THE FANTASTIC (2020, Maija Blåfiled, Finland, 30min, A+30)

 

AYAAN (2020, Alies Sluiter, Australia, 17min, A+20)

 

หนังแนวเห็นอกเห็นใจผู้ลี้ภัย ซึ่งจริง ๆ แล้วหนังก็ดีน่ะแหละ เพียงแต่รู้สึกว่าหนังอาจจะไม่ได้พูดถึงอะไรใหม่ ๆ มากนัก อย่างไรก็ดี ชอบที่หนังเหมือนเล่นระหว่างความคล้ายคลึงกันระหว่างคนดำกับชาวอะบอริจินส์

 

#signesdenuit2021

 

THE FANTASTIC (2020, Maija Blåfiled, Finland, 30min, A+30)

 

--ชอบเรื่องราวของหนังมาก ๆ เพราะเราไม่เคยรู้เรื่องพวกนี้มาก่อน หนังบอกว่าคนในเกาหลีเหนือถูกปิดกั้นการรับรู้ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับต่างประเทศ เพราะฉะนั้นคนเกาหลีเหนือบางคนจึงรับรู้ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับต่างประเทศผ่านทางการดูหนังเรื่องต่าง ๆ ที่ถูกลักลอบนำเข้ามาในเกาหลีเหนือผ่านทางพรมแดนที่ติดกับจีน ซึ่งส่วนใหญ่แล้วก็คงเป็นหนังฮอลลีวู้ด หนังเรื่องนี้ก็เลยไปสัมภาษณ์ชาวเกาหลีเหนือ (โดยไม่ให้เห็นหน้าผู้ถูกสัมภาษณ์) ว่า การรับรู้ข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับต่างประเทศผ่านทางการดูหนัง fiction เหล่านี้มันเป็นอย่างไรบ้าง ซึ่งผู้ให้สัมภาษณ์ส่วนใหญ่ก็แยกแยะได้แหละว่า อะไรเป็นความจริง อะไรเป็นเรื่องแต่ง

 

#signesdenuit2021

THE NIGHTINGALE (2018, Jennifer Kent, Australia, A+30)

 

THE NIGHTINGALE (2018, Jennifer Kent, Australia, A+30)

 

SPOILERS ALERT

--

--

--

--

--

1.เรา “เข้าใจ” แต่ไม่ identify กับการกระทำของนางเอกนะ คือการที่นางเอกลังเลที่จะฆ่าผู้ร้ายในช่วงครึ่งหลังของเรื่อง ทำให้เราไม่ identify ตัวเองกับนางเอกอีกต่อไปน่ะ เพราะเราคงไม่ทำแบบนางเอกหนังเรื่องนี้อย่างแน่นอน แต่เราก็ “เข้าใจ” ว่ามนุษย์คนอื่น ๆ บนโลกนี้ย่อมต้องมีความคิด, เหตุผล และการตัดสินใจเป็นของตัวเอง หรือมนุษย์คนอื่น  ๆ ย่อมต้องคิดไม่เหมือนกับเรา เราก็เลยเข้าใจได้ว่า ทำไมนางเอกถึงทำแบบนั้น หรือเข้าใจได้ว่า มันก็ต้องมีมนุษย์บางคนบนโลกนี้ที่จะทำแบบนางเอกหนังเรื่องนี้น่ะแหละ

 

และเราว่าการที่นางเอกลังเลที่จะฆ่าคนแบบนี้ มันช่วยทำให้หนังเรื่องนี้แตกต่างจากหนังแนว rape revenge เรื่องอื่น ๆ ด้วยแหละ เพราะถ้าหากนางเอกหนังเรื่องนี้เดินหน้าฆ่าคนอย่างเดียว อารมณ์ในหนังมันก็จะแบนลง คือเหลือแต่อารมณ์โกรธแค้นอย่างเดียว และหนังเรื่องนี้ก็คงไม่ต่างจากหนังแนว rape revenge เรื่องอื่น ๆ มากนัก แต่พอผู้สร้างหนังเพิ่มความซับซ้อนให้กับตัวละครนางเอกแบบนี้ หนังเรื่องนี้ก็เลยมีมิติมากขึ้น (ถึงแม้เราจะไม่ identify กับตัวนางเอกก็ตาม)

 

2.อีกปัจจัยสำคัญที่ทำให้หนังเรื่องนี้แตกต่างจากหนังแนว rape revenge เรื่องอื่น ๆ ก็คือประเด็นเรื่อง colonialism ด้วยแหละ ทั้งเรื่องการสังหารชาว Aborigines และเรื่องที่อังกฤษกดขี่ Ireland

 

3.ชอบตัวละครคนนำทางชาว Aborigine ที่หลอกพวกผู้ร้ายไปทิ้งไว้กลางป่ามาก ๆ

VINCENT: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF VINCENT VAN GOGH (1987, Paul Cox, Australia, A+30)

VINCENT: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF VINCENT VAN GOGH (1987, Paul Cox, Australia, A+30)

1.สุดๆ ดีใจมากที่ได้ดูหนังเรื่องนี้ ดูแล้วรู้สึกเข้าใจ Van Gogh ขึ้นเยอะมาก เหมือนเป็นหนังที่ลงลึกใน “ความคิด” ของ Van Gogh มากที่สุด เมื่อเทียบกับหนังอีกสองเรื่องเกี่ยวกับ Van Gogh ที่เราได้ดู ซึ่งก็คือ VAN GOGH (1991, Maurice Pialat) กับ LOVING VINCENT (2017, Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman, Poland, animation) เพราะเหมือน LOVING VINCENT จะเน้นแต่เหตุการณ์ภายนอก ส่วน VAN GOGH นั้นเป็นหนังที่เราชอบสุดๆ แต่มันเหมือนเน้นคนละจุดกับ VINCENT เลย คือเหมือนหนังสองเรื่องนี้ช่วยเติมเต็มซึ่งกันและกันได้พอดี เพราะ VAN GOGH ของ Pialat มันเหมือนให้เราสัมผัสได้ถึงความขุ่นมัว ขึ้งเคียด ทุกข์ตรม ในอารมณ์และจิตวิญญาณของ Van Gogh แต่มันไม่ให้คำอธิบายอะไรทั้งสิ้นถึงความคิดและการทำงานของ Van Gogh น่ะ เพราะถ้าเราจำไม่ผิด ตัวละคร Van Gogh ในหนังของ Pialat ก็เป็นคน “พูดน้อย” นะ เราจะเห็นแต่ใบหน้าเคร่งเครียดของเขาตลอดทั้งเรื่อง ในขณะที่ VINCENT นั้นสร้างจากจดหมายที่ Van Gogh เขียน เพราะฉะนั้นหนังเรื่องนี้ก็เลยถ่ายทอดถึงความคิดที่ซับซ้อนในหัวของ Van Gogh ออกมาได้อย่างเต็มที่ ซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่ไม่ปรากฏอยู่เลยในหนังของ Maurice Pialat มันก็เลยน่าสนใจมากๆที่ทั้ง VINCENT ของ Paul Cox และ VAN GOGH ของ Maurice Pialat ต่างก็สามารถถ่ายทอด “จิตวิญญาณ” ของ Vincent Van Gogh ออกมาได้อย่างยอดเยี่ยมสุดๆเหมือนกัน แต่ด้วยวิธีการที่แตกต่างกันอย่างสิ้นเชิง หนังเรื่องนึงพูดน้อย หนังเรื่องนึงพูดมาก หนังเรื่องนึงเน้นความคิดภายใน ส่วนอีกเรื่องเหมือนให้เราเห็นแต่เหตุการณ์ภายนอก หนังเรื่องนึงเต็มไปด้วยคำอธิบาย หนังอีกเรื่องไม่มีคำอธิบายอะไรทั้งสิ้น แต่ทั้งสองเรื่องก็ทรงพลังและงดงามในแบบที่อธิบายได้ยากเหมือนๆกัน

2.แต่เสียดายที่เราเหมือนหาวิธีการเฉพาะตัวในการจูนติดกับ VINCENT หลังจากเวลาผ่านไปราว 3 ใน 4 ของเรื่องแล้ว 555 คือช่วงแรกๆที่ดู VINCENT เราก็ชอบสุดๆแล้วนะ เราชอบมากที่เสียง voiceover หลายๆครั้งมันดูเหมือนพูดถึงอะไรที่เป็นนามธรรม แต่ Paul Cox ก็สามารถหาภาพที่เหมาะสมมาประกอบกับเสียง voiceover ได้ อย่างไรก็ดี เรารู้สึกเหมือนกับว่า เรายังจูนไม่ติดอย่างเต็มที่กับหนังเรื่องนี้ เหมือนมีอะไรบางอย่างมันไม่ลงตัว ก็เลยทำให้เราจูนไม่ติด

แต่พอเวลาผ่านไปราว 3 ใน 4 เราก็หาวิธีการที่เหมาะกับตัวเองเจอ นั่นก็คือเราจะพยายามไม่อ่าน subtitle เลย 555 คือเหมือนกับว่า เวลาที่เราดูหนังเรื่องนี้ เราต้องดูภาพเคลื่อนไหว, ฟังเสียง voiceover แล้วอ่าน subtitle ซึ่งเยอะมากๆ และ subtitle ก็แปลดีมาก แต่มันทำให้หัวสมองของเรา (อาจจะเป็นเราคนเดียวที่เป็นแบบนี้) มัน overload เกินไปน่ะ เพราะ voiceover + subtitle ของหนังเรื่องนี้มันไม่ได้พูดถึงอะไรง่ายๆ หลายๆอย่างมันเป็นปรัชญา หรือพูดถึงสิ่งต่างๆที่ทำให้เราต้องพยายามจินตนาการตามไปด้วย เพราะฉะนั้นเราก็เลยรู้สึกว่า หัวสมองของเราทำงานหนักมากเป็นพิเศษในการดูหนังเรื่องนี้ เพราะหนังเรื่องนี้ไม่ได้เล่าเรื่องตรงๆด้วยภาพ+เสียง+subtitle ที่สัมพันธ์กันโดยตรงแบบหนังทั่วไป แต่หนังเรื่องนี้ใช้ voiceover+subtitle ในการกระตุ้นจินตนาการของผู้ชม พร้อมกับที่ผู้ชมต้องดูภาพเคลื่อนไหวบนจอไปด้วย หัวสมองของเราก็เลยทำงานหนักเกินไปขณะดูหนังเรื่องนี้ในรอบเย็นวันทำงาน

แต่พอเราพยายามเลิกอ่าน subtitle ปุ๊บ ทุกอย่างก็ลงตัวทันที รู้สึกจูนติดกับหนังอย่างรุนแรง ไหลลื่นไปกับหนังมากๆ รู้สึกว่าหลายๆอย่างในหนังมันงดงามมากๆ รู้สึกว่าการออกเสียงคำแต่ละคำของ John Hurt มันดีมากๆ มันไม่ใช่ voiceover ที่ธรรมดาเลย รู้สึกว่าการเคลื่อนกล้องในหนังเรื่องนี้มัน graceful มากๆ ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการเคลื่อนกล้องขณะถ่ายภาพทิวทัศน์ หรือการเคลื่อนกล้องไปตามจุดต่างๆของ paintings

คือเหมือนช่วงแรกที่เราแบ่งหัวสมองไปกับการจินตนาการตามคำทุกคำใน subtitle เราเลยไม่ได้สังเกตความงามของการออกเสียงคำแต่ละคำใน voiceover และความงามในการเคลื่อนกล้องน่ะ แต่พอเราปรับวิธีการดูหนังใหม่ เราก็เลย flow ไปกับหนังได้อย่างรุนแรง แต่เราก็เหลือบดู subtitle เป็นพักๆนะ เวลาที่ฟังไม่ออกในบางประโยค

3.เหมือนเราไม่เคยเจอประสบการณ์แบบนี้กับหนังเรื่องอื่นๆมาก่อนนะ เพราะจริงๆแล้ววิธีการใช้ voiceover + ภาพ แบบนี้ ทำให้นึกถึงหนังอย่าง INDIA SONG (1975, Marguerite Duras), SUNLESS (1983, Chris Marker) และ LONDON (1994, Patrick Keller) เหมือนกันน่ะ แต่ INDIA SONG มันเป็นหนังที่ “ช้า” มากๆๆๆๆๆ มันไม่ได้พูดเป็นต่อยหอยแบบ VINCENT เราก็เลยไม่รู้สึกว่าหัวสมองของเรามัน overload ส่วน SUNLESS กับ LONDON นั้น เราได้ดูเวอร์ชั่นที่ไม่มี subtitle อะไรเลย เราก็เลยดูไม่รู้เรื่องเลย 555

4.ตอนนี้อยากดู LUST FOR LIFE (1956, Vincente Minnelli) กับ VINCENT & THEO (1990, Robert Altman) มากๆ เพราะหนังสองเรื่องนี้ก็สร้างจากชีวิตของ Van Gogh เหมือนกัน และได้รับคำชมอย่างรุนแรงสุดๆเหมือนๆกัน

LOST IN A BORGESIAN LABYRINTH (2018, David King, Australia, 7min, A+30)

LOST IN A BORGESIAN LABYRINTH (2018, David King, Australia, 7min, A+30)

This film makes me feel as if it is a Zen riddle. Hahaha. The film is very thought-provoking for me. It presents a man walking through a scrubland, and it seems the film tries to connect a scrubland or nature with an infinite library. The film also refers to literary works by Jorge Luis Borges and Italo Calvino, which I know nothing about. I have no idea what this film means or tries to say. It does not try to say something simple like, “Nature is a vast source of knowledge.”, or “To read a book is to travel to unknown places.” What is the link between a scrubland and a library? I don’t know. But at least the film can me think, though I cannot find any answers. As puzzling as a Zen riddle.

EXIT (2016, David King, Australia, 27min, A+30)

EXIT (2016, David King, Australia, 27min, A+30)

1.EXIT is a really thought-provoking film for me. I have watched it four times and still don’t understand it. Hahaha. It’s like watching a film by Jean-Luc Godard or Alexander Kluge. Such films like these are beyond my understanding, but I like them very much, because this kind of films always give me many interesting ideas, and I think it doesn’t matter at all whether the directors intend to inspire those ideas in the viewers or not.  It can be compared like this: an ordinary film wants to give the messages A, B, C to the viewers, so the film tells them directly or a little bit indirectly, and most viewers may get the messages A, B, C at the end. But for a film by Godard or Kluge, the director may want to say the message A, B, C in the film, but directors like these want to make the viewers think, rather than passively listening or watching, so in the end some viewers might think about A, E, F, K, H, I, and some other viewers might think about B, M, N, O, P. And I always prefer the second group of films to the first group. The second group provoke us to think or allow us to think freely, and “being provoked to think” always bring me a great satisfaction.

As for EXIT, I think it provokes me to think about two things in general: what exactly happens in the film, and which ideas that I get from the film.

2.As for the question “what exactly happens in the film?”, I can’t answer it at all, but at least I get a lot of pleasure trying to understand it or decipher it. I’m not sure what Y is.  He seems to live in a paradise, a dream world, or  a perfect world created by cyberspace, but the paradise is interrupted from time to time by the nightmares, which come in form of a memory of riots, and the paradise is also interrupted by a message from his agent who tells Y to finish his writing quickly, and a message from his dead wife who tells him everything is a lie, and the only way to get to reality is to commit suicide. Y seeks help from a psychiatrist, but it leads nowhere. The dead wife also makes Y think about the riots, and the 100,000 people who were chosen to be sent to the outer space to escape this dying planet.  

In the end I’m not sure who Y is. Is he a guy who is too addicted to the cyberspace and loses all communications with real people and the reality? Is he one of the guys who were sent to the outer space? Is he an inmate in an asylum? Is he just a guy who faces existential crisis and is confronting with the demon inside himself who tells him to commit suicide? Or is he just a writer who writes about all these things?

There are also many interesting things in the film which I’m not sure what they really are. For example: what is the connection between the dance club scenes and other scenes in the story? What is the meaning of the scene in which Y finds many things lying on the grass and a teenage girl?

Somehow the complexity of this film reminds me of the complexity of films by Alain Robbe-Grillet, because in some films of Robbe-Grillet, we are not sure in which dimension or in which layer of the storytelling the protagonist lives in. But the difference is that while the complexity of Alain Robbe-Grillet’s films gives me so much fun and seems to be the main point of the film, the complexity of EXIT does not seem to be the main point of the film. It can be said like this: a film by Alain Robbe-Grillet is about the complexity of storytelling, but EXIT is a film about some existential ideas, and presents these ideas via complicated storytelling.

3.As for the question “which ideas do I get from the film?”, I think EXIT makes me think about many interesting things, though the director might not intend to say them at all.

3.1 At first EXIT makes me think about people who become too addicted to the cyberspace, the internet, Facebook, etc. But I guess the director does not intend to say this thing. I think about it just because some scenes in the film fit this topic. The film talks about the paradise, the nightmares which interrupt the paradise, the return to reality, and the lack of communication with the real world. But there are many other scenes in the film which do not correspond to this topic. So I think the film might intend to say something which is bigger than the addiction to the cyberspace. But if I focus only on a few scenes in the film, these scenes unintentionally make me think about how some people lose touch with reality, because they spend too much time on the internet and Facebook. The internet becomes a paradise for them. They can find what they like and spending all their time with it. They can keep away from things they find unpleasant on the internet, though these unpleasant things may interrupt their paradise from time to time. To exit from this problem is to unplug ourselves from the internet and start to connect with people in the real world again. This topic is a little bit similar to the one in UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD (1991, Wim Wenders).

3.2 The film also makes me think about some truths about life. Some people might live like Y in a way—living in a world of happiness or a paradise. And they can live like that by rejecting to think about real problems in our world, including social problems (the riots), and environmental problems (the dying planet). They must lie to themselves all the time that these problems are not worth thinking about. If they believe this lie, they can live in a kind of false paradise.

3.3 Most interestingly, EXIT makes me think about some existential/philosophical/religious problems: Are we living in a world of lie? What if the religions lie to us? Who can know for sure what will happen after we die? As for me, I was raised in a Buddhist culture. So I was told that after we die, we may go to heaven or hell and will be reborn again. But who can know for sure if these teachings are correct, or are truer than what other religions tell us. But if I discard these teachings, how can I find the truth by myself? Only by committing suicide, or dying by any other means will let me know the truth about the afterlife. So what the dead wife says in EXIT unintentionally makes me think about the demon inside ourselves—the demon who arouses us to doubt some religious teachings or urges us to commit suicide. And this demon is very powerful, because what the demon says is very logical in a way. I mean logic sometimes is the opposite of some religious teachings.

Then how can I find inner peace while still having doubts about the afterlife or about some religious teachings? Maybe I have to lie to myself in order to find inner peace. In Buddhist teaching, there is a concept of AJINTAI, or some topics which ordinary people shouldn’t think about, or else they will go insane. Ajintai consists of some topics which are not relevant here. But I have applied the concept of Ajintai to myself in order to keep my own sanity for many years. I have found that thinking about some topics too much can make me go insane, such as what is the birth of the universe? Where do we go after we die? How can we prove the truths in religious teachings?  Is committing suicide really a sin? Etc. So whenever I start thinking about these topics, I stop thinking about it, or else I will go insane. These topics are my own personal Ajintai. But I always like films which dare to venture into this kind of topics. And EXIT seems to be one of that, or at least it is a rare film which unintentionally provokes me to think about some of my own forbidden subjects.

4.If I have to screen EXIT with other films, I will choose to screen it together with REALTIME (1983, Hellmuth Costard, Jürgen Ebert, West Germany, 110min) and DREAMTRIPS (1999, Kal Ng, Hong Kong), because all these great films present a mesmerizing cyberworld, are very thought-provoking , and ask some existential questions. Most importantly, I don’t understand REALTIME and DREAMTRIPS at all, like EXIT. Hahaha

.ANTS IN THE LEGS (2016, Danielle Zorbas, Australia, 41min, A+30)

.ANTS IN THE LEGS (2016, Danielle Zorbas, Australia, 41min, A+30)

(This is the English translation of what I wrote in Thai on Saturday, with some added comments)

You can watch the film from the link below. When I saw this film, I couldn’t help crying out “Oh my god!” every minute. The film overwhelms me completely. It certainly will be in the list of my top ten most favorite films I saw in 2017. I can’t decide which scene in this film is the weirdest scene. One of my most favorite scenes is the scene in which the characters are practising in a yoga lesson while playing something like a ouija board at the same time (around minute 7-8 in the film). The moment that I like the most in this film occurs in minute 15. It is the moment when the film cuts suddenly from a scene which looks funny but cheap like a scene in Poj Arnont’s films (the scene which portrays a mad woman harassing some people in public or something like that) to a romantic scene which portrays a man and a woman wearing sunglasses and dancing in a club. The atmosphere or feeling of this romantic scene reminds me of Wong Kar-wai’s or Claire Denis’ films. How could any filmmaker in this world dare to connect a scene which feels like Poj Arnont’s films to a scene which feels like Wong Kar-wai’s films?!?!?! The juxtaposition of these two scenes is the kind of thing I have never seen before. So the moment in minute 15, when these two scenes collide with each other, is one of my most favorite “editing” moments of all the films I have ever seen in my entire life.

Two of my most favorite scenes in this film are the scene in which the two women keep bumping onto each other in a gallery, and the scene in which the woman tries some sunglasses.

This film reminds me of two of my most favorite films of all time. One is I-BE AREA (2007, Ryan Trecartin), because both ANTS IN THE LEGS and I-BE AREA are extremely funny and energetic, and portray the filmmakers in various styles. The other film is VIDEO 50 (1978, Robert Wilson), because both VIDEO 50 and ANTS IN THE LEGS put scenes which seem to be unrelated to each other with each other, and sometimes this kind of weird juxtaposition results in one of the most hilarious moments I have ever experienced in my life.

Moreover, ANTS IN THE LEGS reminds me of some “bad films which are full of unintentionally funny moments”, such as GUARDIANS (2017, Sarik Andreasyan) and BOXING IN LOVE (2016, Rearngsak Meesiri + Kriangsak Pintusornsri). The difference is that for ANTS IN THE LEGS, the fun is intentional, not unintentional like in those bad films.

http://daniellezorbas.com/portfolio/ants-in-the-legs/

LION (2016, Garth Davis, Australia, A+30)

 LION (2016, Garth Davis, Australia, A+30)

1.ดูแล้วร้องห่มร้องไห้อย่างรุนแรง ดูแล้วนึกถึง APPROVED FOR ADOPTION (2012, Laurent Boileau, Jung, animation, A+30) กับ LOST AND LOVE (2015, Peng Sanyuan) ที่พูดถึงปัญหาของลูกบุญธรรมเหมือนกัน โดย APPROVED FOR ADOPTION ก็สร้างจากเรื่องจริงเหมือนกัน และตัวละครใน APPROVED FOR ADOPTION กับ LION ก็ประสบปัญหาคล้ายๆกัน นั่นก็คือว่า “มีความสุขทางร่างกาย” คือมีปัจจัย 4 ครบสมบูรณ์ตามที่ครอบครัวบุญธรรมประเคนให้ ไม่ต้องอดๆอยากๆขอทานตามท้องถนนอีกต่อไป แต่มันก็เหมือนมี “ความขาดทางจิตวิญญาณ” บางอย่างอยู่ในใจน่ะ และไอ้ความขาดทางจิตวิญญาณนี่แหละที่มัน “หาสาเหตุไม่ได้” และบางทีมันก็ส่งผลให้ลูกบุญธรรมบางคนฆ่าตัวตายโดยไม่มีสาเหตุใน APPROVED FOR ADOPTION คือชีวิตของพวกเขาก็ดูเหมือนจะมีพร้อมทุกอย่างแล้ว แต่ทำไมในใจถึงเหมือนมีความเศร้าอย่างรุนแรงติดค้างอยู่ และไม่สามารถดับความเศร้าในใจลงได้ ถึงแม้จะมีเงินเลี้ยงชีพดีพอแล้วก็ตาม

2.จริงๆแล้วมันไม่ใช่หนังที่น่าสนใจในเชิง aesthetics อะไรเลยนะ แต่เราดูแล้วอินมากๆ อาจจะเป็นเพราะว่าตัวเอกมัน “สลัดอดีตไม่หลุด”, มัน “ถูกรบกวนด้วยอดีตอย่างรุนแรง” และมันมีความทุกข์ใจทั้งๆที่สุขกายน่ะ  เราก็เลยอินกับอะไรแบบนี้

3.ชอบนิมิตของตัวละคร Nicole Kidman มากๆ ชอบมากๆที่ตัวละครตัวนี้ก็เคยมีปัญหาครอบครัวอย่างรุนแรงในวัยเด็กเหมือนกัน

4.ปกติเราจะไม่อินกับหนังครอบครัวนะ โดยเฉพาะหนังที่สอนให้สมาชิกครอบครัวรักกัน แต่เราชอบ LION, APPROVED FOR ADOPTION กับ LOST AND LOVE มากๆ อาจจะเป็นเพราะว่า ตัวละครในหนัง 3 เรื่องนี้มัน “ไร้บ้าน” ในทางใจน่ะ คือตัวละครใน LION กับ APPROVED FOR ADOPTION มันมี “บ้าน” ที่ดีอยู่กับครอบครัวบุญธรรม มันมี “บ้าน” ที่ดีมากๆในทางกายภาพ แต่มันเหมือนขาด “บ้าน” ในใจมัน ใจมันยังคงอยู่ในภาวะ “ไร้บ้าน” มันมี house ให้อาศัยอยู่ แต่มันไม่มี home อยู่ในใจมัน จิตใจของตัวละครใน LION กับ APPROVED FOR ADOPTION ก็เลยไม่สงบ หรือไม่สุขสักที จนกว่าจะได้เจอ home ที่แท้จริง

เราก็เลยอินกับหนังกลุ่มนี้มากๆค่ะ เราว่ามันเป็นความรู้สึกที่ไม่ได้พบเห็นในหนังเชิดชูสถาบันครอบครัวโดยทั่วๆไป เพราะหนังเชิดชูสถาบันครอบครัวโดยทั่วๆไป house กับ home มักจะเป็นสิ่งเดียวกัน และมักจะสอนว่าบ้านทางกายภาพที่มึงอาศัยอยู่กับครอบครัวมึงนั่นแหละ คือ home ที่เหมาะสมสำหรับมึงแล้ว ในขณะที่ในความเป็นจริงนั้น จิตใจของมนุษย์บางคนอาจจะอยู่ในสภาวะแสวงหา home เรื่อยไป เพราะ house ที่เขาอยู่ไม่สามารถเป็น home ได้ และมันก็ยากที่จะหาเหตุผลอธิบายได้ว่าทำไมคนบางคนถึงรู้สึกแบบนี้ มันบอกได้แต่ว่า “ความทุกข์” แบบนี้มันมีจริง แต่บอกไม่ได้ว่าสาเหตุของมันคืออะไรกันแน่

SPRING RHAPSODY (2004, Bill Mousoulis, Australia, 84min, A+25)

SPRING RHAPSODY (2004, Bill Mousoulis, Australia, 84min, A+25)

SPOILERS ALERT

--

--

--

--

--

First of all I have to say that my English listening skill is very bad. There are many conversations in this film which I don’t understand, because the film is in English with no subtitles. So I apologize in advance if I understand anything wrongly.

What I think about this film:

1.What I like the most in this film is the comparison between the angel and the songwriter (Rachel). There are many things which link them together, such as:

1.1 Both of them take a bus, and seem to walk along some same streets. 

1.2 Both of them are interested in human beings. They observe human beings with curious and sympathetic eyes.

1.3 The angel intervenes in two characters’ lives to inspire them to make the right decision. But there is a strange editing in a particular scene. When the angel tries to make Claire decide to keep the baby, the next scene shows Rachel singing a song of hope in a venue, and the next scene shows Richard waking up after listening to some music.

What does this editing mean? Does Rachel really sing in a small concert? I don’t know. Does Richard listen to Rachel’s song? I don’t know. But in this film we see two characters singing in that venue—the angel and Rachel.

I’m not sure what this editing means. But it makes me feel that sometimes songwriters are like angels. Some good songwriters observe other human beings with curious, kind, and sympathetic eyes. They may want to understand how people in different cities live, how people in each profession live. And after they have been inspired by the lives of other human beings, they may write some good songs, and the songs can inspire some listeners to make the right decision in their lives.

The comparison between the angel and the songwriter is the thing which I haven’t found in other films before, so I like this idea very much. If the angel was just an angel in this film, I might have thought of it as just an idea borrowed from WINGS OF DESIRE. But when the angel is compared to the songwriter in this film, I think this is a very original idea.

2. There is a strange scene near the end of the film. It seems to show a female artist having trouble making her own work. So she decides to go outside, taking a bus, and looking at an unknown man in the bus.

What does this scene mean? I don’t know. But it makes me think about “how we should take inspirations from other human beings, especially ordinary people around us.”  If this female artist follows the path of the angel and Rachel, who are both interested in ordinary people around them, she might have some ideas to make her work successful.

Maybe that’s what another character in the film should do, too. There is a male novelist in the film who seems to have trouble finishing his novel after having written it for twelve years. This man seems to be too preoccupied with himself. If he looks around and talk to other people like Rachel, maybe it can help his work a lot.

The look of the female artist is also very interesting. I think she looks like the combination between Rachel and Claire. I’m not sure if this is intended or not. But I think it works. Because I think any songwriters (Rachel), novelists (Claire), or artists should sometimes take inspirations from ordinary people around them, and make good songs, novels or art works which give good inspirations back to their audience/readers.

And I think this is also what Bill Mousoulis does here and in other films of his. His films seem to be inspired by the lives of ordinary people, and give inspirations back to the audience.

The use of a new, unknown character near in the end of the film is also interesting, because it reminds me of the pianist who appears at the end of A NOCTURNE (2007, Bill Mousoulis). The pianist in that film is an unknown character who is not connected to any other characters in the film, too. But her presence at the end of A NOCTURNE seems to sum up some ideas in the film, like the presence of the female artist near the end of SPRING RHAPSODY.

3.One of the main characters here is of course the city of Melbourne. There are many scenes in this film which focus on ordinary people in the streets of Melbourne. The most impressive scene is the one which shows a mad man arguing with a group of anti-war activists.

I think the sound of the city is very much emphasized here in this film. Sometimes the sound of the city is so loud that I can’t hear what the characters are talking about. Hahaha.

I think the focus on the city of Melbourne here is an interesting way to adapt a kind of experimental/documentary films--the city symphony films—to use in a narrative film. I think Mousoulis has made many interesting “city symphony” films, such as CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER (1989), MELBOURNE ’89 (1989), FIT WATERS ’95 (1995), and HOLY LAND (1998). But these films are not traditional narratives. So it is interesting to see how one can employs what seems like a city symphony film in a narrative film like SPRING RHAPSODY.

4.The structure in SPRING RHAPSODY is also interesting, because the characters in this film seem not to relate to one another that much. Apart from the angel who intervenes in the lives of Claire and Richard, other characters seem not to know one another at all. And their lives are not similar. It is difficult for me to find some parallels or similarities between their lives, except the similarities between angel and Rachel, and the fact that all of them live in Melbourne.

So I think the structure of SPRING RHAPSODY seems very loose for me compared to most films.  The lives of the characters in SPRING RHAPSODY seem not to be confined by some obvious themes or plans. Their lives seem to be a little bit free. I mean there are many films which combine different stories like this, but the lives of the characters in most of these films seem to be governed by some obvious themes, such as in CRASH (2004, Paul Haggis), 71 FRAGMENTS OF A CHRONOLOGY OF CHANCE (1994, Michael Haneke), DOG DAYS (2001, Ulrich Seidl), or AM I BEAUTIFUL? (1998, Doris Dörrie). So I think it is interesting to see a film like SPRING RHAPSODY which combines different stories, but lets the lives of the characters to be a little bit free (I mean freer than the group I mentioned above).

This kind of loose structure reminds me of other two films I like very much: FREE RADICALS (2003, Barbara Albert) and LA VIE MODERNE (2000, Laurence Ferreira Barbosa), because I think the lives of the various characters in these two films are a little bit free, too.

5.However, I don’t mean that I prefer this structure more than the other one. I like both of them. I think each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses.

For the loose structure in SPRING RHAPSODY, I think somehow it might be the reason why I think the film is not “extremely powerful” for me. I mean I like the film very much, but it does not overwhelm me as much as BLUE NOTES (2006, Bill Mousoulis, A+30), which combines different stories, too. I’m not sure. I mean I know for sure that I like BLUE NOTES more than SPRING RHAPSODY, but I’m not sure what makes BLUE NOTES greater than SPRING RHAPSODY. But BLUE NOTES was made after SPRING RHAPSODY. So I guess Mousoulis might have learned something from the making of SPRING RHAPSODY, finding a way to improve it, and using that knowledge to make BLUE NOTES having a greater emotional impact than SPRING RHAPSODY.

6.After watching SPRING RHAPSODY, I asked myself if I have ever been inspired by some song lyrics or not? Yes, though not often. This is because I mostly listen to dance music without lyrics. But I think songs which give good inspirations for me include some (silly) pop songs like this. Hahaha

6.1 DAYS LIKE THIS – Sheena Easton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSAQ7kVHVc8

6.2 GREATEST LOVE OF ALL – Whitney Houston

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w

6.3 HOLD ON – Wilson Phillips

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIbXvaE39wM

6.4 YOU ARE THE UNIVERSE – Brand New Heavies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFBHyMHjt4

6.5 YOU LEARN – Alanis Morrissette

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci5j9yQ-528

But what about other kinds of art? Are there things which act like the angel in SPRING RHAPSODY by influencing my decision in life? Yes, there are. I think these angelic things include:

6.6 The novel LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding

After reading this novel, I realized that sometimes I did something bad because I saw other friends did it and I thought that it was okay. I changed my behaviour after that.

6.7 The film L’ARGENT (1983, Robert Bresson)

Seeing this film makes me very afraid to do even small bad things. Because, who knows, some small bad things you make can affect other people like a chain reaction, and the bad effects might grow exponentially like in this film.

In conclusion, I like SPRING RHAPSODY very much, because of its loose structure, its focus on ordinary people, and its comparison between the angel and the songwriter, which makes me realize how we should take inspirations from ordinary people around us, and giving good inspirations back to other people, and it also makes me realize how we may be influenced by things around us—songs, novels, artworks, films—sometimes they can be the angel in our lives.

I also saw some short films by Bill Mousoulis, including:

(in chronological order)

1.DREAMS NEVER END (1983, A+30)

2.J.C.: THE JEWELLERY-CASE (1984, A+20)

3.PHYSICAL WORLD (1986, A+30)

4.FAITH (1987, A+25)

5.EMBRACE (1988, A+30)

6.KNOWING ME, KNOWING YOU (1988, A+15)

7.CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER (1989, A)

8.MELBOURNE ’89 (1989, A+15)

9.HOW SOON IS NOW? (1990, A+20)

10.LOVE (1991, A+20)

11.FITS WATER ’95 (1995, A+15)

12.HOLY LAND (1998, A+15)

I wrote about A NOCTURNE (2007) here:

http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2010/07/nocturne-2007-bill-mousoulis.html

I wrote about WILD AND PRECIOUS (2012) here:

http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2012/09/wild-and-precious-2012-bill-mousoulis.html

BLUE NOTES (2006) is one of my most favorite films I saw in 2012:

http://sensesofcinema.com/2013/2012-world-poll/2012-world-poll-part-three/#9

THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL (2010, Bill Mousoulis, A+20)

THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL (2010, Bill Mousoulis, A+20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnXaKk-AStw

Highly recommended for those who love TIME OF THE LAST PERSECUTION (2012, Taiki Sakpisit), Matthias Mueller's films, Martin Arnold's films, and HOME COMPUTER (2011, Teeranit Siangsanoh).

The details about THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL:

http://www.badlit.com/?p=14805

The brilliant use of found footage in THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL reminds me of TIME OF THE LAST PERSECUTION (2012, Taiki Sakpisit), LOVE (2003, Tracey Moffatt), Matthias Mueller's films, and Martin Arnold's films, though THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL goes one step further because the film mixes the found footage with the still photos of the present time.

The use of unharmonious music in THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL reminds me of HOME COMPUTER (2011, Teeranit Siangsanoh).

Theeraphat Ngathong remarked that the music in THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL plays a very important part in the film, and it is not merely a soundtrack. I think the same can be said about his own film A HOTEL AT MAE RUMPUENG BEACH (2012). The music in this film is not just a soundtrack, too. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObW_LwBSoBY

THE EXPERIMENTING ANGEL is partly about Maximilian Le Cain, an Irish experimental filmmaker and the editor of http://www.experimentalconversations.

You can watch Maximilian Le Cain's films at:

http://vimeo.com/user6153460/

WILD AND PRECIOUS (2012, Bill Mousoulis, A+15)

WILD AND PRECIOUS (2012, Bill Mousoulis, A+15)

There are many things I like in this film, including:

1.How the film surprises me a little bit about its focus. At the beginning of the film, I thought the film would focus solely on Greece's economic crisis, which I think may or may not be the beginning of the end of the economic and financial world as we know it. The first segment of the film, which touches on Greek crisis, made me assume wrongly that WILD AND PRECIOUS might be a good companion piece of COSMOPOLIS (2012, David Cronenberg, A+30), because both COSMOPOLIS and the news about Greece's economic crisis capture my current fear--the fear of the collapse of the financial world and the capitalist system.

But later on, I'm not sure what is the real theme or the main message of WILD AND PRECIOUS. The film turns to focus on a few aspects in the life of Giulio, an Italian cinematographer working in Greece. At the end of the film, I find that what I'm impressed the most in the film is the various shots of cats and dogs interspersed throughout the film, though this is not at all the main focus or the main message of the film.

2.How the film portrays both the political problem and the personal problem intrigues me a little bit. I have seen only three films by Bill Mousoulis, so I'm not sure what the main characteristics of his films are. But I like the humanistic quality of BLUE NOTES (2006) and WILD AND PRECIOUS very much. Maybe his humanistic tendency is one reason why WILD AND PRECIOUS doesn't focus solely on the economic crisis and doesn't turn out to be as intellectual and political as COSMOPOLIS. WILD AND PRECIOUS doesn't try to analyze the Greek crisis. You can learn much more about the Greek crisis from a newspaper than from this film. But what WILD AND PRECIOUS does very well is to observe what happens in Greece, including things which may not be newsworthy at all, such as  the Riot Dog or daily lives of Greek people. Instead of trying to be the crisis' analyzer, the crisis' participant, the activist or the teacher of the audience, WILD AND PRECIOUS seems to choose to be the observer. And it observes people and characters, both humans and animals, with a tender, nonjudgmental eye.

While COSMOPOLIS makes me feel that the financial world may collapse soon, WILD AND PRECIOUS makes me feel that no matter whether the financial world may collapse or not, our lives are small. However, I don't think this is the main message of WILD AND PRECIOUS, and I don't think the film intentionally wants to make the audience to feel like that. I just want to say that I like both COSMOPOLIS and WILD AND PRECIOUS for different reasons. And I just compare these two films together because COSMOPOLIS is one of my most favorite films of the year, so it becomes my benchmark, and thus I tend to compare other films dealing with financial problems with COSMOPOLIS.

While the main character of COSMOPOLIS sits at the heart of the financial problem/capitalist system and seems not to be a real human being, but an index of a particular state of consciousness or something like that, the main character of WILD AND PRECIOUS is an observer of the economic crisis and seems like a real human being. COSMOPOLIS dissects my fear effectively by presenting us the ridiculousness of our financial world, while WILD AND PRECIOUS makes me stand back a little bit from the crisis and take a look at myself, my other problems, and realize how small my life is.

In conclusion, I think there is no fixed formula about how to balance the political problems and the personal problems in a film. Each filmmaker must find the right balance for each film himself according to the subject matter, the purpose of the film, and the strengths/weaknesses of the filmmaker. I think COSMOPOLIS tends to focus more on the political/social problems, while WILD AND PRECIOUS is more impressive when it deals with the personal problems of the characters. But each of these two films finds the right balance for itself.

3.I also like it that WILD AND PRECIOUS doesn't overdramatize both the political problems and the personal problems in the film. The financial problem of Greece is very worrying, but it is not the job of this film to scare us about that. The film presents us some shots of homeless people and beggars in Greece, and also some scenes of the riots, but these scenes are not overdramatized. The film doesn't exploit the Greek problem at all.

What I like very much is how the film presents the problems of the characters. In a normal mainstream film, we usually see a protagonist facing a big problem and then the protagonist overcoming the big problem in a very dramatic situation. But in WILD AND PRECIOUS, the problems of Giulio are presented in a very realistic, almost non-sentimental, way. He seems to have no big problems in his work. I mean he may have problems in his work, such as how to avoid getting injured while filming the riot, and how to satisfy his employers. But the film doesn't overdramatize these things. Giulio has a problem connecting with his wife and daughter, but the film doesn't try to make us weep for this. His family problems are presented tenderly, but not melodramatically. It is as if the film just presents us a slice of life of Giulio, and in this slice of life, we don't feel too sad or too happy with the characters, and the characters also don't experience an extremely sad, or an extremely happy, or a cathartic situation in this film. This is the opposite of most mainstream films, of which the characters and the audience usually learn a (pseudo) great lesson in life.

4.I also like the character of Irene very much. She seems to be very independent. I'm not sure what she really feels for Giulio. Does she still love him? Does she want to stay with him or not? She seems not to hate her husband, but she also doesn't need her husband to be happy. It is as if she feels okay with or without her husband. I'm not sure if I understand this character or not, but I find this character very intriguing. Does the scene of Irene wandering in the streets imply her loneliness inside? I'm not sure. What I like very much is that she doesn't quarrel with her husband about how he neglects her and their daughter.

5. One of the things I like the most in this film is its digressions from the main plot, such as the one dealing with Tony and his debt-ridden friend, the story about the lost cat Doris, the dying cat, and the Riot Dog. I'm not sure if the subplot about Tony has anything to do with the main theme of the film or not. I also don't know the real meanings of the shots of cats and dogs interspersed throughout the film, but I know that I like them very much, though I'm not sure why.

I think each film presents us how the filmmaker views the world, and when the filmmaker doesn't exclude digressions and stray cats and stray dogs from the film, that also directly or indirectly indicates how he views the world; and this way of viewing the world, when one glances at cats and dogs in the streets from time to time, wondering what these animals might feel or think about, corresponds with my way of viewing the world.

Though I wrote that the film is almost non-sentimental, I have to admit that there's a scene in this film that touches me very much in a very sad way. It's the scene of an old, dying cat. Why does the most touching scene in the film which is partly about the Greek crisis turn out to be the scene about the old cat? I don't know, but I really like it. If the capitalist system that we live in is "a dream", the scene of the old, dying cat somehow presents me a simple truth of life. Everyone must die sooner or later. Everything is temporary, anyway.

6. There are many interesting aspects in WILD AND PRECIOUS, and I think each viewer may find that the aspect that appeals to him/her the most may differ from other viewers. The interesting aspects in this film include how to present a country in crisis in films/TV news programs, and the experience of a person in exile, which may also be inspired by the experience of Bill Mousoulis himself. However, since I have never been abroad (except walking a little bit into Myanmar), the experience of a person in exile in this film is not the thing that touches me the most in this film. What I feel connected with the most in WILD AND PRECIOUS is how Giulio feels torn apart between his work and his family. If he wants to continue working in Greece, he will not have time to spend with his daughter in Italy. What can he do? What should he do? What should he choose? This kind of problems reminds me of my own problems. I also feel torn apart between doing necessary things and doing the things I love. I have to work to earn enough money to buy necessary things, such as food, clothes, shelter, and medicine, and that means I don't have enough time any more to write about films or to watch as many films as I would like to. Ten years ago I had a dream that I could earn a living and still had enough time to write about films. Now I don't have that dream any more. Earning a living is too much difficult and requires too much time from me already. Giulio wants to stay with his daughter, but he can't. I want to have enough time to write about films, but I can't. That's why I feel very connected to this aspect in WILD AND PRECIOUS.

7. WILD AND PRECIOUS cannot be easily compared to any other films at all. Some parts of it remind me a little bit of VIDEOGRAM OF A REVOLUTION (1992, Harun Farocki + Andrei Ujica), especially the part which shows the footage of a riot/demonstration and may look like a home video.

But if I have to screen WILD AND PRECIOUS with another film, I may choose to screen it together with THE ALL-AROUND REDUCED PERSONALITY -- REDUPERS (1978, Helke Sander, West Germany), though these two films are very different. I choose it because I think both films deal with a photographer who has problems dealing with many aspects in his/her life, and both films also present an interesting balance between personal problems and political problems in a film. THE ALL-AROUND REDUCED PERSONALITY -- REDUPERS is a very feminist film, so I think it may act as a counterbalance when it is shown together with WILD AND PRECIOUS. However, I don't mean to say that WILD AND PRECIOUS is anti-feminist. I just think it is interesting to compare and contrast between the representation of a mother who has to raise her kid alone in both films, or something like that.

There's also something in WILD AND PRECIOUS which unintentionally reminds me a little bit of THE FAREWELL -- BERTOLT BRECHT'S LAST SUMMER (2000, Jan Schütte, Germany, A+30). It's the way small moments in life are juxtaposed against the immensity of a political system--the repressive Communist system in THE FAREWELL, the capitalist system in WILD AND PRECIOUS.

This is what Leslie Camhi wrote in Village Voice about THE FAREWELL -- BERTOLT BRECHT'S LAST SUMMER:

" Now that the very state whose existence he toiled for has itself become a phantom, Schütte's film (aided by John Cale's pensive score) focuses on the small moments punctuating a lazy summer afternoon: a lover's embrace, a passing cloud, a poem recited by a schoolchild. They are what remains, it seems to suggest, in a life's final hours, when all ideals and bitterness are gone."

Likewise, I like WILD AND PRECIOUS very much because of the small moments in it, especially the moments of the Riot Dog and various other dogs and cats in the film. These small moments in life are what is precious to me.