Waves Are What They Are: A Dialogue about Margaret Tait’s BLUE BLACK PERMANENT

by Iva­na Miloš and Patrick Holzapfel
Repu­blished with kind per­mis­si­on from Mubi Notebook
Link to the ori­gi­nal article

Patrick,

Here is some­thing I always wan­ted to tell you about—it is con­nec­ted to tides, gras­ses on cliff­tops, bird­song in the mor­ning, smo­king tea cups. All of the­se come into view in Mar­ga­ret Tait’s obser­va­tio­nal prac­ti­ce, lea­ning in and loo­king clo­ser, loo­king in and loo­king into things. This poe­tess and film­ma­ker who­se work has been off the radar for deca­des, as she spent the lat­ter living on Ork­ney within reach of the waves, made only one fea­ture film, the one you have now seen. Retel­ling ano­ther life’s essence, daugh­ter Bar­ba­ra tra­vels through memo­ries of her mother Greta’s mys­te­rious death. The mul­ti­ple voices we hear are joi­n­ed by tho­se of the land­scape in its minu­tiae, as if they were at once wel­ded tog­e­ther and mere­ly brushing past each other. Gre­ta, who at first seems like the epi­to­me of a poet reve­ling in the storm—even taking out her note­book to wri­te in the tor­ren­ti­al rain—metamorphoses into someone clo­ser to a songbird upon her arri­val to Ork­ney to see her ailing father. And yet it is this form that draws her clo­ser and clo­ser to the sea. If Gre­ta dis­ap­pears, if her poems dis­ap­pear, is it a trans­for­ma­ti­on or an appro­pria­ti­on on the part of natu­re, taking back what had always belon­ged to it? If this film were to tell a sto­ry, would it speak in the drif­ting voice of the sea?

***
Ivana,

The­re is some­thing uncan­ny about the voice of the sea in Blue Black Per­ma­nent. It remin­ded me of a line from one of Jean Epstein’s sea poems: “ The sea doesn’t care.” Tait films the sea in con­stant move­ment. The waves come to life as in Vir­gi­nia Woolf’s famous descrip­ti­ons. Bra­king and spre­a­ding waters, but also threa­tening, becau­se some­thing invi­si­ble lurks the­re. The sea will have no mer­cy, it will not save your soul. It just exists. Yet, I owe this noti­on to the style of the film, which rela­tes to the fears of the prot­ago­nist. Move­ments in natu­re edi­ted at a fast pace give the impres­si­on of the sen­sa­ti­ons of touch and smell. In tho­se moments, I not only hear the voice of the sea, but the voice of Tait. What you descri­be as Tait’s obser­va­tio­nal prac­ti­ce I see mir­rored in Gre­ta, the mother and poet in the film. She is not only drawn clo­ser to the sea but to natu­ral sen­sa­ti­ons in gene­ral. She is hun­gry for a touch of the real. So she runs through a thun­der­storm, enjoy­ing the rain. Some­thing has sepa­ra­ted her from life, from obser­va­tio­nal prac­ti­ce, and she needs to get it back by all means pos­si­ble. Yet, her move­ments don’t seem to be vol­un­t­a­ry. Not­hing can stop her. She is drawn back to earth and, like a vul­nerable drop of water, she slow­ly but pas­sio­na­te­ly seeps back into the ground. That the fee­ling of ali­en­ati­on from dome­stic life results in a call from natu­re seems to me like the oppo­si­te of what the prot­ago­nist of Michel­an­ge­lo Antonioni’s Red Desert goes through. Ins­tead of being afraid to touch, Gre­ta lite­ra­ry sleep­walks into tou­ch­ing. The abs­trac­tion Moni­ca Vitti’s cha­rac­ter expe­ri­en­ces as well as the sud­den pre­sence of natu­re that con­su­mes Gre­ta have the same ori­gin; both feel ill at ease in their dome­stic life. Gre­ta is torn bet­ween her desi­re for free­dom and her need to rela­te to her loved ones. Do you think Gre­ta could have been saved? It is may­be hard to tell, sin­ce the expres­si­on on her face and the nar­ra­ti­on of her daugh­ter con­stant­ly give us the fee­ling of a sto­ry alre­a­dy told, a sto­ry in which we and Gre­ta are just pas­sen­gers or sleep­wal­kers. May­be this is also why I feel that the sea doesn’t care.

***
Patrick,

The sea sim­ply is. Its dis­in­te­res­ted­ness is both its grea­test appeal and dan­ger. As waves roll out, they could just as well be see­king, gras­ping, savoring, swal­lo­wing, cle­an­sing or even rea­ching for someone. This magne­tism of what is draws Gre­ta in in an indo­mi­ta­ble fashion—I don’t belie­ve any­thing we can see could have saved her. At the same time, ever­y­thing we see could have done exact­ly that. You are very right in say­ing that the nar­ra­ti­on con­stant­ly stres­ses and affirms its­elf in rely­ing on the fami­lia­ri­ty of past events, but what if it does that becau­se it is the only way to try and pre­vent it from hap­pe­ning? Greta’s daugh­ter does not seem to have achie­ved clo­sure con­cer­ning her mother’s death, this is why we have to see it. Inte­res­t­ingly enough, it is the death that goes unseen, as we are left with images of an emp­ty room, win­dow open wide, pen just drop­ped in the midd­le of wri­ting a poem, and the sur­face of the sea mes­me­ri­zin­gly chan­ging shape. The­se shots are framed by children—a child’s night­ma­re prac­ti­cal­ly brings her mother’s death into the room while, in the after­math of the event, child­ren are left play­ing in front of the house, una­wa­re and per­fect­ly blen­ding into their sur­roun­dings. Of the many (in Tait’s own voca­bu­la­ry) film poems she made, one ear­ly short bears a spe­cial con­nec­tion to Blue Black Per­ma­nent: Hap­py Bees (1954). On the face of it, the film is the essence of inno­cent joy. A few young child­ren roll around in the grass, play with pots and pans in the gar­den, all to the tunes of the Ork­ney Reel and Strath­spey Socie­ty. But the appearance of the sea brings some­thing dif­fe­rent to the film: a pre­sence to be reckon­ed with, a realm elu­ding com­pre­hen­si­on. The music sud­den­ly stops as the waves rum­ble and roar. Child­ren are nowhe­re to be seen, only algae drif­ting in the rocky pools. Howe­ver, see­ing as you men­ti­on hea­ring Tait’s voice, that’s exact­ly what inter­rupts the over­whel­ming wilderness—Tait’s own voice say­ing: “The child­ren are not far away, the child­ren live here.” This con­nec­tion bet­ween land(scape), natu­re and peo­p­le is at the core of Tait’s work, intert­wi­ning them like the sea wea­ves the algae strands. Gre­ta is pul­led, but may­be also brought to her sen­ses. It’s just that the­se sen­ses may be clo­ser to tou­ch­ing and smel­ling than reaso­ning, and their road simi­lar­ly ethe­re­al. What do you make of the pre­sent pla­ne and Barbara’s search for her mother? Could she also be loo­king for what Tait wri­tes about in a poem cal­led Now?

And in dis­car­ding all wis­dom and prudence
Now and again,
– Rare­ly, say, but still sometimes –
We can reach,
We can see,
We can feel, touch, sen­se in some inde­fi­nable way
A deeper know­ledge than wisdom,
Bone-know­ledge
Blood-know­ledge
Felt or known by out deepest sensibilities
For which as yet we have no words.

***
Ivana,

I am very glad that you found the first words to bridge the gap bet­ween past and pre­sent in the film. This gap is like a wound for me, I am not sure how to deal with it. Blue Black Per­ma­nent is very much a film bet­ween gene­ra­ti­ons. The gap bet­ween gene­ra­ti­ons opens and clo­ses, it beco­mes visi­ble only to dis­ap­pear again in doubt. The film also moves some­whe­re in the space bet­ween past and pre­sent. You wri­te about Barbara’s search for her mother that is ulti­m­ate­ly, of cour­se, also a search for hers­elf. In Barbara’s hel­p­less­ness in try­ing to under­stand her mother’s untime­ly death, I find the power­less­ness of psy­cho­lo­gy facing a poem. It is real­ly a dead end. Yet, I am not sure if she is com­ple­te­ly hel­p­less in the end. I want her to be, though. Somehow I can­not accept the strong pre­sence of psy­cho­lo­gy which is real­ly at the source of this con­flict. Some­ti­mes the film uses the kno­wing cruel­ty and ten­der­ness of psy­cho­lo­gy to make us feel safer than Bar­ba­ra. Some­ti­mes, and this is what I like more, it does not. Bar­ba­ra is not a poet. Nevert­hel­ess, she feels a desi­re to obser­ve or to docu­ment in hers­elf. The way she talks to her hus­band seems like a never-ending the­ra­py ses­si­on. He is not always able to lis­ten. For me, he embo­dies a pos­si­ble future in this dance bet­ween past and pre­sent. She goes to see a fri­end of the fami­ly, a beard­ed pain­ter wea­ring long, paint-stained coats. Is he, in his refu­sal to lead a bour­geois life, able to find more hap­pi­ness? I am more than uncer­tain about this, but I see a spark­le of under­stan­ding in his eyes. He car­ri­es a secret, and if you spend time with him, the secret might reve­al its­elf. Bar­ba­ra is not con­fron­ted with an invol­un­t­a­ry memo­ry, but what she takes upon hers­elf is a very acti­ve strugg­le. In this image of a woman try­ing to remem­ber, try­ing to under­stand, can we see her fin­ding self-awa­re­ness and also grace? May­be it is also about under­stan­ding that the sea is the sea, the past is the past? As you can see, I am a bit lost here. Nevert­hel­ess, I am moved. Like you, I also want to quo­te one of Tait’s poems. It might tell us more about the film.

Did you say it’s made of waves?
Yes, that’s it.
I won­der what the waves are made of.
Oh, waves are made of waves.
Waves are what they are,
Shim­me­ring­ness,
Oscil­la­ti­on,
Rhyth­mi­cal move­ment which is the inher­ent essence of all things.
Ulti­m­ate­ly, there’s only movement,
Not­hing else.
The move­ment that light is
Comes out of the sun
And it’s so gor­ge­ous a thing
That not­hing else is ever any­thing unless lit by it.