(originally published in The Outreach Connection in April 2002)
I was writing the other week about how
director Jacques Rivette has challenged normal notions of how long a movie
should be. Soon after that I went to the Cinematheque Ontario on a Sunday
afternoon for a five-and-a-half hour screening of Jean-Luc Godard’s France Tour Detour Deux Enfants
(actually a series of twelve half-hour TV programs, shown here in one block). I’m
often surprised how few people seem aware of the Cinematheque – it really is
one of Toronto’s artistic jewels. I go there maybe thirty or forty times a
year, but it should be way more often (life involves tough choices). I get a
bit irritated by fair-weather film festival attendees who make a big deal for
that one week in September of avoiding the commercial and seeking out rare
films, while ignoring the Cinematheque for the rest of the year.
Five
and a half hours!
I envy anyone who can watch a five and a
half hour movie with the same concentration I can apply for ninety minutes. I
nodded off at least three times; I was almost as preoccupied with spacing out
my candy as with the film itself. And of course, that big a chunk of time
couldn’t help but screw up the other things you’d normally do with your day.
Still, it was a sublime experience. The film itself is endlessly fascinating
and provocative. Of course that’s partly a function of the possibilities
allowed by so much time, but the length itself, quite separate from the
content, forms an intertwined yet somehow distinct experience. Maybe it’s
partly self-aggrandizement – you’re impressed at your own resolve and
fortitude. But it’s also purer than that.
I’m usually skeptical about the common
claim that a particular feel-good hit represents the “triumph of the human
spirit.” Part of my skepticism is that for such movies (A Beautiful Mind is one
of the most recent) the feel-good dosage goes down all too easily – the film
itself involves little suffering or striving. The ultimate “triumph” of the
human spirit usually seems muted to me because we were spared the pain or full
complexity of the earlier obstacles. I doubt anyone’s ever reviewed a Godard
movie in such terms, yet the “lighter” moments of France Tour Detour seem more liberating and more meaningful than
any number of standard happy endings, because of the encyclopedic context from
which they emerge.
Of course, I’m not saying a film’s value
always increases in proportion to its length (at this point we can all insert
our own bloated examples of why that wouldn’t work). And I’m not saying either
that its emotional impact necessarily depends on how difficult it is. Without
being particularly long or particularly difficult to watch, the current film Monster’s Ball seems to me to illustrate
a triumph of the human spirit quite well. Again, I’m not sure anyone has
described it in those terms. It’s certainly been praised though – Roger Ebert
called it the best film of 2001. That’s going a little far, although not as far
as his citations of Eve’s Bayou and Dark City in previous years. But it’s a
moving, enveloping film that earns its happy ending in sweat and blood that you
can smell and taste.
Monster’s
Ball
It’s basically the story of an unlikely
relationship between a prison guard (Billy Bob Thornton) and the widow (Halle
Berry) of a man he escorted on death row; set in a small Southern town. These
are small-scale lives, moving between home and work and the local diner; sons
unthinkingly follow the career paths of their fathers (and, as shown in a witty
juxtaposition, even adopt the same sexual position with the same local
prostitute); casual racism’s still part of the fabric.
Like several recent movies, Monster’s Ball owes an awful lot to its
actors. Halle Berry deserved the Oscar for Best Actress for this performance.
The moment when she initiates sex with Thornton is shocking in the intensity of
its emotion and in the completely unexpected way it tears open her grief and
loneliness. And Thornton is almost as amazing. He starts out almost as a dead
man walking, embodying racist attitudes and family hatred that he doesn’t
really feel deeply, but doesn’t think of questioning. By the end of the movie,
he’s worked his way to real tenderness. The characterizations are so good that
they almost break loose from the rest of the movie, into some transcendent,
psychologically acute bubble.
The film is distinctly marred though by
excessive melodrama and schematicism in its plotting. In its first half, both
characters are visited by Job-like misfortune; they both lose a son, she loses
her husband, they both all but lose their souls. It’s too much, although I’m
not suggesting this is unconscious. I suppose the film aims to place itself on
the edge of Biblical tragedy, and then to claw back through the sensitivity and
imagination of its artistry. Somewhat incredibly, it largely succeeds in this.
Judgments
of racism
When the two get together, the film narrows
its focus, allowing the numerous seeds sown in the first half to come to
fruition. This allows the film’s essential softness to come to the fore, which
is a mixed blessing – for example, Thornton’s developing friendship with a
black man he scorned at the start seems too easy a symbol of his inner transformation.
That friendship also strikes of calculation – as if the filmmakers were worried
that the audience would suspect the motives of a white man who sleeps with a
black woman, unless it were clear that he gets on with other black people as
well.
It’s amazing to reflect how few films
depict a sexual relationship between a white man and a black woman – so few
that to some the images inherently convey paternalism and exploitation. Rick
Groen in the Globe and Mail, for
reasons I found a little bizarre, accused Monster’s
Ball of coming close to racism. This judgment, as he frames it, seems to
depend less on what’s in the film than on a preconceived opinion on what
constitutes acceptable rules of engagement across colour lines. Monster’s Ball certainly supports a
debate on that point, but I don’t think it’s diminished by it.
I can report that Monster’s Ball has a happy ending, something that seemed highly in question throughout the movie. It’s tinged by impermanence, but as the film ends, the characters have something workable in place. It definitely wouldn’t have been a surprise if the film had ended in gloom – the fact that it doesn’t is a relief, a minor joy, and seems frankly like a matter of optimism on the part of its makers. So there’s your triumph of the human spirit. Monster’s Ball is flawed for sure, but it’s one of the rare movies that scores the double – worthy of both the multiplex and the Cinematheque.
No comments:
Post a Comment