Steven Rubio's Online Life

eo (jerzy skolimowski, 2022)

The "Kuloshov effect" is described on Wikipedia as follows:

Kuleshov edited a short film in which a shot of the expressionless face of Tsarist matinee idol Ivan Mosjoukine was alternated with various other shots (a bowl of soup, a girl in a coffin, a woman on a divan). The film was shown to an audience who believed that the expression on Mosjoukine's face was different each time he appeared, depending on whether he was "looking at" the bowl of soup, the girl in the coffin, or the woman on the divan, showing an expression of hunger, grief, or desire, respectively. The footage of Mosjoukine was actually the same shot each time.

I thought about Kuloshov while watching EO, a rather picaresque film about the life of a donkey named Eo.

 

In Rolling Stone, K. Austin Collins wrote that EO "inarguably qualifies as an animal’s-eye view of all that’s warm and cruel, comical and arbitrary about human nature." He says that "The movie is always subjective," adding "the expressive, open, alert face that we encounter throughout the film feels singular. We get to know this animal, or feel like we do. We start to feel that we understand its emotions". I'd argue that the key phrase here is "feel like we do", for Jerzy Skolimowski and co-writer Ewa Piaskowska artfully convince us that we understand Eo's point of view. It's a slight of hand worthy of a superhero movie, except where those films use CGI to make marvelous things happen, Skolimowski uses Eo like Kuleshov used Mosjoukine. Full of close ups of Eo's eyes, deep and (as presented) meaningful, the film is edited (Agnieszka Glińska is the editor) to maximum effect to make us believe that, just as Superman can fly, Eo communicates to us in some fantastic, nearly indescribable way.

 

But, of course, EO is not seen through the eyes of the donkey, it's seen through the eyes of the film makers. Soulful as Eo's eyes are, his expression is unchanging. Skolimowski convinces us otherwise, and that is key to what makes his movie so affecting to so many people.

There is more to EO than those donkey eyes. The soundtrack is unique ... at times, aided by unusual work by cinematographer Michal Dymek, EO turns almost avant-garde in its presentation. And even if I am skeptical of the way we are supposed to read Eo's thoughts, the events that happen around the donkey are varied, at times funny, at times tragic, and always interesting. I think it's a better movie than its clear inspiration, Bresson's Au hasard Balthazar.

music friday: more from dj x

I woke up to the following tunes, chosen by Spotify's AI DJ, "X". First, a song from Quicksilver Messenger Service's debut album in 1968, written by Dino Valenti, who was in prison at the time:

From 1965, a song that needs no introduction:

Also from 1965, the first single by The Yardbirds after Jeff Beck replaced Eric Clapton:

Amidst a bunch of 60s songs by bands of white guys, a 1989 track from a band of white guys:

Spooky Tooth, with Gary Wright, and a guitarist who later joined Mott the Hoople, from 1968, covering a Dylan song from the Basement Tapes era:

geezer cinema/film fatales #163: catherine called birdy (lena dunham, 2022)

Watching Bella Ramsey on a weekly basis on The Last of Us has made me want to see more of her. So, Catherine Called Birdy, which I believe is Ramsey's first time "carrying" a movie (she is the title character). She shows her versatility as a 14-year-old in Lena Dunham's Medieval England world. Ramsey is the best thing about the movie, but she is not the only good thing. There is plenty of good acting, not just from Billie Piper and Andrew Scott as Birdy's parents, but also Lesley Sharp, Sophie Okonedo, David Bradley, and even Russell Brand in what amounts to a cameo. Dunham manages to recreate the times while fitting a modern-ish Birdy into the proceedings without making things into a modern coming-of-age story in costume.

Ramsey is a unique performer, intriguing ... she uses her eyes to suggest the intelligence behind her outward actions. She has fun with her role, and we root for her throughout. The film has won an award for Production Design (Kave Quinn), and while I don't really know what Medieval England looked like, everything seems pretty authentic (including the outhouses). Catherine Called Birdy is solid and enjoyable, and sometimes that's enough.

[Letterboxd list of Film Fatales movies]

apur sansar (the world of apu), (satyajit ray, 1959)

This is the twenty-second film I have watched in "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2022-23", "A 33 week long challenge where the goal each week is to watch a previously unseen feature length film from a specified category." This is the 8th annual challenge, and my fourth time participating (my first year can be found at "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2019-20", the second year at "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2020-21", and last year at "My Letterboxd Season Challenge 2021-22"). Week 22 is called "Sight and Sound Top 250 Week":

This week's challenge is to watch a previously unseen film from Sight and Sound's BFI: 2012 Critics Top 250 Films list.

(Note that this is based on the Sight and Sound list from 10 years ago. The most recent list hadn't been released at the time the challenge was created.)

It takes me awhile to get to things sometimes. Back in 2011, I took part with two friends in a long Facebook effort where we chose our 50 favorite films. I vowed at the time that I would watched every movie my friends chose that I had missed over the years. One of those selections was The Apu Trilogy, which one friend had at #15. I watched Pather Panchali in 2016, and Aparajito in 2020 (as part of an earlier Letterboxd challenge). Now, a dozen years later, I have completed the trilogy!

About the first, I wrote:

"It is easy to see why Pather Panchali is so highly regarded. But ultimately, for me, it falls into the category of “admired more than loved”. Maybe the languid pace gave me too much time to think, but I wasn’t as drawn in emotionally as I expected. It’s importance in Indian and World cinema is clear, and I have no problem recommending it. I just wish I had felt more sucked into its pleasures.

And Aparajito: "I finally started understanding why the films have such a high reputation."

The World of Apu completes my experience with these films, and my feelings remain pretty consistent. Like the other movies in the trilogy, The World of Apu has wonderful cinematography (Subrata Mitra was in charge of all three). Apu is far from a perfect person ... Ray gives us a well-rounded portrait throughout, where we understand what drives him even when we don't necessarily approve of his actions. And once again, Ray has chosen the right people to play his characters. Soumitra Chatterjee makes his film debut as Apu. He went on to make hundreds of films, 14 with Ray. And Sharmila Tagore, also in her debut, is unforgettable as Apu's young wife of an arranged marriage. Tagore was only 14 when the movie was filmed, but her youth adds to the poignancy of the character, who is also young.

I remain an admirer more than a lover of this trilogy. But it's quite an achievement, to make three connected films, all of a high quality.