2 War Films

I am way behind in my movie writing - way behind. I've been seeing films - just not writing about them. Unfortunately, they are films I want to write about: the Rivette series; the films I mentioned in my last contemplative cinema post (Honor de Cavelleria, Lights in the Dusk, etc.); the new Korean series I saw last week - more... They deserve attention - they aren't films I can list off with one-liners and stars. ("Time, **1/2 - Kim Ki-duk does Teshigahara." - no, not good enough.) And on top of that - I should try to work something up for the Talkingmoviezzz site - I made indications I would. Fortunately, most of the films I've been seeing aren't going to be making any appearances in the states any time soon. (The odd festival, maybe - not much more.) The Host is supposed to be released - maybe by the time it does, I'll write a review. In fact, I suppose that's the redemption of all of this - none of these films are in release: writing about them in a month is just as good as writing about them today - so better to do em up right.

Now - the exception to all that is the one new, broad release film I have seen recently: Letters From Iwo Jima. Another Oscar nominated film - like the others I have seen (Departed, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine), it seems to me a perfectly acceptable choice - competent, interesting enough, not an embarrassment, but nothing special. Like too many of Eastwood's films, this one has very little going for it beyond Clint - there is nothing in this film, not one second, not one line of dialogue, not one shot, that is not a cliche. Eastwood brings his usual economy and precision, but there's not much more to say for it. Perfectly generic war movie, built to spec, more or less flawlessly, but still, to spec.

Meanwhile: that was Saturday afternoon. Saturday night, I went by the HFA, thinking I was in for a 4 hour Rivette film: no! it was the 6 hour version of Jeanne La Pucelle! in two parts, starting at 7 pm.... Now: I have noticed a strange phenomenon, watching all these Rivette films. After a while - their length seems completely natural. I find myself wondering, how do other people make films that only last 2 hours? and why? This reflection takes another form - one I was particularly aware of after seeing th Eastwood earlier: how is it, I thought, that 6 hours of Rivette flows by without ever seeming padded or tiring, yet Letters, at a bit over 2 hours, dragged? And Eastwood keeps things moving - imagine some hack making that film!

Anyway - Rivette's take on Joan of Arc may be long, but it feels right. He lets scenes build - he lets things happen on screen. He gives you time to get to know his characters. He also keeps you thinking - about the story, about film, about storytelling. He tells the story by alternating between dramatization of the story, and having characters sit and address the camera directly, telling the story. This gives it a rhythm, breaking the story into pieces (which he also does by using long blackouts for transitions), breaking the illusion of the story - the anachronism of the characters telling the story to the camera, as if they were being interviewed - the strangeness of cutting away from moments in the story to someone narrating. It keeps pulling you in - and tells the story in a pretty complete and comprehensible way.

And the film itself - is quite a departure from his more characteristic modern films, but still remarkable. Its unromantic treatment of old spaces - old castles and churches, that look old - and were old, even in 1429. Its unromantic treatment of people - their shabby clothes, their unremarkable hair and faces, their unromantic behavior (people tripping, falling down, dropping things, breaking things; uncooperative horses, the unglamorous operation of machines), the matter of fact rendering of war. I was thinking, watching Letters From Iwo Jima, that I had seen it all before - when the shooting starts, the cameras turn hand held, the cutting gets disjunctive, the sound gets sharper, etc. That's how war movies all look these days. Then seeing Jeanne La Pucelle - you see war rendered in a completely different way. The first "action" sequence - starts with guns being fired - their smoke quickly fills the whole screen, the camera sort of meanders along, waiting for the smoke to clear. The fighting, when it appears, is not spectacular - sure sure, it's a budget constraint - but it still looks right: a lot of aimless dashing around, men (and one woman) laying about them with swords, shooting arrows off screen without aiming much, people ducking and dodging and sometimes falling... All of it, still, organized, as much as war can be, and shown so you can see what they are trying to do and whether they are succeeding. It was most certainly not what you see in every other war movie.

There's little doubt left: Jacques Rivette is one of the great filmmakers of the last 40 years - this series has been a magnificent experience. These films need to be on DVD - people need to see them. There are 4 more to come (and plenty of time tonight to get to part 2 of Jeanne La Pucelle, if you live within 2 hours of Boston and don't mind getting out of the film at 1 AM - they didn't schedule it planning on the 6 hour version), most of which I have seen, though only on DVD, so I am looking forward to it. I hope I can work up a few more notes on the series: there is plenty to say - he is extremely inspirational...