CRIES AND WHISPERS (Ingmar Bergman, 1972)

A must watch for every film enthusiasts.Filem tentang 'kematian', 'kehidupan', 'kasih sayang', dan 'penyeksaan'. A tale of the tortured souls of three sisters. Yang ajaibnya aku turut merasa 'kesakitan' yang mereka alami. Menusuk kalbu. Macam kebanyakan filem-filem Ingmar Bergman, Cries And Whispers juga fokus pada persoalan kematian dan apa yang disebalik kematian tu. And there's no other director alive or dead can make a human drama as intricate and absorbing as Bergman. A total masterpiece.

Verdict: 5/5

April 5,2006

BELLE DE JOUR (Luis Bunuel, 1967)

From one of the French New Wave directors. Is Luis Bunuel's Belle De Jour an 'erotic' film? Yes and No. One may unwittingly say so just by passing a look at the film's cover(or in the pic above,obviously). But rest assured, the film does not contain anything(sexually) that we haven't seen before. In a sense, it is even more 'tame' than the average Hollywood production. Belle DE Jour does not have any extreme sexually explicit images, full frontal nudity, or even vulgarities common in films of this nature. But it still is, thematically, an erotica.

It ranks amongst the same league as Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, Almodovar's Matador, and Lynch's Blue Velvet, which explores similar theme of exploration of sex fantasies. But what makes Belle Du Jour a unique and a cut-above-the-rest picture than those is that, given the sexual focus of the film, it does not depict sex in a 'direct' visual presentation(as I stated before). It relies ultimately on the imagination and fantasy; in this case the sexual fantasies of the characters depicted. And what we don't see is more important than what we do.

Instead of just weaving the story of the film along, Bunuel lets the audience, in a sense, to 'participate' in the film. Join the 'dreams' of Severine(Catherine Deneuve) which Bunuel shifts in-between reality. Blurring the lines of reality and fantasy, Bunuel expresses his point: How different are they? Severine resorts to her sexual passions through her fantasies, and the brothel clients realize their own fantasies. Upon viewing them 'reenacting' their fantasies in the brothel, Severine felt disgusted by the thought of these people who are willing to sink so low. But later it is apparent that she is not much different than them. A 'double-life' that she thought she was undergoing, turns out to be what she has become is really her. It's undenyingly engrossing just to watch Severine's character develops and changes from naive, classy woman that she was.

Some may think that Bunuel's method is manipulative, but this is what makes the film exquisite, and demands repeated viewings. The only drawback of the film that I can think of is the lack of deep characterization. Excluding the main character Severine, the other characters are a bit 2-dimensional/caricatures. But this definitely does not mar what makes this film such a classic.

My Verdict: 4.5/5

September 9, 2006

FANNY OCH ALEXANDER (Ingmar Bergman, 1982)

Mere words alone could not describe the brilliance, the power, and the artistry that is Ingmar Bergman's masterpiece, Fanny Och Alexander. What should have been the coveted director's final film, is indeed to me, turned out to be his best film amongst the ones I've seen. And obviously with that said, it earns its place among the tops of my favorite films of all time. It's a crowning achievement in every sense of cinema.

It is said that this film is a summing up of all of Bergman's cinematic themes and, also, it's his most personal film. Yes, I could feel the labor of love and the passion that Bergman has dished out into this film. There are so many layers embedded, and in them herein an astonishing amount of depth, that one would not hesitate to embrace its greatness. It's about childhood, it's about dreams, about imaginations, about suffering, about happiness, about death, about life, about forgiveness, about redemption, about memories, about existence, about religion, about faith, about being old, about being young, and basically all the elements that exist in life are inherent in this film. What's more, Bergman not only present these 'real life' themes in the film, but also injects a lot of what films are accustomed to be related with: magic, ghosts, and the 'surreal'. It's a ghost story, a fairy tale, a drama, and an art piece all in one.

This is the kind of film that 'transports' you into its world, its feelings, and its spirit. Somehow I accept that the ghosts exist, that people can do magic, and that people can be 'psychic'. These are supernatural things, and yet it 'feels' natural. Common films that deal with these elements would turn out to be just another implausible 'fantasy' film, and fantasy only. But not this one. The supernatural and reality merges so seamlessly, that the themes and 'seriousness' of the film is not only undisrupted, but lends more weight to it. For instance, the scene where the mother converse with her already dead son, casually talking about their worries. And the various 'imagination-come-to-life' scenes as observed by Alexander. It gives the sense of wonder and gives the definition of the freedom of art.

The journey is long, but the payoff is more than I could have ever expected, or even imagined. Its emotions affect me strongly, its beauty excite my senses, and its themes enlighten my mind. A triumphant film in all regards.

My Verdict: 5/5

September 22, 2006

IVANOVO DETSTVO (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1962)

A feature film debut by the legendary Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. Ivan's Childhood is an anti-war film set in the period of World War 2. Like Apocalypse Now, the film delves deeper on the humanistic and philosophical aspect of the effects of war, than about war itself. In this case, it's about childhood and innocence lost at the cost of war.

The film opens with a scene of a boy(Ivan) looking at a spiderweb in the foreground, and it proceeds with Ivan wandering around a forest searching for something; his mother perhaps? Suddenly Ivan lifts off the ground and with laughter, literally glides across the forests. He finds his mother, smiled and ran towards her, and washes his face from the bucket of water that she carried. They exchanged smiles as her mother wiped the sweat off of her forehead. Then suddenly, Ivan wakes up in a stable, all dirty, and all alone. At this point, we know that the 'dream' sequence acts as a metaphor summing up the film's 'journey'. Tarkovsky intercuts the film numerous times with these 'dream' sequences(or perhaps glimpses of Ivan's memory?) to give a vision of the lost childhood life that Ivan could or should have had if there is no war, and consequently he would still have a family: her mother and her sister. Burning with revenge for his family's death, Ivan continually tries to convince his commanding officers to let him join the front line. So devastated and consumed by his loss and the war that surrounds him, Ivan is devoid of real emotions or personality; even for a child that he is.

There is no denying that Tarkovsky is a visual virtuoso. Beauty and poetry at the same time in every frame, with exceptional cinematography unsurpassed even now. Especially in terms of lighting and shadowing. There are countless images that stayed with me long after the film's over. And to add to that, Tarkovsky's many usage of 'dreamlike' sequences as metaphors reminded me most about Fellini who frequently applies the same technique in his films. Storywise, the film may lack focus or clear-cut goals, which equals to somewhat of a bore. But still, this is a fascinating work and a fine introduction to Tarkovsky's brilliance.

My Verdict: 4/5

October 9, 2006

SOLARIS (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)

The best Tarkovsky film I've seen as of yet(others are Ivanovo Detstvo and Andrei Rublev), and also, consequently ranks amongst the greatest sci-fi film I've ever seen. Its impact equals that of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where one would experience a sudden gush of enlightening sensations by the end of it. On the surface both of them presents a story of a journey into space, but its themes are far deeper than space alone. Understandably it is often perceived that Solaris is Tarkovsky's answer to Kubrick's film, but ironically both of them differs quite largely from one another. And to add to that, Tarkovsky disliked the latter when he first saw it.

Where 2001: ASO deals with the outer/external examination of human existence(evolution, space, technology, God, etc), Solaris on the other hand deals more with the inner part of human existence. It's an inward journey towards the depths of feelings, the subjective nature of reality, how we are affected by our surroundings, and the consequence of the relationship between man and machine (also can be related to 2001: ASO; though ASO's theme is on humanity as a whole and Solaris' on an individual). It's utterly mind-blowing just how deep, awe-inspiring and affecting this masterpiece is. As always, Tarkovsky is a master in the visual department, exhibiting another outstanding flair in establishing a perfect 'mood' of the film through cinematography and ponderous pacing.

Like Kubrick's film, patient viewers will definitely be rewarded highly by the end of Solaris. Any sci-fi film fans who are willing to spend some thoughts(attention,also) on a film should very well explore this masterpiece. And I would also note that Solaris may be Tarkovsky's most 'accessable' work amongst the ones I've seen.

My Verdict: 4.5/5

October 21, 2006