Saturday, May 25, 2024

Satyajit Ray | অপরাজিত (Aparjito) (The Unvanquished) / 1957

flight

by Douglas Messerli

 

Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay and Satyajit Ray (screenplay), Satyajit Ray (director) অপরাজিত (Aparjito) (The Unvanquished) / 1957

 

 The second of Ray’s Apu trilogy immediately establishes for the viewer the new world which has, so to speak “swallowed up” Harihar Ray and his family. The first image we encounter is centered upon sound, as a flock of pigeons suddenly take to the sky. The camera then focuses on the center of Benares life, the Ganges river and the various purposes it serves: it is a place for bathing, washing clothes, drinking, and religious activities.


    Soon after the camera travels into the narrow street passages of the city, following the games of Apu and his friends dashing throughout the confines of its poor residents, running wild—as Sarbojaya puts it—like monkeys. Here there is no schooling, no organized activities; the only alternative to his childhood games is helping his mother as she cooks in the most primitive of conditions. The Rays abject poverty is made clear when she runs out of matches and asks Apu to fetch one or two from a man living in a room above. Caught by the young boy in the process of unwrapping a bottle of liquor, the friendly neighbor, somewhat conspiratorially and with what might be perceived as a slightly predatory friendliness, offers up a whole book of matches.

     Throughout the Benares episodes of this film, however, we recognize that in his graceful runs throughout the city, Apu will slip away from all danger; like a monkey, he limberly speeds through the landscape, stopping just long enough to observe the kaleidoscope of sites and activities going on about the city, including his father’s readings of religious texts.

      In this early section of Aparjito Ray’s camera is almost constantly on the move, as the human “monkey”—as well as actual monkeys who invade Sarbojaya’s kitchen—runs wild, and in this context there is something so dizzying about these early scenes that we almost share Hari’s first complaints of dizziness.

 

    Despite his fever, Hari goes out again to oversee religious rituals connected with the holiday, collapsing as he attempts to return home. Brought into the house by others, he falls into a deeper fever much like that suffered by his daughter Druga in Pather Panchali, the significance of which is not lost on his wife. Apu is ordered to bring some water from the holy Ganges and races off, returning to find his father near death. Again the birds fly up—which, like other repeated images of motion such as trains and flying insects, signifies adventure, escape, and the release of the soul.  Hari is dead.

     Apu’s last act in Benares is to feed the wild monkeys who have overtaken an ancient shrine—the images of which suggest polar opposites of his future: subservience to ritual as against the imaginative meanderings of a young man.

     Invited by her uncle to join his household, Surbojaya and Apu travel by train, in the opposite direction of their previous flight, to the small town of Dewanpur. Life in this remote village, however, is even quieter than the village they previously “escaped,” and, although the uncle appears to be kind and helpful to Apu and his mother, there are subtle restrictions attached to their being taken in, the most important of which is that Apu must now learn and practice the religious rituals to which his learnéd father had committed his life. Apu is an eager and apt pupil, but it is clear through Ray’s evocative images of children playing the kinds of games Apu previously enjoyed in Benares before being forced to abandon the innocent joys of childhood. Momentarily escaping from his religious observations, Apu runs toward the children only to witness their disappearance into the nearby school. The scene is a devastating one for both character and viewer, for we both recognize that this precocious child of Harihar will be doomed in this small town to what I will call the life of “the fever,” a life of almost total subservience to greater economic and social forces, ending in early death.


      He pleads with his mother to allow him to attend school, to which she agrees if he can also continue each morning his religious activities. Through a series of short scenes, including the visit of a local school authority and several images of the young boy imitating the various cultures about which he is reading—Apu’s costuming himself as an African “native,” may be a wry statement of India’s still colonial-based values—Ray quickly reveals the intelligence and potential of his young hero. At sixteen Apu places second in a regional test, and is awarded a small scholarship to the university in Calcutta.

     The hurdle of his mother’s opposition remains, but with his awarded globe in hand, he argues for accepting the stipend with such a fervor—with the burning desire of any young person to discover the world—that despite her severe reservations and fear for her own survival in the uncle’s household, she agrees, even offering Apu money she has set aside for their survival.


    Like Benares, Calcutta is presented as a seething center of energy. Given a small room in a printing shop in return for his working nights at its presses, Apu, nonetheless, is seriously engaged—despite falling asleep during an English lesson—by his university studies. A quick trip home for the holidays is spent primarily in bed sleeping, even as his mother attempts to convey her own loneliness and, more importantly, her fears that she has contracted fever and is soon to die. She can only look forward to the day when he will call for her to join him and make enough money for her to see for a doctor; but when the boy falls asleep while she speaks, the audience knows that that day will never come. When she slaps his face for his glib reactions to her genuine suffering, we know, even if Apu cannot yet quite grasp the significance, that it is her only weapon to awaken this sleeping dreamer to the grim realities of their life, despite recognizing that those dreams may represent the only way he might escape.

     In one of the most touching of this film’s scenes, Apu determines he must return to school over his mother’s pleas that he remain just a few more days. The young boy—played as an overly gaunt teenager by Smaran Ghosai (replacing Pinaki Sengupta earlier in this film and Subir Bannerjee in Pather Panchali—insists he must hurry back to the city, escaping as quickly as he can to the train station. For the last time in his life, the power of family love wins out over the seductive attractions proffered by the machine in motion, as he purposely misses the train and returns for one more day to his mother.

 

     Back in Calcutta, however, as he prepares for his final exams, he clearly attempts to block out the few ties remaining to his mother and uncle. Sarbojaya has pleaded with him to return home during the vacation, but Apu insists he must study and cannot do so in the “sleepy” atmosphere of Dewampur. His mother prays for his return and, now overtaken by the fever, imagines she hears his returning call. As she goes outside to look for him, like her daughter Druga and Harihar before her, she becomes dizzy. Fireflies twinkling in the night sky become blurred, shining in what appears to her as a path to her prodigal son, but is perceived by the viewer as the release of her soul; the screen goes black. She is dead.

     When her son finally arrives, having learned of her illness, there is no longer anyone there to greet him. Apu’s remorse is one of the most painful moments of this film, pain alleviated perhaps only with the uncle’s simple observation: “What’s done cannot be undone.” If Apu has awakened to the truth, he now recognizes all the more the need to reject it and the inevitable fever accompanying it. He ignores his uncle’s demands that he observe the rituals for her death, taking flight once again on the train that represents a society in complete opposition to the one in which he has been born.

      Despite winning the Golden Lion award of the Venice Film Festival, Aparjito is not Ray’s most appealing movie; it moves forward in a slow pace that at times can seem almost maddeningly static. The characters, moreover, often seem appallingly ignorant in their lack of self-recognition. The several travels back and forth between the two societies at war in this film also bring to the film a repetition of images and themes that will frustrate impatient viewers. I would suggest, however, that Ray reveals through these flaws (intentionally or not) just the kinds of patterns that continually arise when such cultural differences meet. Despite the recognition of those suffering in subservient isolation and under conservative restrictions that there must be a world better than the one they inhabit, they often resist change in order to preserve the simple dignity with which they have lived life as opposed to joining a society that might transform them into unrecognizable beings. At film’s end, Apu’s return to the city may be his salvation, but he is no longer the wide-eyed child in wonderment that he was in Pather Panchali and the Benares section of this film. And we sadly recognize that Apu will now be an outsider for the rest of his life.

 

Los Angeles, June 11, 2006

Reprinted from My Year 2003: Voice without a Voice (Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2013).

Satyajit Ray | পথের পাঁচালী (Pather Panchali) (Song of the Little Road) / 1955

the fever

by Douglas Messerli

 

Bibhitibbushan Bandyopadhyay and Satayajit Ray (screenplay), Satyajit Ray (director) পথের পাঁচালী

(Pather Panchali) (Song of the Little Road) / 1955

 

     Pather Panchali (originally released in 1955) begins with Durga—daughter of Sarbojaya and Harihar—stealing a guava from the orchard that once belonged to the family but has now been sold to a neighbor. Hari, the father, is a poet and dreamer who cannot support his family properly. Accordingly, Sarbojaya is left—as is the apparent fate of poorer Bengali women—to care for the daughter, cook the food, and look after the old aunt, Indir, while pregnant with a child. The task is an onerous one, resulting in her frustration and anger which she vents upon both the aunt and daughter.


     The film begins slowly, with overly long focuses on the orchard between the house and the neighbors. But it quickly takes shape with the birth of Apu, a male child, and our first view of Hari, a man of such gentleness and kindness that one simultaneously recognizes these qualities as both the sources of his failure as a bread-winner and his strengths as a father and lover. Our first view of Apu is one large eye peeking through a blanket, and his eyes become the center of focus as the surrounding events of the small Bengali village unfold. Critic Robin Wood has observed that the viewer does not see the film from the child’s view but rather from a point of view that makes one party to the child’s perceptions and reactions to what they witness together.

        What we are shown may at first seem ordinary and incidental; as Ray himself noted, the novel on which the movie was based determined that it would have a rambling effect. “Life in a Bengali village does ramble.” The noted French film director François Truffaut walked out of the film after the first two reels, declaring the film “insipid” and observing he was not interested in Indian peasants.

      At times too much attention is given to children simply coming and going down the wooded path. But, as the film progresses, we are drawn into the minor events: the appearance of a candy seller, a performance of a traveling theatrical company, the eternal bickering between neighbors, and the slow fading of dreams for mother, daughter and aunt. The women of Pather Panchali, clearly, are the unfortunates. While the entire family dotes (along with the audience, I might add) on the male child, Apu, his sister Durga is expected to help the mother in her housekeeping chores; a girlfriend of her own age is soon to be married. The aunt, so wizened she can barely walk, is sent packing to another relative. Only Hari and Apu seem to remain apart from the misery of everyday life. Apu is being taught to read and write, while Durga, the petty thief of the orchard, is now accused of having stolen her friend’s necklace and is punished by being locked outside the gates of the house.


     It is quite justifiable that, when Apu steals tinsel from his sister’s toy box in order to make himself over as a King he has seen in the local theatrical, she is outraged and strikes him. The girl escapes the house in anger, with the beloved Apu following, and thus Ray introduces a scene that is one of the most beautiful in film history. Wandering the fields about, the children stand in stark contrast to the rows of power lines that criss-cross the countryside, and the surrounding patches of white, fluffy kaash flowers are the antithesis of the dark, fast-moving train that awes and overwhelms the two. The filmmaking here is stunning as Ray pulls the camera across the tracks so that the train blacks out landscape and children; we see them only in the small space of light between the carriage and tracks. The train and all its associations of travel, speed, commodity, and culture immediately portray everything the children’s world is not, and suddenly the separation between brother and sister vanishes. They turn toward home, only to discover their aunt a short distance from their doorstep, dead.

     Ultimately, Hari must leave the small town to find employment elsewhere. But as time passes without his return, Sarbojaya is left ever more impoverished. She must sell the family’s plates. The village returns to everyday life: Druga’s girlfriend is married with much pomp and circumstance and, in surely one of the most abstract scenes in narrative film, spring returns in all its natural beauty. Dragonflies dart across the pond, reeds reflect into the water like a Hans Hartung painting. Once again, however, the beauty of the natural world prefaces the destruction of the surrounding figures.

   In a ceremonial-like prayer, Druga dreams of a future husband; but in dawdling she is caught with Apu in a rainstorm. Throughout the film she has been described as feverish, and now she truly catches fever which, throughout the night of howling wind and rain, her mother attempts to cool. But the fever she has caught is also a symbolic one: the fever of a young girl in love with living. There is no hope for such a being; in the poverty-stricken world wherein she is trapped, she can only be destroyed—just has her mother has spiritually died.


     Upon Druga’s death, Sarbojaya is so grief-stricken that, like Brecht’s Mother Courage, she cannot express her pain. It is only upon the long overdue return of Hari, who upon his arrival begins by describing the petty gifts he has brought the family, that her tears commence. And the awfulness of events is fully understood by family and audience alike.



     The family determines to move to Benares, and as they pack their few possessions, Apu reaches for two unused bowls on a high shelf, where he discovers the missing necklace. Ray brilliantly demonstrates the wisdom the child has learned by having him secretly throw the evidence into a nearby stand of water. The last frame reminds those of us imbued with Christian imagery of the flight of Mary, Joseph, and child into Egypt. A new world awaits.

 

Los Angeles, May 20, 2003

Reprinted from My Year 2003: Voice without a Voice (Los Angeles, Green Integer, 2013).

 

Abraham Polansky | Force of Evil / 1948

descent into hell

by Douglas Messerli

 

Abraham Polansky and Ira Wolfert (screenplay), Abraham Polansky (director) Force of Evil / 1948

 

During a weekend I was to have been in New York—a trip cancelled because of heavy snow—I watched Abraham Polansky’s acclaimed film of 1948, Force of Evil. Unlike Andrew Sarris and some British critics, I do not feel that this film is one of the “great films of the modern American cinema.” But the movie does have a powerful film-noir quality and a brilliant performance by John Garfield which nearly matches his work in Body and Soul (which Polansky also wrote) and Marlon Brando’s edgy and touching portrayal of Terry Malloy in Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront. I guess I’m reminded of Kazan’s film because each of these movies has as a subtheme: the corruption of one brother by another. But as opposed to On the Waterfront’s betrayal of a younger, more sensitive brother by the older sibling (portrayed by Rod Steiger), Force of Evil—in a more complex twist of events—concerns itself with a younger brother who, engaged in a high echelon of a gangster world, attempts to protect his elder brother, a petty crook who runs a small-time numbers business out of a private apartment.


     In order to save his brother Joe Mason (Garfield) has Leo’s business raided by the police; but the raid itself is enough to rouse the elder Mason’s conscience, and he threatens to leave the business, along with at least two of his employees who have suddenly realized just how entwined they have become with evil forces. In the perverted world to which they have become pawns, however, the crime is not in the “taking,” but in the “not taking,” and that is, as the movie puts it, what makes them truly guilty. Refusing to “live and be guilty” in the old manner, they are given no choice but to become more deeply involved in the gangster world from which they seek to escape.

     It is this illogical but inevitable descent into hell that makes this movie so mesmerizing. Once Mason/Garfield has set things into motion, there is no possible escape for either his brother or for his loyal secretary, with whom the younger Mason now establishes a swaggering macho relationship. Employees betray bosses; warring mob leaders join forces in the inverted world where paranoia is necessary for survival. Polansky and novelist Ira Wolfert’s almost incantatory dialogue and voice-overs create a three-sentence rhythm of sophistic logic:

 

                               People can be made to talk. Who was my phone talking to?

                               A man can spend the rest of his life trying to remember what

                               he said.

 

    Or, as Leo later says: “I’m a man with heart trouble. I die every day. It’s a stupid way to live.” In such a world Leo’s murder is inevitable; all the brother has done to protect him has only assured that he will be tossed upon the pollution-ridden river bank like “a piece of meat.”

     In a world where everyone is listening in to the most private of conversations, Joe is forced to open his own locked away telephone to the voices of the mobsters as they spin, like spiders, new plots to enmesh anyone who is willing to see their own petty crimes as “not so bad.” As Leo, shortly before his death, comes to realize, even the pettiest of criminal acts permit the most perverse atrocities.

 

Los Angeles, December 7, 2003

Reprinted from Green Integer Review (December 2003).

Friday, May 24, 2024

Herk Harvey | Cindy Goes to a Party / 1955

how to win at musical chairs

by Douglas Messerli

 

Margaret Travis (screenplay), Herk Harvey (director) Cindy Goes to a Party / 1955 

 

Herk Harvey’s Cindy Goes to a Party is a lesbian’s nightmare. But it is also a nightmare for all of those who feel outside of the social norms and niceties of youth. Cindy, who begins the film playing basketball with Dennis, is obviously a tomboy, who prefers sports and fishing to personal birthdays and social soirées.

 

    Like all children, however, she is hurt when she discovers that Dennis is going Mary’s party and she hasn’t even been invited. She pretends it doesn’t matter, but like all outsider kids, it truly does. And what else is a child to do in such a situation but—according to the moral authorities of the mid-1950s—to dream up a spunky fairy godmother to help her learn how to be a lady and a proper guest at the party, just case she might get the chance to attend. But first she has to agree that she will tell no one of the fairy’s existence, always a necessity for queer kids who spend a great many hours talking to their “other” self.

      “Even Dennis?” asks Cindy. She can mention it to Dennis, her fairy godmother allows, since he’ll probably need her help too—suggesting Dennis may not be the full sports enthusiast he pretends to be, preferring simply to hang out with his tomboy friend: read “future queer kid.”


      Margaret Travis’ screenplay, in fact, might have played out as a joyfully campy tale, were it not that the rules about attending Mary’s (read any “normal person’s party) are so numerous and perniciously restrictive that it sounds a little bit like Cindy had just been sent away to a reassignment sex camp.

      Among the many rules the fairy’s wand waves out, some are simply the standard issues of the 1950s etiquette: “Be on time,” “Leave on time, “Join in the games,” “Don’t be too noisy or too rough,” “Don’t break things,” “Be polite,” and “Be considerate of others.” These are all basically nice liberal parental advisements.

       But Cindy is also given a frilly new dress to wear to help make her pretty, her hair wrapped up with paper and clips (by her mother, not her fairy friend) to permit her a few next day curls. She’s advised, moreover, “You should be clean and neat when you go a party,” suggesting that all exercise and sports activities are simply off the chart.

      The games poor Cindy must suffer at the party mostly revolve around musical chairs, one of the most ostracizing tortures of all childhood play, if I remember correction, a game in which one’s peers, the moment the music stops, rush to pull out the chair from where, if you’re not fast and pushy enough, in which you were just about to sit. Cindy’s been told, nonetheless, to “Obey the rules of the game” and “To be a good loser and a good winner.” The last is important for the good luck Cindy, who eventually wins the last chair.


       In short, Cindy has been advised to play along with all the rules established by her heteronormative peers. No roughhousing Cindy. No questioning of their seemingly polite but often just as dismissive manners. “Remember your table manners,” insists Cindy’s fairy godmother, rules written into law by Frances Benton and before her, Emily Post, Miss Manners following in the 1970s and 80s.

     By the time the dreamy good fairy gets through with her, Cindy has turned into a gushing cheerleader absolutely delighted when Mary’s sister turns up the next morning explaining, quite awkwardly and most suspiciously, it seems to me, that she was to have delivered the invitation to her for the party three days ago, but forgot. One can only wonder whether Cindy’s mother might not have been spending some of her daughter’s dream hours on the phone to Mary’s mother.

     When this movie finally lets up on the restrictions that Cindy needs to know in order to attend Mary’s party, even I, who hated basketball and probably never once got the ball into the crater of the hoop, might want to wander back off to the garage hoop to try my luck with a few tosses of the ball. By this time, poor Cindy has been indoctrinated into the Future Cheerleader’s Society on her way to becoming Homecoming Queen. And Dennis may have lost his future female bestie just at the age when he may most need her to help guide him through his locker room rage.

     To say the film means well is to admit that all of heteronormative values are there to help you through the difficult times you will surely encounter as a young girl, warning: “ignore these rules, gurl, and you’re likely to be stuck out on the concrete driveway tossing a basketball into the hoop for the rest of your life.” Someday, I hope, Cindy might be able to tell Mary that her party was an absolute bore.

 

Los Angeles, May 24, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (May 2024).

Yevgeni Bauer | Posle smerti (After Death) / 1915

escaping life

by Douglas Messerli

 

Yevgeni Bauer (screenplay, based of Ivan Tugenev's Klara Milich), Yevgeni Bauer (director) Posle smerti (After Death) / 1915

 

In the two years since he had filmed Twilight of a Woman's Soul, Bauer had clearly learned the craft of filmmaking, and expanded on techniques with which he had previously experimented.

     The story once again involves a suffering and isolated being, in this case a retiring young scholar, Andrei Bagrov (Vitold Polonsky), who has clearly been too influenced by his mother, whose grand portrait hangs over his studies. He lives with his doting aunt, whose gentle demonstrations and love he attempts to brush away, focusing on his own studies and, particularly, his photography.


     A colleague of his stops by to invite him out to a social affair thrown by a local Princess. Resistant at first, he finally gives in. Once more Bauer's skill with tracking shots is apparent; but this time the field of depth is far wider as the camera, beginning at a seeming entryway, moves forward, again toward the viewer, further and further, each time expanding our view of the underway event filled with its participants, until you finally think the camera can go no further, despite its continued movement forward. The shot lasts for three long and stunning moments.

     Andrei and his friend arrive, clearly not as well dressed as the others, and the young student is obviously embarrassed by his appearance and lack of comfort with those around him. There is even occasionally laughter from those to whom he is introduced. But one woman, the actress Zoia Kadmina (Vera Karalli) greets him with a deep stare that literally forces him to sit in a nearby chair, while he engages her dark, black eyes.

     A few nights later at a charity soirée he encounters her again, this time observing her performance, and, once again, is stunned by her intensity. A day or so later he receives a letter:

 

                  If you can guess who is writing this, meet me at Petrovski Park at 5:00.

 

     Andrei appears ay the anointed hour, as does Zoia, but looking into his face, she becomes uncertain of his ability to love and, perhaps, aware of his naiveté, running from the spot.

     Three months later, Andrei reads in the newspaper of Zoia's death during a performance; she has poisoned herself!

     Suddenly the film shifts, as the hitherto isolated and imperceptive hero begins to see images of Zoia, sometimes behind or beside him, but most often in his sleep, where she beckons him in a field of wheat to follow. In another dream, Andrei is laying in the wheat, while she gestures to him with the sleeves of her shroud, placing her bodiless arms about his neck. These encounters go on for several days, exhausting Andrei and worrying his aunt, fearful of his behavior and apparent fainting spells.

      Determined to put the girl out of his imagination by dealing with reality, Andrei travels to Kazan to visit her family, where he first speaks with the distraught mother—surprised by and suspicious of his visit—and then Zoia's sister, who reveals that the suicide has been an explicable product of unrequited love. She shows Andrei her sister's diary, and, after he begs to have it, gives up the document and a photograph.


   If he had hoped to end his obsessions with the dead girl, he is now—just as he had behaved previously with the death of his mother—drawn into a morbidly isolated world where the focus of his love is not upon the living but the dead. Like Antonioni's photographer Thomas in Blow-Up, Andrei studies the portrait over and over again, a photograph which his Aunt later discovers hidden beneath his desk blotter.

     The dreams continue, as do the ghost-like appearances throughout his rooms. Demanding that the specter appear and prove that she is Zoia by looking him directly in his eyes, Andrei meets up with the ghost one last time, as she slowly, vaguely looks in his direction.  He collapses on the spot, and, in the next scene, lies dying in bed.

     When his aunt asks him "What is wrong?" he replies "Wrong? I am happy."

    With his aunt on one side the ghost, suddenly, on the other, Andrei slips away from life, in a sense, accomplishing what he has been seeking to do since the very first scenes. He has escaped the world of the living.

 

Los Angeles, October 2, 2011

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2011).

Yevgeni Bauer | Umirayushchii lebed (The Dying Swan) / 1916

drawing death

by Douglas Messerli

 

Zova Barantsevich (screenplay), Yevgeni Bauer (director) Umirayushchii lebed (The Dying Swan) / 1916

 

Like After Death, The Dying Swan is very much caught up in subject of death and dying and carries forward much of the Edgar Allan Poe tone of the earlier film. But here there are also links to Bauer’s Twilight of a Woman's Soul, particularly in the strengths of the female character Gizella, a mute dancer (again played by Vera Karalli).

     In this 1916 film, however, we enter a territory that goes far beyond the mere romantic notions of love and death as seen in Bauer’s earlier works. Here we enter a world were a young handsome misogynist, certainly a queer man if not a homosexual, is attracted to the ballerina for her abilities to portray death. When she discovers happiness, however, his sense of unhappiness demands that he destroy her, becoming one of the first of cinema’s tortured male outsiders who prey on women.


     The film begins rather audaciously with Victor Karosovky (Vitold Polonsky) encountering Gizella on a seaside path. His first statement is almost humorous and signifies his forcefulness: "Have you seen a big dog running past?" It is immediately clear that by 1916 Bauer had begun to understand the benefits of titles, and throughout, he and writer Zova Barantesevich use them effectively.

     Of course, as a mute, Gizella cannot answer, and the handsome intruder runs off, to her tearful regret. Her kindly father (Aleksandr Kheruvimov) comforts her, speaking in a manner that might remind one of Nora Desmond in Sunset Boulevard recalling silent films: "You have your face, which is more than words." The writer might almost be apologizing for the lack of spoken voice in his own silent work.

     Again, Gizella meets the rambunctious young man near the ocean, this time hurting her leg as he suddenly appears near her. But the meeting, now that he knows the cause of her silence, is felicitous this time around, and before long he is meeting with Gizella and her father daily. Again, the writer speaks for the art of silent-film acting, perhaps as a kind of testament for Karalli's memorable performance: "Your eyes are immeasurably greater...." than any voice might be. "Your soul is singing." Love, to apply the cliché, is clearly in "the air."

     But only a few days later, Victor bows out of one of his daily walks with Gizella, while she

surreptitiously observes him with another woman. The painful encounter is played out in visual terms through Victor and his new lover's affair in an open window, while below and to the right cowers the quiet and shy Gizella.

     Devastated by Victor's unfeeling actions, she writes to her father that he should take her away. Bauer lovingly puts this scene before a beautiful bush upon which he has tinted the flowers a lilac color. 

 

    Meanwhile, at the Count Glimskii estate the son, Valeriy—completely dedicated to depicting images of death—is attempting to capture his subject with drawings and paintings of skeletons without much success.

    This young man—with a long, pointed beard (long emblem of the aesthete) and a studio filled with flowers, either a large jug of wine or, more likely a vessel that is part of a hookah, a real skeleton and his depictions of it—all associate him the effete and decadent world of Huysman’s À rebours (1884). Count Valerian Sergeevich Glinskii is seeking “death, real death,” clearly as a creative solution to his own unhappiness, particularly given his rejection by his father.

 


    His anger over his failure is fueled by his father's dismissals: "I am sure it's all trivial." He and his father represent a kind of decadence that explains the later Bolshevik denouncement of Bauer's film.

     As in previous Bauer movies, a family member—this time Valeriy’s father—draws the reticent being into public life. At the ballet, where he is taken, Valeriy discovers, in Gizella's performance, the very vision of death he has been seeking. Visiting her backstage, he demands that she pose for him, and, soon after sends her one of the family crowns. The next day Gizella appears at his estate, he ludicrously strewing flowers before her as she makes her way into his studio. Glinskii is in a near delirious state: "I do not know whether I exist at all or whether I am in a delirium," he admits.

     Her father, however, does not like the Count, a feeling reiterated by an evening storm with lightening and Gizella's dream in which a montage of hands reaches out to grab her. When Valeriy proudly shows his father the results of Gizella's first sitting, the elder dismisses his art: "But it is untalented. It is terrible!"

     Gizella's tour comes to a spectacular end, her original boyfriend, Victor, reading of its success and pleading for an audience with her. Once again, upon the meeting, he momentarily frightens her, but this time he successfully pleads for her to forgive him, and they joyfully plan to marry.

     When Gizella appears at the Glinskii manor for her last sitting, the artist discovers that she has lost her deathly mien: "Where are those sad, exhausted, joyless eyes?"

     Again she poses in the position of the swan's final death, but Valeriy does not even recognize her: "Can this be the same Gizella?"


     He moves toward her, standing over the prostate figure, pausing only momentarily before putting his hands around her throat, strangling her to death. "Do not move. That is where beauty and peace lie."

   Already in this early film, the homosexual—this time features as the aesthete decadent—is a dangerously unhappy being seeking out not only his own death but those of all the female sex with whom he can enter into a fertile relationship.

 

Los Angeles, October 3, 2011

Essays reprinted from World Cinema Review (October 2012).    

Index R-Z

Angelo Raaijmakers I, Adonis / 2021 Peeter Rabane Firebird / 2021   Tyler Rabinowitz Catalina / 2022 Tyler Rabinowitz See You Soon / 20...