Fading pictures.

The Journalist/ Photographer who follows the families story, is a very interesting character to consider.
Dom Pedro the second was considered a very popular ruler, who's rule saw economic progress, abolition of slavery and the rise of Brazil as a emerging power, despite being rather unwilling to work[ which would be brought to naught by later governments]. The journalists’ career seems to follow the same path the republic began to take.
He describes his career as almost dead, and speaks about how people once told him he could be among Brazil's first and finest journalists. Like the republic, which was lead into rather bleak times by dictators and military rule, the journalist is forced to face questions regarding what is acceptable and what isn't.
This is quite important considering how important it is to sway public opinions in democracies. His questions about corruption, which are censored, are also very interesting. Is this supposed to hint at the increasingly capitalist system? It's important to realize how the movie manages to keep asking questions regarding modern political system without actually advocating for any political system over the other.

In regards to the other characters, all of them seem interesting and have their own goals and motivation. The wife is particularity intriguing. It's evident she does not have much of a say in the family but her motivations to stay and fight are extremely interesting.
The religious aspect of the movie is also interesting. Characters like the father and daughter who are strong and self assured in their own right don't seem to be tied down by it. It seems as though it is simply something people use for comfort. The so called apostles’ predictions are not exactly wrong. He never seems like someone you could condemn or call a mad man. He has what he feels are real causes for his actions. His death feels tragic and you actually feel the war would have ended differently if he was still around; a testament to how well his character is portrayed.
The daughter who we follow throughout the movie is a very strong and rational character and her final decision to go back and fight for the village is all the more significant for it.

However the more I try to look at the characters the more evident it becomes that the story while centered about them is by no means limited to them. The movie is, after all, about what the battle of Canudos meant, not only to the family, but also to a country and a young republic. 

Battle of Canudos

A historical movie that portrays members of a religious group going out and setting up their own country seems rather quite usual. Usually when you have a film about down trodden people who set up their own country you'd imagine something that goes on and on about democratic values,liberty and so on.

When it comes to the celebration of democratic ideas Hollywood [or most movies from most other places for that matter] makes sure the no matter what the scenario- be it ancient Greece, a Irish/ English /Samurai rebellion you see men shouting about freedom. The idea that democracy that is the ultimate goal that can be achieved and it is the cure for all ills is an idea that you see everywhere.
I'm not suggestion democracy isn't a lovely system. What I mean to say is the movies tend to concentrate on the noble virtues and ideals pursued, while giving little to no attention to the less than exciting economic and soci-political issues that often lead to political upheavals.

What the movie does, by following a group of people who believe in the divine rule of monarchs wronged or oppressed by a republic, is bring focus to the hazier, difficult questions about modern democracies and Republics.

How can you bring democracy to a people who want a monarch? How useful are rights to petition to people who don't know how to read or write? How useful and noble are the freedoms and rights promised by a republic when you are expected to pay for it?
It is obvious a monarchy isn't the solution the few barons we see in the movie are still exploitative even though they have lost the war to the republic. What is obvious but never stated is how the supporters of the republic in the movie include the well educated urban populace. The republic doesn't seem all the loved by the common folk and does not do much to change that. The failure of the republic to serve the rural folk is what leads to the insurrection in the first place.
The ruthlessness that the general and army men regularly display in the name of the republic does nothing to help their cause.

The arguments the peasants put forth regarding their right to their property and way of life are very hard to argue with. In fact they seem more in tune with democratic ideas than the republics actions. Antonio Conselherios' speech about how the democratic ideal with everyone working for the betterment of the state can bind one in the same way slavery can, was very interesting. One could find fault with the argument, but the sentiment it represents is not something you see portrayed. The solace most movies like to find in casting the supporters of authoritarian as evil and one sided is almost impossible to find.
The journalists’ sentiments about the war being a crime are hard to argue with, the general himself seems quite unable to find a non-battle related response.

Despite the fact the movie was centered on a battle and one family's drama, the overall context about a group of people trying to fight for their religious and political values is the main attraction, one which remains true to its purpose throughout the movie.

Strange men in coats.

I think I've figured out what the man in the coat meant to the movie and the characters.
The man declares his certainty, his admiration and dedication in a very self assured manner. Even though we know he is a crazy stalker he does seem convincing for a moment. What he is actually doing is being what Antione had aspired to be earlier in the movie.

The certainty and adherence the stalker showed are what Antione wanted to feel earlier. What Christine sees as mad is what Antione wanted to become. For a romantic comedy, this seems to be taking a lot of shots at love and romance.
Our leads are not dedicated for the most part. They don't really like each other all that much. They also cheat and have a lot of confusions about what they want, which most other movies do a bad job of showing or avoid altogether.
Humor too , in most run of the mill romantic movies is made as clean and as clear cut as possible to ensure we never really see anyone do anything that the viewer can call condemn able. This is a rather strange trope considering stupid behavior and love are often said to go hand in hand.

The humor in this movie seems like what you call dark humor yet it manages to be so easily palatable, which makes this movie stand out in a genre saturated with clichés and tropes. 

Stolen kisses

A strange romantic comedy which oozes a subtle unconventional sort of humor, stolen kisses is a unique film with a very enjoyable and engaging story.

Antione the protagonists is a little hard to place at first. His military discharge, which is based on a report that says he is psychological unfit, does not seem to inaccurate when see we first see him. He doesn't seem to show a great deal of social skill, he seems to have joined the military based on a whim and idealistic notions [a hint at what's to come].
His relationship with Christine is a little strange; they seem to get along and fail to get along randomly. Neither of them seems very sure about what they want. Antione continues his odd behavior sometimes writing her letters denouncing her as a mere friend. Christine also tries to avoid him a few times preferring to so skiing with her friends.
His work as a detective is incompetent at best.Well actually I might be being too kind. He isn't very good at all and fails to realize his girlfriend is being stalked. Antiones' difficulty in fitting in is seems to be the general theme this movie peruses. Which concludes with Antione finally being able to marry Christine after he manages to reach a stage where is able to accept her and himself.

The romance part isn't quite so romantic. Antione visits a brothel before he even thinks of Christine. He often cheats on her. He does not always write her nice letters. He also seems more enamored with his clients’ wife than his girlfriend. Which he quickly forgets about. He is for the large part of the movie more concerned with his work and tactlessly leaves Christine alone.
Most of the humor isn't quite apparent and the final scene with the man in the coat still baffles me. However the movie is an excellent, interesting and funny piece worth the watch.

Promises of pastoral life

It's relatively easy to miss all the slight hints at political statements that the movie makes due to all the humor and goofiness.

The nostalgia for the soviet or communist government that the grandfather shows, when he hears the soviet anthem, and the corruption and crony capitalism that's hinted at, give the film an easily missed political undertone.
The films villain talks about how he wishes to build s world trade center in Serbia. His investors include a president who talks about the importance of Japanese tourists. He defends some of his actions speaking about his importance to the country and economy. He obviously has a lot of his political power considering he can call upon Special Forces personnel to settle his vendettas.

More importantly the film seems to be arguing for the ability of locals and farmers to continue their ways of life. The boy who travels to the city is fascinated by the city and everything he sees. Yet he is able to adapt and survive it. The quirky humorous life of the grandfather and the teacher filled with their own problems and drama also seems to be arguing for the same.

The bit with the flying man wasn't all the funny at first. By the end of the movie it became funny simply because of the repeated appearances and the fact that it became more obvious how the movie was meant to be viewed. As a simple, direct, comedy about post communist pastoral Serbian life.

Promise me this

A funny, silly, gross movie about a Serbian boy who promises his grandfather he shall return from the city with an icon of St. Nicolas, a souvenir and a wife.

With the way the story starts off, goofy characters and slapstick humor you'd expect this movie to be just another clean family comedy pandering to everybody. However the explicit and unabashed way the movie goes about making fun of everything from bestiality and sexual discovery just makes the film feel so unique and refreshing.

The films goofy/slapstick humor doesn't feel like what you'd expect when its talking about forced prostitution, corruption etc, but it works keeping the film light-hearted and consistently easy to digest. In fact the simplicity of the story makes it feel like one you'd see in a children’s' story book.

Most films about Serbia I've seen seem to be dark and gloomy, while this movie doesn't make Serbia seem like a country without problems the humor infuses a sense of optimism and self assurance that makes the problems seem irrelevant.

The characters are likable and funny, all with their own unique back stories. The music which is upbeat and light hearted is very important to setting up the tone of the movie.
Overall the film is very funny, gross and interesting piece about life in a post soviet republic.

Kizuki's sucide

Kizukis' decision to kill himself isn't very well explained. We don't see much of him, even though he is responsible for all the drama that follows. In fact from what we now of him there isn't much that would suggest he is depressed.

This ignorance about the cause for his suicide is something shared by the characters and it torments them plenty. However a little hint about what could have happened had Kizuki not killed himself is made. Nagasava is described as some one who isn't meant to or wants to be happy by Wantanabee. Much like Kizuki. In another similarity Hazumi and Nagasava also share what you could call a sexually dysfunctional relationship.
There is no certainty that Naoko wasn't devoid of any psychological problems before Kizukis sucide. Even if Kizuki had, say, gotten himself institutionalized who are we to say that this would be a futile effort just as it was with Naoko?

The scene where Wantanabee dreams [?] of the two women in his life together under a tree. is very symbolic. His only other dream- of Kizuki- was dreamt when he faced his fears/ apprehension and went to meet Naoko. The second one after he finally is able to deal with his past and becomes fully interested in Midori.

His decision to worsen the cut on his hand or to keep it around is very interesting. You don't really hear that much introspection from him at times. Since most people who cut themselves do it in order to to help feel alive, or just feel something, it isn't hard to see his confusion and apprehension about having to deal with his ever increasing list of problems.
That is what the whole film seems to be about a look back on how he managed to deal with his problems [and some of his friends didn't] and what he feels about it. 

Norwegian Wood

A professor on being interrupted by a group of protesters who say that there are more important things than Greek plays, says that there is nothing more important than Greek tragedies.

Set around a very easily missed background of protests and unrest, Norwegian Wood is a story about drama and love that happens oblivious to its settings. The positioning of this story at this particular time seems very deliberate. In comparison to all the strife and turmoil and post war upheavals that were very obviously taking place during the time, the main characters seem to inhabit this perfect beautiful world where relationships are of greater importance than anything else. The story is very subtly trying to show us the other dilemmas and issues people would have faced during the time and tries to convey the weight these issues held for those who were involved.

The significance of sexuality in the movie seems rather strange at first. Could it be that this movie in direct contrast to movies made in more conservative time [which used to symbolism sex with other themes/actions] is trying to represent relationships through sex? It might sound rather silly, but the sex lives of the characters often reflect the problems the characters have in their relationships. Kizuki and Naoko fail to consummate their relationship even though they did love each other. Wantanabe and Naoko who are seldom together are often restricted in how far they can take their relationship develop a substitute as a way of conveying their affection. They do not are only able to have sex once, back when a normal relationship seemed possible. Their inability to develop a healthy sex life goes hand in hand with their inability to have sex. Midori and Wantanabee are unable or just unwilling to consummate their relationship until they have reached a point where they have moved on [to some extent] from their past. Midori asks Wantanabee to a porn flick as a way of coping with loss. Sex is used, in essence, as a sort of psychological litmus test to tell you how well the characters are doing.

You can argue that the song Norwegian wood  to be about a man who fails to understand the signals a woman sends him.The movie seems to involve Wantanabee try to figure out what love exactly is. Every character he meets has their own expectations and view on how it should work.
It also see's Wantanabee come to terms with loss and responsibility which he has tried to escape.

The whole movie involves what can be called an almost nostalgic look back on things. How idealistic and peaceful memories seems after having moved on from them. How Kizuki and Naoko who are unable to deal with their own loss become so central to Wantanabees' own personality and where his desire to hold on to the past [or rather the people from it] takes him.  

Mr Slave trader.

I wonder is those little scenes that allude to the sort of slave trade that happened from Warsaw are actually true, I wasn't aware the Nazi's had much to do with south America. In any case it’s hard for me to think of anything else to say about his movie.

All those other characters that Guy pursues to find out about Mr. Akadins past are very interesting, and it isn't hard to imagine they too have interesting stories that are unfortunately unknown to us. However it does drag on a little too much at times and you wish you could see more of some characters than others. 

Mr. Akadins decision to hire an underworld smuggler, who also happened to be dating his daughter, when scrutinized, isn't exactly a sound plan. Much like the daughters decision to repeated whatever guy tells her isn't very well thought out, when you really look into it. The non-linear narrative does a lot to compensate for all the questions you could raise about what the characters do and more importantly , in my opinion, it builds up the viewers desire to see more of Mr Akadin himself.

The scene where Akadin is dressed up at a ball [where his medieval get up doesn't look out unusual on him for whatever reason] and tells everyone the story about the frog and the scorpion, Also explains to us ,before any of his old acquaintances do, how Mr Akadian happens to work. In theory you wouldn't find it so easy to pallet a former Nazi slave trader but as the story goes "It’s just my nature". Mr Akadin just seems to act the way he is personified. You expect a character such as his to act as he does for it just seems like it’s his natural way to act.

Akadin just commands a sort of natural presence that you don't see regularly, which made more is interesting by the fact that we know nothing about for a great part of the movie. The title tells you the way you need to look to really understand the movie. Mr Akadin. Everyone else seems to exist just to further our understanding of him. This sort of passive glorification you'd find natural about some great peace loving chap and not a wealth capitalist with no past. Yet it all just feels so natural for "It’s just my nature"

Mr. Arkadin

With a slick, stylish filmography Mr. Arkadin seems very reminiscent other film noir movies like the Maltese falcon.
Beginning with instantly engrossing and mysterious images of flying planes and naked women, the manner of narrative does a great job in making the plot more engrossing. The way the movie is edited and works is a large part of the mystery element in the movie. Strangely despite the importance of the editing for the movie, the initially scene where we are introduced to Guy Van Stratten the faces and voice don't sync very well.

Speaking of Guy he doesn't always come off as likable. I wonder if this is intentional, but given that this is made by Orson Wells and has a film noir feel about it, I doubt it. Either way it does make the movie a little more interesting; a bunch of suave confident characters who're just pretending to be so? That seems like a little more depth the you'd expect to find, given that most similar movies just have characters as basic archetypes.

Either way Guy does seem believable as a character and the fact that his facade of confidence breaks at times only reinforces that view. Cunning, intelligent and perhaps a little self serving he does seem like the man for the job Mr. Arkadin wants done. His decision to run off after mysterious words uttered by a dying man is a little questionable the arguments between Guy and Mr. Arkadin [and also his daughter] do reek of self interest. Perhaps that is also intentional.

However Guys 'girlfriend' of sorts Milly is the most intriguing character in my mind. I don't imagine that strippers were looked on nicely, so having her as a prominent character seems daring. Posing nude for the opening scene must have also been pretty bold. She doesn't seem very weak, arguing fiercely for her right to the promised wealth. She is also more easily likable than Guy himself with an easy going attitude that seems quite pleasant.

Mr Arkadins' daughter doesn't seem to be more than a pretty face. However she isn't necessary weak, she just doesn't do anything that screams strong or independent. She does have her own subtly way of dealing with men which can't be underestimate. After all the entire story is, in part, possible because of her.

Mr Arkadins old gang who aren't all doing so well, do seem like an interesting bunch. Yet I don't think anyone really matches up to Sophie. She seems to have become the exact opposite of Mr. Akadin. She forgives everyone from her past and is content to let everyone else live as they please. Her description of why she chooses not to ask Akadin for her money just seems so believable. She seems like a genuinely strong female character, who can match Arkadin. The rest of Akadins' gang doesn’t really seem to demand focus as she does.

Mr Akadin himself is a very strange character. You can only take a man with a rectangular head so seriously, but he commands an air of authority, fear and mystery throughout the movie. You see and expect the sort of malevolent behavior he regularly displaces after just one glimpse of him. His little speech about being ashamed of one's past [while not remembering it and still having a conscious] feels very convincing. You sympathize with him even though he soon begins killing off people.
You might be able to guess him true motivations behind his desire to find out about the people who know his past even before he begins to display it, but his little speech could very easily convince you otherwise. His determination to make sure his daughter does not learn of the actual nature of his past and his constant surveillance of her does convey an odd sort of affection. The intensity with which he peruses schemes to keep her ignorant conveys how important she is to him, which is not often verbally expressed.

You could see this man become the millionaire that he is, and through his characterization and actions you see how Guys' own skills and abilities.  The whole movie seems to be about discovering who this man Mr. Arkadin really is and it, throughout its entity, attests to the incredible nature of this character. 

Driving a hat.

There's a scene in the movie where the father just lies down and pretends to drive a car using his hat as a steering wheel.
I think this scene is one of the best examples of how the film works. All the little steps that drive Mouchette to kill herself are usually corresponding or a explained by some other little action.

Her father aloof and unconcerned about her, the mother and the baby idly plays with his imagination while Mouchette is suffering. She has nothing in her hands but mud while the other girls in her school have perfume. She loses a shoe while she gets lost. She finds there aren't any more diapers symbolizing her poverty. She has fun with a boy in bumper cars perhaps representing sexual awakening which is soon ground to a halt by her father. The woman at the store tries to give her a little more food [help] but the help isn't what Mouchette wants. Mouchette kills herself after she finds she has torn the dress. Perhaps I'm reading a little too far into it, but most scenes do have a corresponding object or a action around an object.

There isn't anything in her world that hasn't hand in putting her at the bottom of the lake, and there doesn't seem to be much that seems to be able to get her out of it. Her world rather strangely never really seems to have any religious aspects about it. She never met a priest, but her encounter with the two women in the store [who enforce social dogma] and the old woman [who rejects dogma] seem to be eluding the same effect a priest could have in the movie.
So I think the movie I basically trying to show us or perhaps defend Mouchettes suicide, while also arguing that a person cannot rely on individual strength alone.

Mouchette manages to have a few moments where she is able to smile and seem upbeat but she often pulled back down by the way the world around her is. For example Mouchette is initially able to take care of the baby and feed it while also caring for her mother and household. But eventually it is too much to bear. She is unable to start the stove and has to heat the bottle with her own body. She isn't able to change the baby’s diaper because she simple doesn't have any more. It is here she begins to cry profusely. She no longer seems to be able to cope with all her responsibility and death is the only means of salvation or escape.

Like her life her death isn't particularly abrupt. What I mean to say is rolling yourself off a gentle slope into a shallow pond isn't very effective. So why did she do it? Perhaps it’s a way of reflecting her life itself. The things that drive her to kill herself aren't simple and clear cut. They are complex, hazy and rather ineffectual by themselves. You could describe rolling yourself into a pond wrapped around a torn shroud the same way.

I think the movie in its own strange and unusual way aims to reflect in her death, a lot of her life.

Mouchette

Firstly I must mention that I heard one line repeated over and over again throughout the movie and I assumed it was a feature for whatever reason....

Anyway the movie was a very nicely made piece that really manages to get the viewer to sympathies with Mouchette and explains step by stepthe little events that would drive her to kill herself.
The mothers worries about how the family will function without her, a very reasonable concern considering the family barely seems to be holding itself together in the first place.
The mother’s comments about her being a slut, while she is on her death bed suggest that she shares a fate similar to Mouchette. The father and brother [?] are hardly around and show nothings remotely akin to empathy or concern towards the mother, Mouchette or the baby. The brothers’ absence wouldn't have really made any difference. The fathers’ unnecessarily harsh behavior is very much the cause for Mouchettes unfortunate fate.
Coming to her rape itself, the game keeper and the poacher [who frees birds for whatever reason] are strange but very detailed characters and even though the game keeper has nothing to do with the rape it feels unfair to describe on without commenting on the other.

The little subplot where both of them wish are trying to court the same bartender is very interesting. I can't shake the feeling that this is meant to symbolize something.

Could the gamekeeper be the more 'honorable' of the two who despite being arguable better than the other -due to position in the government, aversion to fighting etc.- still cares nothing for Mouchettes rape and simple says its none of his business.

The poacher evokes sympathy at first. With his freeing of birds and what seems to be a genuine attempt at helping the young girl during the storm. His epileptic spells and willingness to make peace with the game keeper also seem to make him look like a 'nice' person. His rape of the girl completely surprising and unexpected.
The girl seemed to hold herself together or hide her pain really well until, the the woman at the store- who again wanted to help, but ends up harming the girl- calls her a slut. The father, as always, is callous and oblivious. The mother didn't do all that great a job either before she died.
The only genuinely nice person seemed to be the old woman who the Mouchette insults. An understandable reaction. The scene reminds us that this is a young girl we are dealing with and not someone who is capable of handling all that has happened to her.
The death of the rabbit feels very symbolic. It is killed or injured by hunters much like she has been. In comparison to the rabbit, Mouchettes death is more tranquil. While on the subject of her death, we aren't quite sure if that is actually what happens, we do not actually see her die.

The last scene which loops feels very out of place, why would you loop a scene for so long? It didn't feel unintentional; the rest of the film seems to be too well made for something like this to happen. Maybe it’s mirroring her repeated attempts at killing herself? I am not very sure.

Overall the film does do a good job at telling a sympathy evoking story about a girl and how people drive her to commit suicide while also hinting at some subtle artistic flourishes.

Dairy of uncertanity

Of all the characters in the movie the old woman is most distinct. Not only because of her dealings with her pride, loss and family, but because of the importance she has posed to the young priest.

Unlike the young girls and perhaps the old priest, his relationship with her isn't quite so personal. Here he is faced with the challenge of getting her to open up about her son, which is hard due to his poor social skills, the daughters and counts interference etc. His arguments which revolve around faith are more significant here for he has very recently had a crisis of conscious. His attempts at talking to her, an evidently prideful and strong person, show his lack of social skills, or maybe just unwillingness to compromise. His advice to her about her son can very easily be interpreted as threats. 

The line "God isn't a torturer" is one of the best in the movie. This scene demonstrates what is done constantly throughout the rest of the movie. Ask questions about faith through the beliefs and personal interactions of the characters. There is nothing to suggest that his advice actually helped her and that his words did not cause her much pain. There is a moral ambiguity in his actions that seems to work in the opposite direction of his religious narrative. The viewer is kept guessing about the usefulness of the priests actions. 

The doctor who kills himself was also interesting for his insistence that the both of them were of a similar kind, and the fact he kills himself in blatant violation of his own motto "Face up to it “draws parallels to the young priest. Both of them had problems of faith. The Doctors loss of faith was lethal. Or at least that is what the old priest would have one believe.

The young girl who went from begin indifferent to dependent on his role as a priest was also interesting. It was interesting to see the priest try to make sense of her dislike towards her family and very rebellious nature while also being unable to control her. The fact that she ends up saving his life really drives home the point that the priest is very sickly and may not be able to perform his duties properly.

The older priest who on seeing him break a wine glass and says "You can't escape it...You were pickled in it.." sums up the young priests role in the parish. He is unable to escape it, he isn't in charge of most of what happens or where he goes, the entire movies is about his thoughts about faith ,as fate drags him into new predicaments and dilemmas which he can do little to escape. 

 He constantly doubts himself, worried his actions are cowardly. He worries god will punish him for his incompetence. In every dealing with every character in the movie the priest seems to be looking for some sort of relief or peace to help him deal with his own life.

Overall it was a very interesting movie with a lot of questions and moral dilemmas beings asked in many ways through relatively few characters, actively encouraging the viewer to question the motives and usefulness of everyone's actions.

Diary of a country priest

A question raising spiritual journey or the delusional scribbles of a man drinking and starving himself to death? The movie never makes it clear which one of the two it is, and that feels intentional.

I wondered if his inability to consume anything other than wine and bread relate to the significance of wine and bread in Christianity. Is his odd diet supposed to represent his ability or desire to find things that would reconcile with his fate? Sure you could just chalk it up to stomach cancer but there is no reason why it can't symbolize something else.
There are a lot of subtly presented questions about the actions of the members of his parish and constant reminders that he may not exactly be the best person for the job. Indeed sometimes his faith seems to be result of his fear and sickness.
His views on certain subjects seem harsh at times and many repeatedly hint at his inability to communicate properly. The girl tells him how everyone thinks he is a drunk, the older priest tells him his simplicity burns everyone else and the young man from the military informs him of how he agrees with his uncles regarding his lack of social skills.
So one must question how valuable or agreeable his conclusions really are. Breaking into tears, sudden fits of revulsion or attraction to prayer... Not everything seems quite all right with the young priest.

His opening remarks seem rather untrue, there doesn't seem to be any lack of drama, tension or mystery in his life or at least in the parts of it we see. There is a lot of exploration regarding the views and beliefs people hold and the priests views seem to shift every time someone talks to him. However for reasons I'm not able to put a finger on I just feel underwhelmed by the idea of describing them in detail. Maybe if the movie was a little shorter... Either way it was very interesting to see the priest who was creeping towards death the entire time asking so many question to just about everyone trying to find out or learn more.

I don't really feel all that interested by the many questions the movies keeps posing revolving around all the minor characters. Rather the overall journey of the character from a meek and lost priest to a dying man who finds peace is very interesting and unconventional. After all, everything we know about these minor characters, we know from his diary, so isn't it more important to understand how the priest himself works?

St. George and strange sorts of patriotism.

The more I think about it the more comfortable I am with saying this isn't a war movie. War movies tend to revolve around battles and a particular set of events that relate to it. You have characters who during the course of battle /fighting stumble on great realizations and do great things all while finding an excuse to be patriotic.

The movie, unlike other war movies, does not show you any great depictions of a blissful life that would inspire a desire to protect it, in Serbia. The film starts and ends with a bleak depiction of life in the country. In fact I think the most happy and hopeful moments in the movie was when they were being bombed by the Turks.

From what I know about Serbia and most of the Balkans, after the Ottomans began their painfully long downfall, there has been a lot of ethnic, religious and political unrest and Serbia has often ended up having a lot of problems. In everything from poorly drawn internet comics to bazaar movies like "A Serbian film" people seem to think Serbia is a place full of people suffering from PTSD and war.
I read that the movie was funded by the Serbian government. I had a hard time figuring out why the Serbian government would want to fund a movie that showed questionable characters with bleak lives in a bleaker country.

No one in the film seems all that happy or has hopeful prospects ahead of them. People decided to lie down and die, are desperate to leave the countryside if not the country itself and there seem to have been a huge amount of wars and an ever increasing amount of disabled. Even the rich city girl who seems well educated and modern is left in an extremely bleak position.
The scene where the pilot fly’s over the village was confusing as I wasn't sure if he was an enemy fighter or the people of the village were just being trigger happy. This sort of confused, desperate and slightly hard to comprehend fight really captured the tone of the movie. No one was happy, none of the fights were among equals and there was no hint at happy endings. The drama between the general and solider was there too but it felt out of place albeit intentional.  Perhaps this is some way of saying all the little dramas in Serbia at that time took place during similar chaos?

 I think the cause for the government funding and the whole purpose of this film isn't to claim that Serbia of the past had a glorious history and brave heroes. The film seems to try and embrace how hard and difficult life in Serbia and later in the 20th century could be with the wars and oppressive rule only adding to Serbia's woes. The melancholy ending of the movie and the words "so on into the next century" suggested that this tone is what the movie wanted you feel and think about life in Serbia.
Which is unusual in the war movie genre, that usually has so much patriotism and confidence in the glorious nature of your country.

I liked what filmed tried to do and its many characters but the pacing was a little off and I found, myself getting distracted or impatient towards the middle. The ending felt unrealistic although very symbolic [of how war spares none].

Overall it was a slightly strange but interesting movie that had a lot of interesting elements that tried to explain to the viewer a strange sort of patriotic feeling about Serbia. I think the movie tries to explain to the viewer the sort of difficulties and hardship a Serbian faces and the odd sort of lives and patriotism that developed as a result, which is done very well.

St. George slays the dragon

I'm tempted to call this a war movie, but the battles didn't seem all that important. Rather this movie seems to concentrate on the drama and suffering caused due to war.

With nearly all war movies you have good guys, bad guys, happy endings and sickening amounts of patriotism. This movie however never actually shows you much of the other side. In fact it never even tries to make one side seem more in the right. The very first scene starts off with attempted suicide, dismemberment etc. This sort of ambiguous moral grappling and difficult questions are rather rare in war movies which seem to go out of their way to make their characters as clear cut and likable or dislikable as possible.

The scene where the train comes in and the woman garlands the general was rather strange. This all you have in the way of a background for their marriage, which seems even stranger and unlikely. I wonder why they would ever marry, and the movie does not do much to explain.

The village is also quite unusual. While I don't think it's likely that any village would divide themselves based on the amount of limbs they have, the idea doesn't seem to be so unrealistic either.
I wonder if it is meant to symbolize class differences. Also it is a little strange that the Serbian army would send a contingent composed of men all from the same village and then send reinforcements who are also from the exact same village to the exact same battle.

The village’s characters are interesting, but none of them are focused on in detail. The way the grandfather tells the boy how useless lights are in the country manages to convey a sort of bleak outlook that is associated with Serbia and war in general.

The blind man who kept shouting about politics was one of the most interesting characters. Firstly the fact that he is blind seems to be a joke about how oblivious political activists can be. His death where he appeals to his enemies felt very symbolic. It didn't seem as though there was any great hatred on either side. The war seemed to be the doing of aloof politicians and not the will of common folk.
The other characters in the village are interesting but none of have quite a lot said about them, so I don't feel confident about commenting on them. They seem to work as characters in a group, in the context of the village to be more exact. Individually they seem shallow.
The rich trader, although not very important, was very interesting but I'm still not sure who those soldiers were [the ones who demanded a bribe] nor am I sure if the trader is supposed to be Turk or a Gypsy. Weren't both those group ridiculously poor by this time? Also he seems to be one of the few foreigners in the movie.

The main characters, the wife, general and the arm less solider are hard to comment on. I wonder why the general seems to accept the wife's extra martial affairs. I wonder why the wife is still interested in the arm less solider even though he is married and is not very committed. The wife does act very independent and seems to do as she pleases. The arm less solider just seems to brood. The general does have some interesting conflicts with the solider, the wife's and his own feelings. 
Perhaps the relationship between the three [or four if you count the silent wife of the arm less solider] is supposed to represent all the ideas and intellectual conflicts that took place during the war.
However I can't shake this feeling that the whole affair was underwhelming and seemed to drag at times.

Hidden Depth

With the way the movie begins you would expect it show a lot of depth or character development. No, you could easily see the two peasants being two dumb sidekicks, but they don't.

Yes they are the cause of much laughter, but that isn't where their characters end. They have a certain sense of cruel reality about them. They had a bit of background; you weren't supposed to regard them as just two simpletons. They’re cruel greedy men; their loyalty depends on how kind fortune happens to be. They don't care about honor and don't really care for much other than the gratification of their own needs. Sure other movies do have characters like this but they very rarely seem to make the darker sides of such characters visible. Here it just seems more obvious, unavoidable and realistic. How many movies exist where the comic relief characters plan to force themselves onto a princess? These unrelenting hints at their curler nature and intentions make their final decisions to share the gold all the more significant.

The General too showed a very realistic outlook. It might be hard to root for someone who jokes about how he planned to kill peasants if they failed to give him a satisfactory answer, but it just makes his decisions to be merciful and tolerant more significant. The characters decisions show real weight, they have to decide how they want to act and if those decisions sit well with their concision. You wouldn't realistically expect a general in the middle of medieval Japan [where the feudal system was quite powerful] to care much about peasants.
The princess is one of the most interesting characters. Her defiant attitude and hardheadedness doesn't seem tacked on. She shows moments of intelligence and wit even though she does not say anything through half the movie.
The scene where she foils the generals’ attempt at reverse psychology is one of the best in the movie. While I was watching this unfold I thought to myself how annoying such common, obvious depictions of reverse psychology are and how annoying it was that in nearly all movies and books, these blatant attempts at treachery are always believed. I almost found myself cheering when the princess saw right through his plan in seconds. The way the other older general struggled to hide a smile was a nice touch and seemed to suggest a great attention to detail. The scene really drove home the point that the princess despite being arrogant and conceited was very capable of compromise and cunning. Telling us subtly, that she has great potential as a leader.
The scene where the old retainer tries to explain why the princess is so angry to hear that the general has sacrificed his sister also let us know how she stands with the common folk, and is perhaps an allusion to further challenges to come.

The other general is also interesting; his introduction is untimely, making the movie feel more akin to a play with acts. His changing personality, his conflicts with his code of honor, loyalty gave him more character development than the actual general.
 It's interesting to compare the two, for you start to realize that there aren't any real villains in the movie. You don't really see any hints that once side is more in the right than the other.

The final character the woman the princess rescues is very significant, for she takes away from the lighter feel of the earlier bit of the movie. A reminder that all isn't well in the kingdom. She also seems to be the very opposite of the two peasants in the movie. Unlike them she is caring, loyal and even risks her life to save the princess. I don't remember seeing her in the final scene.

The movie was a rather fun adventure; it had interesting characters and an enjoyable plot. Yet it also had a lot of complexity and layers that one could miss. Overall it was thoroughly enjoyable and engaging.

The hidden fortress.

The main characters are the most interesting aspects about the movie for me, but I have to appreciate how the entire world, around them seems genuine.

While I’m certain so many people wouldn't be wearing shorts, everything else feels like an authentic recreation of life in Japan. The costumes, the sets, the buildings etc. The way the characters go about also adds to the feeling of authenticity.

If I had to pick a scene in particular that really show’s off the films style and makes it unique it would be the duel between the two generals. Firstly we aren't told how exactly they know each other, your just shown these two characters, right after an exciting chase- the hero fails to actually do what he set out to do[stop the messengers from delivering information] telling the viewer that he is not infallible. You have a tired general in odd short pants against a general in full armor. They then do what you never see in your average sword and sandal movie. They fight with spears, not the sword - that is apparently noble and what have you. They fight using the simple spear, used by peasants and nobles alike.   

It might seem like a stupid cause for liking a movie, but this is Japan the land where the most overrated sword of all time comes from[ Japanese steel was often inferior to other steels ,which meant the Katana was often inferior to swords forged in Damascus or most other places in the world]! Showing an almost dance like fight, that felt so grounded and realistic and made no attempt to go out of its way to seem more exciting just felt so refreshing.

You see Conan the barbarian with a gigantic clumsy hunk of metal that’s meant to be a sword, you see people killing each other with a single slash [human beings aren't that delicate and swords aren't that good].  The way the movie just seems to care more about showing the events of the story, without any attempt at making it more acceptable or exciting helps create an atmosphere that engages you by being unaware of your presence. 

The swords is everywhere from Narnia to actual legends [the sword of Charlemagne] it is an omnipresent of nobility, power, kingship and all that jazz. The spear, it isn't all that important in the legends, but it’s always there, it was there before the sword was invented and it was preferred to the sword in almost every culture.  A man with a long stick that’s pointy on one end may not cut a noble or heroic figure, but the movie shows it to us, the most climatic moment in the first part of the movie is a spear fight.  Not two men cutting at each other, delivering witty lines, and showing their faces in close ups; two men almost dancing, oblivious to world. 

I don’t know what else I can say about the movie. Like the spear duel, it just feels like an authentic piece of medieval Japan that you are viewing. The story doesn't care that you’re watching it goes where it will; it doesn't try very hard to be complex, dramatic or sentimental. It just feels like a realistic, albeit incredible story, story you could see in a history book or a legend about famous Japanese generals like Oda Nobunaga.

Spider web forest

The more I think about the movie, the more I wonder about the sprit. What exactly is the importance of the spinning cloth? 

Is he supposed to be like fate, a blind woman who spins a wheel in most mythology? It seems the webs of spider web forest extend far beyond the actual forest.

It’s interesting to see the soldiers talking about the fortress and remark on past events and happenings and also wonder on what can happen to the fortress next.  The story doesn’t seem to exclude all those other people in the fort even though they aren’t focused on.  I do wonder what they thought of the general. I also wonder if their changing loyalty at the end is supposed to show how fickle a hold on power can be.

The spirits plot or spider web is quite extensive. It brings down everyone one from the two generals, the former ruler who himself was a traitor. Perhaps the spirit is meant to act as some of divine retribution towards traitors or something similar. The spirit tells Washizu , when Washizu says he will bring forth a flood of blood, to be even more ruthless and flood the forest with eve more blood.  Perhaps this alludes to how slippery Washizus’ killing spree is.

The spirit didn’t do much other than appear and disappear and goad them on into greed and treachery so you can’t quite put all the blame on the spirit. Both general had failings, which were exposed when they received power. Yet you cannot simply write off either as evil. Nor can you do the same with any of the other characters in the movie. All of them from the wife, to the soldiers who finally betray the general, do have reasonable fears and doubts.  So the entire movie seems to be suggesting that bloodbaths are the result of simply thinking of saving your own skin and that ideas like duty and honor are important. Even if it isn’t, the movies natural ability to seem like it’s trying to teach you something gives it a very unique sort of flavor.

Anime, movies, cartoons the more I think about them I realize that samurai aren’t usually shown as dishonorable. Anime and Magna, even ones that concentrate only on samurai like Samurai X or Samurai Jack, they don’t have a lot of bad samurai. So seeing Samurai having to struggle with their greed, question the worth of their values and really just be more human felt like a refreshing change.

None of the characters felt two dimensional; they all had their motive ad changed throughout the movie.  Even normal political dramas have less character development than this movie.

The fortress and the forest, although frightening, are not as interesting as the incredible story of the main characters, which despite being the result of supernatural forces, feels so realistic.

Throne of blood.

A supernatural political thriller? That makes trees seem scary? It is easy to see how this film could have gone wrong, but I feel the film was extraordinarily good.  It combined the stories of evil spirits you see in myths about kings and sultans all over the eastern world, with a gripping realistic depiction of political intrigue and assassination with great skill and is unlike any other film or genre I've come across.

The story starts off with reports of a battle; the viewer is aware of exciting turns but does not get to see any of them. I think this really sets the tone; the battles aren't quite as important as the twists, turns and intrigue. The spirit, the forest and the way the two generals’ deal with the spirit is akin to what you’d see in the Panchatantra or the Arabian nights. Yet it the characters never seem to lose believability. You wouldn't disbelieve that a bunch of arrogant generals who hear stories of men fighting demons and other such creatures with nobility and the sweat of their brow and all that would act the way the generals do.  Even here before we really see much of the intrigue and backhanded, ruthless dealings you see a little of their darker side that they hide behind their loud boasts and noble demeanor. They want to hear what the spirit has to say, they want to know how and when they shall receive what the spirit promises them. They are uneasy when the spirit questions how noble and loyal they are. This little hint of things to come really give you a little look into how ‘noble’ you can expect everyone to be.

That little talk they have right before they enter the castle, I where they really begin to through honor to the wind and start giving in to their desires. I’m not quite sure why it is Washizu who becomes the main focus of the movie, but I suspect, due to how every constantly hints at how previous generals have killed themselves here, that location is very important. The fortress seems to be doomed to suffer sieges and assassinations, due to power it represents and the spirits that lurk around it. The way people keep ultimately justify killing each other because other leaders and rulers have done the same to others before warns us of how dangerous and useless it is to assassinate people. This covert, naturally observable moral lesson makes it feel even more like one of those stories from the Phanchatantra.

The assassination rampage is made interesting by the fact that Washizus’ wife is the one who masterminds it, and quite frankly does most of the work. Here is the great general, a plaything of spirits and wives.  The allusion of past traitors who inhabited the fortress makes the whole place feel more ancient and dangerous. The way that we aren't really told what’s happening with the other general also adds to the intrigue and suspicion. I like how ingloriously the other General is done away with. It makes the dealing seem more brutal and t makes the twist which has the Washizus wife deliver a stillborn ore interesting.

Washizu seems to go almost insane, yet holds up well for someone who has alienated so many.  The scene where he returns to the spirit is also quite interesting. The spirit seems to take on forms of other warriors. These warriors wear older styles of armor and older types of weapons suggesting that the spirit has been at his game for quite a while.

The way both the sons end up on the enemy side shows just how flexible politics make people. For whatever reason I had assumed the Washizus’ wife had died and was absolutely terrified when I saw her trying to wash her hands of blood. Even alive that scene was frightening.  The General death at the hands of his own men was very ironic and seemed to deliver a moral lesson. The death itself was very dramatic; it seemed almost unjust to deny such a war hungry man battle. His prolonged death may seem silly, but it made his end feels dramatic, shocking and utterly unexpected.

Overall it was an excellent movie, easily a classic, due to its combination on suspense intrigue, action and drama. 

Balthazar follow up, article 2

Review

So apparently I was wrong about Balthazar having a biblical ass, it turns about it was Balaam who had a story worthy ass. Either way I don’t think this affected my viewing of the movie all that much.

While on the topic of biblical connections, I wonder if Balthazar the name, is supposed to allude to the donkey being wise [since one of the three wise men was called Balthazar]. However I wonder if the director decided to be extremely daring and the donkey an analogy for Jesus. 

The mother who seems to be a little pragmatic… or perhaps just more agreeable than the other characters does call him a saint, and he is carrying around everyone’s burden. The only problem with that idea is that he does run away from the drunk, which is rather un-messiah like. I also noticed a lot of attention was given to the sounds in the background, I wonder if that’s important. I have a pretty strong feeling the movie is supposed to show you all the various archetypes- the prideful father, the worrisome mother, the wayward youth, the confused young girl, the rich but malevolent uncle etc- in that sense I think the movie did quite well. I guess the rigidity was just in place to reinforce the archetypes.

The film was atypical, it was rather unique in tone and manner [film style, sound etc] it didn't seem to follow the usual manner of storytelling, it avoided all the overblown sentimentality that films about animals have and it was refreshing. I would say I quite like it especially since it did cover quite a lot of archetypes and topics [bad friends/ company, injustice, tragedy wrongdoing]. Everything felt symbolic of something, there seemed to be just around everything in the film, from unjust authority figures to unfeeling lawyers. Despite all this I felt quite annoyed with the film after I saw it as I thought it was trying hard to avoid being straightforward. Why, when you have something to say, make it so hard to figure out? Would anything have really been lost if the film was a little more easy to figure out? Shakespeare wrote plays that were meant for an audience of commoners, I don’t see anyone holding that against him. I just feel annoyed by how I am unable to figure out what exactly the movie is trying to be.

It isn't those normal annoying buckets of sentimentality that most movies about animals are. The story is unique, the characters [although stiff] well done and the ambiance/sound very detailed and interesting. So is that it? Is it just a well made movie with a very un-Hollywood story?  That tries to drive home how the characters, who have similar counterparts in just about every movie or books you see, are actually a little over exaggerated and foolish[In all those books and movies]. If it is, well it’s still a good movie, but I have a headache that’s screaming about symbolism but I don’t see it, maybe that’s a joke.

Balthazar

 Now I know there is a biblical story called Balthazar's ass, I don't know how it goes and I don't feel very informed after this movie. Is this some joke about how everyone around the donkey displays "Ass-like behavior" and the poor creature has to suffer through their stupidity?

Firstly the girl, what exactly is her problem? I really find it hard to believe someone can be so indecisive and so bad and making choices. I saw a relationship between her and Geralds happening the moment they were introduced, and I kept rolling my eyes every time they had moments of intimacy, I don't think its unreasonable to have a character who has to deal with an overbearing, prideful father to want to rebel and end up with another "rebellious" character but dear god the characters felt so unrealistic and unbelievable. He burns donkey tails and causes car crashes, forever eliminating an hints of subtlety and redeemablity about his character. It felt a little too over the top, and made the girl seems like an idiot. Quite honestly I'm not sure she ever even liked the dam donkey, everyone acts like she does, but I don't really see any convincing proof for that. Also this might be a stupid objection I have but she doesn't move her hands like a normal person while walking.

The father also felt unbelievable and unrealistic, someone who walks out of court rooms because he thought he was insulted also thought a school of kids apparently. However Gerlad dumb behavior would make a little more sense if this is the sort of push over that thought them. The one character I did like was her mother, she wasn't as prominent as first, but the few moments she did turn up showed actually realistic and sensible[ in context of the story] ways a character who had to suffer life with these caricatures would act. She showed real conflict, she seemed to have real problems and you could see the difficulty she had dealing with her problems, which was so refreshing in comparison to the rest of the characters. The drunk... I wonder if his anti-police speech and guillotine riddled dreams allude to a military past , but he didn't come across as consistent. I have a hard time believing he did not try to kill that idiot Gerald at least thrice. Dear god how do people tolerate that ass[Gerald not the donkey]? The donkey itself, well it seems... Genuinely donkey like until it freaks out on seeing the drunk at the circus. Firstly, I'm pretty sure that counting trick only worked on horses, secondly the donkey runs away from someone who over works it and is quite ineffective at harming it, but has no problem with some who actually hits it and sets its tail on fire?

The character of the uncle actually did have a interesting take on honor, wealth[ which the girl would reflect on later{ineffectively without explaining it to the audience}] he seemed to the the dispenser of wisdom you see in mythology, made me wonder if all these characters are supposed to be renditions of over the top characters you see in mythology.

Overall I didn't dislike the movie, I just fail to see some of the motives and I am not able to figure out if the story was supposed to represent something. I find it quite hard to think of anything other than the characters. Maybe my opinion will change if I read up on the actual biblical story.