Roman Polanski

Everyone is weighing in on Roman Polanski. It’s becoming one of those cultural dialogues where everyone must state where they stand on the issue and spread their wings and let everyone know how they feel about something that they have absolutely nothing to do with and which will remain unaffected by general opinion. 

So here’s my two cents. I don’t much care. This whole affair has reminded me that I have still never seen TESS, but it’s now on hold at the library. Other than that, I’m annoyed and bored with everyone’s Facebook postings and Tweets on the matter. I very much like Repulsion and Rosemary’s Baby and MacBeth and The Tenant and Knife in the Water and Chinatown. He was a good director (I haven’t liked anything more recent than The Tenant), but that has nothing to do with him as a person. He’s undeniably fascinating. He narrowly survived the Holocaust (the only one in his family who did), and his wife was murdered by Charles Manson’s cult. This gives him license to be moody and sullen, but clearly it does not give him license to drug a rape a 13-year-old girl. 

That was over thirty years ago. If charges had never been brought against him, the statute of limitations would have run out. But charges were brought. He appeared in court. A plea bargain was reached (time served plus monetary wishwash). However, the judge reneged on the plea bargain. That’s when Polanski skipped out and left the country – living in virtual self-imposed exile ever since. The legal waters are tricky. The plea bargain wasn’t fair, but neither was the Judge’s actions. 

One side argues that what he did was not so bad and should be forgiven – a sentiment echoed (though not fully) by the victim who clearly wishes to leave this affair behind. The other side argues with a vicious puritan bloodlust that he should be strapped down and serve the rest of his existence in a cell. Technically, he’s met with the terms of the plea bargain. It was the Judge’s desire to make Polanski an example (something I am NEVER a fan of) that made Polanski an outlaw - outside of his own actions, of course. It seems to me like the fair thing to do now is try Polanski for being a fugitive from justice. That would reduce the victim’s role in this whole mess, which seems to be what she wants. Metting out punishment now seems useless as a deterrent. He doesn’t appear to have gone on a raping spree in the thirty years since. 

What he did was terrible. Still, I often ponder the absoluteness with which one foul deed can condemn an otherwise good man, while one miraculous deed is unable to redeem a villain. I understand that certain behaviors are not to be tolerated in polite society – not even in small portions. It’s the vitriol that disturbs me. I’m not going to shed any tears if Polanski gets appropriate jail time through a reasonable process. There is a legal system in place. It’s sometimes shaky, but it requires our faith and trust to work accurately. Of course, at times, it requires our watchful eye and criticism. However, I hope the shouting matches and unmitigated outrage are sparse. I’m already sick of hearing about it, and no trial has even started yet. 

On the other hand, if you want to watch some good horror movies this Halloween, any number of early Polanski moves are excellent choices. 

Andrei Rublev

This weekend I saw Andrei Rublev. This is the third Andrei Tarkovsky film I’ve seen. I had previously seen Stalker (which I hated) and Solaris (which I found alternatingly beautiful and silly). Andrei Rublev went a long way towards revealing Tarkovsky to me as something more than a pretentious self-righteous hack. I still think he is pretentious and self-righteous, but Rublev illustrated a mastery that I really didn’t see in the previous two films. My thoughts on the movie are mixed. During the intermission, someone asked me what I thought so far, and I didn’t know how to answer. I still don’t, really. But I’ll give it a shot here.

First off, I have to talk about the introduction the movie received. A local podcaster named Jett Loe gave the introduction. I’m now convinced he’s a complete tool. He began his introduction, not by talking about the film itself, but about the audience that doesn’t get it. It’s their fault, you see. They’ve been conditioned by commercial cinema. He suggested we have Hitchcock to blame by focusing on suspense and cultivating and interest in “what happens next.” Of course to blame Hitchcock is to suggest that Hitchcock created suspense. It also ignores thousands of years of storytelling, much of which used suspense and mystery to engage the audience. Of course, this is not his point. He’s trying to build Tarkovsky up by tearing other filmmakers down. He went on to suggest that Hitchcock is responsible for such modern abominations as Michael Bay. Playing the Michael Bay card in cinema discussions is like playing the Hitler card in politics. It’s cheap, lazy, and ultimately cheapens your point regardless of what it is. He then went on an obligatory tangent about how watching Michael Bay is like getting assaulted. I agree that he is rough viewing for anyone with a passing interest in film, but can’t someone discuss the attributes of a film or filmmaker without having to evoke the names of those one deems lesser? Welcome to modern discussion. Blaming the audience of course undermines the technical craftsmanship that Tarkovsky does bring to the movie. He gave a half-assed rant against modern film by pointing out how flesh tones and teal are tweaked in modern cinematography – a practice that will instantly date them. Andrei Rublev remains timeless because there are no techniques to date it! This assumes that the washed out black and white that was so prevalent in the mid-sixties does not count as a technique or look. 

He then went on to announce that Andrei Rublev may be the only movie in existence to feel as if there is no camera present at all. It is that compelling an experience! I swear I’ve heard this assertion made about five different movies at the Belcourt in the last year alone. He capped off the discussion with a quote from Tarkovsky himself:

The problem with young people is their carrying out noisy and aggressive actions not to feel lonely – and this is a sad thing – the individual must learn to be on his own as a child – for this doesn’t mean to be alone: it means not get bored with oneself which is a various dangerous symptom, almost a disease.

Not only is Tarkovsky a filmmaker, he is also an amateur psychologist (a cursory search online failed to produce proof to this effect). That night, I heard a bit of dialogue on Mad Men that instantly reminded me of this quote. A daughter tells her mother she is bored, to which her mother quips, “Only boring people get bored.” On the show, this was clearly a dismissive bullshit aphorism meant to silence someone. I wonder if Tarkovsky gave his quote as a reaction to a criticism of his movie. If so, it seems like an ugly response to suggest a critic’s point is negated by some deep psychological “disease”. To be honest, I suspect the quote is either fabricated or altered (as film history anecdotes tend to be). Regardless, the quickness to repeat the quote in introducing the movie reveals the speaker to be the kind of knee-jerk online commentator who answers differing opinions not with interest and consideration, but with character assault. It’s classier than “Fuck you and your opinions,” and better cited than the I’m-taking-the-high-road dismissal of “I respectfully disagree.” 

Now to give him his due: these introductions are not easy. I’ve been to a lot of these introductions and have seen how difficult it is to lead a discussion on these films and engage the audience and not come off as something other than a raging fanboy. I certainly don’t think I could do it. Even if I were to talk about my favorite movies, I’m too nervous having private one-on-one conversations. I could never speak in front of people. But most of the discussions take place after the film – in an effort to invite discussion with the audience. Here, it took place before – killing an organized discussion. That may be for the best, as I don’t think I could have sat through another rapturous masturbatory exaltation of the movie at the expense of other filmmakers or ideas. 

Now to talk about the movie itself: I have issues with Tarkovsky, as you may have ascertained. But my issues do not necessarily stem from the idea that he is too slow or boring for me to stomach, which is what everyone assumes. I’m an atheist, and I love to see that depicted with some thought in films. I’m not immediately averse to God talk in movies. That doesn’t bother me. This film, like many religious films, does criticize the church (as an institution) in its praise of faith and spirituality. What does bother me is how Tarkovsky relentlessly equates faith with a disdain for intellectualism. The speech at the end of Stalker, after all the ranting previous in the film, was flat out offensive – equating science with nihilism. With Andrei Rublev, the anti-intellectualism is more nuanced and considered. It is mostly represented by the character of Kirill, a monk who hasn’t read a book in ten years and plans never to read another. His fate is somewhat ironic considering that he ends up copying the scripture fifteen times. Early in the film, Kirill rants to Theophanes that spreading knowledge is akin to spreading sorrow. He goes on to state that ignorance is better, because it allows one to follow his heart. This is followed through at the end of the movie when a bell maker’s son, upon completion of constructing a working bell, confides in Rublev that his father had NOT passed down the secret of casting bells as the kid had led everyone to believe. In fact, he did it by following his heart and crap. This secret inspires Rublev to go back and paint “icons”. (Of course, in doing this, the young bell maker deceives everyone and takes advantage of their faith in him.) This sore point for Tarkovsky will always remain a sore point that I am unable to reconcile with. It will ultimately never enable me to fully embrace Tarkovsky. 

What I do find engaging about that final moment is that Rublev is only able to return to painting after some life experience. So am I to assume that information is bad while only experience is good? I will grumble about that while moving on. I wonder how much of this comes from Tarkovsky himself, and how much is in the translation. As for his shooting style, I’m not a fan of slow motion or cutting to horses doing somersaults. These things feel too self-consciously important to me. But Tarkovsky is not one to engage the audience by keeping them guessing. He leaves them with drawn out imagery to that they may sit with their thoughts and reflect. He does not draw out moments in Andrei Rublev as he will with Solaris and Stalker, but he does keep the pace deliberate. 

Regardless, most of my reservations are swayed by the glorious, beautiful camera work. Andrei Rublev is miles more beautiful than either Stalker or Solaris. The washed out black and white is luminously stark. The relentless gray skies glowing through bare tree branches. The sea of mud. The hardened faces. Cold, empty chambers and fake birds gliding over intricate battle scenes below. The movie is a pleasure to look at – particularly during the bell casting sequence in which most of the characters have shut the hell up. If Tarkovsky movies contained no dialogue and existed solely on visuals, I would love this film. 

The movie is violent in parts, as it needs to be. The only moment that made me ache though, was the horse falling down the stairs. According to Wikipedia, the horse was actually injured, tortured, and killed. That moment was clearly not faked and hurt to watch. 

Now a genuine question: Tarkovsky seems very humorless to me. The jester at the beginning is not especially funny (on purpose?) and is played for tragic effect. But there is one moment that I would have normally laughed at loud at. But in this audience, I feared that the film was to be taken with such reverence that laughter might be to imply a heavy-handedness in the film. During one scene, Rublev encounters pagans (“Witchcraft!”). This scene involves numerous women bouncing about naked. As Rublev approaches one, he steps too close to a campfire and his robe catches fire. This seemed like a deliberate visual gag to me, but since no one else in the theater laughed (including the speaker who introduced the movie), I wondered if I had misread the scene. Surely it’s not a deliberate attempt at subtle symbolism. Is it okay to laugh at a Tarkovsky movie? 

During his introduction, the speaker claimed that Tarkovsky strips away everything that is unnecessary in his filmmaking process. This is not true. As a storyteller, he is repetitive. He lacks economy. And he hits some of his points too hard, which only stands out because he is such a master of deliberate subtlety. But the man is not about telling a story. No one should pretend he is. Tarkovsky is about creating a mood and crafting slow burning visuals (at least when his characters aren’t ranting about the evils of knowledge!). His universe is depressive. His characters are self-righteous. Andrei Rublev is a beautiful movie, and I’m glad I got to see it on the big screen. I may even sit through it again someday as there is still much to unpack from it. On a single viewing, it feels as if many interesting themes fall away at the expense of the follow-your-heart-not-your-head agenda. I need to see it again to ponder the outlying ideas. Still, I have not turned around on how I feel about Tarkovsky. His movies are both awe-inspiring and frustrating in their singularity. Now if somebody were to ask me again what I think about the movie . . . I still don’t know what to say. 

The Modern Conversation

The clip above is a beautiful illustration of reason and understanding in the face of the modern conversation. A mob of angry presumptuous jerks repeating ignorant, hateful assertions in an effort to intimidate someone into agreeing with them despite the fact that the mob doesn't even know what it's talking about. 

I’ve said it before, but it’s true. I am on a different wavelength than everybody else. I’m not on a higher level. Hopefully not on a lower level. Just on a  . . . *different* wavelength. Sometimes I have a very hard time holding a conversation with people. I’m not uneducated. I’m not overeducated. Part of the problem is that I just don’t have any conversation skills. Or I get stuck in conversations I couldn’t care less about. Mostly, however, I dislike the state of conversation these days. I hate communicating. 

This pitiful state is most obvious in political debate. I almost always fall on the liberal and progressive side of issues, and the current brouhaha over Health Care is no exception. Both sides frustrate me. Every debate degenerates into sarcasm, name-calling, exaggeration, pompous hyperbole, and self-righteous disgust. This happens on both sides of the debate – and these days there only seems to exist two separate and mutually exclusive sides. If you question one aspect of an argument, you are immediately accused of being on the other side.  There is no middle ground, and as a result, the important questions and truths are being lost and ignored. Everyone thinks they’re Steve Colbert. Smug, satirical, shocked at the hypocrisy of the other side.

Both liberals and conservatives seem to have adopted the “either-you’re-with-us-or-against-us” mindset. And most frustratingly of all, people seem to choose their side without understanding a damn thing about it. Everyone wants to look smart without asking any questions. Check out this clip of the Tea Baggers protesting on 9/12. None of them even know why they’re there. They just are.

The best part is the interviewer’s commenting how no one seems to understand the difference between fascism, socialism, and communism. Still, I can’t help but wonder if there really wasn’t ONE PERSON present who knew why they were there, who could actually answer some of the questions posed to them, who were actually intelligent. Are conservatives really that stupid? Surely not. Although I have yet to hear a modern conservative pundit who didn't sound like a hateful, foolish hypocrite. At the same time, what the fuck are they protesting? They’re upset that the President wants to provide Health Insurance to Americans? A few conservative pundits have said that it’s more than that, but they never explain such assertions further. It’s all racist, batshit crazy, ignorant nothing. Obama’s speech wasn’t specific enough to be filled with lies. But rather than grill him on details, people are simply calling him a liar and leaving it at that. Useless.

During the Bush Administration, there was plenty of vitriol and frustration coming from the liberals. But it didn't come from nowhere. It began with the handling of the 2000 Election. It escalated with the pandering to the lowest common denominator in building a case for war with a country that never threatened us and couldn't defend itself. (For the record, I don't think Saddam was good man, but out of all the dictators doing terrible things at that time, he was really low on the list.) There were specific points in the presented case that were regularly challenged and brushed aside of the Administration. Years later, it has come to light that much of the evidence was not just wrong, but out and out fabricated. This is the kind of dissent we need It is our duty to keep out leaders in check. We elect them (usually), and we can't just hand over all our power tot hem - ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ASK US TO! Ahem. The Administration flaunted its disregard for facts and truth and reason on a regular basis, and again pandered to hate and bigotry to win the re-election. I remain frustrated that this happened and baffled that so many defended (and continue to defend) the practices of that Administration. But the left was presenting reasoned, well-thought questions while the right countered with smirks, fear tactics, and godfucking. These are serious issues that need serious debate. And the right continually fails to provide that. 

I’m trying really hard to understand the conservative side of this Health Care issue, but conservatives can’t seem to articulate anything reasonable. There are plenty of liberals who are guilty of the very same, but that side I get. At the risk of sounding like a braggart, I have actually done some research and I understand what’s being debated, what’s true and what isn’t, and why these issues are important. Someone didn’t just dictate them to me. The main issue being that Americans need Health Insurance both to be healthy and to avoid losing all their money when they get sick.  I’m having difficulty seeing the evil in this.

On Facebook the other day, I got in a conversation with someone about the “lies” in Obama’s speech. I joined the conversation by pointing out that Joe Wilson was wrong in his rudely and inappropriate assertion.  This other person asserted that everything else in the speech was a lie. I asked him what specifically, and the asswipe got sarcastic and provided a link while implying the link illustrated the plan is not deficit-neutral. In fact, the link suggested just the opposite. The shit didn’t even read his own link. This is the current state of conversation. Not five minutes later, I got into a conversation with someone on Twitter. I made a statement that didn’t contradict anything anyone else said – about Kanye West of all things. What kind of response did I get? Sarcasm. More sarcasm. Are people really unable to communicate without resorting to irony. (The person apologized when I expressed frustration and said that the quip was meant as a slam to Kanye. Sadly, the quip was aimed at me. Not Kanye.). I suppose it’s a defense mechanism – to keep people at a distance. I have my own defense mechanisms. At work, specifically, my conversations are taciturn and I never reveal too much about how I feel or what I think. This is mostly because I wish to avoid more sarcasm, self-righteous indignation, or trumped-up drama. Also, I’ve gotten pretty sick of talking to folks who are self-appointed know-it-alls. What happened to ordinary conversations in which people can just learn what the other person thinks and reconcile it with what they think. I’m scared of talking to people because I worry that the result will be something that completely turns me off.

Sometimes, I hate logging onto Twitter because there are so many people on there who regularly bitch and moan about how annoyed they are with every aspect of society. (Kind of what I’m doing here). I understand that people need a place to vent, but why the constant barrage of put-upon outrage. I am amazed at the unrelenting vitriolic hyperbole aimed at pop culture. Do we really need to get worked up about how terrible Kanye West is? I agree that he’s a jackass, but I don’t HATE him. Even more frustrating is the hate leveled at some performers simply because someone doesn’t like their movies. I’m not innocent of this attitude. I never want to sit through another Mel Gibson movie ever again. But why fling such hatred at people who barely register on the zeitgeist of pop culture. Is Demetri Martin really someone we need to bring down and destroy? Why can’t anybody just articulate what they don’t like about something rather than posting something broad and ugly and fishing? Case in point: one facebook friend just posted “Malice towards all.” That’s the entire post. The point?  Attention, I guess. It’s his schtick. And I’m so sick of it.

Now for the really frustrating part. I know that there are people out there having decent, civil, intelligent conversations. I see it in coffee shops and bars. There are some people that seem really interesting and I would love to talk to them. But I don’t know what the hell to say.  Some are clients at the place where I work. Some work at places I frequent. Is it okay to ask out someone for a drink. Even dudes? Would that make things weird. If someone seems nice, what do I say to get an in?

This week, I started my Digital Editing Class. I chatted a bit with the dude sitting next to me and the teacher. But not as much as some of the other folks in the class. I don’t know what to say to people. I really need to make some friends. I long for adult conversation. But I avoid conversation for fear of all that frustrating shit. I hate communicating with people, but I really want to. Is anyone else having this problem? No? Just me? I figured.