Cast:
Jitka Cerhová (Marie I), Ivana Karbanová (Marie II), Marie Cešková (Woman in the bathroom), Jirina Myšková (Toilet lady), Marcela Brezinová (Toilet lady), Julius Albert (Older dandy), Oldrich Hora (Dandy), Jan Klusák (Young dandy), Josef Konícek (Dancer), and Jaromír Vomácka (Happy gentleman) Directed by Vera Chytilová.
Review:
“If there’s something you don’t like, don’t keep to the rules—break them. I’m an enemy of stupidity and simplemindedness in both men and women, and I have rid my living space of these traits."
Whether dealing with off-kilter youths or surrealism, the Czechoslovak New Wave certainly had a great flash of absurdity to burn bright with the directors that came with it, and Vera Chytilová found herself as one of the key players despite having only made her first feature film at the age of 34. Born in Ostrava, she had initially studied in philosophy and architecture while in college, but she decided to abandon those fields for further pursuits. She would work a variety of fields such as in modeling before having her first film job with clapper girl for Barrandov Film Studios that would help her find her passion to want to become a filmmaker. Later, she was accepted into the Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (FAMU) and graduated in 1962. Her short films received a bit of notice, but Something Different [O necem jiném] (1963) was a well-noted feature debut for Chytilova; the film balanced two narratives, one involving a fictional housewife and the other involving medalist Eva Bosáková involving human endeavors and their meaning in fulfilling oneself. Her next effort was the segment "At the World Cafeteria [Automat Svet]" for the anthology Pearls of the Deep [Perlicky na dne] (1966), and this feature film would be released shortly after that. As one might guess, this film did not find favor within certain sectors of civic service, with one describing it as "depicting the wanton", as leaders in the country did not take kindly to avant-garde fare that was felt to be a waste of funds along with not holding to their ideals. At any rate, audiences around Europe liked what they saw (not so much in America, but who's counting?), ranking as the highlight of her career; however, her career would be hindered by censorship troubles within civic sectors in 1968, but she would keep busy within filming commercials before getting to return to work within films and documentaries, doing so until her death in 2014. She wrote the story for this film along with co-writing the screenplay with Ester Krumbachová and Pavel Jurácek.
What is the best way to describe the film? How about we just use the words used by Chytilova: "a necrologue about a negative way of life.” She wanted to make a film with its own style that dared to go against the usual form, complete with changes in color throughout its 75 minute run-time (going all across the spectrum) with two characters named Marie (distinguished by Karbanová wearing a crown of flowers) that freewheel their way through whatever happens to them. Of course, she also once called it a morality play involving evil having potential roots within the malicious pranks of everyday life (as opposed to just destruction of war), where the youth is at their most fufilled to create...or destroy. It can and has been interpreted as a statement in terms of Dadaist or feminism, but it is up to the viewer to let the film speak for itself. Consider its opening sequence (or at least the one after footage of flywheels and airplane footage) and the initial conversation when it comes to the world and being rotten among a rotten world, or perhaps its closing statement in dedicating it to those who are upset only over "a stomped-upon bed of lettuce." (incidentally, the food destruction scene did not exactly please those in power). One can muse all they want about what it means to be good and hardworking to go alongside being happy, or how resolutions are not necessarily going to be clean ones. In that sense, one can not help but think of Luis Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), which ends up being quite a compliment. Undeniably, the highlight is the nourishment scene with a feast found by our main duo that they make a mess of. The nightclub scene proved a worthy take on anarchic amusement, but the feast plays its farce with excellent decadence, which naturally ends with them wearing what looks like paper-mache. Mayhem never seemed so fascinating, but with tinting and color changes to go with certain shots and cuts it does all the wonders for curious enjoyment, and the funny thing is that our two main actors weren't even professionals - Karbanova was a salesclerk and Cerhova was a student. They do quite well for what needs to happen in improvisation and mayhem in the style of freed puppets that do as they please for a film that never needs to put them in a sympathetic light; they make it all count for amusement in their antics of farce. The others do their part to act within the quirks exhibited by the duo that can range from smug to blathering for great effect. At 74 minutes, one certainly can find the time to see the film and see for themselves where the line goes in farce and philosophy in a bold free-formed kind of movie for those who seek narrative and visionary mayhem. A half century has only furthered the understanding of a film that has farce mixed into philosophy involving destruction that has made an intense curiosity in world cinema for those who seek it.
Next Time: We've reached the middle point of our theme month, so let's cover a documentary with Harlan County, USA.
Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment