Battle for Ukraine (Andrei Konchalovsky, Russia, 2012)
First up was this documentary from 2012. Just looking at that title, there should be little doubt as to why this film would be interesting this year. But of course, being two years old, this doc does not offer any insight into what happened at Maidan and afterwards - for that, I'm hoping Loznitsa's Maidan can live up to the hype. Watching this film, it's not hard to see why it wasn't included at the fest earlier. It's not a particularly special film, and it sorta seemed to be part of a series of documentaries, perhaps made for tv. The visuals are plain, the truckload of guests are filmed talking to the camera, often in front of a bluescreen playing visuals connected to what they say. It's all well and good and informative, but nothing special.
What was really interesting, though, was to see how the recent Battle for Ukraine has changed not just the present and the future, but also the past. There is a bit of grim humor when we reach the Budapest Agreement of 1994, where Ukraine gave up it's nuclear missiles in exchange for promises that neither US or Russia would ever attack the country, and a talking head says that they gave up their missiles in exchange of nothing, really. Yup, that seems about right nowadays. But in general, as the film concludes with the Orange revolution in 2004, it seeks it's explanation of this Battle for Ukraine in the long run-up to that crisis. It surprised me how little I knew about that. After Maidan, the stories of Ukraine I've seen always now begin with the Orange revolution, and the resulting divide, they don't climax with it.
But this film does, so the main part of the film is the story of Leonid Kuchma, President of Ukraine 1994-2005. The man who brought the country out of the economic crisis that followed independence, and was a hero to the nation. But who then became a different president after his reelection in 99, in the words of a talking head taking the country from 'weak democracy to autocracy'. There is a scandal where the bodyguard Mykola Melnychenko bugged the president's office and released tapes of Kuchma aproving sales of radar-systems to Saddam Hussein and perhaps even approving the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. There was the ostracizing from the west, as George W Bush's USA wouldn't want anything to do with a country selling systems to Iraq on the eve of the second war, and Kuchma's following turn towards Putin. The film includes talking heads from all over the political spectrum, who points fingers in every direction, so it also becomes clear just how much the political scene changed at the turn of the century, as Putin followed Jeltsin (who is also in the film, mainly being a drunk fool) and Bush II followed Clinton I. And Kuchma II followed Kuchma I. I wonder how many other important national elections one could point to in those years. We think of 9/11 as having changed everything, but there was a new guard of more agressive politicians, who'd gotten elected earlier than that. I wonder what kind of silly drug was in the air, to make it all happen. Anyways, this was an informative doc, that made me a lot more knowledgable on one of the defining conflicts of our age. So that was ok.
The Postman's White Nights (Andrei Konchakovsky, Russia, 2014)
But I'll admit that this kind of thing is more to my liking. This is hardly a documentary, though it's filmed with amateur actors, and does give an idea of life at Lake Kenozero in Arkhangelsk. It follows a postman called Lyokha (which I'm assuming is short for Aleksey, since that name is in the Russian title, and is also the name of the actor) who travels around the lake, carrying suplies for the elderly villagers, being lonely, keeping his sobriety going for two years now. He fancies his old schoolmate Irina, but has more of a connection to her young son Timka. That is basically the important strokes in this film.
I love the visual style of this film. Shot on digital, using natural lighting. And the light in Arkhangelsk is quite incredible, especially during those white nights. To help the non-professional cast, Konchakovsky often hid the camera in dialogue scenes, which gives the film a special guerilla look, which reminded me a bit of Tsai Ming-liangs very, very great Stray Dogs. Other films focusing on non-professionals on the fringes of society, with this kind of visuals, and even this films weird mix of most mundane everyday with light surrealism include the work of Apichatbong Weerasethakul or even Pedro Costa. So yeah, this film is part of a group of film, which in my view are the most important thing happening in world cinema so far this decade. And therefore, it is obviously very much worth watching. But, well, if it's part of that club, then it's pretty clearly the least overwhelmingly masterful. It's fine. It's delightful. But it's no Colossal Youth or Uncle Boonmee who can Recall His Past Lives.
But perhaps it's more mainstream, perhaps it could aclimate the audience to this style? That would be great. Godard once said that to make a film you need a girl and a gun, and great artfilms were made on that premise. But today, I feel that if you want to make a popular arthouse film you need a kid and a cat. And this film has fine examples of both. Timur Bondarenko gives a great performance as young Timka, especially in a scene where Lyokha takes him on the lake to find a witch. And the cat! The cat is the most amazing cat I've seen in a long time. It's a mystery cat, a special effect. Every white night it's there, and then it's gone again, and it's very surreal. Not because of any cgi or other effectery, but because the cat is so striking with grey fur and piercing yellow eyes. That cat alone is worth the prize of admission, that cat will have you talking for days, that cat could play Behemoth in an adaptation of The Master and Margherita. It might even be a reference to that novel. As in Bulgakov's masterpiece, the buildings are emptying of people (though through people leaving the desolate villages rather than through purges), and weird things are going on. The weirdness also includes the local drunk The Bun, who all of a sudden has his own scenes where he rambles in the darkness about visitings from the other side, and another shock in the second half of the film is Lyokha and Timka leaving the countryside and going to the city, all of a sudden introducing malls and even a missile factory into the film. It's weird like that. I really, really recommend this film, though it's not a masterpiece. A Silver Lion seems about right.
I don't really want to dismiss this film, it's not bad, but I definitely feel like I was promised much more than I got. The programme promised a 'breathtaking film' 'shot in 4K' whose 'visuals are nothing short of overwhelming', adding up to a 'transcendental film experience of the really rare kind' and a 'film that leaves you with a feeling of having looked at our little planet from an almost cosmic perspective.' What I got honestly felt more like a BBC-Nature Special. I just realized 4K can really make me think that it would look good on bluray on my hi-def telly. And there were way too many talking heads.
The film focused on the people. The inhabitants in the south, living on ground below sea-level, protected from the rising water by feeble levees. The fishermen of Goa, having to put their lives in danger by sailing out during the storms. The farmers in areas hurt by drought. The animals of the national parks, being forced to higher grounds filled with lurking poachers. A bookie betting on whether or not a day will bring rain. It was all very fine and thougtful, showing water as life, but also as danger. There were no transcendental visuals, though. The slow-mo rain-passages were ok, but the music was kitchy techno with indian vibes. A fine documentary about the forces of nature, but I still feel cheated. Just a bit.
Just to be clear, I'm just teasing. I've written these kind of festival blurbs as well. And I wrote stuff where people afterwards said 'Really? Lifechanging?'. It happens.
I guess a 'promo' is different from a trailer, because there are many things in this clip which wasn't in the film, including those bloody elephants!
The film focused on the people. The inhabitants in the south, living on ground below sea-level, protected from the rising water by feeble levees. The fishermen of Goa, having to put their lives in danger by sailing out during the storms. The farmers in areas hurt by drought. The animals of the national parks, being forced to higher grounds filled with lurking poachers. A bookie betting on whether or not a day will bring rain. It was all very fine and thougtful, showing water as life, but also as danger. There were no transcendental visuals, though. The slow-mo rain-passages were ok, but the music was kitchy techno with indian vibes. A fine documentary about the forces of nature, but I still feel cheated. Just a bit.
Just to be clear, I'm just teasing. I've written these kind of festival blurbs as well. And I wrote stuff where people afterwards said 'Really? Lifechanging?'. It happens.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar