Memoria (2021)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Memoria (2021) – A. Weerasethakul

This is only the second film by Apichatpong Weerasethakul that I’ve seen, even though the Thai director has been making features since 2000.  The other was Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010) which won the Palm D’Or at Cannes that year.  It should have prepared me for the slow meditative pace of his new film, Memoria (which won the Jury Prize at Cannes in 2021), but somehow the presence of Tilda Swinton and the suggestion that this would be science fiction lured me into expecting something different. However, the opening scene, which takes place at night in the near dark and shows only Jessica (Swinton) hearing a loud earthy metallic sound and waking up somewhat dazed to slowly look around, quickly reset my expectations. Once I got myself in tune with the film’s thoughtful pace, I was mesmerized by its mystery. What was the sound? Why can only Jessica hear it? She begins an investigation, first consulting a sound engineer who manipulates an effects library to try to reproduce the exact sound. This is Weerasethakul’s first film outside of Thailand – it takes place in Colombia and Jessica soon drifts from the city into the countryside where she meets a fisherman who declares that he is a hard drive who stores all memories and she is an antenna who can read them. They experience a connection. The film does not attempt to provide answers to its mysteries but instead shows us a series of incidents and encounters, primarily ambiguous, that allow viewers to reflect, think, and expand their consciousness. I was reminded of the art of Jeff Wall while the camera paused for lengthy amounts of time on clearly staged shots. What motivated the artistic choices? Colour and composition are a highlight here and, given the plot, sound design as well.  This must have been wondrous on the big screen.  

A Brief History of Time (1991)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

A Brief History of Time (1991) – E. Morris

The fourth feature from famed documentarist/interviewer Errol Morris was partly an attempt to present Stephen Hawking’s ideas about the universe and partly a biography of the renowned physicist. Morris does use an assortment of talking heads (some famous physicists, some family members) but this is before he started using the “interrotron” to better capture direct eye contact to the camera. The contributions of the different interviewees is variable but Morris fleshes everything out with perfect editing of shots of Hawking, well-chosen found footage and striking animations that seek to visualize concepts from the book: an expanding universe, black holes (and people falling into them), etc. The soundtrack by Philip Glass heightens everything. Although Hawking’s story is rather tragic, one never feels pity for him – perhaps this is because of his wry sense of humour and/or the esteem his colleagues feel for his achievements. His life story may have been somewhat sanitized (his marriage broke down around the time of the film after an affair) but Morris isn’t seeking to expose self-deception here (see his later The Fog of War, 2003, instead) and in fact Hawking seems quite willing to acknowledge his own failings and mistakes. In line with that, I’ll have to admit that I didn’t always grasp the science depicted in the film but I always appreciated the spirit of scientific inquiry. Moreover, the questions being addressed are stimulating enough for any layperson. For what it is worth, we watched this in a double feature with 2001: A Space Odyssey, another film that contemplates the universe and our place in it. 

 

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) – S. Kubrick

I’ve watched this so many times over the years but, on this occasion, it seemed even more lyrical than before, the many wordless sequences (backed with classical compositions from Richard Strauss, Johann Strauss, or Ligeti) in Super Panavision widescreen (albeit on my 55” TV) creating absorbing moods (of tranquility or alternately, disorientation or terror). Director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with writer Arthur C. Clarke (based on his 1948 short story, “The Sentinel”) to develop the screenplay which contemplates how alien intelligence may have intervened to influence human evolution (via a giant black monolith). The film falls loosely into three parts: 1) australopithecines find the monolith and learn to use tools; 2) early 21^st century humans discover another monolith buried on the moon which emits a signal aimed at the planet Jupiter – astronauts are sent there to investigate; 3) one astronaut experiences another transformation.  Of course, the longest sequence (the second) is the most well-known and features HAL 9000, the artificially intelligent computer which becomes paranoid after the astronauts, played by Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, discover that it made a mistake. The final sequence drove some patrons out of the theatre back in the Sixties and continues to create a quizzical reaction. However, viewed as an experimental film, using analog techniques, it is pretty sublime (and eventually returns to the narrative, sort of). Indeed, the major achievement here is undoubtedly the painstaking craftmanship that went into creating the spacecraft (and illusion of space) with analogue methods (lots of models). Kubrick’s perfectionism may have driven some crazy but it achieved a masterpiece.

City Lights (1931)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

City Lights (1931) – C. Chaplin

I was always for Keaton over Chaplin going way back but recently I’ve found that my 10-year-old son has responded more positively to the Little Tramp than the Great Stone Face.  So, we’ve watched The Gold Rush, Modern Times, The Circus, and now City Lights in succession. City Lights feels different. Instead of the film being built around gags and set-pieces (although there are some good ones here – such as in the boxing ring or eating pasta), there is a clearer plot and many scenes end with a poignant or wistful fade. The Tramp buys a flower from a blind girl (Virginia Cherrill), falls in love with her, and seeks to help her when she is on the verge of being evicted. He does get a job to earn money (sweeping up horse poo on the street) but it doesn’t last long.  Instead, most of his good fortune comes from an “eccentric millionaire” (Harry Myers) who remembers the Tramp only when he is drunk, when he is generous with his money and his car. However, when the millionaire is sober, he doesn’t remember poor Charlie at all!  As always, the Tramp is genteel and elegant, even when he is getting himself into heaps of trouble.  You want the blind girl to fall for him – and she does – but things become more uncertain when she signs up for an operation to restore her sight. What will she think when she actually “sees” the Tramp? Sentimental but not cloyingly so and I can see why many see this as Chaplin’s masterpiece – but in truth we laughed more at his other films.

 

A Hero (2021)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

A Hero (2021) – A. Farhadi

Asghar Farhadi keeps the spirit of the Iranian Third Wave going with another complex drama featuring multiple perspectives on an event and slippery judgments about what is right and what is wrong. Or who is right and who is wrong.  A Hero follows Rahim (Amir Jadidi), serving a 10-year prison term because of a debt he cannot repay, apparently contingent on his creditor’s willingness to keep him in jail (a feature of Iranian law that we no longer have here – although one is reminded of Dickens’ debtors’ prisons). On a two-day furlough, Rahim’s new girlfriend produces 17 gold coins that she has found in a lost handbag; they consider it a miracle and approach a gold dealer with the aim of paying off the debt.  However, Rahim’s conscience won’t let him do this and instead he decides to find the owner of the handbag and return the money. I won’t spoil what happens next but there are cascading repercussions of this prosocial action which raise a number of tricky questions about moral behaviour. For example, is refraining from doing something “bad” equal to choosing to do something “good”? And is a charitable action still worthy if it is done for public acclaim rather than anonymously? Has the ascent of social media changed the way we behave, now that our every action can be documented for public consumption (and judgment)? Farhadi started with a “true story” but characteristically uses it to explore the justifications that people use for their actions (“everyone has their reasons” as Renoir would say). If there is a critique of Iranian society here, it is quite guarded – instead, Farhadi has a much bigger target in mind:  human nature itself. Cinematically, the film looks great and employs grand (and symbolic?) locations such as the Tomb of Xerxes and avant garde techniques such as small jump cuts to advance the action. I am sure it warrants a much closer inspection and deeper analysis than I have been able to provide (even the setting in the city of Shiraz was chosen purposefully for its cultural meanings). This film and indeed all of Farhadi’s oeuvre deserve your attention.