THE SILENCE (1963)

Original Title: Tystnaden

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Ingrid Thulin, Gunnel Lindblom, Birger Malmsten, Håkan Jahnberg
Run time: 96 minutes


Two women and a boy travel into a strange land. They share the same compartment. From the initial scene we can tell that they are in tense. Are they running from something? Or are they just some tourist? So this is the last of faith trilogy after Through A Glass Darkly and Winter Light. I feel like; Mission Accomplished.

One is Ester (Ingrid Thulin), who looks tense and tortured, then there's  Anna (Gunnel Lindblom), the younger one who is more vibrant than Ester. They were together with a boy; Johan (Jorgen Lindstrom). heir destination seems strange. It looks like a European country but with no distinct language or culture that we know off. It seems like a fictive country.

They stayed in a hotel where they must face their problems. Johan cannot understood the situation, Ester is getting more tortured and Anna is living her life. I didn't know what cause the sisters to seem to have siblings issue but their conflict is the one that drives the film.

The lonely Johan finds some refuge in making 'friendship' with an old waiter while wander aimlessly at the hotel's hallways. Does the whole story is an allegory/metaphor for something else? I read from Ebert's review that Anna is Body and  Ester is Mind (the sufferer). I still don't understand what Johan is. Is he just a child or representing innocence or hope?

Just like some of Bergman's film I have seen, the face and body language get more attention. The black and white emphasize the contrasting characters between these two woman character. I still have to connect this one with the other two faith trilogy movies. Does this one still question faith? I think this one is about how we are always conflicted inside our mind after we settle into some so called permanent worldview, which in this film represented by the strange country as the destination.

I am not a philosopher but I like this one too and I think, the trilogy is amazingly satisfying. It is not heavy with pretentious dialogue or artsy fartsy stuff, but manage to deliver the messages clearly.

WINTER LIGHT (1962)

Original Title: Nattvardsgästerna

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Ingrid Thulin, Gunnar Björnstrand, Max von Sydow, Gunnel Lindblom
Run time: 81 minutes

After seeing Through a Glass Darkly I am intrigued to watch this one. Especially since the critics seems to praise it and I myself wanted to finish the so called trilogy of faith by Bergman. So what silence it is actually? I still have to guess it, was it the silence of God or a man? Pastor Tomas Ericsson (Gunnar Bjornstrand), who seem to have some  major doubts on his faith but unable to materialize it into words. The film start and ends abruptly as Tomas makes his sunday sermon.

Tomas must face another problem, the fisherman Jonas (Von Sydow) is very sad and kill himself and then there is Marta (Ingrid Thulin) who cares and loves the pastor. But Tomas doesn't know how to respond to such feelings, he even hurt Marta verbally. Tomas seems to have difficulties in helping others based on what he believed in. He even cannot help himself psychologically. He seem powerless in changing his own fate.

What cause it to happen? It does not being explained but one can easily guessed that perhaps faith has something to do with it or perhaps Tomas is just a plain stiff man.

Although it does not being addressed directly but it seems the whole film is about questioning the existence of God in a quiet way and also about pain. Pain of being a believer just like what Marta says; “If only we could feel safe and dare show each other kindness. If only we had some truth to believe in. If only we could believe.”

The acting is very satisfying and somehow I get the feeling of coldness and tension from this film. Coldness and stiffness since it only use small number of location. It lacks the visual awesomeness of Persona (1966) but I think from the trilogy, this is the strongest one after Through A Glass Darkly.

Overall the film really lived up to my expectations. It is not being too difficult to comprehend but has a very deep meaning and I loved how this film is being made in black and white, it makes the tension looks elegant.

AFTER THE CURFEW (1954)

Original Title: Lewat Djam Malam

Directed by: Usmar Ismail
Starring: AN Alcaff, Netty Herawati, Dhalia, Bambang Hermanto, Rd Ismail, Awaludin, Titien Sumarni, Aedy Moward, Astaman, A Hadi, Wahid Chan, S Taharnunu, Lukman Jusuf
Run Time: 101 min


A freedom fighter's self rediscovery after he realized that the world he used to fight for has finally fighting him back. Returning from the battlefield (the story set in the 1950, five years after Indonesia's independence and only several years after the revolutionary war with the Dutch colonial) Iskandar  (AN Alcaff), was chased by the military on the street. It seems he just break the curfew rule (the socio political background is; after the war most of the militias still have their weapons. Some of them use the weapons to commit crime. The crime rate in Bandung is reaching it's peak in the 50s so the government implement martial law in Bandung and Cimahi area to control the security. They also gave ultimatum for the remaining ex freedom fighters to hand the weapon or join the army). But Iskandar manages to arrived in the house of Norma (Netty Herawati) in Bandung.

Norma's father try to use his influence in the government to get Iskandar a job. But Iskandar cannot feel at ease in his job. It seems his past demons still haunt him wherever he go, a demon that later will be explained what it is. He quit the job after just one day and try to contact his other ex freedom figther. He met Gafar (Awaludin) who now rich and become a contractor for housing complex. Gafar is just busy with himself. He also met Gunawan (Rd Ismail), his ex commander who have grown to be an extreme pragmatist. Gunawan use his power to threat other people for his own fortune. Then he also met Puja (Bambang Hermanto) who now is only a pimp for a brothel where in the brothel Iskandar met Laila (Dhalia), a young and naive prostitute.

Soon Iskandar must face reality that Indonesia's independence comes with an expensive price; that in the end everyone only care for himself and he himself was left alone with his demons. In the end he has to make right and fight for what he believed in. This film has noir-ish feeling and as a black and white, shows the world is not as easy as black and white. It feels so Indonesian and sadly the most Indonesian movies under the New Order and Reformation regime are rarely address the moral ambiguities of human nature.

This is a remarkable film for Indonesian and it is an honor to be restored in it's black and white glory, thanks to Sinematek, Kineforum, Konfiden Foundation and The World Cinema Foundation with National Museum of Singapore to restore this film from it's original 35 mm print (the result is decent. Visual is good although some scenes are still having some visual noise. But the sound is good as ever) in L'Immagine Ritrovata Bologna, Italy.

The restoration process took almost a year and finally got premiered last May in World Classic Cinema in Cannes. This week it got a limited release in some cities in Indonesia.

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (1961)

Original Title: Såsom i en spegel

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman
Starring: Harriett Andersson, Max von Sydow, Lars Passgard
Run time: 89 min

My first Bergman film was Persona and it blows me away. Although I had to think harder to understood what the meaning of it, at least I made it. So I began to read more about this particular Swedish director and my choice for the third film by Bergman is this one (the second is The Seventh Seal but I need to collect more mojo to write it down).

From what I read this film is one of the so called  "Man-God trilogy" or "the Silence trilogy" or "the Dark/Faith trilogy" (three films: Through a glass darkly, Winter light, and The Silence) that deals with deep theological question.

From the outside it looks like that it is just another family drama. Karin (Harriet Andersson) is the daughter who suffers from schizophrenia. Her husband, Martin (Max von Sydow), loves her but feels powerless to help her. While her brother, Minus (Lars Passgard), seems to be lonely and wanting a deeper connection with his father, David (Gunnar Bjornstrand). David himself is an author who always away and seems to be disconnected with his family.

They are on vacation and somehow Karin's madness manages to pull and disintegrate the family in the same time. In one scene Karin looks like she's in a trance and talking to an empty open door that she thinks as God.

I am impressed on how this film is character driven and on how a simple family drama can contain such deep message; questioning sanity and faith. I am looking forward to see Winter Light and The Silence to grasp what Bergman is trying to say.

In black and white, the scenes are carefully shown and it doesn't rely on panoramic or photographic shot to woo the audience with the beauty of the island.

Bergman use his famous two shot, placing two faces on the screen in very close physical juxtaposition, but the characters are not looking at each other. Each is focused on some unspecified point off-screen, each is looking in a different direction. So close but yet separated. I think it tries to show us that the characters are physically close but psychologically separated.

I AM CUBA (1964)

Original Title: Soy Cuba

Directed by: Mikhail Kalatozov
Run time: 141 min

Technically, this film by Kalatozov is superb. The shots are amazing especially the long unbroken shot. Just like the title, it is about Cuba and it's struggle to reach social justice.

Wait what? Social justice?! Isn't that commie propaganda? Bitch please, propaganda or not this film is awesome in every seconds of it and if you like cinematography you should watch this one since this is also as good as The Cranes are Flying. Speaking of which, no matter where you stand on political spectrum, social justice is something we all should strive.

Although presented in black and white but it is very effective and the propaganda went smoothly. First it shows how Cuba suffers under 'imperialism' and then the people show resistance. The farmer whose land taken by big companies (you don't say?!) and the students (Captain Obvious) helped by Fidel Castro's men to give Cuba to Cuban plus the story of everyday living in Cuba that can give you some good insight.

To put cherry on top, the anti American content is prevalent where several 'Americans' character are portrayed to be rich, lewd and annoying. Propaganda aside, this is a masterpiece in storytelling and cinematography.

The shots are extravagant, in one unbroken scene that involves hundreds of people and wide landscape, the camera seems to float. Along with that comes beautiful scenes of Cuban landscape accompanied by folk songs and poetry. Ain't that grand? And whoever think that by watching this then anyone can be converted into a commie loving people should have their scrawny asses whipped by Mjolnir since a good movie is good, no matter what's it all about.

THE CREMATOR (1968)

Original Title: Spalovac mrtvol

Directed by: Juraj Herz
Starring: Rudolf Hrusínský , Vlasta Chramostova , Jirí Menzel , Jana Stehnová, Milos Vognic
Run Time: 95 min 


From the outside Karl Kopferkingl (Rudolf Hrusinsky) looks like an everyday family man with a wife and two kids. But his line of work is quite unusual, he runs the crematorium for the dead. Obsessed with Tibetan book of the dead, he seems happy with his job, narrated by himself during the film. A very hypnotizing and eerie narration so to speak. The time is 1930 and although he is of Austrian heritage but he consider himself pure Czech who loves cultures.

He also loves to visit brothels and go to the doctor to get his regular dose of medicine to make him immune to STD. Whether it really works or not is in question.

But the time has changed, Nazi took charge in Germany and invaded Czechoslovakia. So Kopfkerkingl thinks, does this event and the rise of anti antisemitism will make him profitable? Then as tides are turning we get to see the creepy face of Kopfkerkingl as he would do almost anything to achieve his goals. He rationalize his evil act by misreading his favorite book.

This film is quite rare but the story is very easy to follow and the black and white medium enhance the creepiness of this film. This is not a pure horror film but a satirical and bleak film about humanity, complete with grotesque humor. Overall this film is disturbing without any gore at all.

Rudolf Hrusinsky is very excellent in this one it reminds me of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs.

KES (1969)

Directed by: Ken Loach
Starring: David Bradley, Freddie Fletcher, Lynne Perrie, Colin Welland
Run time: 110 minutes

They beat him. They deprived him. They ridiculed him. They broke his heart. But they couldn't break his spirit. That's the tag line for this film and I think it really fits really well. especially since the 'underdog' who gets bullied is always a theme anyone everywhere and anytime, could relate into.

In the north of England lives a boy named Billy Casper (Dai Bradley). His environment is middle class neighborhood where most men work shitty job at the minefield (apologies to those who really work at the mines). Somehow society picks on Billy for no reason. Perhaps venting their frustration to an innocent boy?

Billy himself raised in a single parent household, while his mother struggle to make things floating and his elder brother Jud (Freddie Fletcher) is constantly picking on Billy. Not just that, Billy's friends are also a bunch of monsters who makes Billy feel he is alone and friendless. Even his PE teacher is an asshole.

He then find refuge in taking care of a kestrel and develop a skill of taking care the winged creature up to a level of almost professional. But the society cannot stand the sight of individual being happy for being himself so they pound Billy more and more. I don't understand why is everybody, except on of his teacher, has to be cruel to Billy? I guess that's how life works, the strong pummel the weak but the weak can be strong too.

I like this film, especially since it puts the theme of 'against all odds' and the strength of human spirit. It is a good film to be shown in classes (with subtitles off course since they spoke a very distinct Yorkshire accent) so the bullies might realize their mistakes, thus encouraging the students to be strong.

BALLAD OF A SOLDIER (1960)

Original Title: Ballada o soldate
 

Directed by: Grigori Chukhrai
Starring: Vladimir Ivashov, Zhanna Prokhorenko
Run time: 88 minutes
 

Soldiers are not just soldiers they are our brother, father, sister, and most of it; son. On of the soldier is the central of this story; Private Alyosha Skvortsov (Vladimir Ivashov). A young soldier who happen to destroy two German tanks, thus is given a medal by his superior. However Alyosha wants something more, he wanted a leave so he can fix the roof of his mother's house. With his youthful looks and naivety, Alyosha is representing the common soldier from the lower class of Russian society.

Given the leave, Alyosha went into a road trip where he met so many people and small adventures that shows him that in this terrible times, kindness still existed. Behind the lines of war he witness a veteran who lost his leg and a woman secretly betraying her husband while spending some quality time in the train with Shura, (Zhanna Prokhorenko) a wandering girl, boarding on the train illegally too.

These small adventures are not just mere accessories but a simple story on how the society at that time functions. The frustration, sadness and hope was all presented equally.

Without any political rhetoric or even the usual Soviet propaganda, this film is a humanist one and shows the sacrifice individuals have to make in the war. This one is a perfect companion to The Cranes Are Flying, one of the best Soviet films in years and makes us feel, there shouldn't be any wars anymore so no sons shall be separated from their mothers.

BICYCLE THIEVES (1948)

Original Title: Ladri di biciclette

Directed by: Vittorio De Sica
Starring: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola, Lianella Carell, Vittorio Antonucci
Run Time: 93 minutes


Everytime I read some lists of greatest film of all time this one always appeared. Then I wonder what is so great about this film. Well, after I seen it, I am stunned and amazed, it really lives into one of the biggest question I always had in my life: why does bad things happens to good people? This well known neo-realist film really catch me from the inside.

The story is just like the title, it is just about a bike and its huge impact on a simple family trying to make ends meet. A very important one for Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani), a struggling family man, who finally gets a job after being unemployed for a long time. The job requires his bicycle and what happened when his bicycle got stolen? It is as if the sky fell into his head. So in the search for his bike, he stroll the city of Rome still devastated by the remnants of the war by his son; Bruno (Enzo Staiola).

The journey itself cuts deep into Rome's society as they enter slums, brothels and churches. We get to see the suffering of everyday people and how each of them try so hard to be alive day by day. Finally after hours of searching but no luck Antonio's moral compass get a challenge: is it okay to be bad if your family is starving? Driven by economic need and class struggle, will Antonio switch to the dark side? and if yes, is it justified?

What makes this film great? The simplicity and universality of the problems posed here can be felt by anyone, regardless of their cultural background. It is so emotionally harrowing without the use of cheesy melodrama and sixty years plus plus after the release this one is still relevant for us to be thankful for what we have and to have greater sympathy for those who are unlucky in this life.

Is it inspiring? To some extent yes but it is also hopeless and cruel. But hey, some people say life is a bitch and here; life is a bicycle and then you lose.

THE CRANES ARE FLYING (1957)

Original Title: Letyat zhuravli

Directed by: Mikhail Kalatozov
Starring: Tatyana Samojlova, Aleksey Batalov, Vasili Merkuryev
Run Time: 94 min


As the kick-off review I would like to share you this rare gem. Sure everyone has ever heard of Tarkovsky's Stalker or Solaris but this one from Russia? I stumble upon it as I browse for something else and seeing the high rating, it intrigues me.

Released during Stalinist rule in Soviet Russia (In Soviet Russia movies watch you, so to say) I expect some sort of propaganda or communist glorification, but I was mistaken. There is no propaganda at all but a simple human story on how things greater than ourselves rule our life and most of the times, it is cruel.

You think Scorsese invent cinematic one shot tracking without editing? This one will makes you amazed that Kalatozov and cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky manages to use amazing and advanced camera angles plus placing to enhance the story.

Veronika's (Tatyana Samojlova) lover, Boris (Alexei Batalov) must go since he has volunteered to be drafted in the army at the front line to fight the Germans when they invade in 1941. In his absence, Veronica suffers psychologically, keep waiting for the mail from the front line to arrive. This absence is being used by Boris's cousin to steal Veronika's heart. Will Veronika survive? As she decided to marry Boris's cousin, she's facing a dilemma, being marked as a traitor (the lover is away defending the country and she's marrying someone else, a draft dodger) or facing uncertainty.

Life is difficult in Russia at that time and there are no easy choices. The story itself is very romantic and heart breaking. It encompass more than just love story, it is love for the country, willingness to put the need of many than the need of self and how war could really affect people who is not even at the front line.

AN INTRODUCTION

Having seen so many old and classic movies, I feel inspired to write some of the reviews here, separating it from my previous blog. Hopefully I still have the spirit to write more and more. I like classical movies, any kind of movies and would not be turned off if it is in black and white or too many sophisticated dialogues.

I think old movies are awesome, it takes me to a time and place I never (or probably never ever) visited at all. It opens my eyes at variety of problems and cultures all over the world. As for now, this is the formal introduction. I do hope readers would like to spend their time to read or at least comment at it. It also would be nice if you drop your blog address here, it always makes me thrilled to read other people's blog. Any feedback is welcomed.

Perhaps some of you wonder why I wrote in English. Well not to show off but it is a place for me to practice my writing skill. Besides I just love writing very much, it is my hobby and my job.

As for reviews for films recently released you all can still visit my other blog here.

PS: I wish I could found a better title for this blog but my imagination is limited and I haven't seen any rainbows or bunnies or even an eagle in days, so yeah, there.