the films. Each element provokes inward looking questions
in the minds of the viewers. Zvyagintsev
is one of the best filmmakers worldwide who consistently make awesome films for
those who can appreciate serious cinema—alongside directors such as Terrence
Malick (USA), Carlos Reygadas (Mexico), Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Turkey), Paolo
Sorrentino (Italy), and Naomi Kawase (Japan).
Each of Zvyagintsev’s four films have deservedly won major
accolades at premier film festivals (the Golden Lion at Venice for The Return; the Best Actor award at
Cannes for Banishment; the Un Certain Regard section Jury prize at
Cannes, Silver Peacock forBest Actress
atthe Indian International Film
Festival in Goa, andthe Grand Prize at the Ghent
International festival for Elena; Best Screenplay award at Cannes, the Golden Peacock for Best Film and the Silver Peacock forBest Actor atthe Indian International Film Festival in Goa, and the Best Film
at the London Film Festival for Leviathan).
Zvyagintsev's Job is the honest Nikolai (shortened to Kolya in the film) willing
to forgive an erring wife: A Silver-Peacock-winning performance
by Alexei Serebryakov
At a very elementary level, Leviathan is a tale of an honest man resisting the wiles of a
corrupt Mayor of his coastal town to grab the land on which he and his
ancestors lived. The honest man Nikolai --shortened to Kolya-- (Alexei Serebryakov) is on the verge of losing his
house when even the courts go against him.
His former friend from his Army days Dimitri—shortened to Dimi--, now a
high flying lawyer practicing in Moscow, arrives with powerful connections and
documents to checkmate the corrupt Mayor. The tragedy that follows is not far
removed from a Biblical character called Job (or Ayub, if you are a Muslim).
When critics like me discover and point out elements of
politics and theology in Zvyagitsev’s entire oeuvvre, readers are sceptical if
too much is ascribed to a film beyond the obvious narrative tale. In the
earlier films of Zvyagintsev, politics and theology were partly hidden behind
visual and aural symbols. Many viewers of the first three Zvyagintsev films
would have discounted the theological elements unless they were well read in
the scriptures and acquainted with the cinema of Andrei Tarkovksy. Both the late Russian maestro Andrei Tarkovsky and Andrei Zvyagintsev (the latter is in his early fifties) are intellectuals who have good knowledge of Christian
scriptures and use them to enhance the depth of their cinema.
The title of the film Leviathan comes from two interlinked sources: the Biblical Book of Job (Chapter 41) and Thomas Hobbes’ political book Leviathan (published in 1651) on statecraft linking
politics and religion. Unlike Zvyagintsev’s preceding three films, where
religion and politics remained partly hidden, in Leviathan Zvyagintsev openly discusses both elements. There is a
scene in Leviathan wherewall portraits of past Russian leaders
Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev are consciously used as targets for
rifle shooting during a picnic and even Yeltsin is disparagingly referred in
the dialogue. (Putin is not included
here, but a photograph of Putin is discretely on the wall in the Mayor's office, just as Tarkovsky added Trotsky’s photograph on the wall in a brief
scene in Mirror.) Religion, too,
comes to the fore in Leviathan, as
the Book of Job passage is quoted by
a priest in the film and the penultimate ironical sequence is a church sermon
by a bishop with the villainous mayor and his family listening to it with piety.
Tarkovsky, who could never be bold to
openly criticize the Russian politics, would have been delighted to see what
Zvyagintsev has achieved in Leviathan. One
guessesthat Zvyagintsev realized
that his political and religious statements through symbols used in his earlier
works did not reach out to a wide audience and he had to be more explicit in Leviathan. Even the TV program shown briefly in Leviathan is discussing the Pussy Riot case.Ironically, Leviathan is Russia’s official entry to
the 2015 Oscars.
It is therefore relevant to reproduce below the director Andrei Zvyagintsev’s statement provided at the Cannes film
festival for the media on his film Leviathan:
“When a man feels the tight grip of anxiety
in the face of need and uncertainty, when he gets overwhelmed with hazy images
of the future, scared for his loved ones, and fearful of death on the prowl,
what can he do except give up his freedom and free will, and hand these
treasures over willingly to a trustworthy person in exchange for deceptive
guarantees of security, social protection, or even of an illusory community?”
“Thomas Hobbes’
outlook on the state is that of a philosopher on man’s deal with the devil: he sees it as a monster created by man to prevent ‘the war of all against all’,
and by the understandable will to achieve security in exchange for freedom,
man’s sole true possession.”
“Just like we are all,
from birth, marked by the original sin, we are all born in a ‘state’. The spiritual power of the state over man knows no limit.”
“The arduous alliance
between man and the state has been a theme of life in Russia for quite a long
time. But if my film is rooted in the Russian land, it is only because I feel
no kinship, no genetic link with anything else. Yet I am deeply convinced that,
whatever society each and everyone of us lives in, from the most developed to
the most archaic, we will all be faced one day with the following alternative:
either live as a slave or live as a free man. And if we naively think that
there must be a kind of state power that can free us from that choice, we are
seriously mistaken. In the life of every man, there comes a time when one is
faced with the system, with the “world”, and must stand up for his sense of
justice, his sense of God on Earth.”
“It is still possible
today to ask these questions to the audience and to find a tragic hero in our land, a ‘son of God’, a character who has been tragic from time immemorial, and
this is precisely the reason why my homeland isn’t lost yet to me, or to those
who have made this film.”
The predicament of the character Job of the Bible is not far
removed from the pile of misfortunes heaped on a good man Nikolai or Kolya in Leviathan. Zvyagintsev, like Tarkovsky,
is very familiar with the Bible and weave elements from it into his films. Nikolai in Leviathan represents the average good Russian.
The good working class Kolya is broken like Job in the Bible from all sides
as misfortunes pile up: yet he forgives his erring wife
Co-scriptwriter Oleg Negin worked on the last
three Zvyagintsev films including Leviathan.
Zvyagintsev and Negin weave in politics and religion with a rare felicity; they
bring to mind the collaboration of the Polish Kieslowski and his
co-scriptwriter Piesiewicz. However, Zvyagintsev’s collaboration with music
composer Philip Glass is limited to Elena
and Leviathan. Philip Glass’ music
used in the film was Glass’ composition Akhnaten,
the Pharaoh, who practiced monotheism in ancient Egypt. That operatic musical
composition also deals with power and
religion, not far removed from the subject of Leviathan. The use of Glass’ music in the two Zvyagintsev films
could serve as a master-class for some of the Hollywood’s currently feted
directors because Zvyagintsev uses music
only when it is essential and relevant and adjusts the volume with care. The rest
is diegetic sound on his film soundtracks.
The third major Zvyagintsev collaborator is his cinematographer Mikhail
Krichman, who continues to contribute richly to the visual canvas in all the
four Zvyagintsev films. While most viewers will recall the fossilized bones of
a blue whale in Leviathan, the most
enigmatic shot in the film is the shot of a live whale in the distance
at a key point in the film—the last scene of Kolya’s wife alive in the film as
she contemplates the sea and her predicament. What Zvyagintsev and Krichman achieved in Leviathan in the final snowbound sequence
was ironically close to the final shots of Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s Winter Sleep, the Turkish film that
competed with Leviathan and won the
top prize at the 2014 Cannes film festival. Though both are amazing films, Leviathan, for this critic had more
plus points when comparing both. Most importantly, Leviathan was more original in content than the Golden Palm winning
Winter Sleep, which was anchored to a
Chekov story. Most of all, Zvyagintsev's Leviathan, though referring to Hobbes and the Bible, is extraordinarily brave in showcasing the corruption in contemporary non-Communist Russia. And like Ceylan's Winter Sleep, Leviathan also underscores the plight of the poor when the rich and powerful people, crush their lives. Even the motives behind an apparent good deed to adopt a friend's teenage son is questioned in the film.
Zvyagintsev’s cinema is not the run-of-the-mill cinema. Many
crucial scenes of the tale are never shown on screen—he prefers to show the
aftermath. The viewer is forced to imagine what could have happened. The fight
between Nikolai and Dimitri is never shown; we only see Dimitri’s injured face.
The death of Kolya’s wife is never shown; only her dead body is shown. The evil antagonist forces are described in a
reverse quixotic detail when the corrupt Mayor asks Dimitri, the lawyer, if he was
baptized, when Dimitri confronts the Mayor with the evidence of his "sins." What a loaded question, and the irony is, who is asking! The Orthodox Bishop asks the corrupt Mayor "We are in God's house. Did you take communion?" and reminds him that both are doing God's work. One of the final scenes is of the corrupt
Mayor’s child looking up at the church’s ceiling after the sermon which includes the statement of the Bishop "Love dwells not in strength but in love". Nothing in
Zvyagintsev’s cinema is without considered thought. An intelligent viewer has to pick up the
details. And as in Elena, Leviathan too ends with squawking of a crow on the soundtrack, before the colorful and deep music of Philip Glass takes over for the finale.
Kolya's teenaged son Roma mopes over his stepmother's unethical actions: Zvyagintsev's
imagery of a fossilized "Leviathan" is brought into perspective
Children and boys in particular played major roles in all
the four Zvyagintsev feature films. In Elena
and Leviathan, the young boys find
alternate entertainment with their friends far away from home. In Elena,
the youngsters fight among themselves; in Leviathan,
the youngsters are less boisterous and appear drugged/drunk, no longer fighting
among themselves to achieve something. The boys gather in a broken-down unused
church. Zvyagintsev is evidently making
a time-based sociological statement on Russian youth and the Russian Orthodox
Church. Young-boys-revolting-against-their-parents
is a recurring theme for Zvyagintsev. In
Leviathan, the son Roma is born from a first marriage of Kolya and his
anger against his stepmother is understandable. When Dimitri is beaten up and threatened to be shot to death by the Mayor, Dimitri is asked if he has any thoughts for his daughter we never see. What Zvyagintsev shows us instead is a little girl on the train Dimitri is taking back to Moscow, possibly reminding Dimitri of his own.
In Leviathan, the wife is ambiguous embodying both the good and the evil, whom the
good Kolya forgives
Wives in all Zvyagintsev’s
films are interesting to study: some good, some evil, and some ambiguous in their actions. In Leviathan, the wife is ambiguous—we can
only guess why she acted the way she did. She strays from the path of a good wife but chooses to return to her husband. In The Return, the viewer is never told why the father was absent for
years.Zvyagintsev apparently
believes that the jigsaw puzzles (a motif used in TheBanishment) he presents in his films in varied ways can be
completed by an intelligent viewer. He does not believe in spoon feeding his
audience. Lilya, the wife in Leviathan, asks her lover Dimitri "Do you believe in God?" Evidently she does.
To end this review, it might be
more than relevant to again quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan: “He that is taken and put into prison or
chains is not conquered, though overcome; for he is still an enemy.” The enigmatic shot of the live whale in the distance towards the final minutes of the film exemplifies this last Hobbes quote.