IN PRAISE OF CLAUDE CHABROL AND WARIT DEEPISUTI

IN PRAISE OF CLAUDE CHABROL AND WARIT DEEPISUTI

ข้อความข้างล่างก็อปปี้มาจากสิ่งที่เขียนคุยกับเพื่อนๆในที่ต่างๆจ้ะ

--เราเพิ่งได้ดู MERCI POUR LE CHOCOLAT (2000, Claude Chabrol, A+30) เมื่อไม่กี่สัปดาห์ก่อน ดูแล้วรู้สึกสนุกตื่นเต้นมากๆ นี่คือหนึ่งในหนังที่เราดูแล้วลุ้นระทึกที่สุดในปีนี้  โดยเฉพาะฉากที่ Huppert ปะทะกับเจ้าแม่ห้องแล็บที่เชี่ยวชาญเรื่องยาพิษ ฉากนั้นนี่แบบดูแล้วรู้สึกเหมือนตัวจะระเบิดออกมาด้วยความตื่นเต้น

ความตื่นเต้นในฉากนั้นทำให้เรานึกถึงความตื่นเต้นตอนดู THE COLOUR OF LIES (1998, Claude Chabrol, A+30) นะ นึกถึงฉากที่ Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi ปะทะกับ Sandrine Bonnaire น่ะ แล้วเรากลัวมากว่าซองดรีนจะเอาเตารีดมาทาบหน้า Valeria หรือ Valeria จะควักปืนออกมายิงซองดรีน คือจริงๆแล้วมันไม่ได้มีเหตุการณ์รุนแรงอะไรในฉากนั้นเลยน่ะ แต่จินตนาการเรามันไปสุดๆแล้ว

เรารู้สึกว่าเราชอบ Claude Chabrol, Wes Craven, Tsui Hark, เจนณรงค์ ศิริมหา และล่าสุดคือ วริศ ดีพิสุทธิ์ ในแง่ที่ว่า เขาสร้าง "ตัวละครหญิงที่มีรังสีของการฆ่าฟันอย่างรุนแรง" ออกมาได้ในแบบที่ถูกจริตเรามากๆ แต่ชาโบรลจะก้าวไปไกลกว่าอีกสี่คนที่เหลือนิดนึง ในแง่ที่ว่า ความตื่นเต้นที่เรามีต่อหนังของชาโบรล มันเกิดจากจินตนาการของเราเองว่าตัวละครหญิงเหล่านี้จะลุกขึ้นมาฆ่ากัน ในขณะที่ความตื่นเต้นที่เรามีต่อหนังของอีกสี่คนที่เหลือมันเกิดจากการได้เห็นตัวละครหญิงฆ่ากันจริงๆ

สรุปได้ว่า เรารักหนังของ Claude Chabrol เพราะ "พลังงานศักย์" ในตัวละครหญิงในหนังของเขา ในขณะที่เรารักหนังของ Wes Craven, Tsui Hark, Janenarong Sirimaha และ Warit Deepisuti เพราะ "พลังงานจลน์" ในตัวละครหญิงในหนังของเขา

--ดีใจมากๆที่คฤหาสน์ซ่อนเพลิง (2012, Warit Deepisuti, A+30) ได้เผยแพร่ในวงกว้าง เพราะนี่เป็นหนึ่งในหนังยาวของไทยที่ชอบที่สุดในปีนี้ สิ่งที่ชอบมากๆในหนังเรื่องนี้ก็คือตัวละครหญิงที่มันไปได้สุดๆมากๆ

ดูคฤหาสน์ซ่อนเพลิงแล้วก็นึกถึงชีวิตสมัยมัธยมเหมือนกัน หนังของคุณวริศมีคุณค่ากับเรามากๆในแง่ที่ว่า ถึงแม้มันจะไม่มีความสมจริงแต่อย่างใด แต่มันมี "ความสนุกของการได้เล่นละคร" หรือ "ความสนุกของการได้เล่นอยู่ในโลกสมมุติกับเพื่อนๆสมัยมัธยม" อย่างเต็มเปี่ยมน่ะ และโลกจินตนาการหรือโลกสมมุติของคุณวริศกับเพื่อนๆ มันก็มีความใกล้เคียงกับโลกจินตนาการของเรามากๆ ซึ่งสิ่งนี้แตกต่างไปจากหนังของเด็กมัธยมอีกกลุ่มที่ชอบเล่าเรื่องออกมาเป็นหนังแอคชั่นแบบแมนๆ คือหนังกลุ่มนั้นก็นำเสนอ "ความสนุกของการได้เล่นอยู่ในโลกสมมุติกับเพื่อนๆสมัยมัธยม" เหมือนกัน แต่โลกสมมุติของผู้สร้างหนังกลุ่มนั้นไม่ค่อยพ้องกับโลกจินตนาการของเราสักเท่าไหร่

คือหนังบางเรื่องคุณค่าของมันอยู่ที่ "การเล่าเรื่องได้อย่างสมจริง" นะ แต่หนังบางเรื่องอย่างเช่น เด็กผู้หญิงสองคน (2010, Warit Deepisuti, A+30), คฤหาสน์ซ่อนเพลิง, GOLDEN SAND HOUSE (2006, Chulayarnnon Siriphol), HAUNTED HOUSES (2001, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, 60min), THE PEN (2008, Weerasak Suyala, 60min), MY HUSBAND (UNCENSORED) (2008, Chawagarn Amsomkid) และ LOVERS & ENEMIES (2010, Dilmana Yordanova + Mihaela Kavdanska, Bulgaria/Romania) คุณค่าของมันอยู่พ้นไปจากตัวเนื้อเรื่องน่ะ เราว่าคุณค่าของมันอยู่ที่ความสนุกสนานในการได้เล่าเรื่อง

http://vimeo.com/24771309

ฉากตกบันไดใน "เด็กผู้หญิงสองคน" ก็เลยเป็นหนึ่งในฉากที่เราชอบที่สุดในปีนี้ เพราะถ้าหากเป็นในหนังปกติธรรมดา เมื่อเราดูฉากนี้ เราจะจินตนาการว่า "ถ้าหากเราเป็นตัวละครตัวนั้น เราจะรู้สึกอย่างไรขณะตกกระได" แต่ใน "เด็กผู้หญิงสองคน" เมื่อเราดูฉากนี้ เรากลับรู้สึกว่า "ถ้าหากเราเป็นนักแสดงในหนังเรื่องนี้ เราจะรู้สึกสนุกขนาดไหนที่ได้เล่นตกกระไดต่อหน้ากล้อง" นี่แหละคือหนึ่งในความสนุกสุดยอดของเราขณะดูหนังของคุณวริศ เพราะเราไม่ได้จินตนาการว่าเรากำลังเป็นตัวละครตัวนั้น แต่เรากำลังจินตนาการว่าเรากำลังเป็นนักแสดงในหนังเรื่องนั้น

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grCmjYDm7mE

DAMNING THE DAM (2012, Pairach Khumwan, Patchara Eiamtrakul, Siriporn Kongma, documentary, 40 min, A+)

DAMNING THE DAM (2012, Pairach Khumwan, Patchara Eiamtrakul, Siriporn Kongma, documentary, 40 min, A+)

แถวนี้แม่งเขื่อน ไม่แน่จริงอยู่ไม่ได้

You can watch this film here (no English subtitles):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8WBLjqhZqA

Things I find very interesting in this film include:

1.The sense of a dilemma. I mean the film may be anti-dam, but it doesn't try to deny the fact that people needs electricity. After watching the film, I think the film doesn't try to say that we must stop building every dam. The film makes me feel that if a dam must be built, the victims of the dam must be adequately compensated or appropriately helped. The film makes me feel that the existence of a human being inevitably affects the existence of other human beings whom we don't know at all. How much electricity have I used since I was born? Does my existence indirectly affect many villagers or not? It seem there are "indirect victims" of everything that we do or every moment that we are still living, and we shouldn't forget these indirect victims.

2. Wiwat "Filmsick" Lertwiwatwongsa remarked that what he likes very much about the film A BELT AND A COMB (2012, Suthit Saja (Ja Bue), 10 min) is that it shows that there are marginal people among the marginal people themselves. If I remember it correctly, A BELT AND A COMB shows the difficulties in the lives of Lahu hill tribes people. But even among the Lahu people, the Lahu persons who come from Myanmar live with much more difficulty than Lahu in Thailand.

DAMNING THE DAM also shows us a problem like this. The people who lost their homelands because of the dam are already "victims", but there are differences among these victims. The Thai, Laotian and Karen victims were much better compensated than the Mon victims. This kind of things are rarely shown to the public. We like to look at these victims as one and the same, and not realizing at all that they are different from one another.

3.I like the different aspects towards the dam very much. The villagers look at the dam with regrets. When they look at the dam, it reminds them of their own homes, their happy lives in the past. But when Bangkokians look at the dam, they think of it as a beautiful tourist spot. I don't think that the Bangkokians are wrong at all with this kind of attitude, but it is definitely much better when the Bangkokians don't forget the sorrow and the pain of the villagers with the help of this documentary.

The different attitudes/memories towards the same place are what is interesting for me. Apart from the dam in this film, we can find other examples in our lives, for example, Rajdamnern Road. When you look at Rajdamnern Road, do you think of it as a place for Formula One racing? Or a place in which the massacre took place?

4.What makes DAMNING THE DAM a little bit different from some other social documentary films is its attempt to connect with the young audience by showing popup messages on the screen from time to time, instead of using plain texts, and by interviewing young Bangkokians who are not related to the villagers at all.

I think it is interesting that some documentary films try to find a way to reach a larger audience. Apart from this film, other notable examples include NONGHARN หนองหาร เพราะมันไม่ใช่เรื่องสิวๆ (2007, Panus Boonnun, 14 min) and SUPER FROG VS. ENERGY-CRAVING DEMON ซุปเปอร์กบปะทะปีศาจกระหายพลังงาน (2010, Jackrit La-ongek). Both films are about nature conservation or something like that, and both films try to make their stories look as funny as possible.

APPENDIX: Other favorite films about dams:

1.BEFORE THE FLOOD (2005, Li Yifan + Yu Yan, China)

2.BINGAI (2007, Feng Yan, China)

3.MY GRANDPA'S ROUTE HAS BEEN FOREVER BLOCKED (2012, Sutthirat Supaparinya)

4.A NARMADA DIARY (1995, Anand Patwardhan + Simantini Dhuru, India)

http://www.patwardhan.com/films/narmadadiary.htm

5.THIS IS NOT THE LAST TIME ไม่ใช่ครั้งสุดท้าย (2012, Natthan Krungsri, 14 min)

9-9-81 (2012, A+15)

9-9-81 (2012, A+15)

Compared to other Thai horror films, I may like this film a little bit less than I MISS U (2012, Monthon Arayangkoon, A+30), but I still like it very much.

I can't remember the English titles of each episode. I apologize if I remember any titles wrongly.

1.THE WAITER (หนุ่มกลัดมัน) (Sutas Pawilairat, A)

2.THE NEW TENANT (ผู้เช่าใหม่) (Pitak Ruangrojsin, A)

3.BEST FRIEND (เพื่อนสนิท) (Adirek Potong + Siripol Prasarttong, A+15)

4.THE LOVER (คนรักเก่า) (Oliver Wolfson, A+)

5.THE MAID (แม่บ้าน) (Seri Lachonnabot, A+15)

6.THE MOTHER (แม่เจ้าสาว) (Nuttorn Kangwanklai + Thanyawan Hempanom, A+25)

7.THE GROOM (เจ้าบ่าว) (Pirun Anusuriya, A+10)

8.EX-SOLDIER (ทหารเก่า) (Rapeepimol Chaisena, A+15)

9.OLD DOG (หมาแก่) (Disspong Sampattavanich + Kiatsak Wiboolchart, A+30)

The degree of my fondness for each episode not only depend on the talent of the directors, but also on the story in each episode. I wholeheartedly love the story of OLD DOG, so I give A+30 to it, though I can't say the directors of this episode are much more talented than the directors of other episodes. Likewise, I can't say that the directors of the first two episodes of this film are less talented than the directors of other seven episodes. It's just that the stories in the first two episodes are more like a prologue, and far from being a climax of the film, so that's why I don't feel that the first two episodes are exciting.

I think a member of The Professional Dry Cleaner (ยอดเซียนซักแห้ง) noted a few years ago that one of the signatures of Seri Lachonnabot's filmic styles is that he likes to create a scene in which the character looks as if he or she is on a stage in darkness, and there is a spotlight above the character, shining a light down at the character. I totally agree with the Professional Dry Cleaner. There is a scene like this in CHILD OF SIN (เด็กบาป) (2006, Seri Lachonnabot, 28min) and KHON-NAK-LOK (คน หนัก โลก) (2008, Ponlapat Yannarat + Seri Lachonnabot, 26min). I'm glad to find that a scene like this appears again in the climactic moment in the elevator scene in THE MAID.

Spoilers alert:

I like something near the ending of this film very much. Near the end of this film, "the murderer who killed someone in a temple" says to a policeman, "Our family has suffered so much. So you shouldn't intervene."

Interpret it at your own risk. Hahaha.

Actually, there may be no hidden meanings at all in this film, but I still like it very much, anyway.

TED (2012, Seth MacFarlane, A+20)

TED (2012, Seth MacFarlane, A+20)

TED is one of my most favorite Hollywood films this year. The reason is obvious from this photo, isn't it?

However, though I can identify myself partly with the protagonist of this film, I feel that the villain of this film is too close to me, because the villain of this film worships the singer Tiffany, and still have a lot of videotapes. Hahaha.

Another thing I like in TED is its abundance of references: Corey Feldman, Belinda Carlisle, Sinead O'Connor, Tom Skerritt, Ted Danson, Woody Harrelson, TOP GUN, etc.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637725/trivia?tab=mc

On the contrary, I have never really loved TOY STORY film series. I mean I like them, and I think they are good films, but I have never really felt that TOY STORY film series touch me personally.

PAINTED SKIN THE RESURRECTION (2012, Wuershan, A+)

PAINTED SKIN THE RESURRECTION (2012, Wuershan, A+)

This is a copy of what I wrote on Filmsick's wall:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151093001273576&set=vxywtia.1347748531.1347748532.10151011882593576&type=1&theater

สำหรับเราแล้ว เราว่าสิ่งที่เราชอบและเราไม่ชอบใน PAINTED SKIN THE RESURRECTION มีบางส่วนคล้ายๆกับสิ่งที่เรารู้สึกต่อ THE EAST IS RED (1993, Ching Siu-tong + Raymond Lee) หรือเดชคัมภีร์เทวดาภาค 3 นะ คือเรารู้สึกว่ามันเป็นความพยายามจะสร้างอะไรใหม่ๆหรือแตกต่างไปจากภาคก่อนหน้านี้น่ะ อย่างเดชคัมภีร์เทวดาภาค 1-2 เป็นหนังบู๊ แต่ภาค 3 เป็น character study ส่วน PAINTED SKIN THE RESURRECTION นี่ก็ดูเหมือนจะมีความพยายามสร้างอะไรใหม่ๆออกมา โดยเฉพาะส่วนที่เป็นอิงมาร์ เบิร์กแมนนี่เราก็ชอบมากๆเหมือนกัน

อย่างไรก็ดี ส่วนที่มันจี๊ดกับเราที่สุดใน PAINTED SKIN THE RESURRECTION กลับเป็นประเด็นเดิมๆที่อาจจะเหมือนกับหนังร้อยๆเรื่องที่สร้างกันมาก่อนหน้านี้แล้ว เพราะฉากที่เราจี๊ดที่สุดในหนังเรื่องนี้คือฉากที่นางนกผีโดนเลือดของนักปราบปีศาจจนทำให้ได้รับความเจ็บปวด แต่เธอกลับตื่นเต้นยินดีอย่างมากกับความรู้สึกเจ็บปวดอันนั้น คือส่วนนี้ว่าไปแล้วมันก็ไม่ได้ต่างไปจากหนังอย่าง WINGS OF DESIRE (1987, Wim Wenders) และ GOLDEN SWALLOW โอม สู้แล้วอย่าห้าม (1988, O Sing-Pui, A+30) นะ แต่มันก็เป็นส่วนที่ตรงกับใจเรามากที่สุดอยู่ดี

NICE TO MEET YOU (2012, Watcharapol Saisongkroh, A+30)

NICE TO MEET YOU (2012, Watcharapol Saisongkroh, A+30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSfUJA7kQOI

HE (2012, Rouzbeh Rashidi, A+10)

HE (2012, Rouzbeh Rashidi, A+10)

Rouzbeh Rashidi never fails to amaze me with his films. His films always show me some creative ideas which I rarely find in other films. HE is the 13th of his feature films that I have seen, and it also shows me something I haven't found in other films, including his twelve feature films that I have seen.

Things I like very much in HE include:

1.How to tell a story about a suicidal man. Most films about a suicidal person tell what happens in the protagonists' lives "visually". But in HE, the story about the protagonist is told "orally" by the protagonist himself. So what do we "see" in this film? We see the protagonist talking, and we see scenes of the protagonist wandering in some dilapidated buildings, kicking things, searching for something, doing some senseless stuff, doing something in the kitchen, and pondering on drinking a suspicious glass of water. We also see a husband and a wife having a serious problem, because the husband has turned completely numb.

There are some films which tell their stories very powerfully by having the actors talk to us, for example, LUDWIG'S COOK (1973, Hans-Jürgen Syberberg), TEN TINY LOVE STORIES (2002, Rodrigo García), CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi). HE is also one of these. The protagonist of HE, played by James Devereaux, tells us about his thoughts and his life stories in a very interesting way. It is easy for us to visualize some scenes in our own minds according to the stories he tells. But HE is also much more than an oral tale, because HE also presents us some "ambiguous" scenes of the protagonist wandering in some empty buildings, and intercutting these scenes with the scenes of the protagonist talking. I say these scenes are "ambiguous" because I'm not sure what the real status of these scenes is. Does what happen in these scenes a dream? Or a representation of the mental state of the protagonist? Or things really happen in the life of the protagonist? I'm not sure.

What do we achieve by intercutting these ambiguous scenes with the scenes of the protagonist talking? I'm not sure I can describe it in words. Let me just say it creates some strange feelings, and I think it is something new or something I have rarely seen before.

Does this intercutting help the film delve deeper into the mind of a suicidal man? I'm not sure. And I'm not sure if it is the purpose of this experimental film or not.

However, this kind of "putting two things together to create something new" reminds me a little bit of  BIPEDALITY (2010, Rouzbeh Rashidi). One of the most interesting things in BIPEDALITY is the intercutting between the scenes of the hero and the heroine talking to each other with the scenes of beautiful scenery. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between these two films. In BIPEDALITY, there seems to be no obvious connection at all between the talking scenes and the atmospheric scenes, while in HE, the talking scenes and the empty building scenes are linked by using the same actor.

2. I like the rapid editing (or intercutting) in several scenes in HE, though I'm not sure if the rapid editing works every time in this film. The rapid editing that I like very much is the one in the numb husband scene, the black cat scene, and the dialogue scene between the protagonist and his friend. However, I'm not sure if I like the rapid editing in the two monologue scenes or not.

I think it is interesting that the intercutting between the talking scenes and the empty building scenes becomes rapid from time to time. I don't know what the meaning of this rapid intercutting is. Does it portray the disturbed mind of the protagonist? Anyway, I feel disturbed myself, and my eyes feel irritated a little bit to watch the rapid editing during the two monologues in this film. Am I fair to say something like this? Why do I complain about the rapid editing in HE, but not in THE BOURNE LEGACY (2012, Tony Gilroy)? I think there is much difference between the rapid editing in HE and in action films. The rapid editing in action films connects things which happen in the same situation. The rapid editing in HE connects things which happen in different dimensions--physical world vs mental world--or something like that. So the rapid editing in HE creates some very strange feelings, though I'm not sure if it is a pleasant one.

What I'm trying to say is that I wonder if the intercutting has to be as fast as that, or if the juxtaposition of the physical world with the mental world can also be achieved by the split screen, or by turning this film into a two-channel video installation instead. Anyway, if the rapid intercutting is meant to disturb the audience or to make the audience understand how disturbed the protagonist feels, I think it is successful.

But I really like the rapid intercutting in the second half of the film, especially in the numb husband scene. The rapid intercutting in the numb husband scene creates such a powerful feeling in me, and I'm not sure if it is because it can be explained easily or not. I mean I don't see the "obvious reason" why the empty building scenes have to be intercut rapidly with the two monologue scenes, in which James Devereaux speaks very slowly. But in the numb husband scene, the empty building scenes which are intercut into it look like they come from a horror film, and there seems to be some obvious reasons why they have to be intercut rapidly into it. I mean the horror scene seems to suggest what happens in the mind of the husband, and the rapid rhythm of the intercutting corresponds very well with the shock of the wife. So I can say I love the rapid intercutting in this scene very much, though I'm not sure if it is because the rapid intercutting serves some obvious purposes or not.

As for the black cat scene, I love the rapid intercutting in this scene very much, though I don't understand its meaning or its purpose at all. This rapid intercutting happens when the friend learns that the protagonist is contemplating a suicide. Then we see that the face of the friend on the left side of the screen is intercut very rapidly with the scene of a black cat on the right side of the screen. I don't know what this intercutting means at all, but I think it is very funny, surreal, memorable, and powerful.

The rapid intercutting which follows in the dialogue scene doesn't disturb me as much as in the two monologue scenes, and I'm not sure if it is because I have adapted myself to the rhythm of this intercutting or not. Anyway, the rapid intercutting near the end of the film is extremely powerful.

3.The performance by James Devereaux is great, especially in the first monologue scene. I like his eyes in that scene very much. His eyes in that scene have some undeniable power in them. I also think that "the performance" in this film is not the same kind of performance as in most narrative films. Performances in most narrative films require that the actors perform the characters convincingly or as realistically as possible. But in HE, I think it is more about "the powerful presence" of the actor than the "realistic portrayal of the character". And Devereaux really creates a powerful "presence" in this film.

I also like the performance of the numb husband very much.

4.I also like the slow speech of Devereaux in this film. It is unintentionally reminds me of Deborah Kara Unger in TEN TINY LOVE STORIES, because both Devereaux and Unger don't tell their stories fluently, but tell stories as if they are disturbed by the stories they tell. It is as if every word coming out of Devereaux' mouth in this film has gone through a lot of emotions before it comes out. The emphasis on "how the actor speaks" in HE also unintentionally reminds me of CORNEILLE-BRECHT (2009, Jean-Marie Straub + Cornelia Geiser).

5.I also like the blurred quality and the colors of the empty building scenes during the first monologue very much. The blurred quality makes these scenes dreamlike. I also think the colors in these scenes are very beautiful, especially the scene in the green and purple room. The colors near the end of the film are very beautiful, too.

6.The scenes of the protagonist wandering in empty buildings unintentionally remind me of some apocalyptic films made by Teeranit Siangsanoh, such as THE LIGHT HOUSE (2011). I like this kind of scenes very much. It tells no story, but it is very atmospheric. It turns everyday scene (dilapidated buildings) into a highly imaginative fictional world.

7. As in many films made by Rashidi, the ambiguity is one of the most interesting things in HE. There are a few things I'm not sure about in this film. Most importantly, I wonder about the relationship between the numb husband and the protagonist. Are these two the same person?

8. One of the things that make me like the numb husband scene very much is because it is easy to identify with him. I mean the character portrayed by Devereaux is specific and full of details, while the numb husband lacks details, so one can identify oneself easily with the numb husband instead of the protagonist.

One of the things I think while watching HE is that there are thousands of reasons to commit suicide, and each suicidal man is different from one another. The protagonist of HE comes from a family which is too much addicted to television, while some suicidal men among the audience may come from families which are too religious and don't allow their children to watch game shows on television, or something like that. So while I think HE is a great film about a suicidal man, I don't think that every viewer with suicidal tendency can easily identify with the protagonist. Some viewers can, but others can't, I guess. As for me, I can easily identify myself with the numb husband, because there are some instances in my life in which I just want to stop doing everything, talk to no one (except my teddy bears), and go to sleep. Because the film doesn't give us any obvious reasons why the husband turns numb, so some viewers with different reasons to turn numb can easily identify with this character.

In conclusion, what I like very much in HE is that it presents a "new and interesting" way of telling a story and presenting the mind of a suicidal man.

 APPENDIX: My favorite films with suicide in them

1.THE DEVIL, PROBABLY (1977, Robert Bresson)

2.THE FIRE WITHIN (1963, Louis Malle)

3.GILLES' WIFE (2004, Frédéric Fonteyne)

4.HE (2012, Rouzbeh Rashidi)

5.THE INGRATITUDE (2005, Setthawit Punpeng)

6.JERICHOW (2008, Christian Petzold)

7.LETTERS FROM THE SILENCE (2006, Prap Boonpan)

8.LITTLE LIFE (2009, Rungkarn Keawsuwan, animation)

9.NO PLACE TO GO (2000, Oskar Roehler, Germany)

10.THE SEVENTH CONTINENT (1989, Michael Haneke, Austria)

11.SOPHIE'S CHOICE (1982, Alan J. Pakula)

12.SUICIDE PARADISE (2010, Vatanyu Ingkavivat)

13.SYLVIA (2003, Christine Jeffs)

14.TASTE OF CHERRY (1997, Abbas Kiarostami)

15.THE UNINVITED (2003, Lee Su-yeon, South Korea)

16.WHITE MISCHIEF (1987, Michael Radford) I like how the film presents the activities of Alice de Janzé (Sarah Miles) before she commits suicide very much. We see her singing happily. We see her waking up in the morning and saying something like, "This is such a beautiful morning." And then she commits suicide. And it is based on a true story.

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.

TEEN FILMS AT THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

ดวงกมลฟิล์มเฮ้าส์ (ฟิล์มไวรัส) ร่วมกับสำนักหอสมุด มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ ท่าพระจันทร์ เชิญชม

โปรแกรมเอาใจวัยรุ่น (มาใส่ใจเรา)
smells like teen spirit

ทุกวันอาทิตย์ระหว่างวันที่ 16 กันยายน – 23 ธันวาคม 2555 ตั้งแต่เวลา 12.30 น. เป็นต้นไป
ณ ห้องเรวัต พุทธินันท์ ชั้นใต้ดิน U2 หอสมุด ปรีดี พนมยงค์
มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ ท่าพระจันทร์
โทรศัพท์ 0-2613-3529 หรือ 0-2613-3530
ชมฟรี!!! (โปรดแจ้งเจ้าหน้าที่ห้องสมุดว่ามาชมภาพยนตร์ และกรุณาแต่งกายสุภาพ)

คัดเลือกภาพยนตร์โดย: I'm in love with a girl who doesn't know I exist.


วันอาทิตย์ที่ 16 กันยายน: Eeny, meeny, miny, moe
12.30 น. Chronicle of a lonely child (Argentina, 1965, 79min) กำกับโดย Leonardo Favio
14.15 น. The Other Bank (Georgia, 2009, 90min) กำกับโดย George Ovashvili

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 23 กันยายน: High School Confidential
12.30 น. High School (USA, 1968, 75min) กำกับโดย Frederick Wiseman
14.15 น. Taifu Club (Japan, 1985, 115min) กำกับโดย Shinji Sômai

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 30 กันยายน: I am Curious
12.30 น. Acné (Uruguay, 2008, 87min) กำกับโดย Federico Veiroj
14.15 น. Halfaouine: Child of the Terraces (Tunisia, 1990, 98min) กำกับโดย Férid Boughedir

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 7 ตุลาคม: Youth Runs Wild
12.30 น. Violent Playground (UK, 1958, 108min) กำกับโดย Basil Dearden
14.30 น. Dole (Gabon, 2000, 76min) กำกับโดย Imunga Ivanga

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 14 ตุลาคม: Youth of the Legend: The Childhood of Maxim Gorky
12.30 น. My Childhood (USSR, 1938, 98min) กำกับโดย Mark Donskoy
14.30 น. On His Own (USSR, 1939, 100min) กำกับโดย Mark Donskoy

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 21 ตุลาคม: The Childhood of Maxim Gorky & The life and the death of Edvard Munch
12.00 น. My University (USSR, 1941, 120min) กำกับโดย Mark Donskoy
14.15 น. Edvard Munch (Norway, 1974, 174min) กำกับโดย Peter Watkins

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 28 ตุลาคม: Colossal Youth
12.30 น. The Blob (USA, 1958, 86min) กำกับโดย Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr
14.15 น. WarGames (USA, 1983, 114min) กำกับโดย John Badham

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 4 พฤศจิกายน: Anarchist is our middle name: Rebellion
12.30 น. If.... (UK, 1968,111min) กำกับโดย Lindsay Anderson
14.30 น. Plastic Jesus (Yugoslavia, 1971, 73min) กำกับโดย Lazar Stojanovic

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 11 พฤศจิกายน: Anarchist is our middle name: Rebel with a Cause
12.30 น. Destroy Yourselves (France, 1969, 70min) กำกับโดย Serge Bard
14.15 น. The Red Detachment of Women (China, 1961, 110min) กำกับโดย Xie Jin

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 18 พฤศจิกายน: The Ringleaders: James Dean & Sidney Poitier
12.30 น. Rebel Without a Cause (USA, 1955, 111min) กำกับโดย Nicholas Ray
14.30 น. Blackboard Jungle (USA, 1955, 101min) กำกับโดย Richard Brooks

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 25 พฤศจิกายน: Taiyozoku (Nikkatsu's troubled youth )
12.30 น. Crazed Fruit (Japan, 1956, 86min) กำกับโดย Ko Nakahira
14.15 น. Elegy to Violence (Japan, 1966, 86min) กำกับโดย Seijun Suzuki

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 2 ธันวาคม: Girlsploitation
12.30 น. Messidor ( Switzerland, 1979, 123min) กำกับโดย Alain Tanner
14.45 น. Peking Opera Blues (Hong Kong, 1986, 104min) กำกับโดย Tsui Hark


วันอาทิตย์ที่ 9 ธันวาคม: Teenage Caveman
12.30 น. Polytechnique (Canada, 2009, 77min) กำกับโดย Denis Villeneuve
14.15 น. Over the Edge (USA, 1979, 95min) กำกับโดย Jonathan Kaplan

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 16 ธันวาคม: The Lovers on the Bridge
12.30 น. The Sun in a Net (Slovakia, 1962, 90min) กำกับโดย Stefan Uher
14.15 น. Little Vera (USSR, 1988, 115min) กำกับโดย Vasili Pichul

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 23 ธันวาคม: Romeo, Juliet and the Darkness
12.30 น. One Summer of Happiness (Sweden, 1951, 103min) กำกับโดย Arne Mattsson
14.30 น. China Girl (USA, 1987, 89min) กำกับโดย Abel Ferrara

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 6 มกราคม: Sketches of Young Couples
12.30 น. The Family Way (UK, 1966, 115min) กำกับโดย Roy Boulting
14.30 น. Declaration of War (France, 2011, 100min) กำกับโดย Valerie Donzelli

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 13 มกราคม: We can't go home again
12.30 น. Touki Bouki (Senegal, 1973, 85min) กำกับโดย Djibril Diop Mambety
14.15 น. Girl of Finland (Finland, 1967, 90min) กำกับโดย Mikko Niskanen

Film wish list: ENIAIOS (Gregory J. Markopoulos, 80 hours)

Film wish list: ENIAIOS (Gregory J. Markopoulos, 80 hours)

Here is what Fred Camper wrote about ENIAIOS in Sight and Sound magazine: "Eniaios is perhaps the most purely cinematic of films. Other arts are major inspirations, to be sure, but the film itself, with its flash frames and solid blacks and whites alternating in amazingly architectural rhythms (I thought, among other things, of classical temple columns separated by sky) can stand for, and in some ways surpass, what is best about the greatest films: a rhythmically pulsating rectangle of light. It attains an all-encompassing hugeness unparalleled in any other film I know."

http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/voter/598

CARTOON OF THE YEAR

GARREL AND EUSTACHE

Favorite quote from Adrian Martin:

http://www.filmkrant.nl/world_wide_angle/8188

" two types of cinema, one tending more toward the body, the other emphasising the brain. It's not a strict or absolute distinction: every film mixes both tendencies in varying proportions. As with all things, it's a matter of degree, of emphasis.But we know what the philosopher means. The cinema of the body is John Cassavetes, Maurice Pialat, Elaine May, Abel Ferrara, Philippe Garrel. A physical, visceral cinema, centred on the flesh, on the contact of bodies, on eroticism and violence, on 'corporeal subjectivity'. A cinema where the camera gets in the middle of the messy flux of life.

At the opposite extreme, a cinema of the brain: cool, cerebral, systematic, ordered, rational. The cinema of Harun Farocki, Stanley Kubrick, Alain Resnais, Alexander Kluge, Brian De Palma, Straub & Huillet. Calm, highly structured. An essayistic cinema, whether in documentary or fiction mode.Godard, Varda, Breillat, von Trier, Eustache, Akerman — many filmmakers alternate between brain-films and body-films, where one or the other tendency is dominant. 

"

I always thought of Philippe Garrel and Jean Eustache as belonging to the same group. This quote helps me see the difference between them.

The photo is from THE MOTHER AND THE WHORE (1973, Jean Eustache, A+30).

SOME REPRESSION IS INVISIBLE BECAUSE IT IS UBIQUITOUS

Favorite quote from Lisa Katzman in her article about the film THE ALL-AROUND REDUCED PERSONALITY -- REDUPERS (1977, Helke Sander): "REPRESSION IS RENDERED INVISIBLE BY THE CONSENSUAL ACCEPTANCE OF IT."

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC29folder/RedupersKatzman.html

" As we have seen, the wall's very ubiquity and "naturalness" make it a metaphor for the way repression is rendered invisible by the consensual acceptance of it. The image of Edda’s vomiting crystallizes our identifying this metaphorical meaning of the wall with the way sexism is rendered invisible, as societies accept as "natural" the social oppression of women. The image of Edda’s vomiting ruptures the taboo that maintains this naturalization. So, too, the women's pictures of the wall stand as an effort to deconstruct the naturalization of social repression.

"