A THAI ARTIST PAYING HOMAGE TO FASSBINDER

This is the painting LOVE IS COLDER THAN DEAD: HOMAGE TO FASSBINDER by Vasan Sitthiket. It was shown in the OBSSESSIVE COMPULSIVE exhibition at Number1 Gallery.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.182998865079254.39323.107763615936113

I should have been glad that a Thai artist pays an homage to Rainer Werner Fassbinder, but I'm not sure if I should be glad about this painting or not.

By the way, this painting unintentionally reminds me of the film LADDALAND (2011, Sophon Sakdaphisit, A+)

TRAILER FOR DOMINO FILM EXPERIMENT

This trailer presents some rough ideas in the DOMINO FILM EXPERIMENT.

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

http://dominofilm.blogspot.com/

PRAP BOONPAN'S RETROSPECTIVE THIS SATURDAY

Prap's retrospective will be held by Bodin Theparat on the 9th floor of BACC on Saturday, May 7, at 1500-1800 hrs. The details are as follows:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194731583900668&ref=ts

"งานฉายหนังสั้นแนวการเมืองของปราปต์ บุนปาน 7 เรื่อง
7 พฤษภาคม 2554 เวลา 15.00-18.00 น.

หนังสั้นที่ฉาย
-ทวิภพในเอกภพ
-หนัง "ผี" 16 ปีแห่งความหลัง
-จดหมายจากความเงียบ
-ความลักลั่นของงานรื่นเริง
-ห้องสันติภาพ
-หนังสั้นสีขาว/ชั่วแสงเทียน
-surprise film

พร้อมเสวนากับผู้กำกับ
ดำเนินรายการโดย ไกรวุฒิ จุลพงศธร

ที่ชั้น 9 หอศิลป์กทม. ตรงข้ามมาบุญครอง เข้าชมฟรี

"ออกแบบโปสเตอร์โดย บพิตร วิเศษน้อย""

This is what I wrote about Prap Boonpan in Indian Auteur's website:

" Prap Boonpan, whom I consider a leader of Thai political films, impressed me a lot with his Two Worlds in One World (2004, 18 min), which deals with the problems of the film The Siam Renaissance (2004, Surapong Pinijkhar), which may or may not present Thai historical facts, and may also present some wrong attitudes. Prap presents the problems of that film and his arguments very straightforwardly. He makes the characters in Two Worlds in One World talk about these problems and he uses his camera to focus on some historical textbooks in extreme close up, so that the viewers can read what is written on the textbooks. I like this kind of technique very much. It reminds me of some foreign essayistic films or some films by Jean-Luc Godard, but I had never found this kind of argumentative techniques employed in Thai films before. Prap uses this technique again in Letter from the Silence (2006, 5 min), in which he uses a camera to focus on a letter written by a Thai taxi driver who heroically committed suicide to protest the military coup in 2006. I had read this powerful letter before I saw this film. I liked the content of the letter very much, but it didn't have a strong effect on my feelings when I read it on a website. However, when the letter is presented in this film, the power of its words seems to increase exponentially and unexplainably, and this time the letter can make me cry. Maybe the film lends an "aura" to the letter. This technique is used again, but by a younger director, in a film called Women in Democracy (2009, Atthawut Boonyuang, 6 min), which is one of the best Thai films this year. This fact seems to indicate that Prap may have some influences on younger directors. Prap's masterpiece is The Bangkok Bourgeois Party (2007, 28 min), which condemns many bourgeois people who support the military coup. It contains an instant classic scene—a three-to-five minute blackout scene in which the viewers see nothing and hear nothing. This scene comes after the bourgeois characters kill a character who thinks differently. Though many films by Prap contain a lot of dialogues or texts, there are some films in which he turns to use some symbols, instead of texts or dialogues, to convey his messages. This group of films includes Culture and Nature (2008, 3 min) and the latter part of The White Short Film/The Candle Light (2009, 20 min), which earns him the R.D. Pestonji award. This award-winning film consists of two parts. In the first part, we see a man and a woman reading a script about the political situation in Thailand in late 2008 and early 2009. In the second part, we see a man watching a candle in a TV. This film, together with Culture and Nature, makes me contemplate about the future of Thailand. I think in the future if someone wants to write a book about Thai political films, Prap Boonpan is one of the names which must be included in that book."

If I have to screen Prap's films with some foreign films, I will choose:

1.THE PATRIOT (1979, Alexander Kluge)
Because both THE PATRIOT and TWO WORLDS IN ONE WORLD are about "problems with history and history telling".

2.LA CHINOISE (1967, Jean-Luc Godard)
Because I like the conversation in the train scene in LA CHINOISE as much as I like the conversation in THE SPECTRE: 16 YEARS LATER (2006, Prap Boonpan, 30 min).

3.DANTON (1982, Andrzej Wajda)
Because I like the hero of this film as much as I like the hero of THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY.

4.THE NASTY GIRL (1989, Michael Verhoeven)
Because I like the heroine of this film as much as I like the hero of THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY.

5.SOPHIE SCHOLL: THE FINAL DAYS (2005, Marc Rothemund)
Because I like the heroine of this film as much as I like the hero of THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY.

6.THE PINOCHET CASE (2001, Patricio Guzmán)
Because this film makes me cry like LETTER FROM THE SILENCE.

7.DIVINE INTERVENTION (2002, Elia Suleiman)
Because this film makes me cry like LETTER FROM THE SILENCE.

8.UNTITLED VIDEO ON LYNNE STEWART AND HER CONVICTION, THE LAW, AND POETRY (2006, Paul Chan)
Because this film presents some powerful poems like RESISTANT POEM (2009, Prap Boonpan, 20 min).

9.EUROPA 2005 - 27 OCTOBER (2006, Jean-Marie Straub + Danièle Huillet)
Because this film makes me feel as hurtful as Prap's films. You can watch the film in the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGU06JQ92lc

10.THE INEXTINGUISHABLE FIRE (1969, Harun Farocki)
Because this film burns me as powerfully as Prap's films. And because the title of this film can explain my general feelings for Prap's films.

MANUSSAK DOKMAI'S RETROSPECTIVE

Manussak Dokmai's retrospective will be held this Thursday at 1500-1800 hrs on the 9th floor of BACC. The details are as follows:

"ฉายหนังสั้นของ มานัสศักดิ์ ดอกไม้ 9 เรื่อง
ในงาน "You Say You Want a Revolution: เปลี่ยนเถิดชาวไทย"
5 พฤษภาคม 2554 เวลา 15.00-18.00 น.

-อย่าลืมฉัน
-ข้อเท็จจริงเกี่ยวกับนายโดม สุขวงศ์ ตอน ภัยเงียบ
-ไม่มีภาคกลางเพราะเบื่อคนชั้นกลาง
-งานเฝ้าระวังความฝันของบุคคล น่าเชื่อว่าทำลายศีลธรรมอันดีของประชาชน
-ข่าวกีฬา : พวกห่ากำลังไป พวกสัมภเวสีกำลังจะมา
-หลอก
-นครพนมมือบ้าง
-นครไม่พนมมือบ้าง
-ความลับเหนือความรัก

ดำเนินรายการโดย ศาสวัต บุญศรี
ที่ชั้น 9 หอศิลป์กทม. ตรงข้ามมาบุญครอง เข้าชมฟรี

"ออกแบบโปสเตอร์โดยอาคิรา กังวานภัทร""

The retrospective is held by Bodin Theparat.

As for Manassak's films shown in this retrospective, I like SO BORED WITH MIDDLE CLASS (2005) and DREAM WATCH FOR ANYONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO VIOLATE GOOD MORALITY (2007) very much. They really defy definition.

Things I like very much in Manassak's films include:

1.I don't understand them, but I really enjoy them. HAUNT, which is Manassak's first film, seems to be a simple Thai ghost film at first, but after the film ends, I don't really know what happens in this film any more. SO BORED WITH MIDDLE CLASS is full of scenes which are beyond my understanding. But the puzzlement in Manussak's films is the real fun, not the cause of headache.

2. I'm not sure what "essay films" mean, but I guess many of Manussak's films can be classified as "essay films" or "cinematic pamphlets", because they present the social or political ideas of the director in a style which is the hybrid between documentary, fiction, and experimental films. I really like DIALOGUE (บทพูด) (2001), WAY OF THINKING 1: LAOTIAN SOLDIERS WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAI PEOPLE'S IDEAS (วิธีคิด 1: ทหารลาวขอเปลี่ยนแนวคิดคนไทย) (2002), DON'T FORGET ME (2003), DREAM WATCH FOR ANYONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO VIOLATE GOOD MORALITY, and SPORT NEWS: THOSE BASTARDS ARE LEAVING AND WILL BE REPLACED BY EVIL SPIRITS (2007) for their essayistic styles.

3.The simple styles in some of his films. Manussak's films don't require big production. Some of his films seem to be very simple, but very effective for me. If I remember it correctly, GAY MEGADANCE (2001) consists of a static shot of a man looking at the camera, then he bows down out of the frame, revealing a poster of a bare-chested Brue Lee behind him, then he raises his head, and we see some white stain on his mouth. DIALOGUE (2001) consists of a static shot of two people talking, though we don't see the face of these two. We only see some strange activities that they do while talking. THE TRUTH ABOUT MR. DOME SUKVONG: EPISODE – INVISIBLE THREAT (2005) simply interviews Dome Sukvong. The camera only focuses on his face. There are no other things in this documentary. But this is enough. To hear what Dome say, to look at his face, and to feel the love that Manussak has for Dome, which is unconsciously expressed in this film, are already extremely wonderful.

4. There is a shot in Manussak's film that I like very much, and I'm not sure why. It's a shot near the end of DREAM WATCH FOR ANYONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO VIOLATE GOOD MORALITY, in which we see Dome Sukvong waking up from his table, and we hear him talking about his strange dream about Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat (if I remember it correctly). I don't know if that shot is a documentary of fictional shot. It looks very much like Dome really waking up.

5.Manussak's films have some scenes which are unlikely to be found in most Thai films, such as the scene in DREAM WATCH FOR ANYONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO VIOLATE GOOD MORALITY, in which the image is clear, then blurred, then clear, then blurred, without any obvious reasons.

6.His reference to some old Thai films, old Thai songs, and old Thai dialogues. DREAM WATCH FOR ANYONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO VIOLATE GOOD MORALITY refers to THE WORLD WILL END IN 10 DAYS (1987, Chana Pawaganont, F), which I considered one of the worst films ever made. SECRET ABOVE LOVE (ความลับเหนือความรัก) refers to DARK HEAVEN (1958, Rattana Pestonji).

Manussak's films unintentionally remind me of the last sentence in "The first Statement of the New American Cinema Group" (1961). That sentence is "WE DON'T WANT FALSE, POLISHED, SLICK FILMS—WE PREFER THEM ROUGH, UNPOLISHED, BUT ALIVE; WE DON'T WANT ROSY FILMS—WE WANT THEM THE COLOR OF BLOOD."

Manussak's films may be very different from the films of the New American Cinema, but I like the adjectives "rough", "unpolished", and "alive" very much, and I think these adjectives can very well be applied to Manussak's films.

If I have to screen Manussak's films with films by other directors, I think my list may include:

1.THE BANGKOK BOURGEOIS PARTY (2007, Prap Boonpan, 29 min)

2.THE PEN (2008, Weerasak Suyala, 60 min)

3.PROGNOSTIC (บุพนิมิต) (2009, Supakit Seksuwan, 8 min)

4.RED MOVIE (2010, The Underground Office, 38 min)

5.SAWADEEKA (1999, Kullachat Jitkajornwanit + Luechai Pohsakul, 6 min)

IRANIAN DIASPORA FILMS

From my comment in Facebook:

I think the Iranian diaspora films are very interesting. I totally agree with what Ratchapoom Boonbunchachoke said: these directors don't have to make films in Iranian styles any more.

The Iranian diaspora films include:

1.BEFORE THE STORM (2000, Reza Parsa, Sweden, A+)

2.CERTIFIED COPY (2010, Abbas Kiarostami, Italy, A+)

3.FEAR OF HEIGHTS (1994, Houchang Allahyari, Austria, A+)

4.MANHATTAN BY NUMERS (1993, Amir Naderi, USA)

5.PARIS (2003, Ramin Niami, USA, C)

6.STILL LIFE (1974, Sohrab Shahid Saless, West Germany)
http://filmsick.exteen.com/20090426/still-life-sohrab-shahid-salles

7.ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, A+)

The photo below is from ZOETROPE.

THINGS I LIKE IN CHALOEMKIAT SAEYONG'S FILMS

There are many things I like in Chaloemkiat's films, including:

1.The observation on female workers in HISTORY IN THE AIR (2009, 62 min) and "CHAY, GAYVAH-RAR 'N' THE MACHUPICCHU" (2010, 21 min)

2.The use of texts instead of direct voices, which unintentionally helps solving the problem of the imperfect sound systems, which is often found in alternative film screening venues in Bangkok.

Recently, I have found some problems with some films shown at Reading Room (such as RESIST by Teeranit Siangsanoh), films shown in the Siam Inception Program at Pridi Banomyong Institute (such as LOST by Yingsiwat Yamolyong), and films shown at BACC (such as HISTORY IN THE AIR), because I can't hear what the characters are saying. The sound volume is not low. It is loud, but the "speaking voices" is drowned by other noises in the films. The speaking voices in these films are frustratingly indistinct. I don't know if the problems result from the imperfect sound recordings by the filmmakers, or by the imperfect sound systems at the film screening venues, or by my imperfect ears.

I guess some cases result from the imperfect sound recordings or sound mixings by the filmmakers, and some cases result from the unfortunately bad matching between the film sound and the sound system at the venue. I know that some cases result from my own ears, because I couldn't hear what the interviewees were saying in the film CITIZEN TRAIN (2009, Arthawut Boonyuang + Kadnang Gohnoi) when it was shown in the Marathon Festival last year, but Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa, who attended the same film screening, could hear it.

Whatever the cause of this problem, the filmmakers can help alleviate this problem by:

2.1 Reducing the speaking parts in their films

2.2 Using texts instead of voices, such as in Chaloemkiat Saeyong's films

2.3 Making subtitles, so that when we can't hear or understand the speaking voices, we can still follow what the characters are saying


3.The false endings

Chaloemkiat's films seem to have many endings before the real endings. The most obvious example is HISTORY IN THE AIR, which seems to have at least six endings in the film.

In HISTORY IN THE AIR, which is 62 minutes long,

3.1 The first ending happens at the second shot in the film, which occurs at the first second of the film. The first shot of this film shows a text saying "THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY". The second shot of this film shows the word "END".

3.2 The second ending comes in at minute 18:28, when we see a text saying "Dedicated to Supaporn Konggrapee" appear on the screen, and then the film repeats all the Wikipedia texts which have already appeared in the first few minutes of this film.

3.3 The third ending occurs at minute 25, when we see what looks like the ending credit appear on the screen. I think this may be an unintentional parody of BLISSFULLY YOURS (Apichatpong Weerasethakul), because the opening credit of BLISSFULLY YOURS appears halfway into the film, while the ending credit of HISTORY IN THE AIR appears in the middle of the film.

3.4 The fourth ending occurs at minute 47, when the camera pans out to the runway, and the image of the runway is frozen for a while. The only thing that tells us that the frozen image does not occur by DVD malfunction is the soundtrack which keeps on moving.

3.5 The fifth ending occurs at minute 61, when we see the title of the film and some dedication texts appear on the screen, and then we see a black screen for about 30 seconds.

3.6 After the 30-second black screen, we see a very long text explaining why Chaloemkiat made this film. After this text, we reach the sixth ending, which is the real ending of this film.


4.The darkness, which occurs

4.1 At the end of PERU TIME (2008)

4.2 At the end of POLITICALLY LAWYER AND NARRATIVE CINEMA (2009)

4.3 In the airport in the "time lapse scene" at minute 9 in HISTORY IN THE AIR

4.4 In the hotel room in CHAY, GAYVAH-RAR 'N' THE MACHUPICCHU. The room is not totally dark, but it is dimly lit.

4.5 In 3/4 of the film EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE LUMIERE FACTORY (2010). Darkness prevails in this film.


5.Chaloemkiat's films don't try to arouse emotions in the same way as other films.

Personally, I think it is interesting that there are many Thai filmmakers who make "atmospheric films", including Chaloemkiat, but their films are different. What makes Chaloemkiat's films different from other atmospheric Thai films includes the fact that Chaloemkiat's films do not arouse emotions in the same way as others.

The differences between these atmospheric Thai filmmakers may be observed by comparing their films concerning with sea. These films include:


5.1 AFTERNOON LANDSCAPE (2011, Chaloemkiat Saeyong)

This film might be one of my least favorite films of Chaloemkiat, but it helps point out what makes his films different from others'. The view of the sea in this film is almost devoid of emotions.

5.2 BIRTH OF THE SEANEMA (2004, Sasithorn Ariyavicha)
The sea in this film hypnotizes me.

5.3 DEATHLESS DISTANCE (2009, Taiki Sakpisit)
We hear a strange, powerful, haunting soundtrack when we see the image of the sea in this film. I think the strange soundtrack is one signature of Taiki's films.

5.4 THE ETERNAL LIGHT (2008, Tulapop Saenjaroen)
The sea in this film looks abstract and very beautiful, though these characteristics may not apply to other films by Tulapop.

5.5 FAKE FIELD (ทุ่งกำมะลอ) (2008, Paisit Punpruegsachart)
I'm not sure if this film shows some signatures of Paisit or not. I like the soundtrack of this film very much, though what I love in other films of Paisit is not the soundtrack.

5.6 JONAH WILL BE 35 IN THE YEAR 2010 (2009, Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaMb3jfy-Fk

The sea in this film gives a poignant, melancholic feeling, which may be one characteristic of Wiwat's films.

5.7 NO ONE AT THE SEA (2005, Tossapol Boonsinsukh)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vB7yCQURj8

The sea in this film gives a very lonely feeling, which is one of the signatures of Tossapol's films

5.8 THE SAME OLD SEA (2008, Pisut Srimhok, 22 min)
Pisut Srimhok makes atmospheric documentary films, so the sea in this film is different from others because it is shown matter-of-factly to serve the documentary.

It is interesting to compare the sea in this film with the sea in I'M FINE THANK YOU AND YOU? (2008, Patana Chirawong, 87 min). Patana is also a documentary filmmaker, but he doesn't make atmospheric films like Pisut.
The sea in I'M FINE THANK YOU AND YOU? provides "the climax" for the film, but the sea in THE SAME OLD SEA doesn't concern with the emotional trajectory of the film. I think Patana's films tell stories, and may have "lessons" for the viewers, such as "you should help other people" or "you should be kind to other people", while Pisut's documentaries don't tell obvious stories and don't seem to have lessons for the viewers.

5.9 SCAR (2010, Arthawut Boonyuang)
The sea in this film "invites me to imagine some stories" concerning with the erotic story shown before the sea scene. However, this may or may not be a characteristic of Arthawut's film. I'm not sure.

5.10 WAKE UP TIME (2008, Chaiwat Wiansantia)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYlE9nS9smM

The sea in this film feels intimate, and gives a little bit warm, cozy feeling, which may be one characteristic of Chaiwat's films.


This is a photo from Chaloemkiat's graduation day. It is unlike other graduation day's photos I have ever seen in my whole life. I think this photo is a good representative of his films.

FAVORITE FILMS ABOUT "PROBLEMS WITH MOTHER"

(in alphabetical order)

1.IN AFRICA (2010, Phunjephol Songvisava, 30 min)

2.THE INGRATITUDE (อกตัญญู) (2005, Setthawit Punpeng, 26 min)

3.THE LETTER (ภาพ) (2008, Wuttichai Tengwongwattana, 15 min)

4.MOTHER (UNFINISHED VERSION) (2011, Vorakorn Ruetaivanichkul, 64 min)

5.MOTHER, HUG ME PLEASE (แม่จ๋ากอดหนูหน่อย) (2004, Nutchapol Chotsurakulya, 5 min)

6.OH MADA (1977, Chana Kraprayoon)

7.OR (2004, Keren Yedaya, Israel)

8.PHANTOM LOVE (2007, Nina Menkes)

9.TARNATION (2003, Jonathan Caouette)

10.UMMA (2003, Hohyun Joung, South Korea)

RIP MARIE-FRANCE PISIER (1944-2011)

I think she is as beautiful and elegant as Anouk Aimee, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Stephane Audran.

I think the casting in DOMBAIS ET FILS is spot-on, because Caroline Bourg, who plays the daughter of Marie-France Pisier in this miniseries, looks like Kristin Scott Thomas.

Marie-France Pisier's films that I saw:

1.CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING (1974, Jacques Rivette, A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++)

2.THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974, Luis Buñuel, A++++++++++)

3.TRANS-EUROP-EXPRESS (1967, Alain Robbe-Grillet, A++++++++++)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4276930021793732862#

4.DOMBAIS ET FILS (2007, Laurent Jaoui, A++++++++++)

5.TIME REGAINED (1999, Raoul Ruiz, A+)

6.THE BRONTE SISTERS (1979, André Téchiné, A+)

7.THE FRENCH ATLANTIC AFFAIR (1979, Douglas Heyes, 278 min)

8.THE LADY BANKER (1980, Francis Girod, A+)

9.THE ICE RINK (1998, Jean-Philippe Toussaint, A+)

I'm also saddened to know that Ken Russell suffered from a stroke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/apr/28/ken-russell-the-devils

FILM ARTICLE WISH LIST

The article in the link below questions the female roles in Andrei Tarkovsky's films. I'm not sure whether I agree with this article or not. Maybe I have to re-watch Tarkovsky's films again.

http://filmmakersjournal.co.uk/article.php?id=45

I wish some critics write articles about the female roles in the films of

1.Chana Kraprayoon, who directed DANGEROUS GIRLS (1976), OH MADA (1977), RAI SANAYHA (1979), VICTIMS (1987), TONG PRAGAI SAD (1988)

http://www.thaifilmdb.com/th/pp01651

2.Permpol Choei-aroon, who directed LIFE IS A BITCH (1977), MUANG NAI MORK (1978), A CITY OF BEGGARS (1978), HOSTAGE HUSBAND (1985), and THE JUDGEMENT (1989)

3.François Ozon

4.Paul Verhoeven

5.Arturo Ripstein

CHALOEMKIAT SAEYONG'S RETROSPECTIVE THIS SATURDAY

The retrospective of Chaloemkiat Saeyong, who is one of my most favorite directors of all time, will be held this Saturday on the 9th floor of BACC at 1500-1800 hrs. The details of the event can be found here:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194731583900668


The event is organized by Bodin Theparat. The poster is designed by Nattaphan Boonlert.

This is what Ratchapoom Boonbunchachoke wrote about Chaloemkiat's films:
" Chaloemkiat's films are structured like a vast, dazzling labyrinth in which being lost is considered less like a loss than a reward, the complex yet never tiring one to wander into. Challenging experiment inducing pleasure deserves to be seen and enjoyed. A must for the adventurous!"

This is what I wrote about Chaloemkiat in INDIAN AUTEUR:
http://www.indianauteur.com/?p=976
" Chaloemkiat Saeyong’s masterpiece is Politically Lawyer and Narrative Cinema (2009, 27 min), which plays with many elements of cinema. The film tells a fictional story about a murder in an airport and uses this murder to remind the viewers of the real case of Somchai Neelaphaijit, a Thai political lawyer who disappeared in 2004. Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa, a Thai film critic, makes an interesting observation that the film seems to both tell a story and destroy its story at the same time. The film is extremely self-reflexive and has numerous weird things in it. For example, both the English title and the Thai title of this film are “intentionally” grammatically wrong. The film shows us a lecture room or a corridor in a building, while a text appearing on the screen says that the audience must imagine that what they see is an airport. The film reminds me of some weird and wonderful films by Jean-Luc Godard. Chaloemkiat also made Peru Time (2008, 18 min), which lets us watch a sunset for 18 minutes while some unreadable texts keep appearing on the screen. Wiwat compares this film to the opening scene of India Song (1974, Marguerite Duras). Chaloemkiat also made A Place of Different Air (2008, 24 min), in which the images appearing on the screen change their sizes from time to time. This semi-documentary, semi-experimental film is about a family who has just moved to a new place, and the different image sizes seem to emphasize the contrast between the old place and the new place."

My comments on other films of Chaloemkiat:
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2011/02/afternoon-landscape-2011-chaloemkiat.html
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2010/07/judge-2010-wachara-gunha.html
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2010/02/history-on-air-2009-chaloemkiat-saeyong.html

Chaloemkiat's interview in Thai:
http://fuse.in.th/blogs/interview/3941
http://www.youtube.com/siaminception#p/u/38/GaFAul6my3g

How to financially support Chaloemkiat's new film:
http://dominofilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/supporters.html

EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE LUMIERE FACTORY (2010, Chaloemkiat Saeyong, A+++++++++++++++) is my most favorite Thai film I have seen so far in 2011.

What I like very much in this film include:

1.Its trance-like quality. While I was watching this film, I feel as if I was having a trance. It's the same kind of feeling I get from watching AUTOHYSTORIA (2007, Raya Martin, A++++++++++).

2.Its darkness, its dim light, and the image of a woman in the dark.

3.Its sound effects. These sound effects might be just a room tone in most films. But in this film, this "room tone" becomes enormous, becomes something very special.

4.The film arouses my imagination very much by its darkness and its "room tone". The "dark scenes" in this film make my imagination explode.

5.Its repetitive structure. The same event seems to happen 3-4 times in this film, with slight differences each time. This structure reminds me of some films by Jean-Marie Straub.

6.The man lying on the stair. I think this is very weird and wonderful. Chaloemkiat said that this man performs "a sculpture" in this film.

7.The mysterious woman who walks in a very strange manner near the end of the film. Chaloemkiat said that he doesn't know who this woman is. She just walked into the frame of this film by accident.

8.Its minimalism

9.Its uncompromising quality. I think it should be screened together with RUHR (James Benning).

10.The film can be greatly enjoyed no matter whether you understand this film or not. I had seen this film before I had a chance to listen to Chaloemkiat's explaining about why he had made this film. So while I was watching it, I had no clue at all what this film is all about. I didn't understand anything in this film, but I enjoy it very much.

After I had seen the film, Chaloemkiat explained to the audience that the film is about some film education in some Thai universities, which is like keeping the film students in total darkness.

Though this film has its real meaning, what I like very much about it is that I don't have to understand its real meaning to enjoy it. Even though I know its real meaning by now, I don't think I will focus my mind on its meaning when I have a chance to see it for the second time or third time. When I see this film for the second time or third time, I will forget its real meaning, I will let my imagination explode again, I will use the "sound" and the "images" in this film to imagine "other films" and "other stories" that I like.

FAVORITE THAI FILMS SEEN SO FAR IN 2011

1.EMPLOYEES LEAVING THE LUMIERE FACTORY (2010, Chaloemkiat Saeyong)

2.THE FESTIVAL OF DEMON SPIRIT (2011, Sittiporn Racha)

3.RESIST (2009, Teeranit Siangsanoh, 54 min)

4.ME AND MY VIDEO DIARY (Tani Thitiprawat, 30 min)

5.EROTIC FRAGMENTS NO. 1, 2, 3 (2011, Anucha Boonyawattana)

6.PANYA RENU (2011, Bhin Banluerit)

7.HUG NA SARAKHAM (2011, Tanwarin Sukkhapisit)

8.I HOPE WE WILL PASS THROUGH THIS NIGHT (2011, Wattanapume Laisuwanchai)

9.DINING TABLE (2011, Wararak Thienkunakorn)

10.PIG'S STORIES (2011, Amrit Chusuwan, video installations)

INTRODUCTION TO DOMINO FILM EXPERIMENT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJPTfOUL8M

LA FILLE AU FOND DU VERRE A SAKE (2009, Emmanuel Sapolski, B)

I don't enjoy this film, and I'm not sure why. Theoretically, I should have enjoyed this film, because there are many reasons that should have made me like it, such as

1.The film is about interracial relationship.
2.The film seems to be made with good intentions towards its Asian characters.
3.The film has a nice supporting gay character.

However, I don't enjoy it that much, and I still can't figure out why. Maybe the reasons why I don't enjoy it include:

1.The heroine's mother seems to be a stereotyped character, but the Asian mother in MY BROTHER IS GETTING MARRIED (2007, Jean-Stéphane Bron, A+) is a little bit stereotyped, too, but I still like MY BROTHER IS GETTING MARRIED very much.

2.The film ends with the reconciliation between the runaway Asian woman and her family. Normally I love films of which the heroine severs her ties with her family at the end of the film, such as SHIRLEY VALENTINE and LE BLEU DES VILLES (1999, Stéphane Brizé), not the ending in which family members reconcile with one another.

However, I still worship the film RESTLESS (2009, Laurent Perreau, A+++++++++++++++) very much, though its heroine reconciles with her grandfather near the end of the film. In fact, the reconciliation between these two characters moves me so much that it makes me want to cry.

So I'm not sure that the reconciliation is the reason why I don't enjoy LA FILLE AU FOND DU VERRE A SAKE, because there are some family reconciliations in other films, and I still enjoy them.

Apart from LA FILLE AU FOND DU VERRE A SAKE, there are other films about Asian-Caucasian relationships which I don't enjoy, such as:

1.BUTTERFLY MAN (2002, Kaprice Kea, C)

2.THE LAST SAMURAI (2003, Edward Zwick, B-)

3.NOW CHINATOWN (2000, Steven Dunning, C)

4.ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE (2002, Hu Mei, Austria, B-)

5.PARIS (2004, Ramin Niami, C)

I'm also not sure exactly why I don't enjoy the five films above, though these films seem to be made with good intentions towards their Asian characters, too.

Maybe some critics should analyze the five films above and LA FILLE AU FOND DU VERRE A SAKE, so that I may understand why I don't enjoy these films.

On the contrary, there are some films about Asian-Caucasian relationships that I like very much, including:

1.AE FOND KISS... (2004, Ken Loach, UK, A+)

2.THE HOME SONG STORIES (2007, Tony Ayres, Australia, A+)

3.IRON & SILK (1990, Shirley Sun, A+)

4.LADY BAR (2006, Xavier Durringer, France, A+)

5.M. BUTTERFLY (1993, David Cronenberg, A+)

6.MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE (1985, Stephen Frears, UK, A+)

7.NINA'S HEAVENLY DELIGHTS (2006, Pratibha Parmar, UK, A+)

8.SIAO YU (1995, Sylvia Chang, A-)

9.TERRIBLY HAPPY (2010, Pimpaka Towira, A+)

10.THE WEDDING BANQUET (1993, Ang Lee, A+)

This is the photo of Frédéric Siuen, a supporting actor in LA FILLE AU FOND DU VERRE A SAKE.

CONNECT (2010, Worawich Subtawesang, A)

CONNECT (2010, Worawich Subtawesang, A)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avl6DZvj0YA&feature=share

Maybe this film should be screened together with RELATION (ระยะความเข้าใจ) (2008, Supakit Seksuwan, A)

Thanks to Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa for telling us about CONNECT.

"FAILED ART FILM" GENRE

This is from my conversation with Graiwoot Chulphongsathorn on John Waters' lecture about "failed art film" genre:
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/john-waters/videos/filth-101-film-taste-and-philosophy/

Oh, I like the attitude of John Waters on this thing very much. I think there are many films that failed to be respected by the critics and the audience, but there are still some interesting things or weird things in them. POLA X is surely one of them. ÉCOUTE VOIR may be one of them, too. I don't know if ÉCOUTE VOIR financially failed or not when it was released, but I guess the film might have failed in a way, because Hugo Santiago didn't become famous, and Deneuve doesn't do this kind of roles again.

In my opinion, I think THE 8TH DAY (แปดวันแปลกคน) (2008, Chatchai Yodseranee, A-) is a failed art film, too. I think the film is too ambitious, and may be too pretentious, but the film still stands apart from many Thai ghost films. THE 8TH DAY "couldn't find the right tone or the right element", but it is really "odd". I don't care much about this film when it was released, but three years have passed, and it seems no directors want to make a Thai ghost film like this again, so THE 8TH DAY becomes interesting, because it is still "different" from others.

THE 8TH DAY didn't fail totally. At least it helps re-launching the career of Wasana Chalakorn.

Another failed art film may be "THEORY ON THE DINING TABLE" (2010, Prachya Lampongchat, A++++++++++), which is a part of the omnibus film BROWN SUGAR 2. The film doesn't "fail" in my point of view, though it may fail in the eyes of some critics and the general audience.

Some "tribute" films are really bad, though. If I remember it correctly, WHEN BRENDAN MET TRUDY (2000, Kieron J. Walsh, C+) got a big inspiration from BREATHLESS, but I don't like WHEN BRENDAN MET TRUDY at all. But WHEN BRENDAN MET TRUDY is a mainstream film, so I don't think it belongs to the "failed art film" genre.

ÉCOUTE VOIR (1978, Hugo Santiago, A++++++++++)

Things I like very much in this film include:

1.It is such a thrill for me to see Catherine Deneuve uses some martial art skills to deal with villains in this film. I usually like heroines who possess some martial art skills, such as the one in RAGING PHOENIX (2009, Rashane Limtrakul, A+++++), but I had never thought that Catherine Deneuve used to play in a role like this, too.

One of my most favorite scenes in ÉCOUTE VOIR is in the minute 3 in the clip below. It is the scene in which Deneuve fights with a villain and a villainess in a strange religious cult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d076zoEhqSo

It is a pleasure to see Deneuve in a role like this. It is described in TIME OUT FILM GUIDE that her role in this film is a mix between Emma Peel and Humphrey Bogart. I have no knowledge about both Peel and Bogart, but I like Deneuve's character in this film very much.

I think Deneuve's role in this film is very different from the roles she usually plays. It makes me think of other great actresses who can show their true ability when they have a chance to play the roles they are not accustomed to. It makes me think of

1.1 Jamjuree Cherdshome, who plays a good-hearted woman in PLOENG PAI (1990, Thai TV series), though she usually plays the villainess in other TV series.

1.2 Chintara Sukapatana, who plays a tough servant in VICTIMS (1987, Chana Kraprayoon)

1.3 Charlize Theron in MONSTER (2003, Patty Jenkins, A+++++++++++++++)

1.4 Julia Roberts, who looks so serious in MARY REILLY (1996, Mary Reilly, A+)

1.5 Anna Faris, who looks like a normal, decent woman in YOGI BEAR (2010, Eric Brevig, A-/B+)

ÉCOUTE VOIR may be more like an ordinary film, if the film stars Alain Delon, Michelle Yeoh, or Maggie Q as the hero or heroine of the film. I think what makes this film unique is because I have never seen Deneuve in this kind of roles before.

2.The hints that the three main female characters in ÉCOUTE VOIR might be lesbians. I saw this film on the TV channel TV5 MONDE, and I don't know if some lesbian scenes had been censored from the TV version or not. From the version I saw, the lesbian thing in the film is not explicit, but there is something hinting at it.

3.One of my most favorite scenes in the film is the scene which parodies the elegance of Deneuve. It's the scene in which we see Deneuve walking so elegantly. Her head is held high. Her eyes look straightforwardly. The scene shows her walking from many angles. And then she has to stop walking because she bumps into some small children on the street. Because she likes to keep her head held high while walking, she can't see these children coming at her.

4. The plot about the radio signals which can control the minds of the listeners. The scene in a restaurant in which many people are moving slowly because they are controlled by the radio signal is very weird and very memorable.

The plot about the radio signal is very interesting. It reminds me of some political violence in Thailand which is partly instigated by Thai media, including newspaper and TV. It also reminds me of the Rwanda Genocide in which some radio stations played a part.

The plot about the radio signals also reminds me of some films which deal with the influence of the radio and TV signals, such as THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE (1933, Fritz Lang), LES CREATURES (1966, Agnès Varda, A++++++++++), and HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH (1982, Tommy Lee Wallace).

5. The ending of this film, in which the heroine mumbles something to herself. If I remember it correctly, she intends to improve herself and intends to save the world again. This ending makes me love this character very much.

6.Anne Parillaud

Some other things about this film:

1.There's a scene in which the heroine goes to see THE LIFE OF OHARU (1952, Kenji Mizoguchi). Since I haven't seen THE LIFE OF OHARU, I don't know if it might be connected to ÉCOUTE VOIR in any other ways or not.

2.I don't understand why the castle owner wants to hire the heroine at the beginning of the film. Is it because I don't understand the film? Is it because I can't follow it story? Or is it because there are some plot holes? This case reminds me of THE BIG SLEEP (1946, Howard Hawks), because I'm still not sure who kills whom in this film. I hope someone writes about ÉCOUTE VOIR and THE BIG SLEEP by detailing the events in both films chronologically, so that I can understand them. However, the puzzlement, or the possible plot holes, in both films is not something important in my point of view. It's just a funny thing for me.

Apart from ÉCOUTE VOIR, there are other French crime/mystery films that I like very much, including:

1.WHO KILLED SANTA CLAUS? (1941, Christian-Jaque)

2.LES DIABOLIQUES (1954, Henri-Georges Clouzot)

3.PARIS BELONGS TO US (1961, Jacques Rivette)

4.FIRE AND ICE (1962, Alain Cavalier)

5.JUDEX (1963, Georges Franju)

6.IF I WERE A SPY (1967, Bertrand Blier)

7.LAW BREAKERS (1971, Marcel Carné)

8.THE DOMINICI AFFAIR (1973, Claude Bernard-Aubert)

9.THE INHERITOR (1973, Philippe Labro)

10.SHOCK TREATMENT (1973, Alain Jessua)

11.LE DOSSIER 51 (1978, Michel Deville)

12.I AS IN ICARUS (1979, Henri Verneuil)

13.LA MÉMOIRE COURTE (1979, Eduardo de Gregorio)

14.THE RED SWEATER (1979, Michel Drach)

15.THREE MEN TO DESTROY (1980, Jacques Deray)

16.CHICKEN WITH VINEGAR (1985, Claude Chabrol)

17.LA SENTINELLE (1992, Arnaud Desplechin)

18.SEE HOW THEY FALL (1994, Jacques Audiard)

19.RED LIGHTS (2003, Cédric Kahn)

20.LEMMING (2005, Dominik Moll)

21.CROSSED TRACKS (ROMAN DE GARE) (2007, Claude Lelouch)

22.CRIME IS OUR BUSINESS (2008, Pascal Thomas)

23.THE NEW PROTOCOL (2008, Thomas Vincent)

24.AM STRAM GRAM (2009, Stéphane Kappes)

25.LIGHTS OUT (2010, Fabrice Gobert)

POSTER FOR DOMINO FILM EXPERIMENT

This poster is designed by Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa.

ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, 72 mins, A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++)

This is my most favorite film I have seen so far in 2011.

Things I like very much in this film include:

1.Its natural beauty, which makes me cry. I had never thought I would cry for this kind of films. But I saw it twice and I cried both times. Maybe I'm crazy. I don't know. The sunlight in this film is so beautiful. The first time I watched it I cried for the scene depicting many parked cars under the sun (minute 36-37). The second time I watched it I cried for the moment when we see the sun, the sky, and the clouds rolling by after we see a man watering his garden (minute 51). I feel as if I were a vampire who could only experience the beauty of sunlight via this film.

2.Its indescribability. It's so minimal, so anti-story, so poetic, so sublime. I worship this film as much as I worship AGATHA AND THE UNLIMITED READINGS (1981), WINDOWS (1999, Apichatpong Weerasethakul), BIRTH OF THE SEANEMA (2004, Sasithorn Ariyavicha), I FORGOT THE TITLE (2009, Christelle Lheureux), and RUHR (2009, James Benning). All these films give me extreme pleasure and blissful experience by their images and sound (or lack of sound). All these films make me speechless. All these films remind me that it is useless to describe the wonders of these films by my words.

3. It's rare to find a film like this: A film that lets us admire both the beauty of the sunlight and the neon lights, the swaying of trees and grass in the wind, the "dirtiness" of a window, a man sleeping while moving his fingers a little bit, the changing of light during the day, the effects of the changing of light on the grass, trees, wall, curtains, and room. While many films give us climax by having the villain killed, this film gives us excitement by letting us notice the changing of the sunlight on the grass and the wall.

4. Something caught unexpectedly by the camera. I guess this film is a documentary, or mostly documentary, so I love the scene in which a brown t-shirt falls down from a clothesline in minute 16-17 very much. I love it no matter whether the scene is a real scene or a staged/fictional scene. The falling down of a t-shirt is an unimportant event. But when it happens in front of the camera in this film, it feels so sublime. If the scene is real and the director didn't know beforehand that it would happen, I think it is like a small miracle that it happened in front of the camera. It is as if some invisible angels help making it fall down for this film. If the scene is fictional, I still like it very much that Rashidi includes a scene of unimportant event like that in his film.

5.The dirty window scene is extremely beautiful, and a little bit funny. I find it funny because at first I thought the cleaning of the window from the outside would make it clearer, but it isn't. The image is still as blurred as before the cleaning. The image in this scene is as beautiful as an Impressionist painting.

6.The sound of a clock ticking. It is a mundane sound in our everyday life. It becomes "special" in this film.

7.The act of watching. In this film we see someone watching the internet. It reminds me of two scenes in ONLY HUMAN (2009, Rouzbeh Rashidi) and a scene in REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi) in which we see some characters watching television.

8.The ending of this film, which is like a return to the ending of LIGHT AND QUIET (2008, Rouzbeh Rashidi). We see lights of car moving during the night in both scenes, though in this film we see them closer and in a slow motion, as if in dream.

9.The appearing of the alphabet in the opening and ending credits.

10. What does this film mean? I don't know. But some parts of it remind me of some parts of poems I like very much. Unintentionally or not, this film makes me realize how beautiful, how heavenly many mundane things are. The sun, the wind, the light, the shadow, the trees, the grass, the dirty window, the reflection on a clear window, the clouds, the sprinkling of water, the curtain with the bright sunlight, the curtain with the dim sunlight—all these things are heavenly and sublime, and they are all around us everyday.

It is rare that a feature film pays attention to small things like this. Normally I find this kind of things in poems, not in films. This film is extremely poetic, and Rashidi is a real poet-filmmaker. So let me quote two poems that I like very much here, because some parts of this film remind me of some parts of these two poems.

The swaying of grass in minute 35 reminds me of this poem by Emily Dickinson:

"THE GRASS so little has to do,—
A sphere of simple green,
With only butterflies to brood,
And bees to entertain,

And stir all day to pretty tunes
The breezes fetch along,
And hold the sunshine in its lap
And bow to everything;

And thread the dews all night, like pearls,
And make itself so fine,—
A duchess were too common
For such a noticing.

And even when it dies, to pass
In odors so divine,
As lowly spices gone to sleep,
Or amulets of pine.

And then to dwell in sovereign barns,
And dream the days away,—
The grass so little has to do,
I wish I were a hay!"

Parts of this film remind me of this poem by Emily Dickinson:

"A SOMETHING in a summer’s day,
As slow her flambeaux burn away,
Which solemnizes me.

A something in a summer’s noon,—
An azure depth, a wordless tune,
Transcending ecstasy.

And still within a summer’s night
A something so transporting bright,
I clap my hands to see;

Then veil my too inspecting face,
Lest such a subtle, shimmering grace
Flutter too far for me.

The wizard-fingers never rest,
The purple brook within the breast
Still chafes its narrow bed;

Still rears the East her amber flag,
Guides still the sun along the crag
His caravan of red,

Like flowers that heard the tale of dews,
But never deemed the dripping prize
Awaited their low brows;

Or bees, that thought the summer’s name
Some rumor of delirium
No summer could for them;

Or Arctic creature, dimly stirred
By tropic hint,—some travelled bird
Imported to the wood;

Or wind’s bright signal to the ear,
Making that homely and severe,
Contented, known, before

The heaven unexpected came,
To lives that thought their worshipping
A too presumptuous psalm."

You can watch many short films by Rouzbeh Rashidi in his Vimeo channel:
http://vimeo.com/rouzbehrashidi/videos

REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Iran, 90 min, A+++++++++++++++)

Things I like very much in this film include:

1.Its uncompromising quality. The film doesn't try to make the audience understand it at all. The story goes anywhere it wants to go, with no boundaries. Yet it all makes sense and doesn't feel too random, because it tells the audience at the beginning that the film is dedicated to the filmmaker's friends and Maya Deren. So the audience is not surprised why the film looks very surreal and consists of many small stories or segments. I think each segment of the film deals with each particular friend or group of friends.

This kind of uncompromising quality and super-surreal quality makes me want to screen this film together with KALYI – AGE OF DARKNESS (1993, Fred Kelemen).

2.My favorite segment of the film is the segment which deal with a dilapidated building with flooded water and the wave crashing on the rocks in the minute 42-46. I think this segment doesn't try to emulate Maya Deren too much, and doesn't try too hard to be "haunting". I think this segment presents one of Rashidi's strong points—atmospheric scene which tells no stories. I'm glad Rashidi uses this strong point to the utmost degree in ZOETROPE (2011).

3.My second most favorite segment in the film is the one in which a guy walks up and down a street at night, smoking some cigarettes, going in and out of a house, lying on the floor, having a nightmare, and the segment ends by presenting a view from a rooftop. I love the cinematography in this segment. It is very dark, very blurred, very grainy. Extremely exquisite in my point of view. This scene also doesn't try too hard to be haunting.

4.The cinematography in this film is excellent. I think it is as beautiful as the one in BIPEDALITY (2010, Rouzbeh Rashidi), but in a totally opposite way. The cinematography in BIPEDALITY is very polished and colorful. The cinematography in this film is very rough-looking in some parts and in black-and-white. I also think you are successful in emulating the cinematographic style of Maya Deren and some old experimental films.

5.My most favorite image from the film may be the one in minute 33 when we suddenly see a bright light in rectangular shape covering up a man's face. What does this image mean? I don't know. But it gives me a thrill as much as the images in the film TAKE THE 5:10 TO DREAM LAND (1976, Bruce Conner), which also defy explanation.

6.I think it is interesting that Rashidi makes film about his friends in a surreal or experimental genre. Many filmmakers make films about their friends in a documentary genre. So this film stands apart from most films which deal with the filmmaker's own friends.

This film also stands apart from other experimental films with haunting quality. The atmosphere in this film may remind me of BEGOTTEN (1991, E. Elias Merhige) and some films by David Lynch and Nina Menkes, because their films are also experimental and haunting, but their films seem to have some sinister power in them, because their films may explore the dark side of human beings. Since REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING is about the filmmaker's dear friends, the film is not overwhelmed by the sinister power or the evil buried deep down in our psychology. Thus the film is different from other experimental films with haunting quality that I have seen.

7.I like the structure of this film. This film begins in a very surreal, old-styled mode. Then it gradually shifts into a documentary and home movie mode: the dilapidated building segment, the campfire segment, the house segment. Then it becomes surreal again with the segment presenting a guy who opens about ten doors successively. Then it ends like a home movie.

I like the mixing between the surreal genre and the home movie genre in this film. I wish I could screen this film together with RESIST (2009, Teeranit Siangsanoh, 54 min, Thailand, A+++++++++++++++), because RESIST also mixes these two genres. RESIST begins as a documentary about Teeranit's friends, but the film shifts into a surreal mode in the second half of the film.

8.The sudden shift of the look of the film in the woodcutting scene, from more polished look to more grainy look. I feel as if that moment in minute 41 is the division line, because the scenes before it are in surreal mode, and the scenes after it are in home movie mode.

9.The shaking of the images in minute 36. It looks as if the images come from an old videotape.

10.The sound effects near the end of the film is very interesting. We can hear at least four overlapping sounds: the birds, the water, the chants, and a looping sound of something unidentifiable. I think the sounds of the birds and the water are recurring motifs in Rashidi's films.

11.There is also a very personal reason why I like REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING. After watching this film, I find that this film is what I wish I could do, but can't. It reminds me of my old friends from high school. We share many "imaginative worlds" together. This film makes me realize that if I could make a film about my own friends, maybe it should not be a pure documentary, maybe it should be a film which explore both our real lives and our imaginative lives.

You can watch many short films by Rouzbeh Rashidi in his Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/rouzbehrashidi/videos

BIPEDALITY (2010, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, 67 min, A+++++++++++++++)

Things I like very much in this film include:

1.It seems to be the most gorgeously cinematographed film I have seen since UN LAC (2008, Philippe Grandrieux). I like the landscape scenes in the film very much. Extremely beautiful. I like both their color tones and their damp-and-misty look.

2.At first I thought some landscape scenes are still photos, but when I pay attention to them, I found some small movements in them. I like this fact very much.

3. I also like the performance of the actress very much. It seems her character is a little bit uneasy, or has something hidden in her mind, or has something she really wants to talk about but doesn't dare, etc. The actress is great in hinting that there might be some hidden feelings, some troubled feelings, or some hidden thoughts beneath this character.

4. My English listening skill is very bad, so I can't follow all the things that the characters say. But I think it is interesting that the characters talk for a long time about the lives of some unseen characters. I think I have rarely found other films doing this before.

What other films usually do is that:

a) they pay attention to the "direct" effects of the crime or the loss of the child to the characters, such as THE COLOR OF LIES (1998, Claude Chabrol)

b) the "seemingly irrelevant events" are portrayed only as "the background", such as in NATHALIE GRANGER (1972, Marguerite Duras), in which we keep hearing from the radio about some murderers at large, or in INDIA SONG (1974, Marguerite Duras), in which we keep hearing the sound of the beggar woman and her story.

So I find that what BIPEDALITY does is very interesting, because this kind of thing doesn't happen in most films I have seen.

5. I like that BIPEDALITY seems to be half-way between "the extremely poetic/ambient" and "the extremely humanist". I mean its talking scenes are very natural and its characters are very human, very real, but the fact that the characters keep talking about "the loss of someone's child" and the fact that the scenes are interrupted from time to time by the landscape shots make this film different from other humanist films, such as the ones by Mike Leigh or Eric Rohmer. The landscape shots in BIPEDALITY are extremely beautiful, but their durations are not as long as the ones in James Benning's films, so BIPEDALITY is different from that group of films, too.

The balance between human-landscape in BIPEDALITY makes this film very interesting and very different from others.

6.The character of the woman, which is hard to understand. Normally I identify myself with a female character in most films, but in this film I sympathize with the male character who can't understand his lover.

While I think that the mysteries in LIGHT AND QUIET (2008, Rouzbeh Rashidi) result partly from the loss of dialogue, and the mysteries in ONLY HUMAN (2009, Rouzbeh Rashidi) result from spending too little time with each character, in BIPEDALITY the audience can hear the dialogue fully, and spend an hour with only two characters, but the audience may still not be able to fully understand this woman.

I also think the mysteries in ONLY HUMAN result partly from the fact that the audience knows nothing about the past of its characters. But in BIPEDALITY, the audience knows something about the past of the heroine and the past of the woman who loses her child, but it is still not enough. The past of these two characters that we learn doesn't help explaining why the heroine behaves like this or why the woman loses her child.

There is something mysterious, something left unsaid in many of Rashidi's films. And that's why I like them very much.

Though the heroine is hard to understand, she is still very human. I think she is as interesting as the heroine of THE GREEN RAY (1986, Eric Rohmer), who is "very difficult" and "very human" at the same time.

7.The face of the heroine when she watches the hero showering. It is very enigmatic for me. What is she thinking? Do her eyes speak anything or nothing at all?

8.The gestures of the characters, such as the heroine tearing up the small pieces of paper, or the hero throwing away the pot in frustration. I like the film's observation on human gestures or human interactions with each other.

9.The mysterious sound which occurs when the man and the woman sit on the sofa together after his shower. What is this sound?

10. The blurring or the obscuring of some images, especially the reflection on water of the two characters talking. I think it is very beautiful. The reflection on water can also be found in an early scene in ONLY HUMAN, but it is used much more fully and gorgeously in BIPEDALITY.

In some landscape shots in BIPEDALITY, some parts of them are clear, some parts of them are blurred, and they result in very beautiful images.

I like all the ways Rashidi uses to blur his images very much: by using optical effects in LIGHT AND QUIET and REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi), by using reflection on water in BIPEDALITY, or by using unclear window in ONLY HUMAN and ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi).

11.The mystery of the title of the film. Why is this film titled BIPEDALITY? I don't know. Does it mean human beings are very complicated?

You can watch many short films by Rouzbeh Rashidi in his Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/rouzbehrashidi/videos

ONLY HUMAN (2009, Rouzbeh Rashidi, Ireland, 72 min, A+++++++++++++++)

I think this film should be screened together with ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi), because both of them observe daily or mundane activities, but while ONLY HUMAN pays attention to human beings, human communications, and the moon, ZOETROPE pays attention to the atmosphere and the sun.

Things I like very much in ONLY HUMAN include:

1. It never attempts to create too much drama out of these characters' activities, which surprises me. At first I thought there would be some dramatic things happening to these characters, or all the characters would be obviously connected in the end. But the film doesn't try to do that. The audience can only observe these characters' slices of undramatic lives.

2.The faces of the characters, which show some unidentifiable emotions, or show some strong, unexplained feelings. I use the word "unexplained", because the film doesn't tell clearly why Dean Kavanagh looks unhappy both before and after he calls someone, or what the woman who uses the sewing machine really feels, etc. The camera closes up on these characters' faces. Their faces look very intense. We can feel that these characters must have something in their minds, but the film never tells what they are thinking, what makes they feel like that, what happened to them before we see their faces, or the past of these characters which must be the reasons why the characters make faces like that.

By explaining nothing, the film doesn't reduce the lives, the past, or the histories of these characters into simple cause-and-effect. The film doesn't tell the audience, "Because the incident A happened, the character B feels like this". The faces of the characters become enigmatic, though they are not blank because they show some unidentifiable emotions. And these faces with unexplained emotions make me feel that these characters are real. These faces make me feel that these characters really have their own past, their own unsaid stories. These faces make me imagine that there must be many stories happen in their past, and that makes them who they are today. I feel that these characters are "human", because their faces are humans' faces, which shouldn't be easily defined by simple words, such as happy or sad.

ONLY HUMAN is dedicated to Jean-Pierre Melville. I have seen only several films of Melville, so I can't say which parts of ONLY HUMAN are linked to Melville, except the two films of Melville excerpted in this film. However, the unexplained feelings on the faces of the characters remind me a little bit of the faces of some characters in UN FLIC (1972, Jean-Pierre Melville). UN FLIC impresses me a lot with the faces of Catherine Deneuve and Alain Delon. Deneuve's face in UN FLIC is very cold. Delon's face in UN FLIC gives a very intense feeling, but it doesn't show easily-identifiable emotions, unlike faces of heroes in other films. The expressions on Delon's face in UN FLIC defy definition like those of the characters in ONLY HUMAN.

If I have to rank faces in films on the "identifiable emotions" scale, faces in melodramatic TV series might be "5" for their overexpressiveness. Faces in dramatic films might be "4" for their expressiveness. Faces in ONLY HUMAN and TIME WITHIN TIME (2009, Menno Otten) might be "3" for their unexplained expressions. Faces in UN FLIC and some films by Aki Kaurismäki might be "2" for their underexpressiveness. Faces in Robert Bresson's films might be "1" for their inexpressiveness. This scale doesn't connote how good or bad a film is, though.

I think this kind of faces is one of Rashidi's signatures. In LIGHT AND QUIET (2008, Rouzbeh Rashidi), I like the face of the protagonist when he is showering very much. At that moment, his face shows some intense emotions. I think the protagonist is feeling sad at that moment, but what is interesting is that the film lets his face show only "a fragment" of his sadness, not all of his sadness.

3.One of the faces in ONLY HUMAN that I like very much is the face of the guy who watches UN FLIC. I think the helicopter scene in UN FLIC is one of the most exciting moments in the film, but the face of the guy who watches it shows no excitement at all. All the excitement he may feel is kept inside, not showing on his face. I think this is very realistic. Some viewers really react like this while watching films. I'm glad that ONLY HUMAN chooses to show an action film of which the viewer react like this, instead of showing an action film of which the viewers react like cheering an important football match.

4.The sound of the rain, which can also be found in an early scene in LIGHT AND QUIET, and in BIPEDALITY (2010, Rouzbeh Rashidi).

I think the sound of water is a recurring motif in Rashidi's films. I also like the sound of shower in LIGHT AND QUIET and BIPEDALITY, the sound of faucet in BIPEDALITY, and the sound of water from unknown sources in REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi), which reminds me of a scene in BELLE DE JOUR (1967, Luis Buñuel), in which we hear the sound of unknown water, too.

5.The sound which is separated from its origin. I think this is also one of your signatures. In LIGHT AND QUIET, we hear many cars, but we don't see them. We hear the protagonist do something after shower, but we only see the black screen. In ONLY HUMAN, we hear the Asian girl speak a sentence near the end of the film, but we only see her face "before" and "after" she speaks it, not when she is speaking it. We also hear some screams in an early part and near the end of the film, but we don't see the screamers. We hear some footsteps, but we don't see the walkers.

6. The loneliness of the characters. It seems the characters in this film try to communicate with or connect to someone, but their attempts bring no satisfying results. A couple of teenagers try to get intimate with each other, but fail. The sewing woman can't reach Sara on her phone. Dean Kavanagh's character doesn't look happy after he talks to someone on the phone. The video game guy lies to someone on the phone. The face-to-face conversation in the restaurant ends badly. A woman tries to reach someone in an apartment, but fails. This loneliness is dealt with in a realistic way, not in a romantic way like Wong Kar-wai's films, not in a comic way like Tsai Ming-liang's films, and not in a cold way like some Austrian's films.

7.Some moving images which are so motionless that they look like still photos. There are some scenes of Dean Kavanagh which resemble still photos, because his face does not move for many seconds in these scenes. There are many landscape/atmospheric scenes in BIPEDALITY and ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi) which look like still photos, too.

8.The landscape shots which are inserted into some parts of the film without explanation how they are connected to the story. These include the scene of a group of people on a boat, which comes after the scene of Dean Kavanagh on a train, and the ending sequence of the film. This technique is used much more fully and interestingly in BIPEDALITY.

9. ONLY HUMAN is very different from other films I have seen. I think the duration that the film spends on each character is one of the things that make the film different. If the film focuses on the slice of life of only several characters, such as the Asian man and woman, the film might be a little bit closer to JACKY (2000, Hu Fow-Pyng, Brad Ljatifi). If the film focuses on the slice of life of many more characters, the film might be a little bit closer to SOMETHING MORE THAN NIGHT (2003, Daniel Eisenberg). Anyway, I'm glad that ONLY HUMAN is like this. It has its own charm, while other films also have their own charms.

You can watch many short films by Rouzbeh Rashidi in his Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/rouzbehrashidi/videos