#129
Post
by Tommaso » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:44 am
Forgive the length and somewhat rambling and unfocussed character of this post, but somehow it's hard to come to terms with both these films in a brief way....
I watched "Sweet Movie" yesterday for the first time (incidentally, it was the 50th anniversary of the death of Wilhelm Reich), and must say that I'm surprised how much I liked it after all the things that had been said here and elsewhere (in good or bad). This is certainly a daring film, but as with "WR" (which I watched some weeks ago), the provocation is not for its own sake, and it surprises me how many reviewers even today seem to be shocked by it. Sure, the Commune sequence is somewhat tough stuff, but not more so than anything in Greenaway's "Cook", for example, and certainly far less than "Salo". The wild caricature of the industrialist and the sheer over-the-top character of his 'household' (his mother and the muscleman) also reminded me of Jarman's "Jubilee" in places, a film that to my surprise also is rather controversially discussed here.
What seems to me is underrated in the discussions of both "WR" and "Sweet Movie" is the sheer lyricism of both these films. The scene where Anna Planeta seduces the children is played wonderfully warm and is enchantingly 'sensual' (as opposed to the more 'sexual' quality of other parts), and VERY, VERY beautifully filmed. Here as with the whole film I thought everything about it is symbolic, perhaps even too overtly so. Anna, representing 'The Revolution', killing 'her children'. No hope, it seems, from this side, and also not – of course – from the western, capitalist world. In this respect a rather daring point of view for a film from the early 70s, and this individualism, this refusal of Makavejev to place his hope on either of the political systems – but instead radically deconstructing both – results in a quality of melancholy that pervades "Sweet Movie" even more than "WR". Still, the 'resurrection' of the dead children at the very end was an unexpected moment of 'hope'.
I'm not sure whether the Muehl Comune was seen by him as a possible third way at the time he made the film; it seems that he had at least some sympathetic 'understanding' at what they were aiming at, judging from what he says in the Cowie interview. But at least watching this now (with a mixture of disgust and amusement), it certainly seems to be another misguided hope. I'm only surprised that the Muehl commune apparently referred to Reich as their main point of inspiration. I guess poor Wilhelm (who, apart from being somewhat conservative and homophobic in his late years, was certainly against concepts of unfettered 'free love' and 'regression' for its own sake) would have turned in his grave more than once had he seen this....
Btw: I wonder that nobody seems to have commented on "Hole in the soul" in detail yet. It's more than an addition, but a fully fledged, very lyrical (again) self-reflection, and well: Makavejev comes over as a totally charming and nice old man, quite the opposite of what one would expect from a notorious intellectual provocateur. The impossibility of finding new work he wants to do reminded me remotely -and with the same sadness - of the later years of Michael Powell...
Another extra that endeared itself to me immediately was the TV appearance of the actress who played Anna Planeta, singing that song with the new Pasolini lyrics. Just wonderful, and good old Pier Paolo at his very best...
All praise to Criterion for bringing us these two (nay: three) films, then. I was initially not sure whether I should buy these films, but am now very thankful I did. Certainly the most intellectually engaging, thought-provoking, and - let's face it - beautiful films I had seen in the last months, from a director who seems to be very unjustly neglected today.