Viennale 2015: Unsere hohen Lichter

Nach fast einer Woche fühlen wir uns in der Lage, auf die Viennale 2015 zurückzublicken. Was bleibt vom Festival?

Patrick

Ich betone vor allem – aber nicht nur – die Filme, die ich bei der Viennale zum ersten Mal beziehungsweise zum ersten Mal im Kino gesehen habe.

Vier Filme

Visita ou memórias e confissões von Manoel De Oliveira

Weil er mich daran erinnert hat, wie es ist zu sterben

No Home Movie von Chantal Akerman

Weil die Kamera eine Seele ist (meine Besprechung)

The Immigrant von Charlie Chaplin

Weil es keine Fehler gibt

Vremena goda/Tarva yeghanakner von Artavazd Pelechian

Weil ich keine Worte dafür habe

–

Mein Film des Jahres 2015:

Right Now, Wrong Then von Hong Sang-soo (meine Besprechung)

–

Die Enttäuschung:

Mountains May Depart von Jia Zhang-ke: Es ist sicherlich kein schlimmer Film und Jia Zhang-ke ist und bleibt ein großartiger Metteur en Scène, aber das Verschwinden jeglicher Subtilität und des Bildhintergrundes aus vielen seiner Szenen ist der große Schmerz des Jahres.

–

13 Szenen des Festivals

Es gab diese Rolltreppen in Cemetery of Splendour von Apichatpong Weerasethakul, die mich in einen Traum gestürzt haben, der meine letzte Chance auf eine Flucht war. Die Schlafkrankheit ergriff mich bis Renoir in Straubs L‘aquarium et la nation platzte und ich mich fragen musste, ob und wie ich in einer Nation lebe. Ich weiß es nicht. Ich fühle mich wie der Baum im Wind in No Home Movie von Chantal Akerman und Philippe Garrel hatte völlig Recht, als er gesagt hat, dass Akerman in der Lage war, so zu erzählen, dass man merkt: es betrifft uns alle. Ich habe den ersten Kuss bei Desplechin und seinem Trois souvenirs de ma jeunesse (meine Besprechung) nicht mehr gesehen, aber nicht vergessen. Auch er betrifft uns alle. Er ist wie das plötzliche Erwachen des scheinbar Toten in Psaume von Nicolas Boone. Ein Augenblick, in dem die Zeit steht. Ein Schlag in die Kontinuität meiner selbstzufriedenen Wahrnehmung. Die Zeit läuft rückwärts im letzten Bild von Kaili Blues von Bi Gan (meine Besprechung), ein Ende, das mich sehen und erkennen ließ. Allgemein dachte ich oft, dass Filme nicht – wie Cristi Puiu sagt – lediglich ein Zeugnis sein sollten, sondern eine Offenbarung. Also das Gegenteil des verschleiernden Nebels aus dem Tal in The Assassin von Hou hsiao-hsien (meine Besprechung), dem Film, der meine Augen vor Schönheit in Glas verwandelt. Es sind die Rolltreppen aus Glas, die vom Wind geküsst werden. Ich ziehe mich aus wie der Filmemacher in Right Now, Wrong Then von Hong Sang-soo und springe ins Wasser wie die Kinder in der Katastrophe in Storm Children, Book One von Lav Diaz. Im Wasser ist es wie in L‘invisible von Fabrice Aragno, bei dem kein Bild in meinem Gedächtnis bleibt, sondern nur dritte Bilder, die sich zwischen dem Sichtbaren bewegen. Alles fließt. Im Wasser fliegen mir die Fetzen verbrannter Filme entgegen wie in Bill Morrisons Beyond Zero: 1914-1918. Sie sehen aus wie die schreienden Gesichter eines Grauens, das real wird, weil es materiell wird. Im wasser träume ich von einem Blick zwischen die Texturen, einem Blick, der mir gilt wie in Carol von Todd Haynes. Dann mache ich die Augen auf und stehe auf einer Rolltreppe im Kaufhaus in der Mariahilferstraße. Ich höre Weihnachtsmusik und stelle fest, dass es keine Szene ist, an die ich denke, wenn ich an The Exquisite Corpus von Peter Tscherkassky denke, sondern eine Textur.

Weitere Besprechungen:

Arabian Nights von Miguel Gomes

The Golden Era von Ann Hui

Claude Lanzmann-Spectres of the Shoa von Adam Benzine

Tangerine von Sean Baker

Travelling at Night with Jim Jarmusch von Léa Rinaldi

Maru von Suzuki Yohei

In Transit von Albert Maysles u.a.

Ioana

Visita ou memórias e confissões – made then, seen now

Right Now, Wrong Then – wrong then, right now

The Assassin – pulsating death, still life – pulsating life, still death

The Cow – man then, cow now – cow then, man now – no cow, no man

Cemetery of Splendour – then is now, now is then – don’t live, don’t die

Trois souvenirs de ma jeunesse – wrong then, wrong now – paul then, esther now – now prequel to then. Amalric!

The Exquisite Corpus – sex then (60s-70s), orgasm now?

Happy Mother’s Day – sex then, mother of quintuplets now?!

Sobytie – shot then, made now

Samuray-s – film nowhere, memory of it now

As Mil e uma Noites – stories here, stories there, stories everywhere – politics now

——————————————————————————————————

Chaplin – laugh then, laugh now – love then, love now

Comoara – hidden then, found now

Vremena goda/Tarva yeghanakner – breathtakingly insane then, insanely breathtaking now

Tagebucheinträge:

Andrey

The Hitch-Hiker von Ida Lupino

No Home Movie von Chantal Akerman

‚Non‘, ou a Vã Gloria de Mandar von Manoel De Oliveira

„No is a terrible word“

Texte von Andrey:

As mil e uma noites von Miguel Gomes

The Look of Silence von Joshua Oppenheimer

Einer von uns von Stephan Richter

Die artenreiche Kino-Menagerie

Carol von Todd Haynes

Viennale 2015: Singularities of a Festival: GO WEST

27. Oktober 2015 • Patrick Holzapfel • Festivals, Festivals 2015, Texte, Viennale 2015

Notizen zur Viennale 2015 in einem Rausch, der keine Zeit lässt, aber nach Zeit schreit. Ioana Florescu und Patrick Holzapfel haben noch immer offene Augen, auch wenn am fünften Tag der Viennale vieles in ihrer Wahrnehmung ineinanderschwimmt, und das Kino wie das Treibgut eines ewigen Stroms an ihnen vorbei und vor allem durch sie hindurch fließt. Dementsprechend verbleiben ihre Notizen ohne Absicherung. Sie sind eine Wiedergabe von Erfahrungen.

Tag 1 + Tag 2+ Tag 3+ Tag 4

Patrick

Ein Schiff bewegt sich und auf ihm tanzt Chaplin, weil er fällt. Er tanzt, weil er fällt, er fällt, weil er tanzt, er tanzt fallend, er fällt tanzend und blickt so in die Augen einer Sache, die man auch den Mut einer Verzweiflung und die Verzweiflung eines Mutes nennen könnte. Ein verzweifelter Mut, eine mutige Verzweiflung und genau in diesen Wortspielereien drückt sich für mich letztlich diese immerwährende Gleichzeitigkeit von Drama und Komödie bei ihm aus, die – und eine solche Programmierung ist dann wohl nur auf diesem Festival möglich – einen wichtigen und richtigen Blick auf aktuelle politische Dringlichkeiten wirft. (The Immigrant ist mehr als das)

Ich habe nie so viele Kinder bei einem Filmfestival im Kino gesehen, wie auf dieser Viennale. Es war gut mit ihnen und Chaplin zu lachen.

Jia Zhang-kes Mountains May Depart ist die größte Enttäuschung des Jahres. Verglichen mit dem, was dieser Mann schon gemacht hat, ist es fast eine Frechheit. Jegliche Subtilität ist ihm verlorengegangen und stattdessen hat er einen Themenfilm gemacht, in dem das Thema “Go West, life is peaceful there” hundertfach ironisch, kritisch wiederholt wird. Dazu wird es mehr zu sagen geben.

Die Blätter in Wien sehen durch deine Sonnenbrille anders aus. Man läuft zwischen den Screenings über sie. Ich denke an die Bäume in den Filmen (vielleicht eine Abwehrhaltung gegen all die Tiere ). De Oliveira hat einen Baum der Geschichte in seiner hypnotischen, ersten Einstellung in “Non”, in Carol hängen die verdorrten Äste eines Baumes fast am Boden, in Hierba umranken jene der französischen Maler das Begehren,

Lieber Jia, du hast Szenen gedreht, in denen deine Kamera interessiert war an der Welt. Du hast Filme gemacht, in denen du Zeuge warst einer Welt und dann mit deiner Wahrnehmung darin geschwommen bist. Du hättest bis vor 2 oder 3 Filmen nie so geleuchtet, dass sich Figuren von ihrer Umgebung abheben. Ganz im Gegenteil, du hast es zum Prinzip erhoben, dass Bildhintergrund und Bildvordergrund eine Einheit in ihren Gegensätzen sind und dass die Dinge nicht so einfach sind als könne man sie zusammenhängend erzählen, du hast nie so getan, als ob du die Emotionen deiner Figuren verstehen könntest, weil man sie durch das Sehen verstanden hat. Du hast uns überrascht. Nicht mit Explosionen, sondern mit den Perspektiven, den Entscheidungen, den Blicken. Ja, ich habe gesehen, dass du nicht alles verloren hast, aber bitte mache wieder Filme mit deinen Augen, Ohren und deiner Haut.

Ioana

Chaplin hat heute alles andere überschattet. Jede Geste war eine Überraschung, obwohl ich die Filme (vielleicht vor zu langer Zeit) schon gesehen hatte. Letztendlich war ich so überwältigt, dass ich eher weinen als lachen musste. [Vielleicht weil mein Körper nicht daran gewöhnt ist, fast ein einhalb Stunden ununterbrochener Freude (am Kino, im Kino) auszuhalten.]

Tag der Ohrwürmer. Das Lied aus Las Pibas hat mich von Pet Shop Boys – Go West “befreit”.

In Mountains May Depart fehlt mir so vieles, was ich an anderen Filmen von Jia Zhang-ke mag, dass ich mir nur wünschen kann, dass das sein Jimmy P. ist. Auf einer oberflächlichen Ebene und grob gesagt, fehlen mir die verwirrende Übertriebenheit von A Touch of Sin, die energische Coolness von Pickpocket, die drückende Kontemplation von ruinierten Orten und Entfremdung von Still Life und der elaborierte Umgang mit Form.

Es war lustig herauszufinden, dass man zahlen muss, um das nicht-wesentlich-größer-als-meine-Küche Ausstellungszimmer im Metro Kino zu besuchen. Wir sind nur zufällig illegal reingestolpert vor einem Screening, aber jetzt muss ich mich fragen, was für Schätze dort gehalten werden und wie viel die Eintrittskarte kostet. Habe ich eigentlich falsch geschaut, gibt es dort mehrere Zimmern?

Youth Under The Influence (Of Pedro Costa) – Part 3: The Natural Sexual One

29. September 2015 • Patrick Holzapfel • Dialoge, Texte

Michael Guarneri and Patrick Holzapfel continue their discussion about the films they have seen after meeting with Mr. Costa in Munich, in June 2015. Quite naturally, in this part, they end up talking about Mr. Costa’s films and find something between sexual desires and ethical distance in cinema.

Part 1

Part 2

Michael: (…) Maybe it’s an Italian thing, an Italian take on poverty, but when I asked my grandparents about Chaplin’s films, they said something I find very interesting: “Yeah, I remember the tramp guy, very funny movies, I laughed so hard… but being poor it’s another world entirely”.

Please mind that I have consciously chosen Chaplin as he is one of Mr. Costa’s favorite filmmakers. Is Chaplin a traitor, in your view?

Patrick: Again, you make me think of Renoir, who said: “Filmmakers are the sons of the bourgeoisie. They bring to their career the weaknesses of their decadent class.” Did Chaplin know what poverty was/is? If he knew, was he really interested in it? We know that, as opposed to Renoir, Chaplin did not come from a rich household or a secure life. We know that Chaplin enjoyed his money, the money he earned, he was proud, living the capitalist dream by showing its downside. Compared to Ventura almost every other actor seems to be a traitor.

But maybe there is more to being poor and human than the reality of social conditions (which Chaplin in my view was merely addressing, addressing in a very brave manner because he was talking about things in his films that others wouldn’t have dared to – his films are always meant to be a film, an illusion and his acting is the best way to detect that: it is very clear that he is not really poor, he does not lie about it). Maybe there is some truth in his films that goes beyond their credibility. I think cinema would be much poorer if only those were allowed to show certain issues that lived through them.

Nevertheless I can perfectly understand your points and there is certainly some truth to them. I never really was overwhelmed by Chaplin’s worlds, it is somehow very distant for me, I watch his films in an observing mode. I never understood how one can identify with the Tramp. But while observing I identify with the filmmaker. Which brings me to a rather curious and certainly stupid “what-if”… I just asked myself why Mr. Costa is not visible in his films. He talks so much about the trust, the friendship and his life in Fontainhas. He should obviously be a part of this world. I don’t mean in the Miguel Gomes kind of way, but just in order to be sincere, because we shouldn’t forget that there is someone in the room when Ventura shakes, maybe he doesn’t shake at all, maybe someone tells (I think Mr.Costa has already talked about that) him: “Shake a bit more, Ventura.” But then I know that Mr. Costa and his camera are visible if you look at his films… It is just a question of his body being there, the presence. Do you know what I mean?

Michael: I am not sure if I understand what you mean, especially because I am not well-acquainted with Miguel Gomes’s body of work. Anyway, there is this scene in (near the end of?) In Vanda’s Room: Zita is in the frame, with her little half-brother if I remember correctly, and in a corner you can see a camera tripod against a wall. Maybe it is shy Mr. Costa “revealing himself”? I think so. Otherwise, yeah, as a person, he’s pretty much in the dark, behind the camera, in the 180 degrees of space in which we have been trained to pretend that everything and nothing exists. But is he really “hiding” in the dark? I am not sure. Sometimes it seems to me that Mr. Costa is all over the place, and not just a presence looming at the margins of the frame, off-camera. There’s a lot of autobiography in O Sangue. In Casa de Lava, Mariana is lost in Capo Verde just like Mr. Costa lost himself during a Heart-of-Darkness-esque shooting adventure in the tropics…

About Ventura shaking more than he actually does in real life: yeah, I read that too. I think it has to do with the way the camera captures movement. Did it ever happen to you that something that was perfect in real-time/real-life speed was awful when filmed? Like, you shoot a certain scene, and when you watch it on the screen you realize that this or that real-life movement must be done more slowly to look good once filmed? I think it is the same with Ventura’s shaking. It had to be exaggerated to become “cinematic”, to become visible, comprehensible, dramatic, melodramatic. I guess this is why Chaplin rehearsed on film…

Patrick: I just looked up the scene with Zita and her half-brother but couldn’t make out the tripod. Can you maybe send me a screenshot? I think it is due to my bad copy of the film or the darkness of the screen I have here because I cannot really see what is in the corners of the frame.

You are completely right about Mr. Costa being all over the place in his films though. I think it is most obvious in Ossos and his portraits of artists at work, Ne change rien and Where does your hidden smile lie?. I think it is a question of approach, the distance to the filmed ones always tells us something about the one who films with Mr. Costa. It is not only his position in spatial terms, but also in ethical and emotional terms. I am very careful with autobiographical aspects though you have your points. After all the way of a shooting, personal desires and memories are part of many, many films. It is very hard not to have more or less obvious traces in a film.

As for the way camera captures not only movement but anything, I think… the notion of something being empty or crowded, speed, relations like big and small and so on, yes, I know that and yes, this is surely a reason to shake more… but still… it only shows me that cheating is part of making films. So for me what counts is what is on the screen.

Gomes often has his film crew acting out in front of the camera including himself. It is a very hip thing, full of irony and self-reflexion. In Our beloved month of August it worked for me because from the absurd body of the motionless director who is Gomes here, searching for money, without motion – without a picture – derives something important which is the fact that cinema can be found, will be found. In Arabian Nights he went for something similar (much bigger, of course) and he is always flirting with his own disappearance or death, the disappearance of the author, the idea of illusion as an escape from reality, maybe he desperately wants to escape because he is a traitor like all of them, like all of us – look at us! But Gomes and the question of the body of the director leads me to another recommendation of Mr. Costa I followed after our meeting: João César Monteiro. Are you familiar with his work?

Michael: I won’t send you a screenshot of the tripod-thing for the same reason Straub-Huillet didn’t put an image of the mountain when the mother looks out of the window in Sicilia!: I want to give you a space to imagine things. Nah, jokes aside, I cannot find the shot right now, skimming through the movie. But it’s there. Zita is there, I don’t know about the kid. She is in a sort of storage closet, the tripod is leaning against the wall in the background. Or maybe there is no tripod at all, I don’t know. Maybe it’s like the smile in Mr. Costa’s Straub-Huillet film, or the twitch in the neck of comatose Leão at the beginning of Casa de Lava: sometimes it is there, sometimes it isn’t.

About João César Monteiro, I have watched his film about the aftermath of the Carnation Revolution Que Farei com Esta Espada?, and A Flor do Mar. What did you see? Were you impressed?

Patrick: I have seen Silvestre, As Bodas de Deus, Vai e vem and O Ultimo Mergulho. Mr. Costa advised me to see Monteiro’s debut feature Veredas first, but I could not find subtitles.

Silvestre is really an amazing film. It is full of beauty and manages to have one serious and one ironic eye on folkloristic tales and the way they are told. Rarely have I seen such a depth in artificial imagery. O Ultimo Mergulho is also great. It is a sensual comedy of tragic circumstances, and also a documentary on a Lisbon night. For the other two, which happened later in his career, I can only say that I found them to be curious little charmers. No more, no less. But they are very interesting in regards to what we have been talking about: the body of the director in Portuguese cinema. With Monteiro we have this recurring character he plays, João de Deus. As I have seen only two of those films I cannot say too much about it. It seems to be something close to Buster Keaton, just a little madder and sexually deranged (if you google the name you will also find that this is the name of a medium and psychic surgeon from Brazil).

But Monteiro really gives his body to his films. Whereas Gomes tries to disappear, with Monteiro it is all about the presence of his body. He is much more serious as an actor, I think. There is another thing that strikes me about Portuguese cinema which is the use of language. How do you perceive that as someone whose mother tongue is much closer to Portuguese than mine? For me, no matter if Monteiro, Gomes (not as much), Lopes, Villaverde, Pinto, Rodrigues or Mr. Costa, almost all of them, the use of language is closer to poetry than anything else. It is very hard to do that in German though some directors managed to.

Michael: I wish spoken Portuguese was closer to Italian! On the written page, the languages are very similar, but because of the way Portuguese is spoken – the pronunciation, I mean – it is just impossible for me to understand. I can understand little things and try to infer the general meaning of a given sentence, but most of the time it is impossible for me to follow. Bottom line is: I need subtitles, too, and I won’t risk any judgement to the poetic quality of Portuguese.

Anyway, about Vai e vem, do you know the scene in which Monteiro sits under the big tree in the park? That is the park – Principe Real – where he and Mr. Costa used to meet many many many many many years ago to read the papers together, drink coffee and talk… But it would be really hard to find strict similarities between their films, wouldn’t it?

Patrick: Do you really need to understand to hear poetry? For me, it has more to do with rhythm and sound. Of course, knowing the language is essential for poetry, but to get a feeling if something is poetic or not…well, I am not sure.

Thanks for the info about the park! I think there are some similarities concerning their use of montage especially related to Costa’s first three features. It is certainly hard to grasp. I would have to see more of Monteiro.

So now the youth under the influence of Mr.Costa talks about the influences on Mr. Costa. Do you see any connections to Portuguese cinema with him?

Michael: For what I have seen, and heard, and read, I think the biggest similarity between Monteiro and Mr. Costa is their being “natural heterosexual filmmakers” (I am more or less quoting Mr. Costa, as filtered through my memory). How did they use to say back in the days? Cinema is a girl and a gun… This is also very Chaplinesque, of course. Rest assured that I am not alluding to anything deranged (though I read that there is some kinky sex and weird stuff in Monteiro’s João de Deus). It is just this idea of approaching interesting girls by means of a camera… I won’t ask you your opinion on this because you told me that you have a girlfriend: we will discuss that in private maybe.

For a more general take on the Portuguese scene, the names Mr. Costa always names are António Reis and Paulo Rocha. The former was his teacher at Lisbon Film School, and together with Margarida Cordeiro made a few films that Mr. Costa really likes, especially Ana and Tras-os-Montes. The latter made Os Verdes Anos and Mudar de Vida, which Mr. Costa recently helped restoring (they are available in a DVD boxset with English subtitles now).

If I had to be didactic, I’d say that the influence of the two early masterpieces by Rocha is more pronounced in O Sangue (whose title could have easily been “Os Verdes Anos”, i.e. “The Green Years”), both in the imagery and in the coming-of-age/maudit/enfant terrible/doomed love mood. I think that Reis, being not only a filmmaker but also a poet and an anthropologist, influenced a lot Mr. Costa’s approach to the cinematic expeditions in Cape Verde and Fontainhas… Reis used to say: “Look at the stone, the story comes afterwards…”. These words must have been a great inspiration for Mr. Costa as he was researching and searching his way into cinema after O Sangue. But of course things are more complex than this… Do you follow me? Have you seen Rocha’s dyptic and Reis and Cordeiro’s films?

Patrick: I can follow you very well, though of the above I have only seen Tras-os-Montes. I think that this midway between a (natural sexual and political conscious) poet and an anthropologist by means of film and work with film is much of what Mr. Costa is all about right now. There is something António Reis once said when talking to Serge Daney that strongly reminds me of Mr.Costa’s work in Fontainhas: “I can tell you that we never shot with a peasant, a child or an old person, without having first become his pal or his friend. This seemed to us an essential point, in order to be able to work and so that there weren’t problems with the machines. When we began shooting with them, the camera was already a kind of little pet, like a toy or a cooking utensil, that didn’t scare them.”

This idea of friendship of complicity… tenderness… how to film someone, how to work with someone you film, so what is this natural sexual thing really? Though you politely offered to discuss it in private between two male cinema observers/workers/lovers, I have to insist to have part of this conversation in public… I think it is remarkable how much anger and fear is in the way Mr. Costa’s camera approaches women (and men), especially compared to Monteiro, who I can always feel being very much in love with what he films and sharing this feeling. There is a sense of doubt with Mr. Costa, a darkness, this constant feeling of being not able to really enter with his camera and lights. Well, I get this point about cinema as a way of approaching women. Filmmakers like Ingmar Bergman or Leos Carax talked about it and have practiced it very excessively. But you can see/feel/touch it in their films. With Mr. Costa it feels different for me. It is like I can only touch the desire and never touch the thing itself. “Very abstract, very abstract”, like Monsieur Verdoux would say, but I think this is exactly what touches me in Mr. Costa’s films. With him the desire for movement is as strong as the movement. I can only think of two other filmmakers that are able to do that in contemporary cinema: Sharunas Bartas and Tsai Ming-liang. But much of this approach I could sense with Tras-os-Montes, though I am mixing ethics and sexuality here which might be a mistake.

Michael: No, in general I think it is good to mix them. Maybe they are the same thing, as sometimes the Marquis suggested (e.g., in the incomparable Français, encore un effort pour être républicains)…

I don’t know about the anger, but there surely is fear in Mr. Costa’s approach to filming people, and women especially (Ines, Vanda and Zita above all, in my view). Take In Vanda’s Room, for instance. A heterosexual filmmaker is in the girl’s bedroom with a camera… it’s strange, it’s cool, it’s unsettling, it’s exciting for a guy being there, isn’t it? What will happen? What is the secret beyond the door? What is the mystery of the chambre vert? But it is also scary: it is not a man’s world, and the girl might ridicule him, make him uncomfortable, and so on… He is in her kingdom, after all. He is in her power completely. So there you have it: fear going hand in hand with desire. Somebody even made a debut feature film called Fear and Desire, and then locked it in a cellar because he was too scared to show it to people. You wrote “this constant feeling of being not able to really enter”: it seems to me that the desire to enter and the fear of not being able to enter are what sex is all about. But the discussion is definitely getting weird. Mother, if you are reading this: this is film criticism, I am not a prevert.

Patrick: Your writing “prevert” instead of “pervert” reminds me that recently I have seen Le Quai des brumes by Marcel Carné, a film written by another one of those film-poets: Jacques Prévert. There is a painter in the film who probably ends up killing himself and he is talking a bit like Mr. Costa last year in Locarno when he described and somehow regretted how he always ends up talking about the terrible, fearful things in his films. The painter says: “When I see someone swimming, I always imagine him drowning.” Judging from his films, I think Mr.Costa is a bit like that. And I love that Carné is presenting any other worldview as an illusion.

I want to ask you two questions: 1. Do you think Mr.Costa films more the things he loves or the things he fears? 2. Do you prefer in cinema to be confronted with the things you love or the things you fear?

TO BE CONTINUED

Youth Under The Influence (Of Pedro Costa) – Part 2: The Mysterious One

13. September 2015 • Patrick Holzapfel • Dialoge, Texte

Michael Guarneri and Patrick Holzapfel continue their discussion about the films they have seen after meeting with Mr. Costa in Munich, in June 2015. (Here you can find Part 1)

Michael: […] Which might be a good starting point for discussing our cinematic guilty pleasures… Do you want to start?

Patrick: Sure! But first I want to state that, for me, something that is recommended and liked by people like Mr. Costa or Straub can never be guilty. Maybe I’m too weak in this regard. I really don’t know about your mysterious childhood experiences. I think you underestimate a little bit the power of some of those films, and the differences within the evil machine, too. The craft also has some poetry that sometimes is bigger than the whole package… but we have discussed that already, I do not want to insist. Let’s talk about my guilty pleasures.

It is very hard for me, as I am living in a city where the expression “vulgar auteurism” was defined, and the mantra “Everything is Cinema – Cinema is Everything” gets repeated over and over. Now, for the first time, I see a connection with the Marquis, and that makes it even more attractive. Furthermore I think that, in a sense, watching cinema must be guilty.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

But still, I just love many Ben Stiller/Will Ferrell films, I became a man (did I?) watching films like Old School, Zoolander, Anchorman or Semi-Pro. The same is true for Judd Apatow, which somehow feels even guiltier. Then there is Christopher Nolan. I hated Interstellar, but I would defend almost everything he did before Interstellar without arguments. I don’t remember a single outstanding shot, cut or moment in his films, but I remember the movement between shots (maybe there is an argument in the making…). I love agents, almost all of them. I like self-seriousness because I am very self-serious myself. But I cannot say that, during the last couple of years, there was anything I liked for its color like one could (but needn’t) like The River by Renoir, or for its dancing and singing. It has become harder to have guilty pleasures, because now they don’t sell you a box of candies, they just sell you the box.

But what’s even more interesting for me is what one doesn’t like despite one maybe should. We can call it “guilty failings” if you like. Do you have those failings?

The River

Casa de Lava

Michael: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to skate over my guilty pleasures, and maintain a façade of very serious (self-serious?), austere intellectual. Yes, let’s talk about “guilty failings”! The River by Renoir – which you have just mentioned – is a film I cannot stand. It feels somehow too childish for my taste, as if somehow Renoir was trying to push people to watch everything with big watery eyes (the main characters are the kids/teenagers, it makes sense that Renoir does so: I just do not like it). This tear-jerking super-melodrama feeling is probably why I cannot take it seriously, especially in the big “the child is dead” monologue.

Another big guilty failing for me is The Third Man by Carol Reed. The movie has everything to be an excellent one: a genre I love, great casting (not only Welles but the always awesome, awesome Joseph Cotten), intriguing story and great dialogues, all the package. Yet, when I watch it, I just find it unbearable to sit through. To paraphrase David Foster Wallace, every shot is like “Look, mom, I am directing!”: the film is bizarrely baroque throughout, with lots of weird angles and convoluted tracking shots, a total show-off for basically no reason. For most of the film I was saying to myself: “Can’t the director just keep that camera straight?”… The Third Man is probably the one and only 1940s US noir I don’t like.

Was there a specific film or a director that you couldn’t stand, like, five years ago, and now you appreciate?

Patrick: I have to think about it. This issue basically leads me back to many thoughts I had in the beginning of this conversation. Ernst Lubitsch is a director I didn’t like a few years ago, but now I like him very much. Why is that? First, I hope and know, it is because I have watched more films by Lubitsch. I also re-watched the ones I didn’t like at first (To Be or Not to Be, for example), and found them much better. Maybe my eyes have sharpened, I am pretty sure they have, they should have. I suddenly recognize the movement, the way he builds his shots, the way he works with motives and eyes and the way everything feels always wrong in the right way. But there is also a suspicion. It’s the way people like Mr. Costa talk about Lubitsch, the way Lubitsch is dealt with in certain cinema circles, the way he is a legend with a certain flavor (don’t call it “touch”, it is not what I mean), a certain secret around all those screenshot of Lubitsch films posted on the Internet. I am afraid that those things seduced me, too… or did they teach me? Perhaps they just told me to look closer.

Design for Living

Maybe what I am searching for is an innocent way of looking at films. But one must be careful. Many confuse this innocence with being against the canon, which is always a way of living for some critics. But that’s bullshit. I don’t mean that I want to go into a cinema without expectation or pre-knowledge. It is just the way of perceiving: it should be isolated, pure. It’s impossible, yet it happens. Or doesn’t it? What do you think? Are there still miracles happening in contemporary cinema? I ask you because I want to know if we are talking about something gone here, like Mr. Costa says it is, or something present.

Michael: Thanks for mentioning Lubitsch. In a very good interview-book by Cyril Neyrat, Mr. Costa talks a lot about Lubitsch being a major influence for In Vanda’s Room. He also says that one of the first times he saw Vanda, she was doing some plumbing job in Fontainhas and she reminded him of Cluny Brown, from the homonymous Lubitsch film. Cluny Brown is indeed an amazing film. As all the US production by Lubitsch, it is very witty and some very spicy (at times downright dirty) sexual innuendos are thrown in in a very casual way, which is absolutely fantastic. It is somewhat sexually deranged, but in a very controlled and seemingly proper way, hence (for me) the feeling of vertigo that makes me catch my breath. Plus, of course, in Cluny Brown there are a lot of very intelligent remarks on working within a cultural industry: in this sense, the last 5 minutes of the film are worth 1000 books on the subject. In my view, Lubitsch is one of the very few who managed to use “the Code” (the production code, the Hays Code) against itself, to make every shot a bomb that explodes in the face of the guardians of morality. In this sense, another masterpiece – in my view even superior to some Lubitsch films – is Allan Dwan’s Up in Mabel’s Room. If you haven’t already, please check it out: it is WILD.

Cluny Brown

Vanda

Now, to answer your question… Well, it is a hell of a difficult question, and it requires my making very strict and arrogant statements, for which I apologize in advance. Personally, I do not believe in miracles of any kind. In particular, I do not like to think of cinema as a miracle: I try to think of it as a machine that people use to do/get stuff, and I resist with all my strength to qualify this stuff that cinema produces as a miracle. I prefer to think of films as the result of hard work that might or might not reflect an idea, a feeling, a question, a search, or whatever you want to call it – something on which the audience has to work on, too. I guess I am the typical skeptic character, like Dana Andrews in Tourneur’s Night of the Demon. I guess I still have to meet my doctor Karswell to chastise and convert me to a more “mystical” perspective.

I don’t know if something in cinema is gone, or dead, but I tend not to be too apocalyptic. What do you think?

Patrick: Victor Kossakovsky once said that if he puts a camera at some place, something will happen there. Therefore he does not put it on a crossing.

Concerning miracles (now I am supposed to apologize in advance, but I won’t…), I think it is a question of how willing you are to let them in. Of course, films are fabricated, films are machines. But in my opinion this is a very simplistic way of seeing things, one that certainly is true and was very important at some time, but it has become to dominant. The Bazin-view seems to be out of fashion, I mean the theories about the camera as a recording device, something in touch with reality, with a life of its own. I don’t know if this is mysticism. It is very hard work to be able to let those things in. It goes back to the simple importance of perceiving some stuff around you and then getting the right angle, and so on, for these miracles to happen. It is obviously simplistic too, yes, but it is often ignored nowadays. We might translate miracles as life (those miracles are more often cruel than beautiful)…

About the whole cinema is dead business. I think it is an inspiration. For me cinema is always great when it reflects its own death, the art of dying so slow that you do not even recognize it, it is not only death at work, it becomes already-dead-but-still-seducing-at-work. You know what I mean? Cinema becomes like this girl you meet with too much make-up on it, she is drunk and exhausted, maybe she is coughing like Vanda or shaking like Ventura. But still there is movement, lights and shadows, there is cinema. For me cinema is always more alive when it is like that, not when it tries to shine bright, those times are over. Limelight by Chaplin is a perfect title for a perfect film for what I am trying to say.

Mr. Costa said in Munich that there are no cinematic qualities in a person, it has to do with something else, with getting to know someone, spending time with each other, understanding and trust. But then he somehow came back mentioning qualities in Ventura. What I am trying to say is that cinema for me is a way of perceiving the world. You can see it in a tree or in a person. Of course, it has to be fabricated and consumed and all that after it, and there is a high death rate in that, but as a way of life, as a way of seeing with one’s own eyes it will not die as long as someone is seeing it in things. So for me, Mr. Costa – though he might not agree – was seeing cinema, was seeing miracles (Gary Cooper in Ventura or Cluny Brown in Vanda…) though from a more distant point-of-view there was no cinema in his friends or Fontainhas at all. It was brought to life like a demon in the night, this is why I tend to speak of cinema as the art of the undead.

I completely agree about your remarks on Lubitsch. Do you recognise Cluny Brown in Vanda?

Michael: To be honest, no, I do not recognize Cluny Brown in Vanda, just like I do not recognize Cooper in Ventura. I understand why Mr. Costa makes the comparison, it makes sense and I respect that, it’s just that I – from a very personal point of view – do not really believe in Cluny Brown or Cooper. I accept them as characters in a film, and as a remarkable, at times even sublime abstraction of certain aspects of “humanbeingness”. But I do not really believe in them, I simply suspend my disbelief: because the dialogue is so cool, because I want to have fun, because I want to lose myself in the story, in the screen-world, whatever. Then the film is over, and that’s it for me. Cluny Brown, Cooper, they all die, I tend to forget them and move on with my life, and so did they when their job was finished, of course. What I mean to say is that they do not leave me much, I have the feeling that we live in two separate worlds.

With Vanda and Ventura (or the super-fascinating Zita, or Vitalina, or the incomparable, magnificent Lento) I feel a little different. It’s not a fiction versus documentary thing: I find the distinction between the two very boring, and of course one can tell at first glance that Mr. Costa’s post-1997 digital films are as carefully crafted and staged and enacted and performed as any other fiction film ever made. It’s just that, when I watch or listen to the Fontainhas people, I get in contact with something that it is here, that is not just a film, just a thing I am watching. It is something that watches me back as I am watching, and stays with me forever. It’s life, it’s their life, it’s Mr. Costa’s life and in the end it’s part of my life too. How was it? “This thing of darkness I / Acknowledge mine.”

And now a one-million dollar question: if anyone can be in a movie, can anyone be a filmmaker?

Erich von Stroheim

Patrick: You have some great points here, so this is going to be a long answer. For me the whole documentary/fiction debate that has been popping up for almost a century now is best solved by Gilberto Perez in his bible The Material Ghost. There is the light and the projector and together they are cinema. So, why bother? It is so stupid of a film magazine like Sight&Sound to make a poll of the Best Documentaries in 2014… In the words of Jia Zhang-ke: WTF! I still can’t believe how many serious filmmakers and critics took part in this awful game. At least people like James Benning or Alexander Horwath used the opportunity to point at the stupidity of such a distinction. It is not boring, it is plainly wrong to do so.

Then, I find it very curious that you talk about “life”. I think your “life” is what I earlier called “miracle”. And here I find a strange clash of opposed views within Mr. Costa’s recommendations. On the one hand, there is someone like Straub. Straub clearly is against the idea of using real life circumstances, of doing something for real in cinema. He said so more than once. On the other hand, there are people like Von Stroheim and Godard: both of them tried things with hidden cameras, both of them were fascinated by the idea of their picture becoming “life”. The most famous incident is surely when Von Stroheim tried everything he could to have a real knife in the finale of Greed as he wanted to see real pain in the eyes of Jean Hersholt, who played Marcus. (We can imagine what happened in the lost Africa sequences of Queen Kelly now). So this is not the “life” you are talking about… This “life” or “miracle” has to do with seeing and not-seeing, light and darkness and so on. I am completely with you there. But what about this other definition of “life” I have just mentioned? For you, when you see the weakness of a man confronted with his inner demons like Ventura in Horse Money, is it something like the pain in the eyes of Hersholt or something different? I am not asking if it is real or not which would be very strange after what I said before, I merely want to know if Von Stroheim was wrong in trying to have a real knife… I want to know what makes the pain real in cinema.

I am also glad you brought up Vitalina, Lento and Zita. They show me exactly what you mean, as all these comparisons with actors are something personal: it is a memory, a desire, maybe also a trick our mind plays on us. Our common friend Klaus, for example, told me that while looking at the picture of Gary Cooper in the first part of our conversation he suddenly recognized a similarity with Mr. Costa. Material Ghosts.

Concerning your last question I will just quote Renoir from his interview with Rivette and Truffaut in 1954: “ (…) I’m convinced that film is a more secret art than the so/called private arts. We think that painting is private, but film is much more so. We think that a film is made for the six thousand moviegoers at the Gaumont-Palace, but that isn’t true. Instead, it’s made for only three people among those six thousand. I found a word for film lovers; it’s aficionados. I remember a bullfight that took place a long time ago. I didn’t know anything about bullfights, but I was there with people who were all very knowledgeable. They became delirious with excitement when the toreador made a slight movement like that toward the right and then he made another slight movement, also toward the right – which seemed the same to me – and everyone yelled at him. I was the one who was wrong. I was wrong to go to a bullfight without knowing the rules of the game. One must always know the rules of the game. The same thing happened to me again. I have some cousins in America who come from North Dakota. In North Dakota, everyone iceskates, because for six months of the year there’s so much snow that it falls horizontally instead of vertically. (…) Every time my cousins meet me, they take me to an ice show. They take me to see some women on ice skates who do lots of tricks. It’s always the same thing: From time to time you see a woman who does a very impressive twirl: I applaud, and then I stop, seeing that my cousins are looking at me severely, because it seems that she wasn’t good at all, but I had no way of knowing. And film is like that as well. And all professions are for the benefit of – well – not only for the aficionados but also for the sympathizers. In reality, there must be sympathizers, there must be a brotherhood. Besides, you’ve heard about Barnes. His theory was very simple: The qualities, the gifts, or the education that painters have are the same gifts, education and qualities that lovers of paintings have. In other words, in order to love a painting, one must be a would-be painter, or else you cannot really love it. And to love a film, one must be a would-be filmmaker. You have to be able to say to yourself, “ I would have done it this way, I would have done it that way”. You have to make films yourself, if only in your mind, but you have to make them. If not, you’re not worthy of going to the movies.”

Jean Renoir

Michael: Wow, awesome and inspiring words from Renoir, I have to seriously think about them now! You don’t get the one million dollar, though, since you answered with a quote by someone else.

Back on the life-miracle issue… A certain dose of mysticism is always healthy, it is good that you insist on this point to try and break my stubbornness. As you know, Mr. Costa made Où gît votre sourire enfoui? to destroy a critical stereotype about Straub-Huillet, namely that they are purely materialist filmmakers: as Mr. Costa’s shows, there is something in their daily work with machines that cannot be put into words, something mysterious… a smile that is hidden, or just imagined. And so is in Mr. Costa’s films, from O Sangue until now: there are always cemeteries, there is voodoo stuff going on all the time.

Night of the Demon

Where does your hidden smile lie?

About the Hersholt-Ventura comparison: in my view, yes, the pain in the eyes of the former is different from the pain in the eyes of the latter. Very different. But allow me to make another example, and be more controversial. Are the sufferings of Chaplin’s tramp and the sufferings of Ventura the same? Are they both real? Well, they both are choreographed and made more intriguing by heavy doses of “melodramatization” (a cinematic treatment, or fictionalization, of reality that aspires to make human feelings visible and audible). But we must never forget that one of these two “screen personae” is a millionaire playing a tramp. In the end of his tramp films, Chaplin walks towards the horizon, and I always have this image of him in mind: the camera stops rolling, the tramp wipes off his makeup, hops into a sport car and drives away to bang some hot girls or something like that. Unfortunately, there is no such “release” for Ventura and the others. This is not to diminish Chaplin. He is one of the greatest – not only a total filmmaker but also a total artist: actor, director, musician, producer… It is just that I do not believe in him, in his films, in the world that he shows. I like the films, I enjoy them, I think that their humanism is heart-warming and powerful, and that many people should see them. I just do not believe in the world they show. I do not see life in it, I do not recognize this world as mine. It is a world that I cannot connect to. Maybe it’s an Italian thing, an Italian take on poverty, but when I asked my grandparents about Chaplin’s films, they said something I find very interesting: “Yeah, I remember the tramp guy, very funny movies, I laughed so hard… but being poor is another world entirely”.

Please mind that I have consciously chosen Chaplin as he is one of Costa’s favorite filmmakers. Is Chaplin a traitor, in your view?

TO BE CONTINUED

Copie Conforme: Entre onze heures et minuit von Henri Decoin

11. September 2015 • Patrick Holzapfel • Besprechungen, Texte

Man kann wohl unterscheiden zwischen Filmen, die mehr in einen Dialog mit der Welt treten und Filmen, die mehr in einen Dialog mit dem Kino treten. Entre onze heures et minuit von Schwimmweltmeister Henri Decoin gehört mit großer Sicherheit zu letzterer Kategorie. Es ist ein vogelwilder Meta-Noir-Doppelgänger-Film, besessen von den Welten des amerikanischen Genres und so sehr darin verhaftet, dass er ständig zur gleichen Zeit parodistisch und todernst daherkommt. Schon zu Beginn erfährt man die Gangart, als in einer Art Prolog vor einem Filmtheater über die Doppelgänger des Kinos philosophiert wird. Mit dabei sind neben Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator auch Edward G. Robinson in The Whole Town’s Talking und Louis Jouvet in Copie Conforme. Der Doppelgänger habe Hochkonjunktur im Kino. Es ist eben jener Jouvet, der auch in Entre onze heures et minuit die Hauptrolle spielt und so kann man diesen Beginn schon fast als eine ironische Rechtfertigung für den Film betrachten. Ähnliches konnte man vor kurzem in Abel Ferraras Welcome to New York sehen. Menschen treten aus dem Kino und Decoin beginnt hier sein Statement für eine Welt der Illusionen und Geheimnisse abzufeuern. Sie beschweren sich über die Unglaubwürdigkeit solcher Filme. Eine verbitterte, ältere Frau mit herunterhängenden Mundwinkeln, die ständig den Blicken ihres Gatten ausweicht und von einer Erzählstimme als „charmant“ bezeichnet wird, sagt diesem auf die merkwürdigste und desillusionierendste Art, dass er einzigartig sei. Die beiden rechtfertigen die Realität als dem Kino überlegen, aber sie haben ihre Rechnung ohne Decoin gemacht. Die beiden setzen sich in ihr Auto und plötzlich taucht ein Doppelgänger vor ihnen auf.

Von diesem Zeitpunkt gibt es kein zurück mehr, es geht hinein in die Schattenwelten des Kinos, das Herauskommen aus dem Tempel des Films zum Auftakt war die sinnlose Geste einer Desillusionierung, denn was Decoin uns klarmacht ist, dass der doppelte Boden des Kinos überall lauern kann. Darüber hinaus ist es gerade die Unsicherheit über Original und Fälschung, die hier zur gleichen Zeit Spannung und Humor beinhaltet. Auf einmal befinden wir uns in einem Tunnel. Mit Blenden und extrem untersichtigen Einstellungen folgen wir Schatten an der Wand, Lichter spiegeln sich auf den dunklen Gangsterautos. Es gibt Schüsse, jemand geht zu Boden. Wer hat geschossen? Dann lernen wir Jouvet in der Rolle des Kommisars Carrel kennen. Ein grimmiger, wachsamer Mann, der einmal sagt, dass er ab jetzt lieben und geliebt werden will und das auf keinen und doch auf jeden Fall ernst meint. Er ermittelt in einem Haus, indem man sein eigenes Wort kaum verstehen kann, wenn die Pariser U-Bahn vorbeifährt. Solche Absurditäten am Rande ziehen sich durch den ganzen Film. So nehmen sich Polizisten gegenseitig Krümel aus dem Gesicht während Gangster sich beständig an ihren eigenen Plänen erfreuen. Auf einer Modeschau, die mit dem Gang einer Frau beginnt, bei dem man nicht weiß, ob es sich um eine Zeitlupe handelt oder nicht, werden die Kleider nach Bestsellerromanen benannt: „I killed a cop“, woanders kommt sich ein Kleingangster vor wie in einem synchronisierten Film.

Ein Polizist flüstert Carrel etwas ins Ohr. Es geht um die Leiche im Tunnel: Diese würde dem Kommissar bis zu den Haarspitzen ähneln! Et voilà, willkommen im reigenhaften Spiel der Wendungen und irrsinnigen Situationen. Natürlich wird Carrel in die Rolle des eigentlich Verstorbenen schlüpfen und sozusagen under cover of his own face ermitteln. Original und Fälschung machen Liebe bis zur nebeligen Grenze der ironisch-düsteren Noir-Landschaft. So taucht der doppelte Boden bald auch in den kriminellen Plänen des eigentlich verstorbenen Vidauban auf, der sich bei einer Modeschau als Opfer inszenieren wollte, obwohl er ein Täter war. Vidauban, so wird einmal bemerkt, das könnte auch der Name eines Getränks oder einer Pille sein und so folgt die Logik des Films einer Unsicherheit über Wahrheit und Fälschung bis zu den Geldscheinen und natürlich der Liebe selbst, die sich womöglich im absurden Spiel zwischen dem Kommissar und der Leiche finden lässt.

Man darf sich hier nicht vorstellen, dass Carrel im Stil eines vorbereiteten Superagenten in die Rolle des Kriminellen schlüpft. Ganz im Gegenteil, er ist ein Improvisationskünstler, der ständig aus dem Verhalten, der Aussagen und der Mimik seines jeweiligen Gegenübers filtern muss, warum er eigentlich hier ist. Daraus entstehen äußerst komische Dialoge und Situationen. Ein Höhepunkt ist sicherlich eine Szene im Tanzlokal. Eine blonde Frau, rauchend, fordernd, sitzt am Nebentisch und starrt den verunsicherten Carrel als Vidauban beständig verlockend an. Carrel blickt immer wieder etwas hilflos und fragend zu ihr. Hier offenbart sich die ganze Kraft von Entre onze heures et minuit, denn zum einen ensteht aus dem Geheimnis um diese Frau ein Spannungsmoment, eine gefährliche Situation um eine mögliche Mörderin und Femme Fatale im jazzigen Dunst eines Blicks, der ganz im Gegenteil zu jenem der „charmanten“ Frau zu Beginn des Films tausend Geschichten in sich trägt und zum anderen liegt in der Hilflosigkeit und Verlorenheit von Carrel die Komik, das Parodistische. Dieser doppelte Boden hat es wirklich in sich, weil die für das Genre so entscheidende „Und dann?“ Logik hier wie so oft in ein Labyrinth führt, aber dieses Labyrinth besteht aus Spiegeln, die einem zum Lachen bringen. Oft denkt man mehr an Lubitsch als an Carol Reed, aber Reed verschwindet nie völlig.

Es ist der verspielte Inszenierungsrausch, der aus einer augenzwinkernden Liebe zum Kino entsteht, die Decoin aufgesaugt hat und durch den Zigarettenrauch geheimnisvoller Gesichter wieder auf die Leinwand bläst. Dabei macht er keinen besonders gefährlichen oder außergewöhnlichen Film, aber in der handwerklichen Souveränität und Vielschichtigkeit entfaltet sich eine Wildheit, die einen diese Liebe zum Kino spüren lässt. Ich habe solche Filme lange Zeit Truffaut-Filme genannt, vielleicht lag das an persönlichen Erinnerungen und Erlebnissen, vielleicht, weil man nach einem solchen Film Truffaut sein möchte, mit Lederjacke und Enthusiasmus,das Kino gesehen und geküsst.

Fabriken im Film

1. Mai 2015 • Patrick Holzapfel • Essays, Texte

Es gibt einen Rhythmus der Arbeit im Film. Rauchende Schornsteine, Motoren rattern, mechanische Bewegungen spielen Musik in der Montage und sie dynamisieren ganz nach den Eisenstein-Ideen unsere Wahrnehmung: Ja, agitatorische Fabriken im Film, ihre Bewegung zieht sich über das Land, durch die Stadt bis hinauf in den Himmel bis sogar der sinnlich-religiöse Dovzhenko sich in den kraftvollen Blick der Maschinen verliebt. Erstaunlicherweise trifft sich dieses extrem linke Propagandamaterial in seiner dynamischen Ästhetik mit jener des Propagandakinos im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland. Man denke an einen Film wie Metall des Himmels von Walter Ruttmann. Die Arbeit hängt an Fabriken und diese Fabriken werden als Motor für politische Systeme verstanden, die Arbeit wird glorifiziert und eine Fabrik ist der heilige Tempel, in dem jedes Rad in das nächste greift für einen Fortschritt, doch wohin? In seinem Fabrica nimmt Sergei Loznitsa die ikonischen Bilder des sowjetischen Kinos auseinander. Die Arbeit hat etwas Ermüdendes und Grausames bekommen hier. Die Maschinen sind unerbittlich, der Mensch wankt. Während das Fließband unaufhaltsam in ein schwarzes Nichts läuft, behindert eine aggressive Wespe Charlie Chaplin bei seiner Arbeit in Modern Times. Immer wieder hängt er in den Maschinen fest, die Automatisierung des Menschen, die Fabriken gewinnen Macht über uns. Vor dem Auge erscheinen die bizarren Schläuche in Jacques Tatis Mon oncle, die merkwürdigen Geräusche, wohin führen all diese Wege, was machen all diese Apparate? Es ist heiß in den Fabriken, ein Höllenschlund. In Michael Ciminos The Deer Hunter wird man gleich in den ersten Bildern mitten hinein geworfen in das Feuer, die sengende Hitze des Untergangs, die sich letztlich im Wahnsinn auf der anderen Seite des Planeten finden wird, aber hier ihr Echo und natürlich auch ihren industriellen Ursprung findet. Man denke nur an diese sarkastische Eröffnungssequenz in Lord of War von Andrew Niccol, in der ebenfalls eine Melodie der Fabriken erzeugt wird, eine Hand in die andere greift bis eine hergestellte Munitionskugel im Kopf eines Menschen landet. Eine Fabrik zu besitzen, bedeutet Macht wie man zuletzt auch in A Most Violent Year von J.C. Chandor sehen konnte. Macht, die im Film oft zu Gewalt führt.

Modern Times von Charlie Chaplin

Cristi Puiu bewegt sich verdeckt von Fenstern und Mauern durch seinen isolierenden Arbeitsplatz in Aurora, eine Fabrik. Sein Umgang mit Mitarbeitern ist schroff, in den Pausen sitzt er alleine am Rand der Fabrik, er bewegt sich so, dass er niemand begegnen muss. Damit ähnelt er tatsächlich Jacques Tati (man muss darüber nachdenken…). Auch Christian Bale ist ein solcher Isolierter in einer Fabrik in The Machinist von Brad Anderson. Aber in seinem Fall offenbart sich eine andere Eigenschaft von Fabriken im Film, nämlich die Gefahr eines Unfalls, das Schicksal und die Bedrohung am Arbeitsplatz. Besonders schwer wiegt das im Fall der verheimlichten Augenerkrankung in Dancer in the Dark von Lars von Trier. Es geht um Menschen, die nicht mehr in der Lage sind, die Maschinen zu bedienen, aber deren Existenz daran hängt. Fabriken im Film, das ist auch Überleben und Ökonomie. Besonders heftig ist da natürlich die Arbeit in einem Atomkraftwerk wie sie in Rebecca Zlotowskis Grand Central gezeigt wird. Ein Fehler kann tödlich sein, die Bedrohung ist in diesem Fall nicht sichtbar. Der giftige Rauch in Michelangelo Antonionis Il deserto rosso, diese entfernten und doch nahen Geräusche, was passiert dort, was haben wir damit zu tun? All diese Beispiele stehen für eine Entfremdung vor einer Arbeit, die aus immer gleichen Bewegungen besteht, die zeigen wie schwer es ist die Konzentration aufrecht zu erhalten und wie wichtig die Bedingungen dafür sind. Stumpfer Wiederholungsdrang, der glückliche Sisyphos könnte sich sein Bein brechen, wenn er ausrutscht, was dann? Es sei darauf verwiesen, dass sich die vielleicht ultimativ funktionale und entfremdete Fabrik im Haushalt von Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles von Chantal Akerman findet. Die Fabrik als Lebensweise.

Aurora von Cristi Puiu

Il deserto rosso von Michelangelo Antonioni

Die Landschaften um die Fabriken sind meist ein endzeitliches Ödland, Antonioni scheint mit seinem nebeligen Giftsümpfen in Il deserto rosso, in denen Schiffe am Horizont erscheinen und kein Leben möglich ist, in der Wunde einer industriellen oder post-industriellen Welt zu baden. Doch auch der Metall-Schick von James Camerons The Terminator, die tristen Schornsteine am Horizont der Stadt in Koridorius von Sharunas Bartas, die vergeblichen Leidensgeräusche einer verlassenen Industrie bei Béla Tarr, ja die Fabriken verschwinden, ihr Klang ist nur mehr ein Echo. Das gilt für die Schicksale der Arbeiter wie sie Nikolaus Geyrhalter in seinem Über die Jahre beobachtet und für die Fabriken selbst wie man es oft in den Filmen von Jia Zhang-ke (zum Beispiel 24 City, A Touch of Sin oder Still Life) sehen kann, in denen Fabriken geschlossen werden und die letzten Arbeiter wie Geister durch ein China ohne Bestimmung torkeln. Leere Fabriken, sie sind Geschichte und Erinnerung. In IEC Long von João Pedro Rodrigues und João Rui Guerra da Mata ist die Fabrik endgültig ein Geisterort und damit finden Fabriken vielleicht eine filmische Bestimmung, die sie endgültig völlig entfernt hat von den mechanischen Festen vernichtender politischer Systeme, in eine filmische Welt, in der Platz sein kann für die Menschen, ihre Hände, Gesichter und ihre Zeit, die an diese speziellen Orten und in den speziellen Relationen zur Musik der Maschinen zwischen Überlebensdrang, Hässlichkeit, Hoffnung, Gefahr, Macht und der Schönheit von getrocknetem Öl in den Händen eines Geists führen kann. Elia Kazan hat in seinem The Last Tycoon bereits dieses Gefühl der Vergänglichkeit auf die Fabriken der Filmindustrie selbst gelegt, die leeren, funktionslosen Studios, kein Wind aus den Maschinen, kein Mondschein aus den Scheinwerfern, das Ende der Fabriken, das Ende der Illusion?

The Machinist von Brad Anderson

IEC Long von João Pedro Rodrigues und João Rui Guerra da Mata

Vielleicht kann man so verstehen, warum Willy Wonka im Angesicht seiner Fabrik in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory von Mel Stuart von seiner Imagination singt:

Come with me and you’ll be
In a world of pure imagination
Take a look and you’ll see
Into your imagination

We’ll begin with a spin
Trav’ling in the world of my creation
What we’ll see will defy
Explanation

If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Want to change the world, there’s nothing to it