Frederick Wiseman's Films

 doc·u·men·ta·ry
noun: documentary; plural noun: documentaries
    a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.

A documentary film is a un biased non-fictional motion-picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record”. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film
 

Frederick Wiseman’s name can be put against the definition of documentary because his films have documented places, people, cities, organizations, institutions, communities and buildings. He is highly prolific and has directed almost one film per year since his debut documentary in 1967 (Titicut Follies). The recent City Hall (2020) is his 45th feature documentary. However, for the longest time, it was hard for me to see his films in the same year as it was released. This is because his films were released at select film festivals and their length of 3-4 hours ensured that they never made it to my local city. In the years between 2005-2013, the gap between his film getting released and my time to see it got reduced to 2-3 years. Then in 2014, I finally saw a Frederick Wiseman movie in a cinema (National Gallery) in the same year of its release. That good fortune continued in 2015 when I saw In Jackson Heights a few months after its release. Finally, this year’s City Hall (released on PBS Dec 22) is the 3rd Wiseman film I have seen in the same year as its release. On top of that, his films are now more accessible than ever. Since 2018, all his films are  available to stream via Kanopy, which means anyone with a library card (at least in North America) can see his movies.

I planned a mini-spotlight which included re-viewing Titicut Follies after more than a decade and seeing a few other films for the first time. The goal was to finish viewing all films in time for premiere of City Hall on Dec 22.

Titicut Follies (1967)
Welfare (1975)
Canal Zone (1977)
Public Housing (1997)
Belfast, Maine (1999)
City Hall (2020)
 

Of the above films, Welfare is a remarkable film that left me in awe. The film came out in 1975 and shows the challenges in trying to judge/handle individual welfare cases. The problems related to housing, unemployment, welfare have gotten much worse since the film came out as the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last 45 years. On top of that, the topic of welfare has been heavily politicized in America with politicians and certain media outlets dehumanizing those on welfare over the last few decades. The welfare system is shown be struggling to handle all the cases in 1975. It is hard to image how this system has coped in 2020 and will cope in 2021 with more job losses and a government that isn’t interested in helping address the core issues of poverty. The political parties and their media mouthpieces are not interesting in providing any solutions related to retraining people who have lost their jobs or how to diversify jobs.

There is a hint of a solution to some job creation provided at the end of Public Housing  (1997) which contains ideas on how residents can form their own businesses to generate some wealth. It is not clear how much such ideas made a difference or if they gained traction because one of the stats mentioned in City Hall (2020) shows that the average wealth of African Americans is substantially behind those of White Americans. This disparity is related to other minorities as well. In City Hall, a hispanic contractor mentions his plight in trying to win big contracts and not getting anywhere over 30 years. He says that there is clearly a disparity in how city council awards its contracts to companies but the film shows discussions and ideas on how to make things better.

The films of Frederick Wiseman shed light on relevant topics of economic disparity but are these films seen by anyone who is in the power to mount a change? Are these films merely meant to be praised by those on the left but they lead to no policy or political change? The protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing raised topics of systematic racist policies that have existed for decades and some of these policies are indirectly reflected in Wiseman’s films but only the recent City Hall shows a mayor with some words about making a relevant change.

It isn’t only economic disparity that has gotten worse in America but racism has gotten worse in the last few decades. In Welfare, a racist man speaks his mind to a black security officer. The racist is shown to be an isolated individual in the context of the film because everyone else in the film is shown to treat the welfare cases with some degree of patience and compassion. However, the words spoken by that racist have sadly now become part of the mainstream American landscape in 2020.

Location, Location

The films of Frederick Wiseman certainly help to give a sense of life in a community. Even though sometimes we only see a subset of a community, we can still get a feel for how people go about their daily jobs, their routines, their struggles and beliefs. Sometimes, the omissions tells a story in itself. One reason I wanted to see Canal Zone was to see how the way of life would be shown and what amount of history would be covered. The day-to-day canal operations related to the Panama canal locks and logistics around ships are fascinating but none of Panama’s history is shown. Instead, what we get is a very American way of life as the film mostly shows Americans involved in running the canal and going about their lives in exile. This shouldn’t be a surprise as the  film came out in 1977 and the US was still in control of the Canal. Hence, the overly American perspective devoid of the history of how the Canal came to be and the US’s involvement in Panama’s history.

After years of negotiations for a new Panama Canal treaty, agreement was reached between the United States and Panama in 1977. Signed on September 7, 1977, the treaty recognized Panama as the territorial sovereign in the Canal Zone but gave the United States the right to continue operating the canal until December 31, 1999. Despite considerable opposition in the U.S. Senate, the treaty was approved by a one-vote margin in September 1978. It went into effect in October 1979, and the canal came under the control of the Panama Canal Commission, an agency of five Americans and four Panamanians. Reference: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/panama-to-control-canal

Reality fiction/Cinema vérité/Direct Cinema/Actuality

A few locations in Wiseman’s films made me think of Allan King. Wiseman’s Titicut Follies set in Massachusetts Correctional Institution came out in 1967, the same year as Allan King’s Warrendale set in Toronto’s Warrendale mental treatment facility. Wiseman’s Near Death (1989) is set at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston and looks at staff providing care to those in their final moments, an aspect covered in King’s Dying at Grace (2003) which looks at terminally ill cancer patients at Toronto Grace Health Centre.

As it turns out, the overlap in location and topic is only on the surface. It is clear after watching the films, there is a different method at work in Wiseman’s films compared to Allan King. When it comes to Allan King’s films, they can be called ‘Direct Cinema’ or ‘Actuality films’ (as per the Criterion Eclipse Series 24: The Actuality Dramas of Allan King).

By definition:

The actuality film is a non-fiction film genre that, like the documentary film, uses footage of real events, places, and things, yet unlike the documentary is not structured into a larger argument, picture of the phenomenon or coherent whole. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuality_film

The above doesn’t apply to Frederick Wiseman’s films which indeed are structured “into a larger argument”. Instead, Wiseman called his film “reality fictions”.

He has called his work “reality fiction,” an acknowledgement that even nonfiction is usually a narrative form and that narrative is one person’s method of storytelling.

In an early interview for the American Bar Association, Wiseman explained his method. “There’s no such thing as an ‘objective’ film. I try to make a fair film. By that I mean that the final film is in a sense a report on what I saw and felt in the course of the shooting and editing.” Many hours of footage are edited down to a few hours of final film that is, he says, “subjective, impressionistic, and compressed.” Reference: https://daily.jstor.org/frederick-wiseman-realty-fictions/

He never liked the term ‘cinema vérité’:

Frederick Wiseman never liked the term cinema vérité — it is “just a pompous French term that has absolutely no meaning as far as I’m concerned,” he once said — but his kind of non-fiction filmmaking is a case study in the philosophy and practice of its ideals. Reference: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/cinema-verite-the-movement-of-truth/

The editing and selection of interviews, subjects, locations indeed add up to a picture that Wiseman intends to show.

Useful reading:

1. Mark Binelli recently in NY Times:

“The fact that Wiseman’s half-century-long project is a series of cinéma-vérité documentaries about American institutions, their titles often reading like generic brand labels — “High School,” “Hospital,” “The Store,” “Public Housing,” “State Legislature” — makes its achievement all the more remarkable but also easier to overlook. Beginning with “Titicut Follies” (1967), a portrait of a Massachusetts asylum for the criminally insane that remains shocking to this day, Wiseman has directed nearly a picture a year, spending weeks, sometimes months, embedded in a strictly demarcated space — a welfare office in Lower Manhattan, a sleepy fishing village in Maine, the Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University, the flagship Neiman Marcus department store in Dallas, the New York Public Library, a shelter for victims of domestic violence in Tampa, Fla., a Miami zoo — then editing the upward of a hundred hours of footage he brings home into an idiosyncratic record of what he witnessed. Taken as a whole, the films present an unrivaled survey of how systems operate in our country, with care paid to every line of the organizational chart.” Mark Binelli, NY Times 

2. A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis, NY Times, 2017

“One of the most important and original filmmakers working today, Frederick Wiseman has been making documentaries for 50 years. His movies are about specific places — institutions, organizations, cities and communities: the New York neighborhood of Jackson Heights; the coastal town of Belfast, Me.; the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind; American Ballet Theater; the National Gallery in London. What interests Mr. Wiseman is how these institutions reflect the larger society and what they reveal about human behavior.” A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis (2017)

3. Ben Kingsberg NY Times 

4. Michael Ewins, BFI, 10 Essential Films 

5. Louis Menand on City Hall

Thou Shalt Not Kill and Collective

Thou Shalt Not Kill (2018, Romania, Catalin Rotaru, Gabi Virginia Sarga)
Collective (2019, Romania/Luxembourg, Alexander Nanau)

One of the earliest films associated with the Romanian New Wave was set in a hospital: The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (2005). 

Critics labeled it a dark comedy but I viewed it as a bloodless horror film. The hospital is again the site of horror, this time far more chilling, in 2018’s Thou Shalt Not Kill. The film is inspired by true events and makes one question what goes on in any hospital around the world (disclosure: I programmed Thou Shalt Not Kill for a film festival back in 2019). 

The Death of Mr. Lazarescu and Thou Shalt Not Kill show the dangers of a hospital from two differing perspectives: a patient waiting to be helped in The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, a doctor trying to save patients in Thou Shalt Not Kill. Both characters appear to be doomed and helpless in a corrupt bureaucratic system. 

An overarching view of that corrupt system is covered by the documentary Collective.

Thou Shalt Not Kill and Collective overlap on the lack of proper disinfectants in the hospital. These two films show that hospitals, which should be safe places for its patients, end up causing far more danger to patients than their initial injuries. One aspect of the corrupt system around big pharmaceutical companies is shown in Thou Shalt Not Kill but the full investigative picture is given in Collective which highlights the links between media, big pharma, political parties and hospitals.

All these three films are set in Romania but their scope extends to all nations, regardless of whether they use public or private healthcare. The topics raised by Thou Shalt Not Kill and Collective are more relevant in 2020 and going forward because all of us around the world are more aware of what epidemiology is and what the role of disinfectants are in keeping people safe.

The Films of Khavn De La Cruz

The camera zips around a small room, then down the stairs, looks around the surroundings and then rises above the building to give a view of the neighbourhood. From the street view to the sky, then back down before settling for a long ride inside a van. The film is Khavn’s Bamboo Dogs (2018) and the van is different from that shown in Brillante Mendoza’s Kinatay yet the air is sinister, not murderous but it feels ominous. What follows is a potent mix of corruption and crime all depicted in cool lighting, a stylish flourish that also lights up Khavn’s earlier film Ruined Heart (2014), shot by master cinematographer Christopher Doyle. 

The lovely cool colours of these two films contrast the black and white images that populate Khavn’s other films. In fact, he isn’t afraid of depicting the ugliness of the world around him, a world where violence is abundant but that violence is cyclical and follows a long history dating back to the barbaric colonial times. This aspect is illustrated by Balangiga: Howling Wilderness which is based on a historical incident involving a colonial massacre.

In just a few films, it is clear that Khavn has his own unique style, one where music plays a key part and that is because Khavn composes the music for a lot of his own films. In fact, it was the music Khavn worked on another director’s film that first drew my attention to him. Khavn worked on the music for John Torres’ award-winning Todo Todo Teros (2006). Torres’ film opened a new path for my journey into the new Philippine cinema that was making the rounds at film festivals during the 2006-2010 time period. During these few years, I sought out as many Filipino films as I could at film festivals and some finds included Jeffrey Jeturian’s brilliant The Bet Collector (2006), Brillante Mendoza’s Tirador and Foster Child (2007), Lav Diaz’s Death in the Land of Encantos (2007), Adolfo Alix Jr.’s Adela (2008), Raya Martin’s Independencia, in addition to Khavn’s Squatterpunk (2007).

Over the last decade, I focused more on the works of Lav Diaz and Mendoza while stopped following the works of Khavn.  As it turns out, Khavn has been incredibly prolific over the last decade and has directed more than a dozen features (fiction and documentaries). A correction was in order so a mini-spotlight of the following features:

Bamboo Dogs (2018)
Balangiga: Howling Wilderness (2017)
Alipato: The Very Brief Life of an Ember (2016)
Ruined Heart (2014)

The availability of digital cameras played a key part in the production of the Filipino movies I encountered in the 2006-2010 time period as the digital medium allowed new directors to make films on a shoe-string budget and get their voices out. A point highlighted by John Torres when he won the VIFF Dragons and Tigers Award for Todo Todo Teros in 2006. When Torres was given his cheque for $5000, he remarked that money would enable him to make 10 more movies! The rise of digital cameras also played a key part in the evolution of Khavn’s cinema, an aspect on display in his “Digital Dekalogo” manifesto where he writes:

“But technology has freed us. Digital film, with its qualities of mobility, flexibility, intimacy, and accessibility, is the apt medium for a Third World Country like the Philippines. Ironically, the digital revolution has reduced the emphasis on technology and has reasserted the centrality of the filmmaker, the importance of the human condition over visual junk food.”

When discussing films that show the harsh lives of ordinary Philippine people, I often end up drawing lines back to the works of Lino Brocka. This real or imaginary line to Brocka’s films can be drawn from the works of Lav Diaz and Brilliante Mendoza. I can now drawn this line to Brocka from Khavn’s films. In addition, Khavn’s films overlap with some aspects of Lav Diaz and Raya Martin’s works (Independencia) in their depiction of colonialism’s brutal aspects while having shades of Mendoza's works in highlighting corruption and poverty. However, these references form just a subset of Khavn’s entire arsenal of filmmaking. Ruined Heart is a perfect example of his divergence from other Filipino directors. The film is an immersive musical journey where hardly any dialogue is spoken. The few words that are heard are akin to poetry. 

A love story against the backdrop of a criminal world is depicted in a musical video format. The baggage of dialogue isn’t required because cinema has long fed us enough to know what is happening. Instead, we can get lost in a world of dazzling images and pulsating music. This world is a complete contrast to that of his other films and illustrates that Khavn has a lot of creative variety to offer. This is again emphasized with his 2020 film, Orphea, co-directed with Alexander Kluge. 

Khavn's films won’t be found on the regular streaming options heavily used in 2020 but thankfully, there is a place to view his films legally:

Khavn De La Cruz films on vimeo demand.

A Herdade / The Domain

 A Herdade / The Domain (2019, Portugal/France,  Tiago Guedes)

A cigar dangling from his mouth, constantly. A drink in hand, always.

Changing political situation. Secret handshakes and not so secret allegiances.

A man haunted by his past and caught in the middle. In the middle of something he doesn’t understand.

The territory covered by A Herdade (The Domain) isn’t new but a polished stylish look and an arresting performance by João Fernandes as the constantly tormented character of Albano Jerónimo does make it a worthy viewing. Watching Albano pour himself another drink, after another drink, brought to mind Mad Men’s Don Draper (Jon Hamm). However, Don was able to smile and enjoy himself a little bit given his character had seven seasons to get through plenty of highs and lows. On the other hand, Albano has just under three hours to navigate through decades of multigenerational issues and political deals. No wonder his character is constantly crushed and unable to bear the burden of promises and issues caused by others. Of course, he is to blame as well but like other similar cinematic men before him, he chooses the road that was destined for him by birth. 

The film is bookended by images which complete a circle that was meant for Albano. In the end, he returns to where he was meant to, to a location where his father and brother rolled the dice which would decide Albano’s fate. Albano has plenty of chances to take another path but that would be another movie.

Note: all images from official film site

Paulo Rocha's Change of Life

 Change of Life (1966, Portugal, Paulo Rocha)

Over the last decade, there has been a rich supply of Portuguese films coming out yet I recall a time when it difficult to view many Portuguese films legally. The films of Pedro Costa were not yet available via Second Run or Criterion and many of the current New Wave of Portuguese Cinema directors such as Miguel Gomes (Our Beloved Month of August, Tabu, Arabian Nights trilogy), Pedro Pinho (The Nothing Factory) hadn’t directed their first film. The few films that were available were either by the legendary and highly prolific Manoel de Oliveira who kept on directing until his death in 2015 aged 106 years, an early João Pedro Rodrigues title (O Fantasma, Two Drifters, The Ornithologist), a sampling of some horror films, a few family dramas and the odd romantic comedy. This is why the recent viewing of Paulo Rocha’s brilliant 1966 film Change of Life feels like such a fundamental re-calibration of cinema in general.

Rocha’s first two features The Green Years (1963) and Change of Life (1966) have gone through a restoration supervised by Pedro Costa and are widely available across North America, both virtually (via Grasshopper film) and also via select few cinemas across US. The arrival of these two films in 2020 is a monumental event, made especially more important in a year when the release of new cinematic works has been paused.

As Robert Koehler aptly states in the new issue of Cinema Scope (article not online) that the release of these two films “..illustrates that anything like a complete history of cinema is an incomplete project”. 

Ela Bittencourt on the two films.

BAFICI held a retrospective of Rocha back in 2019. Mariángela Martínez Restrepo reports on this.

Glenn Kenny on Change of Life.

Kevin Jagernauth on The Green Years and Change of Life.

Med Hondo's Soleil Ô

 Soleil Ô (1967, Mauritania/France, Med Hondo)

I had read about Med Hondo in a few posts over the years. Yet, I hadn’t seen any of his films. So I waited. Just like I had done previously on many occasions for a film by a director whose films were meant to be seen. TIFF held a retrospective of his films in 2016 which once again brought his name to attention. Then in 2017, Dan Sullivan’s posts about Il Cinema Ritrovato presented hope:

“Right out of the gate, word spread fast about the legendary Mauritanian filmmaker Med Hondo’s rousing introductions at the screenings in his mini-retrospective, featuring the Film Foundation’s new World Cinema Project restoration of his debut feature, Soleil O (1970). “

It would only be a matter of time now. Yet, that time moved ever so slowly. Instead, almost two years later, the sad news came that Med Hondo passed away on March 2, 2019. Over the next few days, a few posts again heightened the need to see his film.

First, a republication of the 2016 TIFF retrospective with the eye-grabbing headline:

Med Hondo is the African Auteur You Need to See

Then, David Hudson’s post, which started off by referencing Dan Sullivan’s Film Comment article:

"In 2017, Bologna was set abuzz by a series of new restorations being presented at Il Cinema Ritrovato by the Film Foundation’s World Cinema Project. “Right out of the gate, word spread fast about the legendary Mauritanian filmmaker Med Hondo’s rousing introductions at the screenings in his mini-retrospective,” wrote Dan Sullivan for Film Comment."

And then finally, the announcement earlier this year about Martin Scorsese’s World Cinema Project 3 would have Med Hondo’s Soleil Ô. 

The wait was finally over in August when the Criterion Channel streamed the film online.

I firmly echo the headline by Rooney Elmi that Med Hondo’s film is more relevant now than ever. In fact, the topics of migration and immigration covered with such urgency by Hondo’s film have became an even more burning topic over the last few decades. If emigration and treatment of Africans in France was a problem back in 1967, then the last 5 decades have made it worse. The film covers migration from Africa to France yet the topic is relevant for many other nations in Africa, Asia, South America whose citizens left (and continue to leave) for better jobs in their former colonizing country.

The following lines are among my favourite from the film and illustrate the problem facing migrants:
 
There were tens of them in 1946, several hundred in 1948, over 15,000 in 1964 and 300,000 in 1967.

How many are there now? how many will there be tomorrow?
Beyond a certain level, a previously harmless phenomenon became more significant for some.

“Black invasion”.
The words are loaded with dynamite.

There are more and more of them. What are they doing here?
They wanted independence, now they can stay at home.
They get money, too.
We support them. Do you realise that?
You can’t push your luck too far.

Ok, they come here to do the jobs that we don’t want to do.
But they should invent machines to do them!
It’s simple, isn’t it?
Instead, look.
Great, isn’t it?

We former, present and future colonised people have contributed greatly to the foundation of your industrial and economic capital.
Should the interest on that capital not be our right?
So, please don’t say that we’re costing you dear.

Furthermore, the help you are giving to us is aimed above all at preserving your own markets and maintaining your economic privileges.

I thought of Dany Laferrière’s words from Why must a black writer write about sex? where he talked about people showing in America for the riches (and sex) that they had been sold on. Hondo instead talks about jobs but his words burn with truth:

We former, present and future colonised people have contributed greatly to the foundation of your industrial and economic capital.
Should the interest on that capital not be our right?
So, please don’t say that we’re costing you dear.
Furthermore, the help you are giving to us is aimed above all at preserving your own markets and maintaining your economic privileges.

France built its fortunes on the back of its African colonies as did England with India. Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Holland and even Italy owe a lot of their wealth and prosperity to their colonies. Yet, when people from those former colonized nations show up for low paying jobs, they are treated with contempt and looked upon with disgust, fear, distrust. And this situation has just gotten worse over the last few years.

Newton’s Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Western nations colonized countries and looted them. That was the action. The reaction is the migration of people from those former colonies moving to the colonizers. Yet, the citizens of the former colonies will never come close to the riches that the colonizers took from their nations. However, you can bet that those new migrants or immigrants will be blamed for all the problems in the Western nation.

All of this makes Med Hondo’s 1967 film one of the most relevant contemporary films.

The Mystery of Diego Simeone and Atlético Madrid

 

Diego Simeone. Francisco Seco/Associated Press

It felt like a miracle. Atlético Madrid had managed to avoid defeat at the Camp Nou and held Barcelona 1-1 thereby beating both Barcelona and Real Madrid to the title on the final weekend of the 2013/2014 season. Going into the final weekend of the 2013/14 season, Atlético were only 3 points ahead of both Barcelona and Real Madrid. It felt like Atlético had blown their chance to win the title because Barcelona could win the title with a home win against Atlético. Yet, somehow Diego Simeone’s Atlético denied Barca the title. It was the first time since the 2003-04 season that a team other Barcelona or Real Madrid had won the La Liga title (still the case in 2020). That 2014 title felt like the continuation of Diego Simeone’s remarkable work at Atlético.

Diego Simeone became manager of Atlético in December 2011 and immediately made his mark. He led Atlético to the UEFA Europa League and Super Cup titles in 2012 before shocking eternal rivals Real Madrid to win the Copa Del Rey in 2013 at the Santiago Bernabéu stadium of all places. Therefore, the league result against Barca at the Camp Nou felt the step in the right direction because Simeone followed a European trophy with the Spanish Cup and Spanish La Liga titles in consecutive seasons. It felt like the Champions League would be the next step. In that same 2013/2014 Champions League season, Atlético beat Barcelona in the quarter-finals and reached the final to face Real Madrid. They led Real Madrid 1-0 until the 93th minute when Real scored to take the game to extra-time. In extra-time, the wheels came off and Atlético ended up losing 4-1. It was a bitter loss. Yet, it felt like Atlético would be back.

Atlético Madrid did indeed return to the Champions League final 2 years later but again they lost to rivals Real Madrid, this time on penalties after the game ended 1-1. Throughout this time, Atlético always felt like a team in transition. They didn’t have the spending power to match both Real and Barcelona and were constantly selling their best players. Their persona was the underdog against the big clubs, an identity moulded by Simeone’s tough gritty never-give-up mentality. This little tough club persona helped them collect a list of big results in the Champions League. However, in the last few years, various off-field deals have meant that Atlético can’t be considered a small club anymore.

Atlético have slowly made the transition from being a mostly selling club to becoming a buying club. In the summer of 2018, Atlético spent more than double on buying players compared to selling (approximately $177 million spent compared to $71 million made from sales). They spent a lot of money in the summer of 2019 as well including a lot on João Félix. Of course, a lot of money for those 2019 purchases was fuelled by the mega transfer sale of Antoine Griezmann to Barcelona. Still, they couldn’t be considered an underdog anymore. However, they haven’t come close to winning the La Liga title since 2014. They did manage to win the Europe League title in 2018 but no other major titles have arrived. Somehow, this lack of titles hasn’t appeared to diminish the allure of Diego Simeone. He is still regarded as a major manager and glowing articles about his ‘cholismo’ approach can still be found. His cult status hasn’t been tarnished but it is hard to see what his team offers in footballing terms. Simeone’s teams don’t play attacking or attractive football and in the last few years, his Atlético have mostly ground out 1-0 wins in La Liga, often scoring from set-pieces. This approach hasn’t brought titles and appears to have cemented his Atlético Madrid team as the third-best team in Spain. This is a far cry from the 2013/2014 season when his team were on the verge of a historic La Liga - Champions League double. To make matters worse, a closer look at his team’s results against Barcelona and Real Madrid in the league paint a very stark picture.

Under Simeone, Atlético have 0 wins, 11 defeats and 6 draws against Barca in La Liga. They did knock out Barca twice in the Champions League and won the league title at Barca’s stadium but no wins agianst Barca in the league. Against Real Madrid, Atlético are slightly better with 4 wins, 6 defeats and 7 draws in the league. Unfortunately, there are those 2 Champions League final defeats against Real. In all these years, his Atlético teams have undergone a drastic transformation but the poor results against the big 2 are the only constant along with lack of serious league title contention.

The 2019/20 season appeared to be heading towards another disappointment until Atlético turned back the clock and registered a shock win over the defending Champions League winners Liverpool at Anfield. The 3-2 win at Anfield was yet another typical Simeone performance: defend, defend and get a goal on the break. But after that Anfield game on March 11, global soccer came to a pause due to the Pandemic. When the Champions League finally resumed in August 2020, it was a single match tournament as opposed to the previous two-leg knock-out affair. If there was a team that appeared to be a favourite in a single leg Champions League run, it was Atlético Madrid. Yet, again they fell short. Inexplicably, Atlético lost 2-1 to RB Leipzig, a team that is even more inconsistent than Atlético.

The short 2020 off-season produced some drama in terms of player moves with Luis Suárez arriving in a shock move from rivals Barca while Thomas Partey moving in the last hours of the transfer day circus to Arsenal. In the 2020/21 season’s first game, it appeared that maybe, Atlético might be a team to watch because they trashed Granada 6-1 with Diego Costa, Angel Correa, João Félix, Marcos Llorente getting on the score-sheet before Suárez made an instant impact with 2 late goals. It looked to be a different Atlético team who actually attacked. However, normality was gradually resumed in the next 2 games which Atlético drew 0-0 against Huesca and Villarreal. It was just like the old days.

European soccer is becoming terribly predictable nowadays. In the German League, it is Bayern Munich who always take the title, no matter how the season goes. Bayern have won the title for the last 8 years and it doesn’t appear that anyone else can stop them. In Italy, Juventus look likely to win the league title like they have won for the past 9 seasons. In France, PSG will win the title. In Spain, either Real Madrid or Barcelona will win the title. And like every year, Diego Simeone’s Atlético will finish third. The German, Italian, French league titles can be explained. The ways of Barcelona and Real Madrid can be explained. But I can’t find a rational explanation for why Atlético Madrid continue to falter. They have had major players in all the right positions over the years but there is an invisible barrier preventing them from winning those major titles. The team only appear to turn up for some of the big games but in the regular league games in Spain, Atlético appears to be dull and unmotivated. Is this down to Diego Simeone’s approach of underdog vs big clubs which only appears to work sometimes in the Champions league? When Atlético are the favourites against a smaller club, his team fail to turn up. Is Simeone’s approach finally fading in a changing world, similar to what is happening with José Mourinho? It is hard to pin down exactly what is going on at Atlético Madrid. On paper, they should be winning a lot more games than they are. Diego Simeone looks as intense and stressed on the sidelines like he did 6 years ago. But something isn’t working and the mystery of Atlético Madrid’s results continues.

The Body Remembers When the World Broke Open

The Body Remembers When the World Broke Open (2019, Canada/Norway, Kathleen Hepburn / Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers)

In reference to the cinema of 2019, Girish wrote: "I’ve seen no better new film this year than the Canadian drama The Body Remembers When The World Broke Open, directed by Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers and Kathleen Hepburn." 

Almost a year later, I emphatically second Girish's words. I have not seen a better film this year than The Body Remembers When the World Broke Open. Had I seen this last year, it would have definitely been competing with Zacharias Kunuk's One Day in the Life of Noah Piugattuk for my favourite film of 2019. However, I am delighted to have seen this film in 2020 because the global pause in cinema allowed me the time and space to fully appreciate this film.

The technical aspects of the film are excellent and pure immersive cinema. But it is the film’s treatment and perspective that stood out. As Girish points out:

“We well know how the history of cinema has time and again subordinated and short-changed women’s experiences at the expense of men’s stories. This is an injustice that is only multiplied in the case of Indigenous women. Even on that score alone, The Body Remembers is an invaluable work because its protagonists (and players) are both First Nations women.”

The film goes beyond the conventional newspaper articles about abuse. Majority of those articles don’t give a voice to the victim or properly cover their story but instead reduce things to a statistic (an exception being Robyn Doolittle’s Unfounded series). This is where Kathleen Hepburn and Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers’ film stands out. By depicting events in real time, and keeping the aggressor off-screen, they highlight abuse from the everyday complex decisions that impact people trapped in such relationships. How does one decide enough is enough? How does help arrive? And if one decides they want to change things, who do they turn to, what are the steps they need to take? Cinema never covers such questions. Instead, we get films that either focus on the violence or revenge/redemption. Real life is hardly tidy when it comes to dealing with this complex issue.

The Body Remembers When the World Broke Open is an essential film that deserves to be seen as many people as possible.

The New York Times Book of Movies

The New York Times Book of Movies: The Essential 1,000 Films to See
selected by Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, Edited by Wallace Schroeder

I am usually wary of “essential films” or “best movies of all time” lists because they are mostly stacked with Hollywood movies and ignore world cinema. However, I had some hopes with the 2019 edition of the NY Times Book of Movies because Manohla Dargis and A.O Scott had selected the list and figured that more world cinema would be included. It is clear from the selections that the two have injected some recent world cinema films but despite these inclusions, the overall global cinema tally still falls short of a proper list. Of course, the two make it clear in the introduction of the book’s purpose:

“But given the sheer plenitude and the limits of one volume, The New York Times Book of Movies: The Essential 1,000 Films to See” is a suggested starting point rather than a comprehensive list. It is also an unapologetically subjective collection. Even the most casual movie fan will quickly notice missing favorites and puzzling inclusions. This is to be expected in an anthology that covers so much history. But the point of a book like this one is to encourage conversations and maybe even provoke debates, rather than to establish an indisputable canon.”

The two of them make it clear that this is a “subjective collection” as one can expect from such lists. Even those who certify to establish a canon of the best movies ever made are governed by subjective tastes no matter how much they argue that their list is objective in nature.

Of the 1000 film reviews included in the book, 678 (67.8%) of the selections are American movies with the rest of the world accounting for 322 films (32.2)%. Out of the world titles, this book predictably follows the trend of including mostly Western European films with 98 French titles (including some co-productions), 52 from Britain, 37 Italian films and 18 German films. Japan is the only non-European country to have titles in double digits with 18 entries. Argentina, Canada, Chile, Portugal and South Korea manage only one entry. All of South America has just 4 films in total, the same as all of Africa. India and Iran only manage 4 titles each. 

Although, I am certain in future editions, South Korea’s count would increase to include Parasite (2019).

Top 10 Country films:

USA: 678 films
France: 98
Britain: 52
Italy: 37
Germany: 18
Japan: 18
Sweden: 13
Mexico: 7
Spain: 7
Taiwan: 7

Note: In the book, Edward Yang’s Yi Yi was marked under China but I have moved that under Taiwan.

Here are some breakdowns from regional perspective:

North America (USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba): 688 films, 68.8%
Europe: 250 films, 25%
Asia: 50 films, 5%
Africa: 4 films, 0.4%
Oceania (Australia + New Zealand): 4 films, 0.4%
South America: 4 films, 0.4%

Total of North America + Europe: 938 films or 93.8%

That means the rest of the world including South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania only account for 62 films or 6.2% of the total films.
 
In one way, the world film selections do follow a predictable distribution/theatrical release problem.  Even though hundreds of films are made around the world and shown at international film festivals, those film reviews were not included if the films didn’t open in NY cinemas. Now, even if some of those films did open in a NY cinema, they may not have been seen by the NY Times critics. Case in point, Indian Cinema, which is a glaring omission from this book similar to contemporary North American end-of-the-year cinema lists or weekly reviews. Even though Indian films have been opening regularly in American cinemas from the late 1990s, there are zero Indian films included in this list after 1988, following the negative bias that North American critics have shown towards Indian cinema. For most North American critics, Indian cinema started and ended with Satyajit Ray. That bias is found in this book with 3 of the 4 included Indian films directed by Satyajit Ray. Other North American critics may now include Rithik Gwatak and Guru Dutt but that is apparently the extent of what Indian cinema represents in North America.

I haven’t categorized how many female directors or person of colour directors were included in this list but that is a future task. Also, from the appendix it appears that in earlier editions, the best 10 films from each year were selected and included in the book.

“It should also be noted that not every 10 best choice is included in the book’s 1,000 reviews. Some have been displaced by other titles that from a current critical vantage point seem more important.“

The change from the top list format has clearly resulted in the inclusion of some global entries.

Ultimately, what this book emphatically highlights is that we need diverse voices representing cinema not only critically but also from a historical perspective. This way, we have a chance of worthy cinema from around the world being catalogued so it isn’t forgotten. I appreciate the efforts of Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott to shift the dial slightly from previous editions of these book series to inject a few more global films but it still isn’t enough. Much work still needs to be done in future editions if this series is meant to be an accurate reflection of essential movies.

Here are the non-American titles included in the book:

Argentina (1 film):

Zama (2018)

Australia (3):

Gallipoli (1981)
Max Max: Fury Road (2015)
Sweetie (1989)

Belgium (2):

L’Enfant (2006)
Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

Brazil (2):

Black Orpheus (1959)
Pixote (1981)

Britain (52):

The Angry Silence (1960)
Barry Landon (1975)
Black Narcissus (1947)
Darling (1965)
The Dresser (1983)
The Duelists (1978)
Frenzy (1972)
Georgy Girl (1966)
The Go-Between (1971)
Hamlet (1948)
Heartland (1981)
Heat and Dust (1983)
Henry V (1946)
High Hopes (1988)
Hope and Glory (1987)
I Know Where I’m Going (1947)
If…(1969)
The Ipcress File (1965)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1950)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1945)
Life is Sweet (1991)
Local Hero (1983)
The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962)
The Long Day Closes (1993)
Look Back in Anger (1959)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
Mona Lisa (1986)
Moonlighting (1982)
My Beautiful Laundrette (1986)
My Left Foot (1989)
Odd Man Out (1947)
Oliver Twist (1951)
Quadrophenia (1979)
The Red Shoes (1948)
Replusion (1965)
Richard III (1956)
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1961)
Secret and Lies (1996)
The Servant (1963)
The Shooting Party (1985)
The Spiral Staircase (1946)
Stairway to Heaven (1946)
The Stars Look Down (1941)
Stevie (1981)
Sunday, Bloody Sunday (1971)
A Taste of Honey (1961)
The Third Man (1950)
This Sporting Life (1963)
Trainspotting (1996)
Walking and Talking (1996)
The War Game (1966)
Women in Love (1970)

Canada (1): 

Atanarjuat (2002)

Chile (1):

No (2013)

China (6):

Farewell My Concubine (1993)
Ju Dou (1990)
Raise the Red Lantern (1991)
The Story of Qui Ju (1992)
To Live (1994)
A Touch of Sin (2013)

Cuba (2):

I am Cuba (1964)
Memories of Underdevelopment (1973)

Czech Republic (3):

Daisies (1966)
Loves of a Blonde (1966)
The Shop of Main Street (1966)

Denmark (2): in the book, Babette’s Feast is incorrectly marked under France.

The Celebration (1998)
Babette’s Feast (1987)

France (98): in the book, there are 100 films for France but I have moved Babette’s Feast under Denmark and In Jackson Heights to be under USA.

A Nous, La Liberte (1932)
L’Age d’Or (1930)
Amour (2012)
L’Argent (1983)
Army of Shadows (1969)
L’Atalante (1934)
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)
Au Revoir Les Enfants (1988)
The Baker’s Wife (1940)
Le Beau Mariage (1982)
Beauty and the Beast (1947)
Bed and Board (1971)
Belle de Jour (1968)
Bob le Flambeur (1955)
Le Boucher (1970)
Breathless (1961)
The Bridge Wore Black (1968)
La Ceremonie (1996)
La Chienne (1931)
Chloe in the Afternoon (1972)
Chocolat (1988)
Claire’s Knee (1971)
Cleo From 5 to 7 (1962)
The Clockmaker (1973)
Contempt (1964)
The Cousins (1959)
Danton (1983)
Day for Night (1973)
Diabolique (1955)
The Diary of a Country Priest (1950)
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972)
Diva (1982)
The Dreamlife of Angels (1998)
The Earrings of Madame De (1954)
L’enfance Nue (1968)
Les Enfants du Paradis (1945)
Entre Nous (1983)
Every Man for Himself (1980)
Faces Places (2017)
La Femme Infidele (1969)
Forbidden Games (1952)
The 400 Blows (1959)
Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (1978)
The Gleaners and I (2001)
Grand Ilusion (1938)
A Grin Without a Cat (1977)
Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1960)
Hotel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie (1988)
I’m Going Home (2001)
Le Jolie Mai (1966)
The Judge and the Assassin (1982)
Jules and Jim (1962)
Lacombe, Lucien (1974)
The Last Metro (1980)
Last Tango in Paris (1973)
Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1961)
Lola Montes (1968)
Love on the Run (1979)
The Lovers (1959)
The Main Who Loved Women (1977)
Mayerling (1937)
Menage (1986)
Mon Oncle d’Amerique (1980)
Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (1954)
Murmur of the Heart (1971)
My Night at Maud’s (1969)
My Uncle (1958)
La Nuit de Varennes (1983)
Orpheus (1950)
Out 1 (1970)
Playtime (1967)
Red (1994)
The Return of Martin Guerre (1983)
Rififi (1956)
‘Round Midnight (1986)
The Rules of the Game (1950)
Shoah (1985)
Shoot the Piano Player (1962)
The Silent World (1956)
Stolen Kisses (1969)
The Story of Adele H (1975)
Story of Women (1989)
Summer (1986)
Summer Hours (2008)
That Obscure Object of Desire (1977)
This Man Must Die (1970)
Topkapi (1964)
Two English Girls (1972)
The Two of Us (1968)
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)
Violette (1978)
The Wages of Fear (1955
Weekend (1968)
The Well-digger’s Daughter (1946)
White Material (2010)
The Wild Child (1970)
Wild Reeds (1994)
Z (1969)

Finland (1):

The Match Factory Girl (1990)

Germany (18):

Aguirre, The Wrath of God (1972)
The American Friend (1977)
Berlin Alexanderplatz (1983)
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1921)
Effi Briest (1977)
Europa, Europa (1991)
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
The Goalie’s Anxiety a the Penalty Kick (1977)
Heimat (1985)
Lola (1982)
M (1931)
The Marriage of Maria Braun (1979)
Metropolis (1927)
Stroszek (1977)
The Third Generation (1979)
The Tin Drum (1980)
Toni Erdmann (2016)
The Wings of Desire (1988)

Greece (1):

Never on Sunday (1960)

Hong Kong (6):

Boat People (1983)
Election (2007)
In the Mood for Love (2000)
Infernal Affairs (2003)
The Killer (1991)
2046 (2005)

Hungary (3):

Love (1973)
My 20th Century (1990)
Satantango (1994)

India (4):

Distant Thunder (1973)
Pather Panchali (1958)
Salaam Bombay! (1988)
The World of Apu (1959)

Iran (4):

And Life Goes On (1992)
Close-Up (1990)
A Moment of Innocence (1999)
Taste of Cherry (1997)

Israel (1):

Footnote (2012)

Italy (37):

Amarcord (1974)
L’Avventura (1961)
The Battle of Algiers (1965)
The Bicycle Thief (1949)
The Big Deal on Madonna Street (1960)
The Conformist (1970)
The Damned (1969)
Dark Eyes (1987)
Death in Venice (1971)
Divorce-Italian Style (1962)
La Dolce Vita (1961)
81/2 (1963)
Fellini Satyricon (1970)
Fist in His Pocket (1968)
The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (1971)
General della Rovere (1960)
Germany Year Zero (1949)
Gomorrah (2009)
Juliet of the Spirits (1965)
Lamerica (1994)
The Leopard (1963)
Mamma Roma (1962)
Marriage-Italian Style (1964)
1900 (1977)
Open City (1946)
Ossessione (1942)
Paisan (1948)
Rocco and His Brothers (1960)
Seven Beauties (1976)
Shoeshine (1947)
La Strada (1956)
Swept Away (By and unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August ) (1975)
La Terra Trema (1947)
The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1979)
Two Women (1961)
Umberto D. (1955)
Voyage to Italy (1955)

Japan (18):

The Family Game (1984)
Gate of Hell (1954)
A Geisha (1978)
High and Low (1963)
Ikiru (1952)
Kagemusha (1980)
Pigs and Battleships (1961)
Ran (1985)
Rashomon (1951)
Sanjuro (1963)
Sansho the Bailiff (1969)
The Seven Samurai (1956)
Spirited Away (2002)
Throne of Blood (1961)
Tokyo Story (1952)
Ugetsu (1954)
Woman in the Dunes (1964)
Yojimbo (1962)

Mauritania (1):

Timbuktu (2015)

Mexico (7):

Amores Perros (2000)
The Exterminating Angel (1967)
Like Water for Chocolate (1992)
Los Olvidados (1950)
Roma (2018)
Viridiana (1962)
Y Tu Mama Tambien (2002)

New Zealand (1):

Smash Palace (1982)

Philippines (2): 

Manila in the Claws of Light (1975)
Norte, the End of History (2014)

Poland (3):

Ashes and Diamonds (1958)
The Decalogue (2000)
Knife in the Water (1963)

Portugal (1):

Mysteries of Lisbon (2011)

Romania (2):

The Death of Mr. Lazarescu (2005)
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2008)

Russia (6):

Alexander Nevsky (1939)
Andrei Rublev (1973)
Battleship Potemkin (1926)
The Cranes Are Flying (1960)
Little Vera (1988)
Russian Ark (2002)

Senegal (3):

Black Girl (1966)
Guelwaar (1993)
Touki-Bouki (1973)

South Korea (1):

Poetry (2011)

Spain (7):

All About My Mother (1999)
Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
The Spirit of the Beehive (1973)
Talk to Her (2002)
Tristana (1970)
Volver (2006)
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988)

Sweden (13):

Cries and Whispers (1972)
Face to Face (1976)
Fanny and Alexander (1983)
The Magic Flute (1975)
Monika (1952)
My Life as a Dog (1987)
The Passion of Anna (1970)
Persona (1967)
Scenes from a Marriage (1974)
The Seventh Seal (1958)
The Silence (1964)
Smiles of a Summer Night (1956)
Wild Strawberries (1959)

Switzerland (1):

The Sorrow and the Pity (1971)

Taiwan (7): in the book, Yi Yi is marked under China

A Brighter Summer Day (1991)
Eat Drink Man Woman (1994)
The Puppermaster (1993)
The River (1993)
Three Times (2006)
Vive L’Amour (1995)
Yi Yi: A One and a Two (2000)

Thailand (1):

Uncle Boonmee who can Recall his past lives (2011)

In Memory of Basu Chatterjee

The news of Basu Chatterjee’s sudden death on June 4 was a shock. When I was growing up, I didn't know what an auteur was but I could identify a Basu Chatterjee film in few minutes: lovely touching stories about ordinary people packed with astute observations about human behaviour. I wasn't aware then but he was the first auteur I came across.

Basu Chatterjee’s light-hearted films contrasted the angry man films of Amitabh Bachchan and other action-packed Bollywood films while also standing apart from the artistic works of Parallel Cinema. As Namrata Joshi points out:

“Kaul, Kumar Shahani and Basu Bhattacharya (whom Chatterjee assisted in Teesri Kasam in 1966) continued to remain Chatterjee’s creative comrades and friends, though he himself opted to embrace what has since been called the middle-of-the road cinema. He, along with Hrishikesh Mukherjee, became the torchbearer of light-hearted, entertaining, middle class family dramas that offered a parallel narrative to the mainstream Angry Young Man movies on the one hand and the radical, path-breaking, artistic and experimental concerns of the New Wave.”

Chatterjee didn’t just make warm touching movies. He also directed Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (1986), a powerful hard-hitting Indian adaptation of 12 Angry Men, and also Kamla ki Maut (1989), a film ahead of its time in dealing with issues of pre-marital sex rarely seen on Indian screens in the 1980s.

Note: Kamla ki Maut has a stellar cast with Pankaj Kapur, Supriya Pathak, Rupa Ganguly and was also one of the earlier films that Irrfan Khan acted in.

I have fond memories of seeing almost all of Basu Chatterjee’s movies but here are just a few of my favourite Basu Chatterjee movies (in no particular order):

Chhoti Se Baat (A Small Matter, 1976)
Kirayadar (Renter, 1979)
Ek Ruka Hua Faisla (A Pending Decision, 1986)
Pasand Apni Apni (1983)
Kamla Ki Maut (Kamla’s Death, 1989)
Lakhon Ki Baat (Talk of Millions, 1984)
Khatta Meetha (Sweet and Sour, 1978)
Shaukeen (1982)
Chameli Ki Shaadi (Chameli’s Wedding, 1986)
Do Ladke Dono Kadke (1979)

Sukanya Verma on his movies: “Basu Chatterjee didn't just make movies for us. He made movies about us.”

Sidharth Bhatia: "Basu Chatterjee Created the Perfect Alternative to Violent Hindi Movies of the 1970s"

Ragini Daliya: “However, while the men of his films were living the real world, making all ups and downs look interesting, the women too had agency. They were opinionated, romantically liberated, dreamers, worriers and empowered – all brought to vivid, wondrous life by Chatterjee.”

The Bad Sleep Well

The Bad Sleep Well (1960, Japan, Akira Kurosawa)

“This was the first film of Kurosawa Productions, my own unit which I run and finance myself. From this film on, I was responsible for everything. Consequently, when I began, I wondered what kind of film to make. A film made only to make money did not appeal to me - one should not take advantage of an audience. Instead, I wanted to make a movie of some social significance. At last I decided to something about corruption, because it has always seemed to me that graft, bribery, etc., at the public level, is one of the worst crimes that there is. These people hide behind the facade of some great company or corporation and consequently no one knows how dreadful they really are, what awful things they do. Exposing them was, I thought, a socially significant act - and so I started the film.” — The Films of Akira Kurosawa by Donald Richie, page 140

The Bad Sleep Well is an extraordinary film that covers corruption from two aspects, one from inside the depths and the other from the newspaper reporting angle. Modern day news reporting isn’t what it once used to be and the distortion of facts in news reports has gotten worse in the six decades since this movie came out. Kurosawa covers the celebrity gossip aspect in Scandal and some of that gossip media coverage is covered in The Bad Sleep Well, especially the opening moments, but the film is highly relevant from a journalistic aspect because it shows how news can be distorted. Getting to the facts requires a reporter to probe deep beneath the surface and get past the news conferences that companies hold.

In discussing the film’s treatment, Donald Richie mentions that “..Kurosawa wanted to expose the corruption of those in the highest places in Japan.” In Kurosawa’s own words: “As early as Drunken Angel “the critics had started calling me a ‘journalistic’ director, meaning that I interested myself in ‘timely themes’. Actually, I have always thought of film as a kind of journalism if journalism means a series of happenings, usually contemporary, which can be shaped into a film. At the same time, I know that a timely subject does not make an interesting film, if that is all that it has. One ought to make a film in such a way that the original idea, no matter where it comes from, remains the most important thing, and the feeling that one felt at that moment of having the idea is important. Timely, then, in my sense, is the opposite of sensational.” — The Films of Akira Kurosawa by Donald Richie, page 140

There is also a Shakespearean reading on the film with parallels to that of Hamlet that Richie discusses and reading those elements in Richie’s book helps see the film with a fresh angle.

The Bad Sleep Well was released 3 years before High and Low and the two films are opposite sides of the same coin shown from a different perspective: The Bad Sleep Well is the inside view that shows us the kidnapper’s thinking and reasons while in High and Low, the audience is always on the outside until the film’s final moments when we get an insight into the kidnapper’s rationale. Both films are also variations on the rich-poor class divide approached from different angles but in both, it is the rich that get their way and can dictate the media coverage. However, The Bad Sleep Well is far more brutal and has no shades of happiness because it aligns itself with a character who never gets justice. There is some playful music in the final 30 minutes in the interaction between Takashi Shimura’s Moriyama character and Toshirô Mifune’s Nishi. But that playful music gives us false hope because shortly after that music, any hope is extinguished and the film dives into a dark territory. Of course, any other ending would not do justice to the film’s title.

--------------------------------------------------------

A ranking change in the recent viewing of Kurosawa’s films:

1. Seven Samurai (1954)
2. The Bad Sleep Well (1960)
3. Ikiru (1952)
4. High and Low (1963)
5. Rashomon (1950)
6. Red Beard (1965)
7. Scandal (1950)
8. Stray Dog (1949)
9. Yojimbo (1961)
10. Drunken Angel (1948)