Great cinema like Tarkovsky's almost always bewilders people for all the wrong reasons - they think there's plenty of hidden clues and symbols that are hidden, and one must decipher them. So their viewing process is always intensely cerebral. In other words, people mistake visceral art with intellectual art. The key to Tarkovsky and visceral filmmakers alike is simple - turn your brain off, turn your soul on(by being patient and shutting off the intrusions of the mind). With this film in particular it's very important to catch that contemplative rhytm Tarkovsky conducts. If you can do that, if you can unlock that part of yourself that's been locked for so long, you will open up an entire world, an additional dimension to existence. And you will also understand why Nostalgia in particular and Tarkovsky in general deem all other films and filmmakers, with the exception of very few, insignificant.
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Zone of Interest
(2023)
First impressions: Well-done but may be Glazer's weakest
21 February 2024
The first impressions I got from The Zone Of Interest are very much equivalent to how I felt after seeing Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut for the first time. The feeling of coldness, detachment, alienation, a sense of the film being at the same time undercooked and too long, a certain confusion and dumbfoundedness due to an apparent insignificance of the picture. Years later, upon subsequent viewings, Eyes Wide Shut revealed itself to be a grandiose achievement, an-impossible-to-solve puzzle of a film that operates on multiple dimensions simultaneously; Kubrick's highest point, perhaps. Will Jonathan Glazer's latest turn out to be to be as revelatory? Time will tell, but as of now, I can't say I'm much impressed. One of the industry's most original artists, despite the heavy subject matter, came out with his most ascetic,restrained, but seemingly uninspired effort yet.
The key element of the film, the one that's supposed to cause all the dread and discomfort, becomes apparent, if not through the synopsis, all the promotional trailers and press reviews, within the first 10-15 minutes of the film - a Nazi German family enjoys a pleasant, carefree(relatively), bourgouis lifestyle at a house situated right beside Auschwitz. Women gossip in the kitchen, kids play on the lawn, men discuss business in the office while in the background the chimneys of the camp breathe out black smoke with the remnants of infinite dead souls, and the dark humming of luciferian machinery can be heard at all times as the family goes about their daily business at the house. This is established early on, and that's what the film dwells on for practically the entirety of its length, with bits of the Nazi family drama(to intensify the absurdity of the horror, perhaps?) and the occasional switches to strangely filmed scenes with a girl from Polish resistance that take us back to Glazer's own Under the Skin in terms of their visually alienating quality.
The film is not interested in moralizing, dramatazing and judging. Of course, with a subject matter like this, one thinks one can't afford to avoid moral evaluation, one has to say something, and so most reviews, professional or not, are filled with fancy expressions like "the banality of evil" and the neverending discussion on the essence of Naziism and the Holocaust. But look at the camera in the film. It's almost Ozu-like in its asceticism. It barely moves and avoids close-ups(if there are any, almost exclusively on inanimate objects). The camera is quite voyeuristic, though, at times seeming as if the Führer himself is watching from the other side, cold, disinterested, but a little paranoid - pure surveillance. Some other times it seems as if some poor guy escaped from the camp and is hiding at the house, trying to calculate the exact moment to escape further, afraid of twitching a single muscle; he has no time for judgement or any opinion on the residents of the house, it's not the time for it. The film presents itself in a straightforward manner, it understands that the right and the wrong in this historical event is today a matter argued only by a tiny few of radicals and other kinds of ethically challenged, and is otherwise, more or less, settled. The rest is up to you to evaluate.
Despite all of the film's strengths and subtleties, it somehow didn't land much, or at least didn't land as much as Glazer's other work. It doesn't stay with you the same way. It lacks the exuberance, the eccentricity, the adrenaline of Sexy Beast; the tenderness, the melancholy, the intimacy of the much overlooked Birth; the esotericism, the mystique, the otherworldly quality of Under The Skin. You see how easy it is to attribute right away a distinct set of qualities to all of Glazer's films prior to the Zone. The same would be hard to do with Jonathan's latest. It's intense, it's baffling, it's interesting, it's experimental, it's imaginative, it's Jonathan Glazer, but so are his other films.
We'll see what time does to The Zone of Interest. Will we discover something deeper there, something more visceral? Perhaps, in 2030 we'll be talking about it as one of the greatest films of the decade and century. But for now, I thank Jonathan Glazer for giving us another piece of stimulating cinema, and will now go rewatch Birth.
The key element of the film, the one that's supposed to cause all the dread and discomfort, becomes apparent, if not through the synopsis, all the promotional trailers and press reviews, within the first 10-15 minutes of the film - a Nazi German family enjoys a pleasant, carefree(relatively), bourgouis lifestyle at a house situated right beside Auschwitz. Women gossip in the kitchen, kids play on the lawn, men discuss business in the office while in the background the chimneys of the camp breathe out black smoke with the remnants of infinite dead souls, and the dark humming of luciferian machinery can be heard at all times as the family goes about their daily business at the house. This is established early on, and that's what the film dwells on for practically the entirety of its length, with bits of the Nazi family drama(to intensify the absurdity of the horror, perhaps?) and the occasional switches to strangely filmed scenes with a girl from Polish resistance that take us back to Glazer's own Under the Skin in terms of their visually alienating quality.
The film is not interested in moralizing, dramatazing and judging. Of course, with a subject matter like this, one thinks one can't afford to avoid moral evaluation, one has to say something, and so most reviews, professional or not, are filled with fancy expressions like "the banality of evil" and the neverending discussion on the essence of Naziism and the Holocaust. But look at the camera in the film. It's almost Ozu-like in its asceticism. It barely moves and avoids close-ups(if there are any, almost exclusively on inanimate objects). The camera is quite voyeuristic, though, at times seeming as if the Führer himself is watching from the other side, cold, disinterested, but a little paranoid - pure surveillance. Some other times it seems as if some poor guy escaped from the camp and is hiding at the house, trying to calculate the exact moment to escape further, afraid of twitching a single muscle; he has no time for judgement or any opinion on the residents of the house, it's not the time for it. The film presents itself in a straightforward manner, it understands that the right and the wrong in this historical event is today a matter argued only by a tiny few of radicals and other kinds of ethically challenged, and is otherwise, more or less, settled. The rest is up to you to evaluate.
Despite all of the film's strengths and subtleties, it somehow didn't land much, or at least didn't land as much as Glazer's other work. It doesn't stay with you the same way. It lacks the exuberance, the eccentricity, the adrenaline of Sexy Beast; the tenderness, the melancholy, the intimacy of the much overlooked Birth; the esotericism, the mystique, the otherworldly quality of Under The Skin. You see how easy it is to attribute right away a distinct set of qualities to all of Glazer's films prior to the Zone. The same would be hard to do with Jonathan's latest. It's intense, it's baffling, it's interesting, it's experimental, it's imaginative, it's Jonathan Glazer, but so are his other films.
We'll see what time does to The Zone of Interest. Will we discover something deeper there, something more visceral? Perhaps, in 2030 we'll be talking about it as one of the greatest films of the decade and century. But for now, I thank Jonathan Glazer for giving us another piece of stimulating cinema, and will now go rewatch Birth.
The Curse
(2023– )
Needs time to get properly appreciated (season 1 impressions)
27 December 2023
The Curse is sensationally fresh. For years I've been dissatisfied with the state of American comedy - too much YouTube, too much commerce, podscasts, politics, patting of each other on the back, opinions no one asked for. Then, out of thin air, this comes out.
The first episode does not shy away from setting the tone completely. Within the first 30 minutes, you'll know exactly what it is you're watching, it's up to you then whether to continue or not. In fact, the very first episode seems to be the most ruthless of the bunch so far - the amount of black humor, intentionally off-putting scenes and pure cynicism is unparalleled. I was in great temptation to turn it off for good after "that" scene(the "Fielder's character in the bathroom" scene, if you catch my drift), but I was too impressed with it to stop. Indeed, the first episode had me howling no other show had in years (the fire burns on!). The show then mellows a little, it establishes that it is not just a black, ruthless satire, but a proper show with characters developing and all this fancy dramatic stuff. Fantastic performances all around - Benny Safdie(who was the sole reason I decided to watch this in the first place as I am a big fan of his and his brother's directorial efforts) is becoming a major acting force, Nathan Fielder is fantastic, Emma Stone delivers her best performance in years (even better than "Poor Things", sorry, Mr. Lanthimos).
Looks like we've got a cult classic on our hands. A show with that amount of talent and unconventional delivery can not appeal to wider audiences, nor should it, really. I'm not sure about what will happen to it after season 1 - will it evolve, devolve, not continue? It remains to be seen. I am confident, however, that more people will eventually catch up to it, and YouTube will be filled with hour-long video essays explaining how good and "ahead of its time" it is.
The first episode does not shy away from setting the tone completely. Within the first 30 minutes, you'll know exactly what it is you're watching, it's up to you then whether to continue or not. In fact, the very first episode seems to be the most ruthless of the bunch so far - the amount of black humor, intentionally off-putting scenes and pure cynicism is unparalleled. I was in great temptation to turn it off for good after "that" scene(the "Fielder's character in the bathroom" scene, if you catch my drift), but I was too impressed with it to stop. Indeed, the first episode had me howling no other show had in years (the fire burns on!). The show then mellows a little, it establishes that it is not just a black, ruthless satire, but a proper show with characters developing and all this fancy dramatic stuff. Fantastic performances all around - Benny Safdie(who was the sole reason I decided to watch this in the first place as I am a big fan of his and his brother's directorial efforts) is becoming a major acting force, Nathan Fielder is fantastic, Emma Stone delivers her best performance in years (even better than "Poor Things", sorry, Mr. Lanthimos).
Looks like we've got a cult classic on our hands. A show with that amount of talent and unconventional delivery can not appeal to wider audiences, nor should it, really. I'm not sure about what will happen to it after season 1 - will it evolve, devolve, not continue? It remains to be seen. I am confident, however, that more people will eventually catch up to it, and YouTube will be filled with hour-long video essays explaining how good and "ahead of its time" it is.
Napoleon
(2023)
Stuff just happens...
27 November 2023
Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a high-budget cinematic exercise in "Whatever, man, that'll do."
The film, both in terms of what it presents and how it presents, reeks of hollowness. Characters are shadows(not defined enough to even be considered parodies or mockeries of their real-life counterparts as some people like to see them), story is a shadow of a proper story( at times feeling as if written by A. I), atmosphere, with the exception of some of the battle scenes and the Russian segment, sterile and practically non existent(disasterous for Scott who is known to be one of the greatest world builders in history of the artform). Stuff just happens in the film. No significance or weight to anything or anybody... Sure, it's not all bad. The classic Ridley Scott elements are here - battles are engaging, the costumes and set designs very well-done. Something he can't help but always be good at.
Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out . If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much. Just another day at work for Ridley, gotta keep working, do one thing, move on to the next one immediately, have fun, try things out, don't overthink it - this seems to be the way to go for the good ol' Ridley these days. Can't blame him, he's 85, for Christ's sake, but the movie's not good, kind of proto A. I-produced entertainment.
Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out . If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much. Just another day at work for Ridley, gotta keep working, do one thing, move on to the next one immediately, have fun, try things out, don't overthink it - this seems to be the way to go for the good ol' Ridley these days. Can't blame him, he's 85, for Christ's sake, but the movie's not good, kind of proto A. I-produced entertainment.
The Palace
(2023)
An exquisitely made pile of garbage
24 November 2023
No rating is possible for this. The Palace is a deliberate, intentional trash, vulgar kitsch realised with impeccable skill.
It takes a special kind of filmmaker to make people sit through a parade of ugliness(in its most "unpoetic" way) and vulgarity, and even make them have a little bit of fun in-between. In my case, a packed house, not a single walk out, although the urge was strong, particularly during the first half. That's due to the filmmaking talents of the director. He couldn't help but be good even in a film intentionally off-putting.
One cannot help, but find a certain kind of repulsive beauty in the fact that a 90 year old director of Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, The Tenet, works that will live for as long as the art of cinema itself lives, chose this to be his possible swan song, the ending of this movie to be the last scene of his filmography. The Palace is a juicy middle finger from Polanski to everbody and everything, including, and most importantly, his own self.
No rating, but certainly worth a watch. The rating is impossible, because for what the film tries to achieve, it achieves with great skill and tremendous success. Low or high scores only signify people's opinions of an idea of such a movie, not the movie itself. The Palace sitting at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes is a great representation of this. Polanski got our lovely critics exactly where he wanted them, made them part of the joke. A bold, thorough critic, if he saw through Polanski and his intentions with The Palace and wanted to turn it all on its head, would destroy the film in his review, but in the end give it a 100% without explanation. Alas...
It takes a special kind of filmmaker to make people sit through a parade of ugliness(in its most "unpoetic" way) and vulgarity, and even make them have a little bit of fun in-between. In my case, a packed house, not a single walk out, although the urge was strong, particularly during the first half. That's due to the filmmaking talents of the director. He couldn't help but be good even in a film intentionally off-putting.
One cannot help, but find a certain kind of repulsive beauty in the fact that a 90 year old director of Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, The Tenet, works that will live for as long as the art of cinema itself lives, chose this to be his possible swan song, the ending of this movie to be the last scene of his filmography. The Palace is a juicy middle finger from Polanski to everbody and everything, including, and most importantly, his own self.
No rating, but certainly worth a watch. The rating is impossible, because for what the film tries to achieve, it achieves with great skill and tremendous success. Low or high scores only signify people's opinions of an idea of such a movie, not the movie itself. The Palace sitting at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes is a great representation of this. Polanski got our lovely critics exactly where he wanted them, made them part of the joke. A bold, thorough critic, if he saw through Polanski and his intentions with The Palace and wanted to turn it all on its head, would destroy the film in his review, but in the end give it a 100% without explanation. Alas...
Tell Your Friends