|
|
|
  
|
Classic Movie of the Week OnM - June 7, 2002 ******* My mind is my own church. ............ Thomas Paine ******* I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. ............ Galileo Galilei ******* I read the book of Job last night-I don't think God comes out well in it. ............ Virginia Woolf ******* Choke me in the shallow water / Before I get too deep ............ Edie Brickell ******* Late last Sunday, I started off to do a review on a movie that was about young women on the verge of entering adulthood, and the trials and tribulations that they face in doing so. It was a good choice, as it fits the overall theme of both Season 6 and the BtVS universe in general, but then along came Tuesday and the rebroadcast of Bargaining Pt. II. Oh dear, now I'm all super-angsty again and filled with the need to get really religious on yer asses. Sorry. This weeks selection is unusual in many ways. First, it's a film dealing with faith that isn't either a Hollywood-ized treacle or a dry historical treatise on whatever sect. Second, it clearly has a point of view, and you have to pretty much take it or leave it, although it allows for quite some significant debate on many matters leading up to the point. Third, while the specific story events take place in or around the 1970's, it appears to have a somewhat timeless quality that extends it's relevance both forward and backwards within the recent realm of human experience. Lastly, it doesn't mind if it pisses you off, in fact it seems to want to do so. Religion is always a touchy matter under the best of circumstances, and this film in fact thematically reminds me of The Rapture, a film I reviewed last fall, and which I stated at that time 'manages to offend both fundamentalist and atheist alike'. One of my own personal religious conceits (if an 'unchurched' individual such as myself can even have one) is that I tend to doubt that we really know just what God wants, if in fact s/he wants anything from us at all. Many people claim to know, some even insist that they have a 'personal relationship' with the diety in question, but I remain rather skeptical. There is a very thin line, easily crossed, between faith and delusional behavior. Whether or not that line is being crossed by the lead character in Breaking the Waves, a young woman named Bess McNeill (played in an sheer acting tour de force by Emily Watson), is a matter for debate up until the very last minute of the film, when the director, Lars von Trier finally tips his hand and renders judgment. I won't state what that judgment is, nor will I enter actively in a debate as to whether he should have done so, because, hey, it's his vision! A number of reviewers of this film have pondered that von Trier should have allowed the earlier ambiguity to remain intact, but I for one admire his courage in making a statement-- ambiguity has it's benefits, but sometimes it's a cop-out. This film challenges it's viewers to identify with the heroine, even when she engages in very dubious behavior, and in truth achieves that goal. While the film utilizes religious faith as a vehicle to carry us into the minds of the characters, it is really about arrogance as a foundation of belief systems that von Trier seeks to explore. The character of Bess is a kind of child-woman, and right from the start this can spell trouble for even the very best screenwriters and actors. Played as it should be, with the idea of making us empathize with the child-like qualities without simultaneously (and irrationally) demanding that they leave them behind and 'grow up', this kind of personality is a desirable one for cinematically debating matters of faith. I say this because no matter how we try, nearly all 'real' adults inevitably bring some kind of baggage with them either psychologically or experientially that make 'simple' belief in that-which-is-greater-than-onself impossible. It's not about lacking intelligence-- it's about lacking dogmatism. ( Speaking of raison d'canine, what we should really be looking for is the kind of sensibility that Edie Brickell was speaking of when she penned the line 'Religion... is the smile on a dog.' ) Bess lives in a small northern Scottish town where the primary religious institution is a fundamentalist style church that is so emotionally fettered in it's ways as to proclaim the fact (with what otherwise would be pride) that 'we have no bells on our church'. Bess likes bells, and her willingness to admit to the appreciation of such frivolities causes the church elders to regard her with great suspicion as to the fate of her immortal soul. They would be likely to take greater action to 'guide' her more firmly, except for the general belief that she is not quite 'all there' mentally and so it would be unfair to press the point. Also, Bess openly professes to have a close personal relationship with the Almighty, and although her 'devotion' may not be quite down the straight and narrow, it does appear sincere. Bess decides to marry an 'outsider', also something the insular population frowns upon. Again, one gets the idea that this marriage would never be approved of by the church elders if it were not for Bess's 'special circumstances'. The marriage goes through, and the groom, a kind-hearted fellow named Jan Nyman (Stellan Skarsgård) appears to be a perfect match for Bess, and their relationship blooms both physically and emotionally. trouble comes about, though, when Jan, who is a worker on an off-shore oil rig, has to return to his job after the honeymoon, and Bess has great difficulty handling the extended seperation. In one of her regular conversations with God (yes, I said, it's a special relationship!), Bess pathetically laments that she simply can't bear to be away from Jan for this long a period of time, and begs God to 'send him home'. She gets her wish, although not in anyway remotely like she hoped for. I won't give away any more details, since part of the joys of this provocative film are watching the events unfold with a bizarre combination of incredulity and acceptance. From a photographic standpoint, the filmmakers worked to enhance the believability of the unbelievable by shooting the film on conventional stock, then transferring the print to video, then back to film again. This results in a flattish, somewhat grainy look that makes for a 'documentary-like' feel to the picture. Nearly all of the camera work was hand-held, as opposed to the normal crane, dolly or other more 'fixed' methods of controlling camera movements. This is a tremendous gamble technically-- the result could have been a disaster, especially considering the very wide 2.35:1 aspect ratio and the fact that on a really large screen, the graininess could easily become excessive and detract from the intended effect instead of creating it. It's an attempt at cinema verite without actually being that, and it not only seems to work, it creates an ongoing, underlying mood of remote detachment that sharply contrasts with a series of 'chapter breaks' which are deliberately digitally enhanced to present insanely happy and beautiful (metaphorical?) landscapes as 'punctuation' to the story's unfolding events. Like the audacity of the religious topic itself, these technical 'tricks' are pretty much a 'love-it-or-hate-it' scenario. Many critics apparently strongly disliked the 'chapter breaks' and/or the pop music that always accompanies their display, but I thought they were rather clever-- the hyperrealism of the 'perfect' landscapes surely suggests the viewpoint of Bess-- or maybe the 'real' God of the story, while the dour directness of the rest of the film's lighting and style speaks to the unforgiving and cold 'life isn't bliss, life is just this-- it's suffering' attitude of the 'official' theology of the town. I do have some serious issues with the 'message' von Trier wants to impart, however, and it's my one real caveat with Breaking the Waves. Again, to avoid spoilers, I won't detail it here, since there is no way to do so without revealing critical information in advance, but at the end of the column in the 'Miscellaneous' section, I have reprinted one of the few negative reviews of the film, which addresses exactly my core misgivings. I don't have to agree with the filmmakers' conclusions to recommend this movie to you, since in practice you may very well disagree with them also. This isn't important-- what is important is that this is a story wonderfully told, with a serious message at least worth pondering at length, and I suspect that you, like I, will not forget Breaking the Waves anytime soon.
Oh, I'm not aware of too many things
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum, OnM
******* Technical sacrificial lambs: Breaking the Waves is available on DVD, which is the format I strongly recommend you see it on if at all possible. The film was released in 1996, and running time is 2 hours and 39 minutes, perhaps slightly less depending on the version you see. The original cimematic aspect ratio is 2.35:1, which is why the DVD recommendation-- please try to avoid the pan'n'scan (cropped) versions, they will be seriously visually altered, as Von Trier constantly utilizes the entire widescreen frame in his compositions. The review copy was on laserdisc. Screenplay and writing credits go to Lars von Trier and Peter Asmussen. Cinematography was by Robby Müller with film editing by Anders Refn. Art direction was by Karl Juliusson, and costume design was by Manon Rasmussen. The general musical 'score' was arranged by Joachim Holbek, with a lot of contributions from 'popular' musicians for the 'chapter cards' between the different parts of the film. The original theatrical sound mix was Dolby Digital, presumably retained on the DVD. (The laserdisc version was mixed down to standard Dolby Surround). Cast overview:
Emily Watson .... Bess McNeill ******* Miscellaneous A quick (or not so quick!) visit to the movie review collection site, rottentomatoes.com, will show that Breaking the Waves is a film highly regarded by a large majority of both serious and casual film critics and reviewers, including the very casual me. However, as I brought up in my review, there are elements in this work that are very seriously disquieting to me personally about the story that is presented for our consideration. I did find one negative review in the Tomatometer database, that I would like to reprint here, since it very thoughtfully addresses many of my issues. It's not by any stretch a 'slam' of the film, the reviewer appreciates the craft that von Trier evokes, he's just not sure that he appreciates the message it may be sending. In many cases, I agree wholeheartedly. Please note that this review contains extensive spoilers, so if you wish to remain mostly unspoiled, do see the film first and then come back, OK? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Breaking the Waves - A Film Review by James Kendrick "Breaking the Waves" is a complex and disturbing look at what one woman would do for the sake of love, and how her desire to be her husband's salvation runs head-to-head with the moral tenants of her strict Christian upbringing. It is at once a religious allegory and an attack on Christian fundamentalism, wrapped up in art house pretension and grainy, hand-held camerawork. The first English-language film from Danish writer/director Lars von Trier, "Breaking the Waves" forces concepts on the viewer that must be absolutely accepted or rejected. Depending on how you deal with those concepts will determine whether this film is a masterpiece or a lot of anti-establishment blathering. The film opens with Bess (newcomer Emily Watson in a painfully intense performance) explaining to her church elders why she is going to marry an "outsider," a large but lovable Danish oil rig worker named Jan (Stellan Skarsgard). Bess is an almost childlike woman with a history of emotional instability who lives in a small, coastal Scottish town sometime in the mid-70's. The town is dominated by the fundamentalist church and its repressive Calvinistic ideals. The church can make you into a village outcast, women are not allowed to speak during services, and the elders don't mind standing at a funeral intoning that the recently deceased is on his way to hell. Once Bess and Jan are married, she is so excited to consummate their relationship that she allows Jan to deflower her in a church bathroom upstairs during the reception. "What do I do?" she asks him quietly. While this sounds a bit odd, it is actually a touching scene. It is quickly evident in Bess's eyes that she has found a new, loving experience, and the film makes a strong argument for the power of sex between two people who love each other. Bess and Jan's marriage is characterized by their erotic pleasures. Their scenes of lovemaking are graphically portrayed in their naturalism, but they are touching because you realize that love is being shared and not just physicality. One of the film's best scenes involves Bess seeing Jan naked for the first time, and the sheer wonderment on her face. In her innocence, she is the epitome of true, selfless love. But then Jan has to leave to go work on the oil rig, and Bess is suddenly thrown into hysterics, the first true hint of her obsessive personality. Ten days before Jan is to come home on leave, he has a serious accident on the rig, and winds up paralyzed. Bess blames herself because she prayed for God to bring him home, and He did (she has an intense relationship with God where she speaks for both of them while praying). She believes that God is testing her and Jan's love, much the way He tested Job. This makes her more determined than ever to be faithful to Jan and sacrifice whatever she can for him. The film takes a bizarre and inexplicable turn when Jan, who fears that he will never be able to make love to his wife again, asks her to find a lover and tell him the details about it. He tells her that this is the only way he can live, and without it, he will die. At first she refuses, but when Jan's condition worsens, she ultimately agrees. First she tries to seduce a friendly doctor (Adrian Rawlins), and when that fails, she is reduced to fondling a stranger on a bus, and then dressing like a prostitute and picking up men at bars. Every time she has a sexual encounter, Jan's condition improves. Soon she learns that she doesn't even have to tell him about it, that he somehow knows when she is having sex with someone else. Soon whispers are going about the village, and Bess's sister-in-law (Katrin Cartlidge) is questioning her activities. "Are you sleeping with other men to feed his sick fantasies?" she cries. "His head's full of scars--he's up to his eyeballs in drugs." The church casts her out, children throw stones at her in the street, but no matter. Bess believes that her willingness to sexually debase herself for Jan is his salvation, so much that she is willing to be with men that seasoned prostitutes are afraid of. She doesn't care what others think because inside she believes that what she is doing is right, and she will endure physical pain and depravation for her husband. Von Trier described his film as a simple love story, but it's obviously much more than that. "Breaking the Waves" wants nothing more than to turn the entire Christian sense of morality upside down, and ask what is right? What is salvation? Of course, Jesus did the same thing, so the film makes Bess into its Christ figure while branding the church elders as the misguided Pharisees. Bess's obsessive love for Jan is above their petty rules, and she understands what they cannot because she has a direct line to God. The first half of the film makes such an effective and intimate argument for the beauty and power of sex between a husband and wife, that it undermines that second half of the film. If von Trier really believes in the spirituality of lovemaking, how can he find Jan's salvation through Bess sexually debasing herself? The idea might have been plausible if Jan asked her to find another man who she could truly love, so that he would know that she was actually "making love" and not being systematically and willfully raped, but this is not the case. As it stands, his request is perverse, cruel, and twisted. (Note: Italic emphasis mine. --OnM) But because von Trier is determined to make Bess into a Christ figure, he has to make her suffer for her love. What destroys the analogy is that mankind did not ask Christ to suffer for mankind. Christianity is based on the notion that God offered Jesus to suffer and die for us, not for God. In "Breaking the Waves," Jan asks Bess to suffer for him, and she does, for him. Therefore, she is simply fulfilling his selfish desires, thus diminishing his ultimate redemption. If God had asked Bess to suffer in order to save Jan, the analogy would have been more complete. Philosophical arguments sides, Von Trier's cinematic treatment of the material is fascinating. He used a process where the film is transferred to video and then back to film again in order to achieve a grainy, diluted look, like a videotape that has been watched too many times. He shot all the scenes with handheld cameras, giving a kind of strange, unsteady documentary feel that heightens the reality, almost like viewing someone's home movies. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to insert nine chapter-stops in the film that break up the steady pace. The stops amount to computer-enhanced pastoral stills that are punctuated with awful 70's rock music from the likes of Elton John, David Bowie, and Deep Purple, to name a few. I will never understand von Trier's decision to start the epilogue with Elton John's melodramatic tearjerker "Your Song," thus destroying the film's previously successful attempts to avoid sappy melodrama. Although certain scenes succeed with great heart and emotion, "Breaking the Waves" as a whole does not. Von Trier's' strange mix of religion and sexuality ultimately falls short because his ideas are either too simplistic or too far-fetched. In today's open world, it's easy to take slaps at rigorous fundamentalism and call it close-minded and archaic. On the other end, von Trier's' notions of depraved sexuality as salvation are illogical and ineffective. To praise both the saving beauty of loving sex and the saving beauty of depraved sex is conflictive. He simply can't have it both ways. (c)1997 James Kendrick ******* The Question of the Week: This presumes that you have seen Breaking the Waves. OK, I couldn't possibly have phrased it any better, so I won't try. From the section of Mr. Kendrick's review that I took special note of, I hereby repeat: The first half of the film makes such an effective and intimate argument for the beauty and power of sex between a husband and wife, that it undermines that second half of the film. If von Trier really believes in the spirituality of lovemaking, how can he find Jan's salvation through Bess sexually debasing herself? Well, how indeed? This strikes me as very similar to the dilemma constructed by Joss Whedon as regards Tara and Willow, and the subsequent death of Tara. Yes, it expresses the writer's point of view and his way of telling the story, and as viewers we are expected to accept and deal with it. That doesn't mean we like it, or some of the implications that inevitably extend from it. What is your take on von Trier's 'message'? So until next time, I hope I have provided a couple of rubberbands to shoot at the stars. Please post 'em if you've got 'em (and I know you do!), and I'll see you next week, in all probability with my riff on the film that I had originally scheduled for this week. But then, ya never know... ;-) Take care!
******
|
