At Land/ Inception

So, here where go. Second movie night. More people this time. Here we go. This time we are watching two standout films that, I feel, compliment each other like lamb and tuna fish... maybe you like spaghetti and meatball, you more comfortable with that analogy? It is the 1944 avant-garde film At Land, and Christopher Nolan's creative popcorn flick Inception. The pairing of these films is my personal favorite of the 52 films that I have picked to watch in 2014. I had only watched the first two minutes of At Land before I chose it for the Inception movie night (Thank you, Duncan). And when I watched it for the first time, I realized that these two have a lot of the same imagery. By far the most complimentary of the list. So, here it is.

At Land is a film by Maya Deren. A seminal work from a woman who worked against the grain. It appears so, at least, because of her attitudes toward American cinema at the time. The two-hour running time, the big budget, the narrative. All of these she rejected in her films. She is truly a prize in the cinema world and a beauty to behold. Maya employed the help of her then husband and friends in the making of her second most known film. An interdisciplinarian in her own right, she also works here as a fantastic poet on par with her contemporary and colleague Breton. 

What I found interesting when watching the film was how ethereal and surreal it is. And how poetic. The images and the editing seem aleatoric, but the composition is beautiful. This is a film where the captain is fully aware of where they want to take us. The problem is with the audience. We have no idea where we are once we arrive at our destination. I'm sure Maya was purposeful as she was setting up the shots, but we as the audience don't know what the film's intent is. We don't know what it means. We can guess. We can use her history to infer, but, ultimately, we don't know. My friend suggested that is was her reflecting on her past. The four men in the film are her past lovers. I postulate that it is how she feels about her place in art; about the struggles she has to face. She is a woman with such contemporaries as John Cage and Marcel Duchamp to name just two; an avant-garde boys club. This film may show how she is struggling in that world. It may also be a film about finding oneself. Deren had said on one occasion that this film "is about the struggle to maintain one's personal identity." Perhaps it is her resisting the urge to become what her friends became, and find her own place in art regardless of the praise or the backlash. Staying to true to herself.

This is ridiculous of me to say because the nature of this film, but the film, for me, starts to fall apart toward the end as the scenes become more erratic, and less poetic. I am struck by her beauty and her bravery to embark on this film. It is complex. It is beautiful. It is bizarre. But it is not mundane. And it should be shared and experienced, and appreciated for what it is, and what you interpret it to mean. What it says about you, the viewer, and how it can change your perspective for the future. Stay true to yourself. That's what is important. That is what I took away from At Land.

***

After the success of the rebooted Batman franchise, Christopher Nolan began what would be a very creative and ambitious project. A film that would please most film goers and critics alike. This is true, given that it was nominated for best picture, and given that it neared one billion dollars at the box office worldwide. By no means was it groundbreaking in terms of plot, or in terms of film technique, but is, nonetheless, very entertaining and enjoyable.

Scratch it. Scratch it. Scratch. it. Scratch it.

Sorry. Got a bit distracted there. Back to it, yeah?

You can see the influence of past films in Inception. There are hints of Indiana Jones as in the beginning of the film (choose your team more wisely next time), 2001: A Space Odyssey toward the end (the dying old man in the sterile and ultra modern room and the rotating sets), and even At Land. I truly believe that Nolan was directly inspired to add props and scenes in his film because of At Land. The opening shots are both the same, both films have a girl carrying around a chess piece. And both have dream-like tones and themes. There is also another film that I feel I should mention. In 2010 after I watched Inception in theatres, I caught a film on t.v. called Dreamscape, and I noticed several similarities between it and Inception. I do not insinuate that Nolan stole ideas, but I do find it interesting that implanting ideas in one's head to change the course of history (whether geopolitical or financial) through dreams was explored over 25 years earlier in Dreamscape. And there are countless more films that Nolan has cited as influential in the making of this film.

Now, I do not want to go into what the film means, because there have been a slew of articles and even philosophical books written about the film. I also do not want to go into the many plot holes that scatter the film, and there are many. Some of it is the fault of the writing, but other holes were the result of specific departments of the film such as the make-up department*. This was a very talked about movie when getting out of the theatre. What does it mean? What about the ending? The ambiguous ending has been talked about and was even talked about after we watched it. Was Cobb still dreaming or not? My ultimate answer: I don't think Cobb cares at that point. The people that matter in his life up to that point, his children, had been estranged from him for at least a year, and he hadn't gotten to know them as well as his wife, and would have no idea if they were "just a shade" of his own children. He wanted to be with his children. If it was still in a dream or in real life, he could care less. That's why he doesn't wait for the top to topple over. This truly was an exciting, adventurous, entertaining, and fun movie. And it truly was talked about and talked up. People had qualms with it (I admit, I did too). But, the fact is, it is just a movie. Suspension of disbelief is key to accepting and enjoying the movie. The majority of the film, one could argue the entire film, is set in dreams and in built dream mazes where logic and physics shouldn't be brought into question. It should be enjoyed like a good dream. A dream that you don't want to wake up from because it's better, more fantastical and less mundane than your life. 

***1/2

So, to recap: Dreams are dreamed by dreamers who long for something different, unique, artistic, and enjoyable. Deren and Nolan are two dreamers and two artists in their own right. One is definitely more mainstream than the other, but both filmakers' filmographies should definitely be sampled, if not devoured.

Bon appetit!

*If you want me to go into those, let me know.

Next Set

This week's delightful pairing will be At Land by Maya Deren. You can find it online. And Christopher Nolan's Inception. Join me won't you?

Voyage dans la lune and 2001: A Space Odyssey

After futile attempts to gather a small group of people to embark on what will be the first of many movie nights, and availing in not one seized invitation, I began the first movie night alone at 10:30. Tonight’s short film and feature length film are two iconic and fantastic films. The first is George Méliès’ most recognizable Voyage dans la lune. Coupled, en suite, with another pioneering sci-fi masterpiece: 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick.

Trip to the Moon

I took it upon myself to find Trip to the Moon on the internet, and stumbled upon the colorized version of the film found in 1993 and was promptly restored. A new score was added and, amazingly, was put on YouTube for people; that both film aficionados and Joe Schmos could watch and enjoy. And so, falling squarely in both those two camps, I watched and I enjoyed.

What I admired about this small 15 minutes 37 second film is how ahead of its time it really was. Perhaps not Méliès best, but certainly his most recognizable and iconic film, most people recognize the striking man in the moon, having his eye missiled in by the rocket.  This two-reeler is not without its charms. Combining Carollesque fantasy with surrealistic and dreamlike imagery, 20 years before it was mode. It tells the story of a group of aristocrats going to the moon, and upon encountering, and consequently battling Selenites (Moon people), they return to Earth with one of the Selenites in tow. The backdrops of the film blend in with the forefront topiary and scenery perfectly, and the costumes for the film are extravagant, and I assume colorful, because Méliès oversaw the hand painted colorization of some of the prints of the film. And I’m sure he wanted them to match the actual costumes used on set during filming. George was, no doubt, inspired by the two great 19^th century sci-fi writers H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, and even used Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” as direct inspiration. He used many effects and spectacle in the film: fire, and smoke, and feu d’artifice are used to great effect. He also used fades, and innovated showing the same shot, but interpreting it two different ways, as with the rocket landing. First, in the moon’s eye, and secondly on the lunar surface. The climax of the film shows a striking similarity to what eventually would happen with lunar missions once they re-entered the atmosphere. Crash landing in water, being brought to land via boat, and having fanfare and fêtes with the adoring public. This is a fun, fanciful, iconic, and classic piece of cinema that, in 2002 became the first work designated as a UNESCO World Heritage film. This film has been studied and admired ever since its release in France in 1902, and remains a dear gem in the firmament of cinematic history.

***1/2

2001: A Space Odyssey

A black screen and the chilling music begin to crescendo, and then fades, starts back up again, and so on.  Then, the Zarathustra music chimes in. This is a musical odyssey the just beckons us to jump in and experience the visual imagery and complexity between man and machine that is soon to follow. 2001 is a compelling and adored piece of cinema. Many interviews with filmmakers will point to this film as one of their favorites; one of the first movies that made them want to make film. Many of the New Hollywood directors will agree that this is a masterpiece and was a direct influence on them and the work that followed. Take George Lucas, for instance. One can only imagine how many times he watched this movie as the germs of his Star Wars were growing to ideas and scenes. What strikes me about this film is how the present is in the background. The scenes represent the past (as with the dawn of man scenes), and the future, but it doesn’t delve into what would be the present for the movie going audience. Yet, the present permeates the celluloid. The tone (i.e. the sentiments of a world embarking on new technologies, and exploring to yet unexplored places) is consistent with the feelings of the world at that time. The women in the film are also familiar and placed in the present, as opposed to the outlandish interpretations of fashion and technology that other futuristic films would latch on to.

2001 certainly coincided with many events that, I’m sure, helped propel itself into the pantheon of great cinema. The way Citizen Kane with its film techniques and historicity did for it. The United States and Soviet Union were in a Cold War battle to put the first man on the moon, and the Apollo Missions were in full swing when this film made its way to theatres in 1968. In addition, Von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods?” explored controversial subject matter that is also touched on in 2001, namely aliens interaction with our progenitors that served as a catalyst in our development into the intelligent, cultural, and undisputed superior species on the planet.  The same audience that saw 2001, made Von Däniken’s book a best seller.

The use of advertisement for Pan Am, Southwestern Bell and even Hilton Hotels, although noticeable, is not as in your face as modern product placement is today. Too bad no one then would have known that PanAm would have folded as a company a decade before 2001, and Southwestern Bell now looking much different as a company. But as much of a genius as Kubrick was, I think we can forgive him of his lack of prophetic vision in that regard. But other designs and props made for this film did seem to be almost prophetic. The use of robotics, drinkable meals, a talking personal assistance within an operating system, the iPad, and video phones are all shown in this film.

The film is symmetric and beautiful. There are hints of humor, and heaps of awe-inspiring cinema. There are a wide range of static shots or panning shots that align with simplistic and symmetric composition. The use of film and the times of the day in which Kubrick shot at, coupled with the exposure time during post production make this a beautiful and rich looking film. Add high definition to the mix and it is a luscious sight. The object of our focus is always brilliantly placed, most often in the center of the shot (hence the symmetry), the music is haunting and poetic. The use of the fish eye lens is refreshing, and not overly or annoyingly used. The minimalistic dialogue coupled with ominous sound effects of screaming, breathing, sharp and high-pitched noises makes this film extra nuanced. The special effects were ahead of its time and were put to good use in the film. Many of the colors schemes within the sets, reflected lighting on helmets, and toward the end, with its use of slit-scan photography, give this film a very “out of this world” feel. Kubrick’s use of large rotating rigs with stationary cameras would be used and copied years later in the blockbuster Inception. Kubrick’s innovative use of the bone and satellite match-cut is undeniably iconic. The main character Dave’s kaleidoscopic voyage we take prior to the climax of the film is both strange and inviting. Causing the viewer to want to see what’s beyond the oozing abyss, or what’s behind the colorful plateaus and peaks. As we approach the end, the film leaves us on stage in a fever dream ballet.  Then into the metaphysical nightmare as we voyeuristically view Dave getting older, only to be reborn and looking on at the orb we presently live; he, now, voyeuristically looking at us. What does this film really mean? Who really knows? What is it trying to say? I’m not sure. This does deal with some very important issues including: intelligence, exploration, extraterrestrial intelligence, artificial intelligence, reliance on technology, philosophical identity of self, and much more. What can be said about this film is that nothing like this had ever been seen before, and much of the art we have, and many of the films we now enjoy have either been directly or indirectly influenced by Kubrick and his masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many people get bored when they watch this, but I have seen it now a half dozen times, and, though it’s bizarre and perplexing, it is also beautiful and thought-provoking. A true and rare piece of art; an inspiration. A great film. Thus spake the great Kubrick!

          ****1/2