MOVIE REVIEW: The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)

The Conversation on IMDb 
click here to read the plot summary 

The movie had a very strong effect on me, and I am sure it was meant to have that effect, but that didn't make the experience any more pleasant: it was suffocating. I felt entrapped in Harry Caul's claustrophobic universe, isolated from the normal and lively human beings who dwelt outside, I felt lonely and awkward and very empty.

Trying to pull myself out of it, I could see how the obsessive repetition of the conversation in the beginning was fascinating, how the same words kept shifting meanings, how the reality that was projected upon them kept changing, then again I could also feel Harry completely trapped in a web of signs (made clear from the beginning, when we hear voices distorted through the hearing devices, making obvious their status of signs, not objects - or parts of human beings) whose referential function worked like a brick wall between him and the rest of the universe, and indeed he never broke through that wall. He never managed to touch the facts, he only fell deeper in his semantic pit, from signs to signs of signs and signs of signs of signs, further and further away from the world until all he was left with were scraps of a primordial human existence. I suppose that after a while I will conclude that I loved the movie, now I remember too well the actual difficulty with which I went on through it. It was as if I had to push myself from frame to frame, instead of having the frames and scenes flow smoothly over me.

I wouldn't even really call it unpleasant, now in retrospective - but rather "difficult to deal with". Like the sense of "get that thing away from me!!" I had during Look Back in Anger, which turned out to have tapped some chords deep within me, because a good while after I saw it, while seeing a couple fight for little things, I was interpreting the scene in terms of "the torture we administer to the ones closest to us". I don't even want to think of the chords Harry Caul may have stroke (most certainly something very dramatic pertaining to the deep phenomenological fears of being forever removed from the actual reality of the world)(like I said, very dramatic).

Otherwise, the repeated comment about the old people seemed a bit point-hammering to me, but the hotel scene was totally sinister and fantastic. Aside from the blur and the quiet-then-shocking-then-quiet surreal moments, it was also the one time when Harry actually got somewhat close to the Things behind the Sounds-as-Signs. When he mustered the desire and guts to check on the reality - of course, his perception, his personal recording, was still jammed by his projections.

And the whole super-spy-fair was the one moment I found delightful without ifs and buts, as if going behind the stage of all the Bonds and M-s of the world, to see all that arcane equipment labelled and priced and advertised as if it was kitchen and bathroom gear, not to mention the in-jokes and the possibility of actually using the equipment to spy within the fair.

MOVIE REVIEW: Masaki Kobayashi, 'Seppuku' (1962) vs 'Samurai Rebellion' (1967)



In the following I will be talking about these two movies:
Seppuku (1962, directed by Masaki Kobayashi) 

Tatsuya Nakadai in Seppuku
I have watched a few days ago Kobayashi's Samurai Rebellion, and I was left oddly unsatisfied. I had liked his Seppuku a heck of a lot, but Rebellion just felt flat. It's true, however, that the title of Rebellion has been translated wrongly: as far as I have understood, the Japanese title actually refers to a rebellious woman and her plight. Which would have changed my expectations, and as such, probably, my enjoyment of the movie. To watch something called "Samurai Rebellion" and actually see a domestic drama about the sad fate of a madam is a little disconcerting. 

Then again, even apart from this matter, the movie just didn't have the subtle ethical dilemmas and grim atmosphere of Seppuku. The main problems in Rebellion are the following ones. 

1. The Lord of the land commits a set of abuses connected to a woman and the people around her, which have to be sanctioned at some point, even at the cost of a whole clan. 

2. An individual cannot possibly be just the network of social relations and obligations surrounding him or her, and the main characters are trying to get a life apart from the social system they are a part of - even at the cost of being crushed by said system. 

3. There are vague hints that the actions of the mean Lord were somewhat dictated by the official norms and traditions themselves, so the woman in question was not oppressed just by a mean individual in a position of power, but by the whole tradition she was a part of. 

4. There is duty, and there is moral right, and sometimes they interfere and one has to decide, losing something either way. 

Toshiro Mifune in Samurai Rebellion
The thing is that 2 & 3 are at most hinted at vaguely, while 1 & 4 are not particularly interesting. Problem 3 is really just one sentence uttered by Nakadai's character in front of the Lord, and problem 2 as such is also mostly a sentence of Mifune's, while in practice it gets overlapped by 4. As to problem 4, we have several characters trapped between the Lord's orders and the inner sense of morality, and while Ichi's family chooses the inner morality (and die as a consequence of that), Nakadai's character picks the duty (...and dies as a consequence of it). Then we have Ichi & co's stubbornness against duty to the Matsudaira clan and duty to their own family, which is unclearly presented as either problem 2 (individual desire against social system), or problem 4 (inner sense of justice vs outer duty, fight against kidnapping vs submission to the Lord's orders).
 
Seppuku's moral plight was much more continuous and smooth - the unjustified aggressiveness of the Samurai Code in a time of peace, against humanitarian (and probably deeper Buddhist) principles, and also its perversion by the increasingly lax attitude of its practitioners. The ethical argument was sharp and painful as a katana, the humanism was warm, laughing, crying and bleeding, and apart from that, the visual metaphors were deep and compelling. Nakadai's Hanshiro himself was more of a metaphorical archetype than an actual human being, he was relentless retribution, a bleeding wound frozen in time until the corroded blade that opened it was found and punished. Both movies end with the two individual dramas frustratingly concealed by the clan officials, little red specs crushed under the millstones of large-scale politics, but while Seppuku takes it with a world-wrecking visual metaphor and a grain of cynical humor, Rebellion whimpers and declaims. 

Rebellion was descriptively, visually and theoretically confusing. Not deadly confusing, of course, but still deflating. I can only think of a handful of images that had an effect on me, 

which is also why my analysis is so focused on the ethical part of the story. Neither Ichi, not Yogoro looked like more of a sketch, and apart from some generic "damn women had a bad fate during the Shogunate" reaction, I never felt truly involved in their fate. Of course that playing ping-pong with a woman's life is not nice, but come on, this was such a minor issue compared to the problems from Seppuku - and to my own expectations when I read the title of the movie. Isaburo felt more like a frustrated old man who is trying to (almost forcefully at times) project his dreams of happiness on his son, the Lord and the Intendent were typically bad guys, and Nakadai's Tatewaki was more of an afterthought, almost redundant in the story. I believe that the worst offender here was Ichi and Yogoro's life together, which was supposed to be the portrayal of familial happiness. At least we're told so. In reality, it was the same ritualistic stiffness - and I won't even begin to compare this with the happy scenes from Tsugumo's life with his daughter and son  in law. In fact, if the happiness of the three Sasaharas had been actually shown, I think that their subsequent plight would have been much more convincing. Of course, Kobayashi doesn't do very much in the direction of creating an actual universe behind the screen, his worlds look like artificial compositions in both cases, but the construction from Seppuku is so beautiful and complex that it pretty much catches life. 

And I never really felt tensed - what I felt was rather discomfort at the domestic conflicts, and toward the end a whiff of irritation at stuff being blown out of proportions. Indeed, the latter could have become a tragic cry of suffocation of the little human against the social bulldozer, problem 2 was by far the most interesting one - and who knows, maybe on a latter reviewing I'll focus on it and draw more from this movie. But this time, it didn't do more than tug a little at the corner of my eye (or the corner of my humanistic principles). 

In conclusion, I am heavily tempted to decide that, in spite of its high praise, Samurai Rebellion just didn't work, at least not for me. Sure that my reaction to a movie is, to a certain extent, influenced by the mood and state I'm in when I see it, and I had seen Seppuku during a train trip, when I typically feel very relaxed and comfortable (and open to whatever a movie is throwing at me). Still, I'm pretty sure that, during the same train trip, had I watched Rebellion, I'd have had a much less remarkable experience.