Movie-hopping through the 8th Chennai International Film Festival, with its mix of the curious and the commendable.
DEC 26, 2010 – FEW PLACES ARE MORE CAPABLE of inciting homicidal thoughts in a cinephile than the inside of a cinema hall. If eyes could sprout daggers, there’d be slumped bodies everywhere – the teens willfully unaware that the light from their unmuted cell phones can distract the attentive movie watcher; the father of the newborn who, instead of carrying his mewling infant outside, attempts to lull it to quietness a couple of seats away from you; or the overfed man whose unrepentant belch has just enveloped you in a miasma of his spicy breakfast. But rarely before have I witnessed these silent thoughts – which I’m sure I’m not alone in having – manifest themselves in outspoken outrage. The entire section around me at the opening ceremony of the 8th Chennai International Film Festival – at a Chennai cinema hall – was up in arms against the photographers and videographers who went about their business of capturing the events on stage. Standing in a row in front of us, they ensured that not a soul behind could see a thing. A hoarse old gent vacillated between rage and reasoning: “We want to see too!”
It was worse when actresses Oviya and Anjali appeared on stage to light the ceremonial lamp. The primal scene was right out of Tennessee Williams – like the cannibalistic children converging on a hapless Sebastian at the close of Suddenly, Last Summer, the phalanx of photographers and videographers raced towards the stage, engulfing everyone ahead, their predatory arms held aloft with recording equipment. Again, no one could see a thing – only the rising smoke offered an indication that a ritual was in progress. A distinctly discomfited Madhavan, on stage to host the ceremony, quipped, “For those straining their necks to see what was happening, it was just the lighting of the lamp.” Give us a theatre whose roof is strewn with cobwebs, and we’ll look the other way. You don’t need billions to fix this – just a broom. But never mind. Tell us, unabashedly, that a special show, every evening, is reserved for special-invitee film-industry VIPs only, and instead of feeling indignant about this inegalitarianism, we’ll focus on the wealth of films available to us mere mortals (though in all fairness, these films were on display during the regular screenings too). But next time, would it be too much to ask that the festivities are not reduced to one of the umpteen cinema-related programmes so beloved by Tamil television, with wacka-wacka porn music filling the gaps between announcements and with everything and everyone becoming crane-camera fodder?
But a few badly behaved photographers should not be allowed to overshadow an embryonic event. Or as Albert Brooks said in the recent issue of Esquire, “Acceptance is going to a restaurant where the salad’s not great, but the steak is fine.” The latter analogy is a perfect fit for the opening night film, Fatih Akim’s well-acted, enjoyable and uncharacteristically lighthearted Soul Kitchen. I was torn about this curious selection, all too ready to sacrifice its tragic themes at the altar of comedy. While it’s true that life’s little cruelties are best garnished with wry laughter, Akim is almost demonically intent in ensuring that nothing, just about nothing, is taken seriously. On reflection, though, this may be exactly the kind of film a fledgling festival needs as kickoff. Around midpoint, the theatre collapsed in a gale of laughter when the red-faced protagonist, near-naked on a female physiotherapist’s table, attempts to distract himself from getting aroused. This sequence builds as farce, so of course he’s unsuccessful, and the payoff visual gag pulls back to reveal him tenting his boxers. The amused audience is entertained but not alienated, titillated but not traumatised. At some point, this festival will have to define itself as more than just a collection of films from around the world, and the audience’s vigorous approval of Soul Kitchen seemed to indicate a possible niche: the festival that doesn’t take itself too seriously, aka the film festival for those who don’t much care for the typical festival film.
My selection of films the next day confirmed my suspicion that the films here don’t exactly require the viewer to immerse himself in monastic levels of concentration and contemplation – but then again, that’s perhaps true of a lot of what passes for “art cinema” (quotes intentional) these days. When art cinema made its presence felt in the 1950s and 1960s, it was such a wondrously singular creature, so far removed from what people were watching in their local theatres every week, that it required the engagement of parts of the movie-watching brain that were rarely used. But over years, the idiosyncratic grammar of Bergman and Fellini and Antonioni and Godard has been assimilated into the mainstream in some shape or form, and when we watch an Almodóvar today – to take the name of a major figure in the art-house circuit – we no longer have to strain to absorb the import of the images on screen. Art is not as austere any longer – we’ve either grown used to watching art films and so they no longer seem like a long night of calculus homework, or the art films themselves have become lighter and more accessible. Which is it? Let’s continue this conversation next week.
Copyright ©2010 The New Sunday Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Just Another Film Buff
December 26, 2010
Well, I’m waiting for caveats and apologies to the last paragraph. Any?
LikeLike
VJ
December 26, 2010
Oh yes … the insensitive ppl we see in the theatres drives me crazy ,
My recent viewing of MMA was marred by two kids screaming right into my ears right thru the movie . I want to scream to their parents “leave them at home with baby sitters or download camera copy and watch at home like u usually do!”
LikeLike
bran1gan
December 26, 2010
JAFB: Well, Biutiful was a very tough watch. Not only was the subject matter bleak, the film was very heavy too. Somewhere was superb, though. I wish she’d move out of this closed-off territory she repeatedly mines in her films, but she does mine it ever-so-exquisitely. Also loved Certified Copy.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
December 26, 2010
AH. Hated Somewhere. LOVED Certified Copy. Can’t wait to see Biutiful.
As for the current art cinema scenario, I’d beg to differ. It is as challenging and boundary pushing than what those directors were in the 60s. In the 60s, it would have been the same argument. NO one makes films as challenging as the 20s or something like that. Each era deserves its own aesthetic. Just because Italian neo-realism was less cinematically daring and easier to absorb doesn’t mean, as you’d wholeheartedly agree, mean it’s lesser art. Let’s take a cue from Certified Copy here shall we?!
Only that the grey zone cinema – the “indie” cinema, ugh – is vastly thought of as art cinema nowadays. Subtitles=ART.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
December 26, 2010
Pardon me grammar, will ye?
LikeLike
bran1gan
December 26, 2010
JAFB: Of course the current art cinema is “as challenging and boundary pushing.” I was just talking about the way we’ve trained ourselves to see these films, as opposed to the audiences of the 50s and 60s who had to train themselves to absorb a singular, new visual grammar in the first place. “…when we watch an Almodóvar today – to take the name of a major figure in the art-house circuit – we no longer have to strain to absorb the import of the images on screen. Art is not as austere any longer…”
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
December 26, 2010
Yes, but isn’t taking Almodovar like taking Visconti or De Sica in the 60s. The equivalents would be rather different I think.
Also, it’s a political question. One could say the same thing about the 80s, 90s and 00s. It was precisely the anarchist movements of the 20s and 60s that resulted in such vehement rejection of tradition. It demanded new grammar. Of course, every time that happened, it got absorbed by the mainstream. It’s probably natural as well. We are at a point which is not far removed from post-War Europe. We can only expect films that deal with the devastating effects of war and the economic crisis, but filtered through the collapse of the USSR. It would probably be another decade and a half before we have a rich counterculture (possibly with different ideologies than what we have seen), with its own radical grammar, when we’d probably be too busy to talk about the death of cinema.
LikeLike
Rangeesh
December 26, 2010
Speaking of distractions at the cinema hall, nothing tops my list like a bad seat in the house, which is why I hate Escape. Why do they have to give all the frikking center aisle seats to the frikking couples ? Put them in a corner I say! 😐
LikeLike
kamil
December 26, 2010
Dai Ranga – I told you Biutiful was awesome! Why do you not respond to my comments dude Im logging to come and comment on your blog when there are 1008 other things i could be doing man!!!
LikeLike
rameshram
December 26, 2010
brannigan maybe your confusing artHOUSE cinema(which is middlebrow tourist postcards for the well heeled forty plus crowd) for ART cinema, which is highbrow picture postcards for the well heeled film critic types who can afford to visit cannes and venice.
the whole avant garde, which andy warhol and stan barkhage represented sort of went out of business when the european left stopped supporting the arts from the collapse of the soviet Union(most Art cinema was essentially leftist and anti hollywood capitalist in nature..even bergman who represented to them the epitome of anti hollywood drama)
No art cinema is supported here by arthouse theaters , museums that do travelling retrospectives and video rental stores(onine streaming )..none of these three are an highbrow elitist outlet for autuers .
This does not mean there aren’t places where you can’t get it if you want it (cannes is the old reliable, as is berlin and venice) but if you are looking for challenging, really, shouldn’t you be watching uncle bhoomie and copie confirme and not alexander innarutu ‘s or woody allen’s latest?
LikeLike
bran1gan
December 27, 2010
kamil: I thought you were commenting because you wanted to express something, not necessarily because you want me to respond every single time.
rameshram: What I was telling JAFB is that we now have the means and the techniques to handle these art films that earlier audiences didn’t have, and as a result our viewing of even difficult films is easier than theirs. We’ve read so much deconstruction and critical theory and our minds are trained to look out for stuff that those audiences just didn’t. Anyway…
LikeLike
rameshram
December 27, 2010
Oh that’s not really true B each period in history has its own art and its own criticism. criticism has not advanced any in terms of “deconstructing ” art into its component parts. Insightful art will always be created and some of it will be original. criticism will always mediate, or try to. 30’s and 40’s had bazin the fifties truffuat and the sixtires and seventies Kael..I dont think any one was an improvement on the previous generation..maybe we understand OLDER art better from all the words written about it.
LikeLike
PK
December 28, 2010
Interesting BR – i wonder if you feel challenged *anymore* while you watch/review/think about movies ? Do you think this is the beginning of the end of art movies then ?
Personally for me there are no “elite” movies called art movies.., perhaps a Genre called “art movies” exist but not class based (social, political, economical or emotional). There are simply good movies and bad movies. I guess (and for what they are) I enjoyed Endhiran as much as I enjoyed White Ribbon (this did not make you loose it ?) as much as i enjoyed Toy Story.
Also i guess CIFF is not the best place to really sink your teeth into cinema nirvana. I was there once and the theater experience made me walk away from it forever…
LikeLike
bran1gan
December 29, 2010
PK: I don’t know why people keep saying there is only “good” cinema and “bad” cinema. This isn’t about “elite” movies. There are movies made for the mainstream (of which we’re all a part) and there are movies made for those who seek a different kind of engagement with cinema (of which some of us choose to be a part). I do not like the term “art cinema” because it gives the sense that somehow only this kind of cinema is “art” and the other kind isn’t, but I do feel these are two very different kinds of cinema — with a different grammar; with different aims and ambitions — and need to be addressed differently.
LikeLike
Venkatesh
December 29, 2010
BR : “with a different grammar; with different aims and ambitions — and need to be addressed differently.” – May be the degree to which these 2 “types” of cinema are different has changed.
LikeLike
rameshram
December 29, 2010
I dont have a problem with it being called art cinema. the purposes of the film being made are differrent. it’s like what is in a museum is art. that does not mean some commercial gallery does not sell art. it only means that the purpose of having a museum is for the showcasing of art.
LikeLike
PK
December 30, 2010
“with a different grammar; with different aims and ambitions”
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by grammar – is it the actual “film grammar” or Is this the same as saying a Romantic film has a different grammar than say a Horror film?
Another interesting aspect is how films of a particular region are seen differently by people from different region – a good example of this would be Taal (Subash Ghai). IMO Taal is a mediocre “mainstream” Indian film but nevertheless it was featured and celebrated in Ebert’s Overlooked film festival. Of course Eberfest might not be Cannes but nevertheless is in itself a “film festival” featuring “overlooked” films. I guess this makes it very important to distinguish between “Art Films” (again for lack of better word) and Foreign Films.
What got-me is your use of Almodovar as an example to drive your point and I think this is confusing too (esp. his films from/after “All about your mother”). Each of his releases are treated as regular movies in Europe (less so in US) and have each earned 50 million $ (globally). So perhaps and for sake of comparison Almodovar might really be their Subhash Ghai who makes sappy-womencentric-musicals :).
That said I do understand what you are getting at with use of Bergman, Godard et. al. but I would like to think that these masters of cinema have been succeed (not replaced) by equally challenging directors in contemporary cinema (HHH, Kiroastami, Haneke, Apichatpong ….).
LikeLike
bran1gan
December 30, 2010
PK: I meant visual grammar – to use a tired example, the jump cut that was so revolutionary once (and is so commonplace today). Also, pace, mood, narrative structure, auteurist symbolism, self indulgence. Yes, Almodovar was probably the wrong example to take — but I was just thinking from the POV that in the 50s and 60s, even this would have been very difficult to view, and we find it “easy” because we’ve digested so much of art cinema. Maybe I should have taken the instance of a more austere filmmaker from today — though even with Almodovar, the vibrant surfaces don’t really mean you get everything at once.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
December 30, 2010
Precisely. I fear, 50 years down the line, BROKEN EMBRACES might be hailed as PA’s VERTIGO, and noted that the audience of its time shrugged it off lightly.
May be not.
LikeLike