Romancefest 2014: Letter from an Unknown Woman

Let’s jump a couple years ahead to 1948 and back over the pond to the US for Max Ophul’s LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN.

This flick is a very interesting examination of lifelong unrequited love. It opens with a man preparing to flee early 1900s Vienna on the eve of a duel (Louis Jourdan). However, he’s interrupted when he receives the titular letter, which starts with something like, “By the time you read this I might be dead.”

The rest of the film unfolds as the letter does. Turns out, Jourdan was a promising concert pianist who lived in a building next to a young girl (Joan Fontaine) who fell in love with him at first without even seeing him, just by hearing his music. She becomes obsessed and although her family eventually moves away, she turns down an engagement due to her love of the pianist, and returns to Vienna on her own to hopefully connect with him.

Upon connecting the two share a wonderful, romantic night together before Jourdan disappears from her life again. Later, they reunite yet again, this time with painful results.

Basically, what we have here is a one-sided romance, and a very in depth look at it. We see very convincingly how Fontaine can develop a crush and fall head over heels in love with Jourdan, or the idea of Jourdan, without ever really knowing him. At the same time, we can also see how her idealized vision of him prevents her from realizing he’s a womanizer, and prevents her from realizing the afore mentioned wonderful, romantic evening is possibly just another of his one-night conquests.

For Jourdan’s part, we can also see how he wouldn’t remember her over the years. We all must have someone in our lives that we were memorable to, but who we don’t remember. Similarly, I’m sure we all have people that we remember who don’t remember us. Of course it’s much more tragic to see both sides play out in a movie like this. Jourdan seems like way more of a heel when we know how in love with him Fontaine is. It’d be bad enough if she had just met him that night, their one night together, but it’s even worse knowing she’s nursed a love for him for maybe a decade.

Romancefest 2014: A Matter of Life and Death

Now back to the UK for A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s 1946 romantic fantasy. Everything I’ve seen from Powell and Pressburger has been impressive, and A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH is no exception.

David Niven stars as a WWII pilot who is shot down but somehow survives the crash. Turns out Conductor 71 (Marius Goring), the messenger from the afterlife sent to collect Niven, missed him in the fog. Just before crashing Niven was able to raise an American radio operator (Kim Hunter) and share what he thought were his last words were with her.

Now finding himself alive and on land, Niven runs into Hunter in the flesh and the two insantly find themselves in love. Goring visits to fill Niven in on what’s going on, but Niven appeals – why should he willingly head off to the afterlife if it’s the afterlife’s fault he’s still alive? Shouldn’t he get to continue living his life, especially now that he’s in love?

Goring reports Niven will stand trial in the afterlife, but it’s up to him to choose the person who will defend him – he has his choice of anyone in the afterlife. Meanwhile, on Earth, Hunter’s doctor friend (Livesey), fascinated by Niven’s tales of the afterlife, becomes determined to help Niven out.

Anyway, enough of the plot. It’s a good one, imaginative one, but the best things about this film are the images and the performances. Like most Powell/Pressburger films, it is shot in beautiful Technicolor – somehow these guys were able to make it look more rich and sumptuous than anyone else. The afterlife scenes are in black and white, and the sets used to demonstrate the afterlife are spectacular, the most prominent one being a gigantic staircase/escalator that’s constantly rising towards the clouds. The scene of the trial is amazing as well, especially in one shot where the camera pulls back to reveal the huge multitude of trial spectators until we pull out so far that we end up in outerspace.

Like many great movies, A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH simultaneously tells an intimate and large story. It starts off showing us the entire universe, and ends up with the love of just one man and one woman. It deals with, as the title suggests, matters of life and death, as well as presenting some arguments about the UK vs. the USA (which were important in the midst of world war).

Niven is great as the lead, affable and likable, approaching things of wonderment with a great sense of humor. Livesy is also good, projecting infectious enthusiasm as the greatest champion of Niven’s cause. Goring is hilarious as the foppish, French afterlife messenger who is at first trying to get Niven to come with him but is eventually won over by Niven’s case. And Raymond Massey makes a lot of a possibly thankless role as the American prosecutor with a giant chip on his shoulder who is determined to get Niven into the afterlife and away from his love.

Romancefest 2014: In the Mood for Love

Now, back to Hong Kong for another Wong Kar-wai film, 2000’s IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE. After watching CHUNGKING EXPRESS earlier this month, I was immediately excited to check this one out as soon as I saw the director’s name.

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE does not disappoint. It is as beautiful, and in some ways more beautiful, than CHUNGKING EXPRESS and examines some of the same themes, most notably, loneliness.

It stars Tony Leung, also from CHUNGKING EXPRESS, as a journalist who rarely gets to see his own wife, who is usually away on business. He lives in an apartment building right next door to a secretary (Maggie Cheung) who also rarely sees her husband, who is also often away on business.

Both Leung and Cheung are shown to be characters of sweet disposition via their interactions with their employers, their co-workers, their off-screen spouses, and their landlady (Rebecca Pan).

This makes it even more heart breaking when we learn that they’re each being cheated on. It isn’t long before Leung and Cheung realize their spouses are cheating on them with each other.

Here, they embark on their own relationship. They identify with each other, for obvious reasons, and begin to feel for each other, but it’s a delicate situation. After all, their crowded apartment building has many eyes and ears always watching, and at this time and in this place, it would look suspect for a grown married woman and grown married man to form even a platonic friendship.

So, even though the two are drawn to each other, and begin to fall in love with each other, they never so much as kiss. They do spend a lot of time “practicing” scenes with their own spouses – scenes of confrontation, etc. They also spend time writing kung fu stories together, and even take a hotel room so they can work and hang out without anyone suspecting anything.

But ultimately the movie is about how they can’t or won’t do anything about their situation. It’s kind of like BRIGHT STAR, in that sense – both movies are about couples who can’t or won’t consummate, based on their societies and their positions within their societies. Ironically, though BRIGHT STAR was literally about a poet, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE is the more poetic movie, in cinematic terms, with beautifully memorable shots and compositions.

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE has a bittersweet, nostalgic ending, and some times those are the most romantic of all. You really feel like you got to spend some time with these characters, and you really feel their sense of loss and longing. There’s a reason why this movie tops so many “best of” lists.

Romancefest 2014: Tabu

TABU is a very interesting film. It’s a silent film from 1931, at the end of the silent era, directed by F.W. Murnau, one of the greatest directors of the era. The interesting thing, though, is that it was shot entirely on location in the Polynesian islands and all the main parts were cast with real natives, instead of Hollywood stars.

The movie was originally intended to be half documentary and half narrative, but it’s clear from the finished product that while the settings and actors are authentic, the story comes straight from movie-land.

Even though it is not entirely authentic, it is still an interesting snapshot of a time and place, more so than most movies of the era. The sad fact of the matter is that most mainstream movies of the time didn’t show any kind of diversity in culture or if they did it was even less authentic than this. Just the fact that the movie’s shot on location with non-professionals is worthy of comment.

Anyway, the story concerns idyllic life in Bora-Bora, untouched by modern technology, as its interrupted by the arrival of a messenger (Hitu) from some kind of “overall chief” of the island system. He announces the maiden they had who appeased the Gods has died, and they’ve come to fetch a new one from Bora-Bora.

This is Reri (Anne Chevalier) who moments before this messenger’s arrival is playing innocently in a waterfall and flirting with a strapping young fisherman, Matahi (billed simply as Matahi).

The rules are, once a maiden is chosen for the Gods she cannot be corrupted by interacting with mortal man. She’s Tabu. So, looks like the love affair between REri and Matahi is off. Or is it? Spoiler alert: they decide to run off in a canoe and seek their fortunes as pearl divers on another island.

Of course things aren’t as simple as that and the past eventually catches up with our lovers. But that goes without saying.

While the story of TABU is lacking, the visuals are very impressive and you won’t find many films like it. It was Murnau’s last film, and has many of his characteristic touches, including creative use of shadows to help tell the story.

Romancefest 2014: Bright Star

Back to the UK for something a little more reserved, 2009's BRIGHT STAR, the true story of the love of poet John Keats' life, Fanny Brawne. This film was directed by the great Jane Campion, an Australian filmmaker of some note.

Abbie Cornish stars as Fanny Brawne, a young woman who meets John Keats (Ben Whishaw) through family friends and eventually develops a romance with him. The drama of the film comes from two elements, the first being that it's the 19th century, and Keats, being a man of little means, doesn't dare actually court Brawne for real, and the second being that Keats is not well and may not make it through a bout of consumption.

The drama is heightened by the fact that Keats' attention is torn by his best friend and writing partner, Brown (Paul Schneider) and by the fact that the two would-be lovers are basically living in each half of a combined house. They're so close, but so far away. They kiss and hold hands and write love letters and really, honestly love each other -- but so much keeps them apart.

It's frustrating, but I guess that's what makes it romantic. To be honest, I was bored for much of the film, but I don't think that's entirely the film's fault. It's beautifully shot and well-acted, and actually takes a very mature approach to what could have otherwise been schmaltzy. Still, I think you really need the period and the costumes to fill in that extra missing x-factor for you, to really thoroughly enjoy the movie. And, all that stuff is nice, but not quite enough to keep me engaged.

I did like the fact that it was about a famous poet, and I liked the fact that a lot of his poetry was read in the movie and it was read very well. I also liked how beautiful the movie was, and how restrained it was. Campion does a great job of showing things at all levels around the house, particularly when she allows the camera to linger on Brawne's youngest sister, who must be seeing real romance for the very first time, play out right in front of her. You can tell she knows what's going on, but doesn't know quite what to think of it. And that's kind of how I felt.

Maybe the film could have used a stronger Keats, but I don't know. Whishaw is fine in the role, and the role doesn't really demand a strong presence, necessarily. Also, the movie's about Brawne anyway, so why overshadow her? Schneider is great in the thankless role as the guy trying to keep them apart.

So in the end, it's not like there's anything wrong with this movie, and there's actually a lot right with it. But it still left me kinda cold. Maybe it's just tough to adjust after HEAD-ON. I guess you could say that's a drawback to Romancefest -- watching things back to back might not give them time to breathe and shine on their own.

Romancefest 2014: Head-On

One of the best reasons to do something like Romancefest is to find movies like HEAD-ON. This 2004 German/Turkish co-production directed by Fatih Akin would have never even been on my radar if I wasn't doing something like this. And I LOVED it.

Birol Unel and Sibel Kekilli star as two Turkish-Germans who meet in the psych ward after individual suicide attempts. Unel's given up and turned to drugs and alcohol in the wake of his wife's death. Kekilli just wants to get away from her oppressive, conservative family so she can enjoy being a free young woman.

Her plan for freedom? Marry Unel. He's about twice her age, but he's Turkish, so her family will accept him, and once she's out of the house, she can do whatever she wants -- party at clubs, sleep around, whatever. For Unel's part, he'll have meals and a clean apartment. He reluctantly agrees.

Now, this sounds like the setup for a lame sitcom. Let me guess, I thought: they learn to love each other and live happily ever after. Not exactly. There's some of that, but Akin's screenplay also allows his characters to be real, three dimensional humans, which means things are a lot messier.

And are they ever messy. Unel and Kekilli are totally convincing in their roles, Unel disappearing early on into his stubble, greasy hair, and anarchic alcoholism to the point where you wonder if this is actually how this guy is. Kekilli's more challenging parts come later in the story, as you see the full range of her character develop. Both characters have moments of joy, but there are also moments of immense pain.

Aside from the acting, what faces these characters have. Kekilli is beautiful in a very unique way, and able to inhabit several different looks and moods like a chameleon. Unel has a scarred visage you won't soon forget, a face as complex as his performance.

This movie succeeds on so many levels, beyond just the story and the acting, that it's hard to put into words. I should also note that it's very nice to see a story told from a point of view I've never seen before, which is that of a Turkish immigrant living in Germany. Isn't it interesting how just one little point of view change can breathe new life into what might have been a story that's been told before? Of course, we have the benefit of Akin obviously knowing what he's talking about, and fully exploiting every angle of his premise, his setting and his characters. This movie doesn't neglect a single angle of what it puts before us. There's not a contrived moment in the film, even when it is contrived.

Romancefest 2014: Pierrot le Fou

Sticking with France for now we’ve got Jean-Luc Godard’s 1965 flick PIERROT LE FOU, yet another in the “young lovers on the run” genre, which seems to be a running theme this year for Romancefest.

This time it’s Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina. Belmondo snaps at an insufferably douchy party and abandons his family, taking along Karina, the babysitter, who turns out not only to be his previous lover, but also a gun-runner with criminal ties.

Like most of Godard’s stuff, and French New Wave in general, there is a certain artificiality assumed in the material, which is more about “being a movie” than about really telling a story or featuring authentic characters or situations. A flippant way to describe it would be “all style, no substance.” That’s a little too dismissive and simple for Godard’s work, but it kind of gets the point across.

The problem with a movie like this is if you take it seriously, the joke is on you. If you get all uptight about our cute little lovers killing people and stealing cars and stuff, you’re missing the point. But, if you don’t take it seriously, the joke is still on you, because now it’s just a series of seemingly unconnected events and images.

So you kind of have to meet Godard halfway, and I guess you could argue his style of filmmaking is the act of the artist meeting the audience halfway. You and Godard both agree “it’s just a movie” and then you both agree “movies are to be taken seriously” and then you have something. Kinda.

The nice thing is, this flick is beautifully shot in blazing, alive color with great locations and great looking people. Even if there’s nothing going on, there’s always something going on.

The movie does have something wise to say about relationships, I guess, if you can see through all the shenanigans and goings-on long enough to try to pick it up. But, again, if you try to see through all the shenanigans and goings-on, you might miss the movie, so you kind of have to look at it out of the corner of your eye without it knowing that you’re looking at it.

All right, now I’m being as annoying as Godard.