Rebellious

Imagine

written and directed by Andrzej Jakimowski

Following on an excellent film by Jakimowski I checked out a few of his interviews: in one he says:

“Ian is a rebel. 
 In what he does there is a doze of irresponsibility” 

Right on. Can rebels be responsible anyway? This irresponsible push toward the others, in “Imagine” exemplified by Ian, the push that’s dangerous yet can yield great rewards is the quintessential cinema texture. “Imagine” can be seen as reworking on an episode from “Andrej Rublow”, when the boy talks the group into following him to cast a bell. The action is a success but only afterwards it’s revealed that the boy bluffed his way through the process. He didn’t know. Yet, he knew. The same is with Ian in “Imagine”.

"Imagination has to meander sometimes, has to take risks, 

has to reach out beyond the comfort zone.

Only then a breakthrough is possible. 

That’s what the movie is about."   

“In the movie there are a few disorienting Eva scenes, 

because Ian sometimes provokes Eva to give her courage. 

 That does not mean he creates fiction though. (..) 

He confuses things a bit, but is after the truth. 

 One has to be a visionary. If we don’t have the imagination 

the world remains to us a shapeless mass.” 

Do those who push things forward know the outcome?  Do they know the destination of the journeys they push others to take?  How strong is certainty in the power of conviction?  Where does the innovation come from?  How is any progress possible?  The film does not address these questions openly. It wisely stays within an intimate, personal zone, yet the challenges of advances in understanding (and creating!) the world versus "blind leading the blind" are clearly behind this subtle tale of gaining love and knowledge.  

“What’s good in cinema is outside the frame. 

A movie is good when it triggers imagination. 

This is the rule followed by Hitchcock, 

Chaplin and also the makers of horrors.”

From a formal point of view, Jakimowski is consistent in creating the screen feeling of us versus the unknown external.  What I like in this approach is the negation of the hubristic assumption that we can put the camera and capture "the truth".  We can't.  Yet,  with sensitivity and boldness and rebelliousness we can embark on the search of what's out there.  As a result sometimes we can glimpse into the way things are.  At least some of us.  

Directing as listening

Walesa - man of hope

Screenplay by Janusz Glowacki, directed by Andrzej Wajda

Wajda is a magician when it comes to actors. Nearly everybody stands on his or her head to excel when working for him. Yet, people say he does not really tell actors what to do. Somehow he creates situations where “the talent” has to deliver.

In “Walesa - the man of hope”, while everybody raves about Wieckiewicz becoming Walesa, I was totally mesmerized by Angieszka Grochowska who plays Walensa’s wife. She just is Mrs. Danusia. Not an ounce of playing can be seen there. (Ok, some make up allowance for looking good can be detected, but let’s not be petty. Even such masterpiece (yes!) as “Gravity” has Sandra Bullock parading in a tee-shirt without a drop of sweat after hours of dodging nasty interspace debris, facing exploding space stations and the likes)

The scene with Grochowska being forced to a strip search while returning to Poland with the Nobel for Walesa is particularly moving. She just turn closes the box with the medal so that it does not see the shame. Great touch. I wonder who came up with this.

I listed to Wajda talking about making “Walesa”. Initially Oriana Falacci’s character was to appear in one or two of the scenes. After shooting them Wajda noticed a new layer in Wieckiewicz's performance (more cocky, pompous, self reflective).  And so the entire chain of scenes was born giving the film its structure.  

Wajda watches the material, be it actors or the script development, and molds that which emerges accordingly. As a true leader he follows the people, or rather as a true artist he follows the dynamics that are born out of the material.

What’s the conclusion? Listen to what the collaborators want to give you rather than telling them what to do.   

The Munro shifts

This could be one of the characters from a short story

Runawy written by Alice Munro

It so happens that I consumed “Venus in Fur” the film, and “Runaway” the short story within a few days of each other.  I can’t shake off both.  Both for different reasons. 

Maybe it’s not entirely fair to compare film with literature, but on the other hand why not: if people produce stories for mass consumptions than the consumers have the right to compare products. 

Another reason is that both Polanski and Munro are masters in their respective crafts and as masters are expected to be nimble enough to totally spellbound the viewers/readers.  

Both storytellers play with time as the key element of forwarding the story.  Both also play with shifting the levels of their narrative lasers, if you will.  

In both cases time and attention shifts are significant.  Both withhold the information (“Runaway” - what happens, “Venus” - who’s the girl, what are her motives).  

A good write up about the Munro’s withholding technique is at: 

http://fictioncraft.blogspot.com/2005/12/need-to-know-alice-munros-runaway.html

The film with its narrative tricks tries to dig straight into the psyche.  The story (at least on the surface) tries to uncover the events, and only then, after the events are somehow put together in the readers’ mind, the chilling psychological dimension of the story hits us with full force.   

Munro spreads her diagnosis of who we are and what we do over several layers of reality and in doing so gets the means to juggle them creating the poetic and the profound.  Polanski is confined to the psychology of two people and one space and because of that his attention shifts have to be limited to uncovering their inner layers via  “and then (or “suddenly”) he becomes…”, “she turns into…”.   In Munro’s technique it’s “let me uncover jet another side of it..”, or “while this happens, something far more important influences this event and this something is…”, or “let’s drop this particular way of seeing this event and shift to…”.   I wrote “Polanski” but it’s really for short, since it’s a collaborative effort where the cinematography by Pawel Edelman is really exceptional - I want this lenses that he uses there! - and the deliciously light and intriguing music by Alexandre Desplate captivates from the very beginning.  

In this (yes, I know) risky comparison,  one approach is more effective than the other.  Is it because the psychological “truths” served in both have different weights?  Or do they?  Is it because it’s easier to successfully manipulate more narrative elements rather than less?  Is it because the disciplines are not equal in their sophistication?  

Or perhaps a metaphor will almost always win because it quickly engulfs  our imagination and in a sense does most of the work for us, while the “Venus in fur”-like painstakingly constructed exploration of inner layers of our psyche requires from us more concentration and perhaps more …maturity.

Whatever the reason, it is the “Runaway” that refuses to stop poking into my mind and heart.    

Blindness to the world

Imagine

written and directed by Andrzej Jakimowski

A wonderful film about the power of imagination and its role in our perception of the world. 

After seeing the film I was ecstatic and started looking for some reviews on the net.  Well, by misfortune I stumbled first upon a certain lukewarm review.  A very disappointing read.  Seems like the reviewer did not get anything of value from the film.  In his eyes it was flat and limping, sprinkled with some nice craftsmanship.   My reaction, on the other hand, was enthusiastic.  Who’s right?  Could I read too much into the screen?   Am I too sentimental?  Too unexperienced?  

With a subtle film, and Imagine is one, a think a thick skin reviewer can do a real damage to the perception of artistic work.  So let’s treat reviews with suspicion (says the guy who in a sense is about to give one!) 

Contrary to the lukewarm reviewer, in my take the love affair in the film is a vehicle for the exploration of imagination.  In the narrative, love is important but it is not what the film is about.  A blind man in the film tells others about the world.  He points to them unknown aspects of reality.   He teaches them how “to see.”

The message is somewhere between “fake it till you make it” pop culture approach to life and one of the critical assumptions of Transcendental Idealism in German philosophy.  (Two entries ago I telegraphed the problem of perception in Kant and Fichte in relation to the Siemek project, the documentary currently on my plate.)

Jakimowski, the director of Imagine, studied philosophy so it is safe to assume that he is versed in the role of imagination in constructing the reality.  He for sure knows Kant and Fichte.   But what’s beautiful about his script is that it also plays on normal, non philosophical, levels.  One of them could be also the filmmaking itself.  

Just like some film directors, the blind man in the story is a mixture of chutzpah, insight, lies and techniques that are not always working.  Yet, with the power of his conviction he creates the world, he gives people a way to see the reality.  Is he a fake?  Is the hero of “Imagine” a fake?  Maybe partly he is, or maybe he is just too confident.  But at the end his reading of the reality proves to be true.   And he gets the girl. 

What else is to want. 

Perceptiveness of the past

Stanislaw Elsner-Zaluski as Marek Siemek

Stephan Boden as Friedrich Schiller

from the upcoming documentary

"Department of Historical Necessity"

I just returned from Jena and Bonn where we were shooting scenes for the Marek Siemek documentary. 

The project is going forward despite budgetary hard squeezes.  Still, we managed to orchestrate a meeting between Siemek and Schiller.  Above are the two snapshots from this encounter.  

What seemed significant in directing this meeting was to have Schiller be the one who notices somebody out of his time and space, not the other way around.  As if the past not only influences but  is also able to read and perceive the reality of now. 

Needless to say it isn't going to be a normal documentary flick, although there will be classical elements there as well.

Exhibitionism or hiding in a doc

A poster announcing "Stories We Tell" 

with the discussion afterwards. 

Yesterday at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities (in Warsaw) where I teach filmmaking there was a panel/audience discussion about "Stories We Tell".  I was of the opinion that the director did everything she could to lessen the emotional impact of the story.   In my mind, she did that in order to claim the subject, to project her, purposely unspecified, approach, and in doing so not to go deeper into the story.  I claimed that because Sarah Polley is a fantastic and very competent director (I am enchanted by her techniques in "Take This Waltz") and so I assumed that she was in total command of her emotionally lukewarm narrative choices in "Stories We Tell."

During the discussion questions were raised about her exhibitionism, which to me again, was just clever hiding of something she did not want to explore.  

Documentary craft

Never forget to lie, 

directed by Marian Marzynski

Marzynski is in great form.  It is a pleasure to see him conducing Q&A after the screening of his latest at the Museum of the History of Polish Jews n Warsaw.  At 76 Marz is energetic, sharp and focused.  His way of handling unfocused questions is kind yet decisive.  A total command of the audience.   Quite inspirational.  

A few things jump out when he discusses making documentary films.  His method of opening  people up is to explain to them the limitations of his interest in what they are about to disclose on camera.  When recalling an event they are asked to focus on the very moment of that event and not to bring into their relation any extra knowledge of the people or things that belong to the event. Otherwise “a chase of thoughts” ruins the power of a testimonial.   

Paraphrasing, it is asking them to be as they were when the event was happening.  To forget judgment, comments, information or any knowledge acquired afterwards.  Just to feel.  Feel the past as it is now.  

He also stresses the importance of casting in making a documentary.  Casting meaning selecting the right people who would successfully help to carry the story forward.  An important element in "casting" is of course the ability to establish rapport.  In “Never forget to lie” Marz does it by presenting himself to his “actors” not as a director but a fellow Holocaust survivor.   

When asked about the interplay of narration and images he emphasizes that the images always come first.  A narration only provides that which is not possible to communicate through the images. 

Perception

Hello Siemek friends and colleagues,

I am still struggling to properly articulate a documentary about Marek Siemek.

Would anyone talk to me about the above diagram? 

Is it correct?

Is it too simplistic?  (I know the intellect should come to play there as well)

Do you recall anything from your memories of Siemek that would chime with this model of human perception?

Your feedback (either here or via email - pawel@directing.com) would be greatly appreciated.  

Thanks,

Pawel

Siemek and Velazquez

Professor Marek Siemek treated Las Meninas by Velazquez as a profound philosophical statement.  That's the fact from his lectures about the Fichte's theory of seeing.  During those lectures Siemek analysed the paining in detail.

One day walking through the hallways of the department of philosophy at Warsaw University, startled, he stopped in his tracks:  a contemporary version of the Velazquez composition suddenly appeared in front of him.

That's from the film I am currently producing.

What happened when Siemek entered "the painting"?  

Who will replace the royal couple reflected in the back mirror in the Velazquez's painting?

To find out you need to wait till the movie is finished.

For now there are a few offline (cropped) screenshots from the scene:

     

Prof. Siemek is played by Stanisław Elsner-Załuski

Cinematography by Piotr Rejmer

(We have shot it in 4K and no reframing has been done yet)

Spirited informality

Doña Isabel de Porcel by Goya

Lydia Buaman, a painter friend of mine, in her October newsletter analyzing the above painting pointed out several elements that create the feeling of "spirited informality." Somehow the phrase "spirited informality" stuck in my mind as an important hint in creating screen reality.

Too often cinema narration, composition and framing are uptight and stiff, devoid of much spirit. While it is easy to see the directorial rigidity in space manipulation or editing, it is less obvious on the level of the progression of a story. Another words, hipster fast and nervous energy of film images frequently covers a conservative and banal overall outlook at the events told.

BZW: Lydia often gives talks at the National Gallery in London.  
I highly recommend you seek her out.

Kurosawa notes:

John Ford to Kurosawa:

-You love rain

Kurosawa to Ford:

- You really watched my films. 

Akira Kurosawa to an actress: 

-“Too sharp.  The sharper you play, the less power you got.” 

“Sensei does not have time for accidents.” - that’s from Chris Marker’s commentary in his documentary about Kurosawa. 

Kurosawa “When closing your eyes to evil, you will always be afraid.  Keeping them open you will understand that there is nothing to fear”. 

I wonder if the "closing eyes" insight came before or after Kurosawa's suicide attempt. 

A guest entry by Carl Orr

Below is the text written by Carl Orr, a friend of mine. Carl sent it out "in good fun" and as one of its recipients I asked for the permission to put it here.

I've known and admired Carl's biting pen for a while. In the 80-ies he Americanized my script about an amnesia suffering dragon and "Dragon Charlie" was born. Although this script remains unproduced, it does not want to be forgotten. Could the text below be one of its growls of impatience?

The text is titled "From Russia, With Love and Hisses."

OBAMA BUCKLES. PUTIN CHUCKLES. KERRY BLABBERS. CLINTON SLOBBERS. A BALL THROWN WITH A SPIN WOBBLES. AND A COBBLER COBBLES. GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY PABLUM THAT WE MAY KNOW NOTHING AND THINK NOTHING. AMEN. AND JUST REMEMBER THE COLD WAR DRILL FOR CHILDREN: GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES. PUT YOUR HEAD BETWEEN YOUR LEGS AND KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE. IT'S STILL 1984 IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE. WE HAVE NO SAY. ALL VOTES GO INTO A HOLE WHERE THEY BURN IN HELL. AND THE DEVILS STILL RULE THE EARTH IN THE BODIES OF MEN.THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM ARE FOOLS. WE ARE ALL WILLING SLAVES ON THIS SHIP OF STATE. CHAINED TO THE OARS WHILE THE CAPTAIN GIVES US STEAK FOR BREAKFAST AND WANTS TO WATER SKI AFTER LUNCH. THE LUNATICS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM. PRAY FOR FORGIVENESS. THEY KNOW YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG. YOU'LL GET A BILL IN THE MAIL. NO ONE GETS OUT WITHOUT PAYING A FEE. NO ONE GETS OUT ALIVE. YOUR TAXES HAVE BEEN RAISED. YOUR TAXES ARE OVERDUE. THERE IS A PENALTY. YOU NEED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. SEE YOU IN COURT. A JUDGEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN. THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THAT PROGRAM. WE ALREADY WENT OVER THAT. TIME TO LEAVE. TIME TO SPEND. TIME TO WASTE. WE HAVE THREE MORE YEARS ON THIS ROCK AND IN THIS HOLE AND WHIPPED BLOODY BY NBC,CBS, ABC, PBS, NET, BET, AND ALL THE REST OF THE PROPAGANDA DEVICES PUT IN PLACE TO DRILL HOLES IN YOUR STORY AND PLANT CLUES TO THE LAST SUPPER AND THE LAST MEAL AND THE LAST CRUMB. AND I'M NOT TALKING ROBERT THE COMIC STRIP ARTIST. WE ARE CONTROLLED BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, BY HOMELAND SECURITY, THE CIA, THE FBI, BARF, CDC, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, INTERIOR, COMMERCE, AND OF COURSE THE EPA. GET ON YOUR KNEES AND SAY AFTER ME. HAVE A NICE DAY. HAVE A HOT DOG. JOIN PAY GIVE ACCEPT AND BE A GOOD BOY/GIRL OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT IF YOU SURVIVE YOU NEED HEALTH CARE. AND IF ALL ELSE FAILS A NEW PAIR OF SOCKS. CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF WHEN DONE. THIS IS NOT BURGER KING, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT YOUR WAY. WASH YOUR OWN BOWL. NO SWIMMING. NO FISHING. NO THIS AND NOT THAT. AMERICA HOME OF THE FREE LUNCH AND FOOD STAMPS. GOD BLESS ALL THE DEAD PRESIDENTS. GOD BLESS AMERIKA. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. DON'T YOU WISH WE WERE ALL REALLY SOMETHING OTHER THAN FREE? WHAT A CROCK. THIS RANT INCLUDED. THINK YOUR OWN THOUGHTS. IF YOU CAN WEED OUT WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO 'BELIEVE' AND TAUGHT TO 'DO'. AIN'T IT A SHAME? ALL DRESSED UP AND NO PLACE TO GO. HOW MANY FEET HAVE BEEN ON THE MOON? IT'S A TRICK QUESTION. WHEN YOU EXIT PLEASE WATCH YOUR STEP. NO TALKING TO THE DRIVER. NO EATING. NO DRINKS. NO SMOKING. NO PARKING. NO LOITERING. NO JAKE BRAKES. NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVEE. I AM FOR THIS AND AGAINST THAT. I HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE AND DONE SOME OF MOST OF IT AND INTEND TO GO BACK AND SEE, EAT, RIDE, THE REST. NO ENTRY. NO EXIT. NO SHIT. HAVE A NICE DAY. HAVE A BLESSED DAY. HAVE ANY FUCKING KIND OF DAY YOU WANT. HAVE AT IT. HAVE ANOTHER. GO FOR BROKE. GO TO HELL. GO OUT WITH A BANG. TAKE IT TO THE BANK. TAKE IT OUTSIDE. TAKE ONE. TAKE TWO. WANT OUT OR WANT IN? WHICH ONE WERE YOU? POINT. I SEE WHERE YOU WERE. TAKE NOTHING BUT PICTURES AND LEAVE NOTHING BUT FOOTPRINTS. A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK. ONE OF MANY. OF A KIND. ONE DAY. ONCE UPON A TIME. LIVE ONCE DIE TWICE. JUST LIKE YOUR MOTHER/FATHER. JUST ANOTHER DAY IN HELL. JUST ANOTHER DAY IN PARADISE. JUST DO IT. JUSTICE FOR ALL. NO JUSTICE NO ICE CREAM. NO JUSTICE NO NOISE. PLEASE DON'T FEED THE BEARS. THIS IS THE END.

by Carl Orr

Documenting congresses

Shooting an interview in Krakow. 

While attending the 19th Jubilee International Congress of Aesthetics
(Berlin 1913 – Krakow 2013) I also produced a short video describing the event.  It is available on their website. 

The production accompanied the process of gathering material for another project currently in production.  This time I had several cameras working simultaneously and got a lot of "behind the scenes" shots which reveal interesting dynamics between the people who articulate philosophical ideas and those who attempt to capture them (the ideas and their carriers, that is) into images.  This theme elbows itself into my current interests and will be reported on later. 

After over a decade of making philosophical conference videos I got somehow addicted to the process.  I enjoy meeting fabulous minds and exciting personalities.  The Krakow conference video, while attempting to be a "corporate" piece, in its selection of the people on the screen, reflects my personal likes, although with such a huge event it was impossible to include everybody whom I found intriguing. Nothing lost, however, my philosophical image library is growing!  

The living blackness

My Mom watches Rothko

I’ve just read an amazing interview with the daughter on Mark Rothko. 

Everybody remembers him being nervous and going on and on about philosophy and art, to her he was always silent and contemplating his art, almost hypnotized by it.  Or to be precise, she specifies, when he didn’t know yet what to do he was indeed laud and analytic and opinionated.  Once he got into his true groove he became silent and concentrated.  That’s a very telling story: beware of the talkers.  

Rotho called his works “tragic”, although he never spoke with his daughter about the Shoah.  

The most important for him in a painting were strong emotions evoked in a viewer.    

The fact that he killed himself is devastating.  

The pleasures of restrain

Man in Black 3

Last night I caught on HBO Men in Black 3 and loved it.  Pity I didn’t see it on a big screen.   There are many strong elements there out of which the performances stand out the most.  Everybody hits the same tone of restrained pleasure from acting.  Even the evil Boris delivers “You complete me” with the full relish of the knowledge of its cultural origin.  The same goes for everybody else - they know what they are doing and are having fun doing it.  Thank god it’s controlled and not over the top.   I should scrap the last sentence - the actors on the screen are the masters in their game and the director is in top form so the fact that the movie works should not be a surprise.  Except that the perfect pitch does not happen in all movies with big names, not to mention the cacophony of false notes in (too) many screen attempts regardless of the class of actors/directors involved.  

The playfulness is imbedded in in the story itself.  Andy Warhol’s true identity, or an alien confused by too much insight into “the way things are” are delightful concepts. 

I am a sucker for stories with aliens and it’s usually difficult to unglue me from a flick with them.  Time travel on the other hand (with the exception of “Back to the future”) most of the time (!) leaves me cold. I find boring the mechanical aspects of narratives that have to be employed in such scripts.  Yet, MIB 3 manages to surf with ease the dangerous waters of “I have to go back to fix what causes the misfortunes in the now”.  

Can’t wait for the next installment in the franchise. 

Directing philosophy

Pawel Kuczynski and Richard Shusterman 

on the set of "The Pragmatist."  

Photography by Piotr Rejmer

Below is the press release for an upcoming premiere screening of my new project.  The screening will take place in Krakow at the Contemporary Art Gallery Bunkier Sztuki on July 25th at 5 PM. 

Delos Films presents:

“Philosophical Encounters with Richard Shusterman”

This three-part video series paints an intellectual portrait of a noted philosopher and founder of the interdisciplinary field of somaesthetics, a project concerned with body consciousness, perception, and aesthetic stylization.  The video material is based on conversations recorded at and around Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Shusterman’s current academic home.  Additional scenes present his international lectures and workshops with an emphasis on three recent visits to Poland.  

This video series is intended as an educational tool but it is also a preparatory work for a more personal documentary - “The Pragmatist,” currently in the works.

The Krakow screening will consist of the first two parts in the series:  “The Role of a Philosopher” (27 min.) and “Making a Difference” (30 min.)

Dr. Shusterman will be present at the screening and available for a Q&A. 

The series and the upcoming documentary are directed by Pawel Kuczynski, a Polish-American filmmaker whose recent productions focus on philosophy and art.  He will also be at the screening. 

Richard Shusterman’s web site: http://www.fau.edu/humanitieschair
Pawel Kuczynski’s web site: www.directing.com

The meeting

It turns out that a modest project which I produced as a byproduct of “Lawnswood Gardens” found its way to the independent existence.  This Sunday in Wroclaw, Poland there will be a public meeting between two giants of Polish culture: the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman and the sculptor Miroslaw Balka.  Both are the subject of “The meeting”, the video I made three years ago with the aim to describe the starting dynamics of an encounter between the two creators.  The idea was to explore complexities of any intellectual encounter and in particular those that happen between the two specific intellectuals who are intrigued be their respective takes on reality.  

This video will have its premiere during the Wroclaw event, which is to promote the Bauman/Balka book - a collection of their conversations.   I made “The Meeting” for National Center for Culture which organizes the event and is also the book publisher. 

I am glad “The meeting”, conceived as a sketch has been considered worthy a public presentation.   If anyone is going to attend, please let me how it went. 

The event details are at http://www.nck.pl/artykuly/100840.html

Unique?

An advice from the great Paul Schrader (I am reading one of those screenwriting books that compile wisdom from Hollywood insiders) is not to compete with what’s out there but rather to ask “what do I have that no one else has, but other people can understand and identify with?”  If you ask that question you will be only in competition with yourself. 

Great advice but difficult to execute.  Going into our own lives and psyche requires some mysterious mechanism to be able identify what’s unique in us.   That mysterious mechanism, usually called talent, does not automatically appear when we gaze inward.  In fact it is quite rare.  Obviously. 

The key element in Schrader’s thought is knowing what’s unusual in us but this perspective to many of us is simply unachievable.  Many a time when reading scripts by beginners I wished they did not stick so closely to their lives.   I know what I am talking about: several of my early writing attempts also painfully suffered from being too close to home.  (I am not saying that what I write now is great, it is just devoid of the early pitfalls - I am sure from a broader perspective the stuff I work on right now will reveal its flaws).   

Usually we slide on the surface of our existence perceiving common events as unique (they are unique to us since they have not happened to us before) and erroneously assume others will find the externality of those events interesting.  Very few can go deep enough to write about motives and reactions and sensitivities that others would be too blind to notice or too scary to acknowledge. 

Why are we so deaf to ourselves?

SIEMEK - Truth on screen

Prof. Jean Pierre Lasota-Hirszowicz
in a documentary about Marek Siemek
“The View from a Cathedral”

According to Marek Siemek, prof. Jean-Pierre Lasota-Hirszowicz (an astrophysicist specializing in black holes) was not only his best high school friend but also was intimately connected with Siemek choosing philosophy over physics.

You will have to wait till the film comes out to hear how prof. Lasota remembers “the Siemek’s choice”. Within the context of the narrative it will be revealing and quite shocking.

For now however I want to share a snippet from the shoot. It has to do with a remark made by the Professor when I suggested he enters a classroom with the camera ready to catch his natural reaction.

“ok, but it always seemed to me
that a natural way (“naturalność”)
does not come out well (on the screen),
that everything has to be set up first.”

This is an astonishing observation (at least for a "fly on the wall" filmmaker focused on chasing and catching happy accidents and in this way getting unfiltered “truth” of the moment).

I suspect that the people who deal with the Universe and the Way Things Work must know something that we “the civilians” don’t not only about the dimensions above us by also about life itself.  That the bigger and more grand perspective somehow sharpens their perception and understanding of not only the cosmos but also of the life on Earth. This is one of the reasons why the remark stopped me in my tracks.  (The Professor rejects my way of seeing his profession as needless romanticizing of his trade.  Of course he is right.)

Still, the offhand observation brought me back to muse over the old documentary dilemma of “the natural” versus “the prepared way”.     I am leaning to conclude that quite possibly the difference between preparations versus catching the stuff as it happens lies in the self understanding of those who appear in front of the camera. Clearly some need to be prepared more to come out naturally, while others are better when caught in the act.

Perhaps those who have issues with themselves, who are existentially unsure, have to be “caught in the act of being” without realizing it. Once they are made aware of the camera they start presenting their take of themselves, they try acting and since they don’t know who they are they instantaneously flex their “psychic” muscle trying to prove something. A disaster usually follows.

Those who are secure in themselves, who down deep know their boundaries, their self and their worth are usually game for whatever happens and come out naturally. Preparations and rehearsals don’t freeze them because they know who they are and remain themselves no matter what.

SIEMEK - Philosophical coincidences

prof. emeritus Bronislaw Baczko, University of Geneva, 

previously Warsaw University
(Marek Siemek considered  Baczko his Teacher and Master) 

For the last year of so I have been working on a documentary about prof. Marek Siemek (1942-2011).  The film, with the working title "The Department of Historical Necessity", is half way through shooting.  In order to seek additional support (thanks to the institution and individuals who have already helped) I will share some of the aspects of the process on this blog.  Gathering the material I have been privileged to meet and talk with many amazing scholars and friends of Siemek. To start with I’ll try to signal their upcoming presence in the film.   

--------------------------------------------------------

A seasoned and perceptive Teacher sees an eager and brilliant Student.  

What does the Teacher know about the future of the Student who badly wants to write his MFA thesis about Hegel?

He knows nothing, aside perhaps from some psychological intuition that belongs to wise men, you say.  OK.  

The Teacher gently steers the Student to write about Fichte instead. 

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) was emotional and passionate.  It killed him.  Which is just a footnote in the history of philosophy.  Or is it?

The Teacher explains to the Student  that “Fiche is simpler and more manageable, later you can approach such a vast subject like Hegel.”

The Student agrees.   The argument is solid.  

The Teacher, recalling this conversation focuses on the common sense aspect of their joined decision.  It’s all logical, emphatic, proper.  

Times passes.  Actually a lifetime does.  

The Student dies too early but lives long enough to imprint his mark on the world.  He turns out to be brilliant, accomplished, nurturing his environment.  In this respect very much following the footsteps of his (beloved) Teacher.  

The Student’s legacy reveals his great oratorial talent, like Fichte.  It also reveals him being painfully misunderstood by his contemporaries, again like Fichte.   And suffering from right wing zealots, which matches the Fichte’s story as well.  

According to some, the Student died because he miscalculated human reactions, because his impulses did not take under account the brutal jealousy of his opponents.  That to a large degree matched a certain drama in Fichte’s life.   

How much of that could be known to the Teacher when he was suggesting Fichte?

None, you say.   

And on a certain level you are right.  

However......

Obstacles

"I give it a year"

Since the flick is about the undoing of wrong choices within a time limit and essentially about the futility of a mismatched (marriage or a film?) it should be named “I give it two hours”.  But let’s not kick those who have fallen. “I give it a year” is amazingly lame and borderline painful to watch but there is one scene there that makes up for the discomfort of dealing with misguided intentions.  

At certain point the unspoken yearnings of the two of four main characters are cleverly challenged. He tries to express them staging an over the top romantic setting, she fights her attraction toward him.

Deliciously and slightly absurdly pigeons get in the way. Things are beginning to happen not only in the psychological but also in the physical sphere.  The mounting of these physical obstacles helps to go for laughs. The entire story lifts itself high, if only for one scene. 

Like never enough RAM in a computer, so never enough obstacles in a comedy.

Waterboarding: during or after?

Comparing the opening scene from “The Battle of Algiers” with the coercive interrogation scenes from ‘Zero Dark Thirty” one may wonder what’s the most effective in terms of inducing in the audience the true psychological complexity of such a situation.  

Pontecorvo most likely thought that presenting the torment after the fact gives more emotional layers to its representation.  In his scene we feel the tragic consciousness not only within the destroyed confessor but also witness ambiguity within the torturers.  

The Bigelow film on the other hand focuses on the battle of wills.  Even if initially the dread of the situation gets some reactions from the young and ambitious Mia, we mostly experience the scene through its emotional core, which is “yes, it’s extremely brutal but how will it end?”.  

Pontecorvo asks a different question: how can humans live with the brutality of their interactions?

And more broadly: are we able to get the emotional depth of events while they last?  Isn’t their completion the necessary step to reveal to us what they mean?  

What kind of narrators do we want to be: those who participate in the events told or those who try to understand the content of our tales?  Could be the question of temperament.   Or it could also be one of the necessary elements of a true talent: to see the true meaning in the story as it unfolds itself while we spin the tale.  

The edge

"Zero Dark Thirty" 

written by Mark Boal, directed by Katherine Bigelow

Among many ideas that “Zero Dark Thirty” plants in our minds some that jump out are: the personal conviction matters the most, intuition is often more important than experience, the hungriest one is many times the most successful, individuality is the primary force or progress, hunches make or break effectiveness of our actions 

Most of the above is disputed or flatly denied by some pros from the counter terrorism field yet the power of this film flies the ideas convincingly high.  The deniers want us to believe that romanticizing things is the Hollywood fluff and reality is different, more pedestrian and mundane.  Perhaps, perhaps.   

In the film everybody wants more, but those who want more more are the true winners.  Even the Seals study Tony Robbins!  

Mark Boal reveals this relentless pursuit of the edge in many ways.  One, particularly impressive is a short elevator exchange (its power undoubtedly comes also from the amazing screen presence of James Gandolfini playing the Director)

CIA DIRECTOR

They’re all cowed.  What do you think of the girl?

JEREMY

I think she’s fucking smart

CIA DIRECTOR

We’re all smart, Jeremy.

Unscripted expands a scene

The Men Who Wasn't there

by the Cohen Brothers

Early on in “The Man Who Wasn’t There” script there is a scene with Doris and Ed “entertaining” Dave and his wife Ann (the picture above).  After the set up it continues in the following way: 

DAVE 

Japs had us pinned down in Buna for something like six weeks. Well, I gotta tell ya, I thought *we* had it tough, but, Jesus, we had supply. *They* were eating grubs, nuts, thistles. When we finally up and bust off the beach we found Arnie Bragg, kid missing on recon; the Japs had *eaten* the sonofabitch, if you'll pardon the, uh... And this was a scrawny, pimply kid too, nothin' to write home about. I mean, I never would've, ya know, so what do I say, honey? When I don't like dinner, what do I say?

Ann smiles wanly.

DAVE 

...I say, Jesus, honey, Arnie 

Bragg--*again*?! 

He roars with laughter.

Ed gives an acknowledging smile.

DAVE 

...Arnie Bragg--*again*?!

He dries his eyes with the corner of a napkin.

In the film, as directed, it is Doris’ scene.  On the screen it is her who with laud laughter approvingly comments Dave’s jokes.  There is no question she is for him.  In this moment and most likely in every other way possible. Clearly they must be lovers.  Moreover through her reactions (and the way they are framed, shot and timed of course) the scene becomes the Doris’s scene. 

It is a great example how the unscripted reaction can significantly expand a scene. 

Barbers

The Man Who Wasn't There, 

by the Coen Brothers. 

By some strange turn of events I saw that truly brilliant film only a few nights ago.   As  a clever allegory for modernity and the storytelling itself it made a huge impression on me:

  

The elegy for a broken civilization 

camouflaged in a stylish and fancy package.  

Inertia.  It comes from laziness.  

The man who wasn't there.  

Many men weren’t there. 

Many aren’t.

Many won’t.   

All of them absent. 

Broken.  

Withdrawn.

If they are not weak, they are fools.  

If they are specially gifted, they are very rare and almost freaks. 

Everything hurts with its lack of satisfaction, 

passion and fulfillment. 

The only fleeting moment of relief 

is delivered by a long dead music genius 

or a fresh young girl unaware of brutal future 

waiting for everyone.  

The future that the barber already knows. 

The future of loss, laziness, fear and paralysis. 

UFOs and their pathetic attempts to make sense.

Please!

How idiotic.  Or could it be true?

All brainwashed.  Alcohol.  Booze.   Daily drudgery.    

“Throughout all that 

we cut the hair”. 

Futility.   Despair.  

“There is not “what happened”.  Looking at something changes it.”  The Heisenberg Principle in life.

“Science, perception, reality, doubt.  Reasonable doubt.  The more you look, the less you really know.  

That’s a fact.  The only fact that is.”  

Freddie delivers the big speech.  As if an Alien bathed in light.  

Could that mean that all (true) answers are absurd?  Not from this world?

“The more we know the less we know.”

The style tries to catch up with the story and by design fails to do so.  

It happens that way because the film is also about the inability

to contain the truth within a genre.  

The Heisenberg Principle in storytelling.  

The characters as the prisoners of style.  

Ed is seemingly cool.  

In reality he is miserable and scared shitless.  

He wants out of his style.  That’s why he extends himself toward Birdy. 

But Ed Crane can’t escape to be a barber.  

When he waits for Birdy to finish her audition 

he does not see young boys waiting against the opposite wall.  

He only sees their hairdos.  

Then he learns that the girl does not have a soul to be a pianist.  

Does he have a soul?

Just before he is executed his perception is again only that of a barber. 

(Even though earlier he saw a UFO!)

Just like a filmmaker, he can’t escape his tools. 

A man who finally learns to accept 

that his identity is his job.  

That’s the best he can do.  

Ironic.  

Sad. 

Modern.