The dadaistic version of “Oedipus Rex”: “Funeral Parade of Roses” (1969)

This film will essentially throw you back to the age of hippy, fluxus and postwar art era, the late 60’s. Art and self-expression were a counterattack by disappointed society and the intelligentsia on the wasted age of WWII and its aftermath. “Funeral Parade of Roses” is that kind of time travel and somewhat a documentary of Tokyo’s gay counterculture. This gold piece of Japanese New Wave embodies the aesthetics and sexuality of postwar Japan in late 1960s.

vlcsnap-2017-01-17-23h13m50s935

While being largely ignored in the West back in 70s and to this day, the time has proven “Funeral Parade of Roses” to be an important piece of cinema history. Casting non-professional actors, funding received from Art Theater Guild, clashing different genres in one, Toshio Matsumoto really made this film see daylight and be adored. While I have found some reviews written in West in 1970s, that were not pleased with the film, it is possible to logically explain why; a great part of the cinema at that time was little invested in the experiments and liberal expression of thought, so to some it seemed like a psychotic gibberish. However, at this time, with art moving towards liberation and freedom of expression, we can understand why “Funeral Parade of Roses” has secured a position within Japanese cinema history.

Toshio Matsumoto defined very important change in the way we perceive the reality through films. He claimed that the the documentaries are too conventional and possibly will never live through their time, because they are too focused on observing their subjects from the outside and not analyzing their inner world enough. He was confident that merging surrealism with documentary, a film maker will be able to tell not only the events that are visible to the eye, but the also the psyche. Using avant-garde elements, it is possible for a film maker to dig deeper into their protagonist mind and tell of it visually; as our mind is not always one logical sequence of thoughts, but we too can be frustrated, overwhelmed with joy or anger, depressed and paranoid, therefore, the experimental and unconventional visualization of it will make the viewer understand more of what is going on in the hearts of the protagonists.

vlcsnap-2017-01-19-13h56m14s877

Eddie (played by Peter), the protagonist of the film, was a complex character; a popular drag queen in one of Shinjuku’s gay clubs, she plots against the main hostess Leda to become a hostess herself together with her lover Gonda, the owner of the club. Eddie is frail and suffers from constant flashbacks of her traumatic past – the murder of her mother and father not being present in her life at all, with even the pictures of his face burned out. In this film, the Oedipus’ father is the deceased mother, constantly appearing in Eddie’s visions, making her fall unconscious or have a mental breakdown. Eddie’s neurotic fits and her internal despair is depicted with the avant-garde elements, that Matsumoto emphasizes to be important in his writings on documentaries, giving the film unique touch and aesthetic direction to go by.

Horrible and tragic fate of Oedipus plays out when Leda kills herself in despair. She did not succeed in making Gonda turn to her and in the end, he still chose Eddie. She cursed the couple for making her pathetic and unhappy, and her curses combined with the grudge of deceased mother, which eventually led the sequence of events turn to Gonda learning the truth that his mesmerizing lover is actually his son. He kills himself, while Eddie stabs her eyes.

vlcsnap-2017-01-19-13h55m28s967

The film does follow a plot line, however, it employs fragments of flashbacks, random scenes, comic relief, events and even characters, and, therefore, becomes a puzzle, somewhat a mosaic. Matsumoto includes “real-life” interviews from his cast and merges this “reality” with fiction into neo-documentary. No doubt Matsumoto put a lot of thought and effort, but he seemed to gamble a lot, since the movie seems experimental, maybe even frustrating for some. However, when you finish watching it, you get a satisfying feeling, that everything in the end makes sense and there is no need to question every random shot, which is why “Funeral Parade of Roses” seems like a remarkable masterpiece.

Amidst pivotal changes in Japan’s political climate, LGBT community was also to find their place within the history and define their sexuality through art, entertainment and activism. Toshio Matsumoto played his part in documenting some of the culture through the lens of avant-garde and fluxus while employing the story of Oedipus Rex. Neo-documentary (or neo-realism) might be a confusing concept for some, but it definitely gives a glimpse of 1960s mentality.

 

Advertisements

Imagine a planet, a vacuum space where all your deepest wishes, desires and even curses can become reality. This is what happened to the astronaut crew of mission “Solaris”.

vlcsnap-2016-11-04-12h20m40s761.png

vlcsnap-2016-11-04-12h21m26s970

Fabula

The film focuses on crew heading to unknown space material called Solaris, in which couple of scientists went missing. After the mysterious mass material shows a movement, Kris Kelvin (played by Donatas Banionis) sets out to investigate the mystery. He succeeds to reach the spaceship and joins the crew of two other scientists (played by Yuri Jarvet and Anatoly Solonitsin). Kris is faced by coldness and unwelcoming crew members, who appear to be hiding something from him. His suspicion grows as he starts seeing unidentified people around the spaceship; it appears that the spaceship is hijacked by some kind of supernatural presence. All becomes even more confusing, when his own wife, who died long time ago, approaches him. Kelvin sends her back to earth by a rocket, however, she keeps on reappearing. The crew draws a conclusion that this is all done by the power of Solaris. First reluctant, Kelvin finally accepts Khari’s company and defends her in desperate and delusional way when his fellow crew members try to dispose of her. She decides to commit suicide, but comes alive once again, until she mysteriously disappears while leaving a goodbye note. Film ends with Kelvin rhetorically returning to his father kneeling down on the ground with regret. At first it appears he returned to his hometown, but as camera moves further away, it appears that it is not the earth we are aware of, but an island in big waters; the sea of Solaris. Therefore, this work poses two questions – did Kelvin really return to the Earth or has he stayed in Solaris? Where does his heart want to stay?

Art

Film critics usually align “Solaris” with “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) by Stanley Kubrick and I think that in the visual and art department they come in tandem. While Kubrick’s movie employed more drastic colour tones and visuals, Tarkovsky used pastels, the emotions of his characters are developed gradually, showing the desperation and frustration of Kelvin. I do have to agree that both of the movies visually are stunning and barely it is possible to surpass them taking into account that they both were directed in roughly the beginning of 1970’s.

What I like is the way Tarkovsky portrayed the mood in this film. “Solaris” itself is a little melancholic, but it is not like that throughout the film. Director lets the audience put themselves at ease by giving hope, showing the affection between Khari and Kris. For these kind of moment he used bright colours and what is noticeable, that there is barely any sountrack at all; giving the viewer sense of the silence and tranquility of space. Meanwhile, sad, desperate and metaphysical moments are depicted in daunting mood, cold colours (like Khari’s suicide attempt). All characters seem to hold something secret, there is a continuous riddle going around them. Kris seems somehow trapped in this puzzle, trying to find out the reason behind all unknown things that are happening in the spaceship while creating a lonely, horrifying feeling to the audience. The artistic elements used to depict this kind of atmosphere were used, in my humble opinion, spectacularly well; not too much, not too less. Another thing that the viewers might enjoy is that there is a bold contrast between the Earth and Solaris; Solaris is unknown, different and mortifying. The Earth in this film is bright, familiar, nostalgic – we can relate to the feelings of the protagonist. “For I was at that moment very happy to find myself living on Earth” that is how Akira Kurosawa felt after screening of this film. Kris’s farewell to home before embarking to claustrophobic and lonely space journey makes you feel homesick too. This relationship with “home” imagery that Tarkovsky established is something that disbalances the emotions and frightens the audience.

Genuinely, I find “Solaris” one of those films, where you search for the meaning yourself and do not question the directors intentions. At least, that is how I was willing to enjoy it. “Solaris” embodies one of the finest pleasures in sci-fi (absolutely not tacky and tasteless!). Indulging with futurism enough, but not making it the main focus; leaving a lot of space for the development of characters, mood and story. The planet (or the matter) Solaris seems to be the space, which discloses the most sensitive feelings of the person’s heart, making them vulnerable and helpless in front of their bare desires, which is not alien to Tarkovsky: similar background is visible in “Stalker” (1979). This is an amazing approach to the depths of human’s soul – employing mystery and a certain surreal story; in this way director does not bore his audience and avoids cliché.

Conclusion

Humanity has got a long and wishful urge to discover the undiscovered, to advance to space and look back to earth from a different view. This has been reflected in cinema for many occasions starting with “A Trip to the Moon” (1902) by Georges Méliès to this date with multiple blockbusters with enormous budget like “Star Wars” saga. However, Tarkovsky’s “Solaris” by far is one of the most sensitive and realistic depictions of human’s experience in lonely undiscovered place. People long for discoveries, but are they ready to face their own feelings and reality when they are all alone, far away from home?

More:

This amazing encounter of Akira Kurosawa and Andrei Tarkovsky on set of “Solaris”:

Akira Kurosawa on watching ‘Solaris’ with Andrei Tarkovsky

“This film is dedicated to those whose sole source of indignation is a messed-up trifle”

tumblr_mojpcauUWo1r0avego1_500

tumblr_lxevf5PL2g1qeevovo1_500

I have long decided that my first film review entry is going to be the anarchistic and rebellious “Daisies” (Sedmikrasky) (1966) by Czech film maker Vera Chytilova. I am not exactly sure why I chose this one, but it does reflect a lot of my very own thoughts and self.

It is probably not only opinion of mine, but many others that, historical facts are quite useful, because films reflect their times when they were created – what was crucial to society at that time. “Dasies” did not see the daylight until 1967 due to Soviet censorship in Czechoslovakia as it was regarded as highly inappropriate for the excessive misbehaviour of the main film characters.

Movie begins with scenery of war, bombings and heavy industry. Chytilova reflects her country’s difficult political stand, the Soviet occupation. “Daisies” was the manifest movement of Chytilova against politics and unfair treatment of Czechoslovakia. Anarchy is not ending in there, though. In the film centre: two young and bold female characters (judging by looks in their 20s) of the generation born during WWII. Youth that lost their childhood of freedom and peace, without knowing what they can do in a goddamned country as Soviet Union. As this was a reality for everyone born and raised during post-war period, “Daisies” is showing the response of youth against the rigid government regulations and society that has been oppressed.

“Daisies” speak for not only political issues, but for the female figure in cinema generally. The boldness, mischief and disobedience of the main female characters is something rarely seen in cinema. Marie I and Marie II are girls who are expected to get married, settle down and have children, having in mind the mentality of the society back then, but they are not interested in contributing to society as reproductive elements of it. The male gaze in this film is completely washed out by their behaviour. Girls speak a guy around his 40s, later one in his 70s, into having a dinner, however it turns out, that they were not interested in them at all, just free food. There is a scene of the girls reading through their bedroom walls covered in names of men that they supposedly met before, however none of them were allowed to stay. Their real objective is attention, however, not the male one – they want the attention, the recognition of society. The youth wants to be seen, not forgotten or ignored, they wish to stand out for the depressed adults and community which has left no space for their individuality and freedom.

The film contains several ways of lightning – colouring is being changed throughout the film, varying from black&white to coloured, dark and cold, vivid and bright colours. It also has scenes with surrealistic moments, which is usual for independent or experimental cinema. Speaking of the plot, some people might see “Daisies” developed quite randomly or storyline being bit shaky and leading nowhere, but this is where they need to relax about it. Film happened not to be random at all, but rather playful in terms of viewers’ perspective. The use of symbols in this movie is not random either. You can see visuals of flowers, especially in the girls’ room or one of the characters wearing a flower crown as a reminder of one’s innocent and not wasted existence.

To conclude my narrow observations of this film, I would judge it as one of the “must-see” for those, who are prepared for a mental journey, but do not want a too much demanding one and are rather interested in historical context of it.