By Vadim Rizov
[The 46th New York Film Festival begins September 26th, 2008 and runs through October 12th, 2008. Screening information for The Headless Woman can be found here; screening information for Tony Manero can be found here.]
Thursday was NYFF's day of South American cinema. The morning brought Lucrecia Martel's The Headless Woman, the afternoon Pablo Larrain's Tony Manero. Both are staggering in different ways. Let's start with the harder one. I've never been a fan of Martel—arguably the most prominent Argentinian director this side of the millennium (exactly the kind of description that can drive people crazy, but whatever). Martel is obviously a sophisticated filmmaker, but she alienated me greatly in La Cienaga and The Holy Girl with her shaky-cam—not to be confused with the Michael Mann school of trying to catch gorgeous momentary accidents or the Assayas school of nervous energy, but far more thematically related. Cienaga's camera is part of the humid irritability, The Holy Girl's connected with the film's general interest in touching and not touching bodies, things always being just this close but impossible to connect with. Martel's cinema is fundamentally one of misdirection and missed connections; all of these things make sense, but they set my teeth on edge. This kind of camera is why it took me a good three or four movies to come around on Olivier Assayas. I'm an idiot.
It would appear, to some extent, that Martel's been fucking with me. I doubt I'll see a single more staggering movie, frame-by-frame, than The Headless Woman all year. The camera is nailed-down and the maximalist widescreen compositions are astonishing in every direction—range of color, geometry (both horizontal and in depth), any trait you'd care to pick up on. Description is useless: this deserves large, glossy reproductions in ArtForum or something. The function stays the same: people stare into mirrors that disorient you as to where others are coming from, glass doors get in the way, every visual is an exercise in ambiguity. And Martel doesn't do formalist master shots: she cuts often enough that you're disoriented from one overwhelming frame to the next.
I hated every minute of it.
Martel's interest in misdirection isn't simply following the Antonioni path of alienation and anomie; it's class-based. As in her past two films, Argentina's lower classes (darker-skinned, treated as the most casual of helpmeets and servants) are always present but never seen by the ostensible protagonists. In this case, anti-protagonist being Verónica (María Onetto), the kind of crows-feet middle-aged sexy à la Julie Christie who you sense must have been staggeringly gorgeous in her prime. In a concise opening scene, Martel offers up the last minutes of an afternoon picnic, singling out no one person more than any other: Verónica and mothers chatting, trading gossip and stories, packing the cars, calling the kids back. It's only when Verónica began driving alone that I realized she might be special, that this wasn't just a group portrait. What happens next is strangely inevitable: having established what Verónica's daily adult routine might have been like every day up to now, Martel blows it up. Verónica's phone rings, she foolishly leans over for it on a tricky curve and hits something. Martel holds the shot, a side profile from the passenger seat: the car stops and Verónica's implacable calm changes to the quietest kind of freak-out and meltdown. She steps out, the door stays open, we focus on the empty out-of-focus space, it starts raining, Verónica gets back in and drives away. A shot out the rear window reveals a dead dog. Over and done with? Hardly.
What happens to Verónica over the first half of the film is supremely, utterly irritating: seemingly unable to do anything more than smile enigmatically and avoid questions and requests others unofficially step in to deal with, she's trapped in her own world of guilt and paranoia. What she thinks she's actually done (not revealed til halfway through) is, based on what we've seen, completely impossible, which doesn't make her feel one bit better. Domestics pad around quietly; an obnoxious sister, Josefina (Claudia Cantero), makes occasional appearances, bullying her young daughter. (I think; everything's quite confusing.) Things happen, yet nothing changes.
On the one hand, the film's logic is impenetrable. An example of why I am occasionally a supremely useless viewer: I had no idea, til I was cruising the reviews, that Verónica was suffering from amnesia. I just thought she was being the usual coy festival-movie enigmatic bitch. So that's my fault, though I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes. As for the rest: continuous with Martel's last two films, water is everywhere, flooding the canals, in endless hair-washing, raining down upon the unseen who don't have the luxury of ignoring it. Fair enough; it goes with the dread. But what's with the obsession with hair-washing? That's actually the least puzzling question I could raise, yet the one that most obscurely irritated me. The big question, increasingly, becomes what the hell Martel is playing at. Yet there are basic crudenesses here that make me question whether her ideas are up to her newly dazzling style: no sooner does she run the dog over than her husband brings home a dead deer—only the first of many over-the-top coincidences and echoes that seem designed to pummel Verónica at every turn. There's also my past experience of Martel's work, where I knew exactly what she was doing and still didn't like it. And yet, part of me wonders if I'm not writing her off, the way Ray Carney describes how he hated Cassavetes' work the first time round for not cuing him how to react, then gradually immersing himself and discovering his own inadequacy as a viewer. But that doubt's a very small part of my reaction. See The Headless Woman when Focus Features puts it out (with a bizarre, chunky new font for subtitles to boot), but don't expect an easy ride by any means.
Tony Manero is, barring something exceptional, the strangest, scuzziest film of the year. The only point of comparison I can find that remotely fits is Frownland, just because that's another film heavy on film-grain and a protagonist who offers absolutely no point of entrance. The other thing the two films have in common is a tone where the line between menace and black comedy is never clearly demarcated. One of the weird side-effects of going through the NYFF gauntlet is that the "festival movie" par excellence begins to seem kind of generic; you get used to long, blurry, seemingly non-narrative shots following people down streets, lengthy silences, all the rest of it. For the first 20 minutes, Tony Manero seems to be one of those, and I settled down into a pleasant torpor, wondering if it was going anyplace different. I needn't have wondered.
Tony Manero is actually one Raul Peralto Parades O (Alfredo Castro), a 52-year-old loser in Pinochet's Chile. Raul's only goal in life is to be Tony, John Travolta's character in Saturday Night Fever. Never mind that Raul is hilariously missing the point of the movie—that Travolta's character is a working-class stiff with little to idolize, that disco is an escape rather than a goal to strive toward. Vis-a-vis the all-brown, all-bad landscape he moves through, it's surely vastly preferable. Raul's so single-minded that when people impede his way—a junkyard dealer trying to scalp him for glass tiles for an ersatz-dance-floor, say—he kills them. He's mirroring Travolta's character to an extreme degree.
The point of Tony Manero is a relatively facile one, even though it's the most subtle political indictment in years; it gradually becomes clear that, however sociopathic he may be, Raul's an angel compared to the random round-ups and executions of Pinochet's army. But director Pablo Sorrain sets this up so subtly that it's never troublesome; it's surely a legitimate point, just one well-worn by cliche. What's important is the texture, which could be straight 1978. Grain prevails; everything exists in the same fucked-up analog patina as Manero's well-worn tapes, the subtitled prints playing at the local theater, the dirt and brown of everything, the overall beigeness of the damn film. Overt jokes trade with nervous laughs and provocations so outrageous they stop being offensive and start being pure jaw-droppers. Better to say too little than too much: we're a long way from Costa-Gavras' Missing, and perhaps better off for it.
Incidentally, the shorts committee (whoever these mystery people are) have stepped up big-time from the normally horrendous openers. Tony Manero is preceded by the thematically apposite Love You More, a rare dose of sentimentality from the normally acerbic Patrick Marber (author of Closer et al). If the title's ringing bells, good job fellow Buzzcocks fan; if not, better brush up before you come, because this tiny vignette of a boy and a girl getting together over the single, while pitch-perfect in its period recreation, believable teen awkwardness and horniness, and feel for old-school record-store culture (complete with a perfect B-side joke), is probably completely insufferable if you're not a fan of the song. Directed by Sam Taylor Wood, who presumably one of these days will stop messing about with shorts and music videos and blow everyone away, this is a toss-off from people who can aim higher, and it's delightful.
_______________________________________________
Vadim Rizov is a New York-based freelance writer. His work has appeared in The Village Voice, The Onion AV Club and Paste Magazine, among others.
NYFF 46 (2008): The Headless Woman and Tony Manero
Sunday, September 21, 2008
NYFF 46 (2008): The Headless Woman and Tony Manero
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Glad to see that Idiot Pride shining! Lucrecia Martel is from Argentina, dude. But shucks, all them banana republics tend to get be-jumbled in my brains too.
I kept getting her mixed up with Lucia Puenzo. This is what I get for not fact-checking. Not crazy about the imputation that I'm obv. racist, but I guess I earned it.
Vadim --
Couldn't agree with you more about the Martel film. Impenetrable is the precise word here. I'm all for keeping the audience at a distance, but I can't recall the last time a film made me feel so stupid. Amnesia? How were we meant to glean that one?
So that last comment isn't mine (I tried to post a comment yesterday but I guess it wasn't 'approved'), but the poster didn't 'impute' that you were racist -- not even sure how one would do that, as 'impute' is a synonym for 'attribute'. I think you meant 'implication'.
Furthermore, how would mixing Lucrecia Martel up with Lucia Puenzo explain anything? Lucia Puenzo is also from Argentina.
This article is emblematic of the sort of lazy writing, editing and fact-checking that makes film bloggers easy targets for film critics and scholars.
Cool. So hey, next time you try pumping out 2,000 words every other day without any kind of safety net and your memory messes you up, hopefully you'll fall on the right side of the blog wars.
The errors are mine, and they're stupid. And I take full responsibility for them. At the same time, I think we've all seen dumber, more mendacious errors made.
Just nitpicking, but Focus Features isn't putting this out (could you see ANYONE releasing this?!) They're also a foreign sales agent and are acting as such for this. Wrong business to be in these days esp. with this sorta fare!
Oh. Well. That explains a lot. I didn't know they had that division. Thanks.
To me, the aftermath of Vero's crash was a sort of willful and shameful amnesia, assisted by her family to cover up the records of her accident. There were no records of her being in the hospital or the hotel. It is an allegory, of course. The theme of rain, flood reminded me of Tsai Ming-Liang....natural phenomena as allegory of political crisis. It also makes me think of Hurricane Katrina - how it revealed the underworkings of poverty. The ending of the film is quite haunting - reminds me of Claire Denis's "Beau Travail" and Jacques Nolot's "Porn Theater."
How is she an amnesiac? She's pretty clear about what she think happened...
The obsession with the hair coloring is because both blonde and black are fake. It's allegorical, but incredibly effective--she lives in disguise to the outside world, has no natural sense of self, etc. In homage to Vertigo, which uses the hair color change in the exact same way (except that one is natural; that there is, in that film and not this, a firm reality to finally... hang onto).
Also guys, try "penetrating" your dreams!
I've had my spacey moments--and let me preface this by saying that I really, really love THE HEADLESS WOMAN--but I can't comprehend how you wouldn't have noticed that her mind has gone, or is going, in the film...she is in a CAR ACCIDENT and then submits herself for BRAIN X-RAYS.
That's pretty early in the movie. Like, the first ten minutes.
Your piece does this movie a huge disservice. And I don't get it: if you're having so many brain-farts while watching, and you're (apparently) writing in a frenzied rush, fact-checking be damned, why did you feel the need to spill out 960 words on this distributorless film? Ah, I forgot, it's The House Next Door. Over 10 Billion Words Served Daily.
Allow me to be fully condescending: you need to see it again, chief. You might still hate it, but at least you'll understand what's happening.
A big second to John M. There's impact, a prolonged moment of grogginess, a visit to the hospital, a few close-ups of her touching the bandage on her head, a dozen or so moments in which she is unable to identify people or names she knows... I mean, the point that she is concussed and suffering from a case of minor amnesia is pretty solidly hammered home.
You're right, the film does have some oblique moments -- although they all make perfect sense in retrospect -- but her condition at the beginning of the movie is crystal clear, I think.
Sad to hear this film hasn't yet gotten distribution. It deserves it.
She doesn't have amnesia. Quoth Martel herself:
"When Maria and I were talking about the character, we tried to avoid the idea of amnesia. Because it’s not about amnesia. It’s about when you lose the link between things, and the link between a thing and what it means to you. It’s more of a shock. You know it’s a table, but you’re not sure what the table is for. I know that I know you, and I know that you’re a part of my family, but I don’t know if I hate you or love you."
Find out about all this and more from an insightful interview with Martel on Reverse Shot.
I don't think Martel is saying the character doesn't have amnesia. I think she's saying that in her discussions with the lead actress (which is what the interviewer's question is about), they didn't make amnesia the focus of their conversations. The film is not "about" amnesia, it's about disconnection and de-familiarization ("you lose the link between things, and the link between a thing and what it means to you"). But that doesn't mean amnesia doesn't play a part in the story.
Is this a second post-Greencine-link wave of comments? In any case, I'm glad to know everyone else is as confused as I am (except for those who dig it, I guess). The reason I admitted I wasn't sure what the hell was going on with her mentally was because I talked with a few other respectable viewers who were willing to admit the same. I figured that's fair. Anyway, the muddle of writing is not the same as the non-muddle of viewing; rarely have I had such ideal conditions.
Post a Comment