Thursday, October 03, 2013

INUK (2010)—The Evening Class Interview With Mike Magidson

Mike Magidson is originally from the Bay Area, born at the height of the 1967 "summer of love" in Oakland, California. After getting a college degree, he immediately set off to Los Angeles where he was cast in a series of small theater productions. Unable to pay his rent with his modest actor fees, Mike took a job as an apprentice editor with one of Hollywood's top ranked trailer producers, Intralink Film Graphic Design, where he began to dream of a career as a filmmaker. Following his heart and a strong curiosity for French culture, in 1992 Mike packed up a suitcase, and moved to Paris, France. After several years editing for such reputable directors as Pan Nalin, Antoine de Maximy, and Jean-Michel Carré, in 1998 Mike borrowed a friend's camera and made his first award winning documentary, Kanada. Eleven years later, Mike has written and directed over twenty documentaries and shorts. Inuk is his first feature-length narrative film.

In San Francisco to celebrate the film's U.S. theatrical premiere at the Roxie Theater in conjunction with the relaunch of the Roxie's distributing arm Roxie Releasing—and having informally met the film's actor Ole Jørgen Hammeken and composer Justin Michael La Vallee in the press lounge of the Palm Springs International Film Festival—I welcomed the chance to finally meet the film's director in person and invited him out for a beer; a blonde ale for him and an amber for me. This transcript is cobbled together from our one-on-one conversation and comments made during the film's Q&A session.

* * *

Michael Guillén: I have to start off with the obvious question. How did someone raised in Oakland, California—now an expatriate in Paris (by way of Los Angeles)—end up making a film in Greenland that became that country's submission to the foreign language category of the Academy Awards®?

Mike Magidson: I read a lot of Jack London when I was a kid! I guess there's no such thing as chance. I started making documentaries in Paris after having done a lot of theater in Los Angeles. I had wanted to do fiction but ended up making a lot of documentaries. I met a French anthropologist Jean-Michel Huctin who had lived in Greenland for about eight years. He came to Paris in 1999 looking for a director because he had become aware of this wonderful story of a children's home where Inuit hunters were helping children. He was looking for a director, and a producer recommended me, so we met in a smoky bar in Paris. We ended up hitting it off right away. He said, "I think you're the guy. Do you want to come up to Greenland?" I thought, "Well, okay, sure, why not?" But I was pretty intimidated. A month later I was on an airplane, then a second airplane, a third airplane, a helicopter, a second helicopter and I landed in a Jack London book. I got out of the helicopter and I heard barking dogs and saw toothless hunters and I thought, "Wow. This is what I read about when I was a kid."

Guillén: So as a child, you already had a sense of adventure?

Magidson: Yeah. I had that sense of man's relationship to nature. When I got off that helicopter I went full circle back to my childhood. I felt something special.

Guillén: Shamans might call that the longbody. So you found yourself working in Greenland, dealing with language issues, weather issues. Can you speak to some of the obstacles you faced?

Magidson: As I said, I had done a lot of theater and I wanted to make a fiction film. I thought making a film in Greenland might be an interesting way to tell a story. I was working with hard weather, a language I didn't understand, and children who had never acted in their lives; but, I rationalized those difficulties would serve as good excuses if the film turned out bad. [Laughs.] They were challenges I wanted to confront to make a film under those conditions. How did I deal with it? The whole thing was a massive moment of survival.

Guillén: Inuk is a fiction-documentary hybrid. Can you distinguish which parts were documentary and which parts fiction?

Magidson: The story itself is based upon a lot of different stories that I witnessed up North while making documentaries. There were parts of the writing that were left open. We didn't want to invent the story, let's say, of the old guy talking about hunting the seals. When that old guy tells the story of his seal hunting, that's his real story. We just turned the camera on him and said, "Tell it." There are certain scenes like that where we felt the proper way to tell the story was to let people tell it themselves, because they had really lived it.

Ole Jørgen Hammeken, who played the hunter Ikuma, was not a real hunter, so his character was fictionalized. Gaba Petersen, who plays Inuk, has had his own experiences in life but they're not the ones you see in the film. Also, the way we shot the dog sleds for example, we didn't have the typical Hollywood cranes and stuff. We had to film that documentary style. We had a camera crew on sleds with dogs and the actors on other sleds with dogs.

Guillén: Any issues with camera equipment in such a harsh, freezing environment?

Magidson: I had already made two documentaries in that kind of weather so I knew some of the basic rules, like leaving the camera outside all the time. You don't want to bring it inside because it's the changes in temperature that are really the shock to equipment. We also chose cameras that got hot to compensate for the cold. If we had filmed in Africa, we would probably have had more problems.

Guillén: How did you get around not knowing the language?

Magidson: Jean-Michel Huctin speaks Greenlandic Inuit. He was my interpreter the whole time.

Guillén: In terms of structuring the story and coming up with a narrative for your film, how did you work that out? There were three of you working on the script, right? You, Jean-Michel, and Ole Jørgen Hammeken?

Magidson: Ole gave us a lot of input, yeah, along with Ann Andreasen who ran the children's home. Jean-Michel and I had told them that we wanted to make this story as authentic as possible. We urged them to tell us if we were bending the rules too much. Our goal was not to make a Hollywood drama but to make their authentic story. I loved the previous documentaries I had made in Greenland, but I wanted to tell the whole story of modern Greenland through this story, which I saw as a story about the problems Greenland is going through and how the Greenlanders themselves are solving those problems. Whereas white people focus on the problems with alcoholism and violence that indigenous Greenlanders are experiencing, the indigenous people are coming up with their own solutions.

Guillén: It ended up being a solid shamanic narrative. I come from a background of cross-cultural anthropology with a focus on shamanism, more from Central and South America, but that shamanic substratum remains the foundation for cultures all over the world. For example, I was struck by the comment in the press notes that you intended the narrative journey to track south to north. Can you unpack that intention for me?

Magidson: Actually, I can't answer that. It would be Jean-Michel, the anthropologist, who could answer that for you. How do you understand it?

Guillén: If you travel south, you are traveling towards the future and who you might become. If you travel north, you are traveling towards the past, towards ancestors. I don't know for sure but I presume that's possibly predicated upon the shamanic memory of ancient migrations over the Bering Strait moving down into the Americas.

Magidson: As far as the journey into the past, that was definitely a strong element of the story. Inuk proposes that you have to know your past in order to confront your future.

Guillén: I appreciated the line in the film about identity being based upon knowing yourself and also about being in relation to your environment; but, then the challenge to identity when the environment changes. Clearly, there's global warming going on. Clearly, the issue of bad ice came up in your narrative. You say that Greenlanders are resolving their own problems, so I'm wondering if within Greenland there is any kind of mobilization or activism to clarify this disputed position of climate change to the global community from a firsthand perspective?

Magidson: Climate change is a major issue in Greenland, obviously. We talk about it here but they're actually seeing it. Where we were filming, for example, hunters used to be able to go out and have six months of solid ice and now they have six weeks. They see the changes. But it's also a very complicated issue because at the same time it's opening up new avenues in the economy of Greenland; oil, for example. People are now starting to look for oil because it's more accessible. Minerals as well. Greenlanders are starting to be seduced by the Chinese, Americans, and other foreigners. The issue of climate change—though its effects can be seen and talked about—also has Greenlanders thinking, "Well, this can help us because we can earn a lot of money in the short term." The same issues we have in our society. It's not as black-and-white an issue as we would think.

Guillén: When and where did you shoot in Greenland?

Magidson: The film was shot mostly in the month of April into May in West Greenland about 500 kilometers above the Arctic Circle in the small town of Uummannaq, which is about an hour helicopter flight from Ilulissat. Ilulissat is the place where all the icebergs come out into the sea. The iceberg that hit the Titanic came from Ilulissat.

Guillén: When I met Ole in Palm Springs, he told me he wasn't your original choice for the hunter.

Magidson: No.

Guillén: But he was perfect for the role.

Magidson: He was great.

Guillén: How did he end up with it?

Magidson: It was a crazy moment. Two days before we were to start shooting principal photography, the guy who was going to play Ikuma, a hunter—pretty much a legendary hunter from the area—knocked on the crew's door and said, "Mike, I need to speak with you." Jean-Michel was there to interpret. This guy and I had already worked together on my previous documentaries. He said, "I'm sorry, but hunting season is looking good and I'm a hunter. I love you as a person, but I can't do this. I've got to go hunt."

I felt like I had an ulcer in my stomach and thought, "How am I going to get out of this now? I've got everybody ready to go and I just lost one of my lead actors." I walked over to Anne and Ole's house. Ole had his hair up. He usually wears it up in a pony tail. I asked him, "Ole, can you let your hair down?" He let his hair down and I said, "You're Ikuma." He said, "No, I'm not." I said, "Yes, you are." He kept saying, "I don't think I can do this" but he gave in after a couple of days of speaking to him and reassuring him he could.

Guillén: Was his original role as a consultant?

Magidson: That's right, but he became more and more involved.

Guillén: And ended up as one of the main leads! His actual work is expedition work, right?

Magidson: Yeah.

Guillén: What kind of expedition work?

Magidson: I guess you would basically call him a polar explorer. He conducts expedition adventures that follow the traces of historical explorers. His most recent adventure was trying to replicate Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld's crossing of the Northeast Passage, but in a ski boat or something crazy like that. You'd have to ask him what the purpose of that was. I'm not one of those people who's into the expedition just for the sake of the expedition. I think there needs to be a scientific reason or a spiritual reason.

Guillén: What was involved in casting the other roles, especially the children?

Magidson: As far as casting is concerned, as I said I had already made documentaries in Greenland. In fact, Sara Lyberth—who plays Inuk's love interest Naja—I had worked with her sister on one of those earlier documentaries. So casting was simple. Sara was a native so I said, "Let's do it." As for Gaba Petersen, though he's now taller than me, I've known him since he was shorter than me. I saw a photo of Gaba where he was wearing a white tanktop and I thought he looked like Marlon Brando.

Guillén: The film was made in 2010?

Magidson: Yes.

Guillén: And it's only now starting its theatrical exhibition in late 2013?

Magidson: It's been a long road.

Guillén: I caught Inuk at Palm Springs and then was expecting it to show up at our San Francisco International, but it didn't, and then I didn't hear anything more about it until the Roxie announced they were distributing it. What's been involved in that long road?

Magidson: Palm Springs was actually the last festival Inuk screened at. It had already been on the festival circuit for about a year and a half. It played the Austin Film Festival, the Woodstock Film Festival, a couple in Australia....

Guillén: I knew the film had been traveling—Ole mentioned particularly enjoying going to South Korea—but, I didn't realize it had been on the circuit that long.

Magidson: It was a pretty intense year and a half.

Guillén: All in all, reception was good?

Magidson: All in all, yes, though there were some places where we played that were amazing, like in Woodstock, New York, where an elderly lady came up to me crying after a Q&A, saying "Inuk is the most moving film I've ever seen and I'm an old lady!" And then there have been some audiences that didn't quite get it. They appreciated the landscapes and all but weren't getting the deeper part of the story.

Guillén: It was welcome news for me that Inuk is the film that's relaunching Roxie Releasing. Any comments on that?

Magidson: I'm just absolutely honored to be the start of that. Sitting here looking over my shoulder at the Roxie, I can remember driving by it as a child and taking note of it. I'm glad I can be a positive part of its rebirth.

Guillén: It's my understanding that the Roxie's initial distribution strategy is to roll Inuk out in northern climes first, specifically Anchorage and Fairbanks in mid-October. That surprised me a little bit, but I guess that makes sense.

Magidson: It surprised me a little bit too at first, but it does make sense. I did tell them—and I think they uncovered this in their own research—that the film played well in Arizona and New Mexico and it did great in Savannah, Georgia!

Guillén: That's right, you won three awards there for Best Film, Director and Editing.

Magidson: So you never know. Oliver Stone was at the festival in Savannah and after one of the screenings he came up to me in the bar and he poked me real hard in the chest and said, "I've got to see your film. Everybody's talking about your film." This was in Savannah, Georgia!!

Guillén: Since it's been a few years since the film first played at festivals, are you now working on another project?

Magidson: I am! I mean, filmmakers are always working on other projects. You have to work that way because you never know which project is actually going to get done. Right now I'm writing a new feature film, which takes place in Paris. It will be done in a totally different style than Inuk. It's basically about three expatriates—my three personalities rendered as three characters—living in Paris. I've lived in Paris about 18 years. I've seen all the films that have been made by Americans about Paris. They never show the Paris that I—as an American-Parisien—know. I want to show that Paris. I want to show the misunderstandings between Americans and the French in the way that I know them.

I have another documentary project that I'm working on, also set up in the North. As I mentioned earlier, working on Inuk brought back this childhood fantasy of survival. I don't want to do a documentary version of Into the Wild (2007), but I kind of actually do. I want to learn how to be an Inuit hunter. I want to see if it's possible for me to understand the psychological and spiritual things that are going through a hunter's mind. I don't know how I'm going to achieve it—if I'm going to achieve it—but it's a challenge for me.

When I was eight years old, I was at school and—during recreation period—left the school and walked away. I went home, got my Swiss Army knife, and went up on this little hill behind our house over in the East Bay, and I said to myself, "I'm going to live here now. I'm going to survive off the land." That lasted about two hours, after which I was so bored that I came down the hill. My mother was in a panic, "Where were you?! Everyone's been worried about you!" That fantasy has always been inside me. I figure I have to get it out and I'm a filmmaker so I might as well make a film about it.

Guillén: That conflict of identity, of becoming oneself, shows up in Inuk. You show how kids are languishing because they don't have a connection to the fantasy they have of themselves. Once you get them back in touch with that imaginative projection of themselves, they start to come into their own. I get that.

Speaking of identity, can you speak to how you identify yourself as a filmmaker? You're an independent filmmaker, but not necessarily an American independent filmmaker. You're more a European independent filmmaker?

Magidson: I'm a European independent filmmaker who makes films on an American model. If I were to work in the real European independent system—which I do for documentaries but not features—I would draft a script, get State funding or TV funding, and get my film made. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it's a system that's solid, especially in France, and in Denmark as well. It's not the whole credit card approach to filmmaking that you see so often in the States. It's much easier to make an "artistic" film in Europe.

Guillén: Do you think you'll remain in Europe to be a filmmaker? Or could you be lured back to make an American independent?

Magidson: It would depend on the story. Some stories might demand more of the American system. This other film that I want to shoot in Paris will obviously be a European film made within the European system, but maybe this idea of three American expatriates in Paris might be more of an American independent? In which case I'd be working more within the American system.

Guillén: Can you talk a bit about how you worked with Justin Michael La Vallee to develop the score for Inuk, which is definitely one of its strongest elements?

Magidson: I worked very closely with Justin on this score. I was very hands on with it. As you know, the music is an integrated part of the film. It contributes a lot to the story. When we met Justin, we proposed a couple of sounds and elements but we told him, "You're going to have to go to Greenland." A couple of days later, he was on an airplane to Greenland where he spent two months recording sound, recording the Girls Choir, recording drum dancing, all sorts of stuff, and he came back to Europe, to Paris, with a rough cut of the score. We reworked some of that but I still wasn't quite happy with it. There still seemed to be some missing elements.

We had met a group in Anchorage, Alaska, an Inuit world music band called Pamyua, and I said, "Justin, you have to listen to this stuff. Listen to these voices." He listened to them and he said, "Mike, you're right. We have to record these people." So we brought in some of the members of Pamyua and had them record some of the voices in the background, not only the shaman voice but these other voices that we wanted to add. We even used some of their pieces that Justin composed around. Once we reworked the score with Pamyua, I told Justin, "We're on."

Guillén: This quest of yours to replicate a hunter's experience and to film your journey is fascinating. Have you looked to any other films about shamans or hunters for inspiration? Do you think cinema can replicate such an initiatory journey?

Magidson: I do actually, yeah. As for films that influenced me...?

Guillén: Did you ever see Akira Kurosawa's Dersu Uzala (1975)?

Magidson: Yes! I was just about to say that.

Guillén: I thought about Dersu Uzala when I first watched Inuk. I consider Dersu Uzala one of the best shamanic narratives committed to film, particularly Siberian shamanism.

Magidson: I did watch that several times before writing the script for Inuk. Zacharias Kunuk's Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001) is another one I could mention.

Guillén: Yes, both of those capture northern shamanism well. For southern shamanism, I would recommend Rolando Klein's Chac (1975).

Magidson: It's funny but certain scenes in movies, even if they're not directly about shamanism, give me a feel for it, like Gus Van Sant's Gerry (2002). Those long scenes of the two guys walking and walking and walking.

Guillén: My final question would be—since you're our eyes and ears there in Europe—are there any overseas filmmakers you wish Americans knew more about?

Magidson: I worked as an editor for a guy named Pan Nalin. He's an Indian who lives in Paris. He made a film Samsara (2001) that premiered at Toronto and was very successful. He made another documentary recently, Faith Connections (2013), that's just premiered at Toronto. He's a director I really appreciate because he gets into spirituality without hammering it over the head. He's a great visual storyteller.

Guillén: Thank you so much, Mike, for taking the time to talk with me.

Magidson: Thanks for the beer!

Monday, September 30, 2013

EL LIMPIADOR / THE CLEANER (2011): PERU'S OFFICIAL SUBMISSION TO THE OSCARS®

As recently announced by Agustin Mango at The Hollywood Reporter, Adrián Saba's opera prima The Cleaner (El Limpiador, 2011) will be Peru's submission for the foreign language Oscar® category. The announcement was made this week by Peru's Ministry of Culture, whose selection committee stated The Cleaner was chosen "for its original proposal of an apocalyptic Lima, where loneliness and strain are shown through an effective use of cinematographic elements, expressing a city that slowly fades out." The Evening Class congratulates Adrián Saba on this achievement!

As synopsized by Robert Avila in his program note for the 56th edition of the San Francisco International Film Festival (SFIFF): "As a mysterious epidemic eviscerates Lima's adult population—but spares its children—a solitary middle-aged forensic worker discovers an orphaned boy at one of his cleanup sites and decides to shelter the traumatized youth until he can find a relative to take him. As time passes, a subtle transformation takes hold of both man and child in this gently haunted and affecting study of social alienation and redemption."

As Michael Hawley presciently suggested in his capsule review—while he can't be sure how, or even if, Saba's film is commenting upon contemporary Peruvian society—"it's clear that his distinct voice is one we should be hearing more of in the future." The film has certainly gained pedigree on the festival circuit. It first came to my attention at the Palm Springs International Film Festival (PSIFF) earlier this year, having already received a New Directors Award Special Mention at its San Sebastián premiere. It ended up winning the New Voices / New Visions Grand Jury Prize at PSIFF 2013 where the jurors remarked: "While it is set in the midst of a deadly epidemic, this film eschews the usual genre tropes and instead offers an aesthetically distinctive, minimalist portrayal of a human connection at a time when it seems all hope is lost. The director creates an eerie, strangely calm atmosphere which is carefully controlled but never feels forced, and without sensationalism or overt sentiment, allows a touching bond to develop between his lead characters, a lonely old man and a young boy. With The Cleaner, Adrian Saba has created a singular, unusual and intimate tale which stayed with us long after viewing."

I regretted missing The Cleaner at PSIFF—and the opportunity to hear Saba discuss his film with his audience—but was pleased to catch it at the recent Panamá International Film Festival (IFF Panamá) where lead actor Víctor Prada (last seen in Octubre) accompanied the film and interacted with his audience. There Diana Sanchez categorized the film as "an inspired combination of science fiction and Latin American neorealism" where "kindness and generosity reign … despite the surrounding death and decay." By "science fiction", I understand her to mean that The Cleaner is a "near future" narrative, similar to Alex Rivera's Sleep Dealer (2008). Without question, The Cleaner evokes an eerie temporal alterity and rewards the patient viewer with heartfelt flourishes.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

FICM 2013—THE LINE-UP

To celebrate my 60th birthday, I'm giving myself the gift of the Morelia International Film Festival (FICM), which runs October 18-27, 2013. As my abuelo's side of the family is from Michoacán, I am tremendously excited to return to roots and to visit a city that has long been on my list of dream destinations. I am grateful to FICM for their invitation. Here is the recently-announced line-up for their 11th edition.

Official Selection

The core of the FICM continues to be the sections in competition: Michoacán Section, Mexican Short Film, Mexican Documentary and Mexican Feature Film. This year, the lineup features 43 short films, 23 documentaries, 11 Michoacán works and 12 features by filmmakers from different states of the country, including Oaxaca, Baja California, Veracruz, Guerrero, Puebla and Mexico City. The winning fiction, documentary and animated short films will be eligible to be considered for an Oscar® nomination.

This year, the Mexican Feature Section includes: A los ojos by Michel and Victoria Franco; Club Sándwich by Fernando Eimbcke; González by Christian Díaz; Las horas muertas by Aarón Fernández; Los insólitos peces gato by Claudia Sainte-Luce; La jaula de oro by Diego Quemada-Diez; Manto Acuífero by Michael Rowe; Paraíso by Mariana Chenillo; Penumbra by Eduardo Villanueva; Somos Mari Pepa by Samuel Kishi Leopo; La vida después by David Pablos; and Workers by José Luis Valle González.

The members of the International Jury of the 11th edition of the Morelia International Film Festival are: Chris Fujiwara, director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival; Hélène Auclaire, director of the film department of Critics' Week at Cannes; Zita Carvalhosa, director of the Sao Paulo International Short Film Festival; Fred Kelemen, acclaimed German director and cinematographer; Karen Cooper, director of the Film Forum of New York; Mirsad Purivatra, director of the Sarajevo Film Festival; Monika Wagenberg, director of the Cartagena International Film Festival; Maria de Medeiros, well-known Portuguese actress and director; and Todd McCarthy, top critic at The Hollywood Reporter.

Critics' Week

One of the special programs featured at the 11th edition is the presentation of films from Critics' Week of the Cannes Festival 2013: Le Démantèlement (The Dismantling) by Sébastien Pilote (Canada); Los Dueños by Agustín Toscano and Ezequiel Radusky (Argentina); For Those in Peril by Paul Wright (UK); The Lunchbox (Dabba) by Ritesh Batra (India, France, Germany); The Major by Yuri Bykov (Russia); Nos héros sont morts ce soir by David Perrault (France); and Suzanne by Katell Quillevere (France).

Michoacán Tribute

Each year FICM honors an important figure in Mexican cinema who was born in the state of Michoacán. At this edition, thanks to the invaluable support of the UNAM film archive, Pepe Díaz and the Fundación Televisa, the festival will pay tribute to celebrated writer José Rubén Romero, with a screening of his films The Useless Life of Pito Pérez (1944) by Miguel Contreras Torres and Rosenda (1948) by Julio Bracho.

National & International Premieres

This year, the festival will screen a selection of about 40 premieres of the best in national and international cinema. Among the Mexican premieres are: Espectro by Alfonso Pineda; Guten Tag, Ramón by Jorge Ramírez Suárez; Pares y Nones by Gregorio Carillo Vázquez; and Yvy Maraey by Juan Carlos Valdivia.

The films that will have their international premieres at the festival include: Amor Índigo by Michel Gondry; Behind the Candelabra by Steven Soderbergh; Blue Is the Warmest Color by Abdellatif Kechiche, winner of the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Festival 2013; Blue Jasmine by Woody Allen; The Grandmaster by Wong Kar Wai; Jeune et Jolie by Francois Ozon; Inside Llewyn Davis by the Coen brothers; The Selfish Giant by Clio Barnard; and The Counselor by Ridley Scott, which will be the closing film of the festival. In addition, there will be a special screening featuring one of the favorite films of the year, About Time by Richard Curtis.

Parallel Sections & Special Screenings

In this edition, thanks to the support of HSBC, the First Nations Forum will be presented, in addition to a special screening of the documentary H2O.

Following the excellent suggestion by French director Bertrand Tavernier, special guest at the festival in 2007, the program "Imaginary Mexico" will be offered for the 6th consecutive year. This program includes films that show Mexico, its culture and traditions, through the eyes of foreign filmmakers. In this edition, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of actor Burt Lancaster, there will be a screening of his films, with the presence of his daughter Joanna.

This year, thanks to the support of the UNAM film archive, Fundación Televisa and Alex García, there will be a retrospective of the works of the great Mexican actor Arturo de Córdova. This tribute will be the first since his death 40 years ago. In addition, a public exhibition will be held at Plaza Benito Juárez.

Thanks to the support of Women in Cinema and Television and Grupo Rosa Mexicano, the festival will pay tribute to the careers of the great actress Carmen Montejo and the producer Luciana Cabarga, with the screening of the films En la palma de tu mano (1951) by Roberto Gavaldón and El mes más cruel (1969) by Carlos Lozano Dana.

To celebrate its 15 years of existence, the Mantarraya production company will have a special screening of Heli by Amat Escalante, who received the best director award this year at the Cannes Festival. In addition, Amat Escalante will be awarded the Premio Cuervo at the 11th FICM.

Thanks to the support of the Filmoteca Española, a showing of the films by Spanish filmmaker Edgar Neville will be presented, with special screenings of La torre de los siete jorobados (1944) and Duende y misterio del flamenco (1952).

Thanks to the support of the UCLA film archive, the festival will present a special screening of Daughters of the Dust by U.S. director Julie Dash.

Thanks to the support of the French Embassy, the festival will have the special program Jean Vigo Prize at the festival, in which this year's winning film L'enclos du temps by Jean-Charles Fitoussi, will be shown.

At the same time, in collaboration with the Goethe Institute in Mexico, the festival will feature Lore by Cate Shortland and Oh Boy by Jan Ole Gerster, in a special screening of German film.

The festival will also feature a program of Czech films that include Closely Watched Trains, Daisies and Love of a Blonde.

This year, there will be a selection of short films to commemorate the 50 years of the CUEC-UNAM film school.

Opening Film

The extraordinary film Gravity by Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón will be screened at the opening night ceremony of the 11th edition, an event that will take place on October 18 at the Cinépolis Morelia Centro.

Guest of Honor

This year, the festival is privileged to have as its guest of honor Alejandro Jodorowsky, who will present a series of his films, including the Mexican premiere of his new work, La danza de la realidad.

Special Guests

In this edition, French director Bruno Dumont will present the Mexican premiere of his acclaimed new film Camille Claudel 1915, and U.S. director John Sayles, along with actor Edward James Olmos, will introduce their latest film Go For Sisters.

Also present at the festival will be: Anamaria Marinca, Romanian actress who will present the film Europa Report by Sebastián Cordero; Francesca Gregorini, who will present her film Emanuel and the Truth About Fishes; Sebastián Lelio, Chilean director who will present the multi-awarded film Gloria; Catalina Sandino, Colombian actress who will present the film Medeas by Andrea Pallaoro; François Dupeyron, French director who will present his new film Mon âme par toi guérie; and Jim Mickle, who will present We Are What We Are, a U.S. adaptation of the Mexican film Somos lo que hay by Jorge Michel Grau, who will also be in Morelia.

Award for Best Actress & Best Actor

The festival announces the inclusion of an award for Best Actress and Best Actor in the category of Mexican Feature Film.

Venues

The venues for the 11th edition are the Cinépolis Morelia Centro and Cinépolis Las Américas. In addition there will be free screenings at the Casa Natal de Morelos, the Aula Mater del Colegio de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, la Plaza Benito Juárez and conferences at the Teatro José Rubén Romero. For the 9th consecutive year, the festival will also extend its program to Pátzcuaro, offering daily screenings at the Teatro Emperador Caltzontzin.

Monday, September 23, 2013

INUK (2010)—An Informal Conversation With Ole Jørgen Hammeken

Roxie Releasing is proud to present the U.S. theatrical premiere of Inuk (2010), a coming-of-age drama directed by Mike Magidson. Inuk will open in San Francisco at the historic Roxie Theater on September 27. A national release will follow after the turn of the year.

Co-written by Magidson, Ole Jørgen Hammeken (who stars in the film), and anthropologist Jean-Michel Huctin, Inuk premiered theatrically in Greenland in May 2011, becoming a major commercial success, selling more tickets in its home country than such American blockbusters as Avatar or The Twilight Saga. It went on to become a winner of multiple international film festival awards (including Best Film, Director and Editing at the Savannah Film Festival), as well as being chosen as Greenland's Oscar® submission in 2012. In that capacity, I caught the film as part of the Awards Buzz sidebar at the 2013 Palm Springs International Film Festival, where it sold out every screening and was included in Best of the Fest.

Inspired by the "Children's Home Uummannaq" situated 500 km north of the Arctic Circle in the small town of Uummannaq, Inuk covers a journey from Greenland's south to its north as an homage to the origins of the Inuit people. The story concerns troubled 16-year-old Inuk (played as a teen by newcomer Gaba Petersen), who witnesses his father's death in a tragic dog-sledding accident. Raised in the south in Greenland's capital Nuuk by his increasingly alcoholic mother and a violent step-father, Inuk becomes cut off from his former life in the wilds.

One morning, after pulling the half-frozen boy out of an abandoned car, social services sends Inuk north to a foster home on a tiny island in the middle of the Arctic sea-ice, where Inuk swiftly becomes delinquent and unruly. His foster guardian and teacher, Aviaaja (Rebekka Jørgensen) pairs him up with bear hunter Ikuma (Ole Jørgen Hammeken) so that he may learn wisdom. The taciturn hunter's attachment to the land and knowledge of traditional ways offers a glimpse of a different life for the troubled teen. But Ikuma himself is suffering self-doubt after his own world begins to decline due to the effects of global warming. Harnessing the dogs, the odd couple embarks on a seal-hunting expedition—a visceral sequence handled with style and verve by Magidson—and Inuk comes face-to-face with his past and reawakens the old injury that has affected Ikuma's life. Despite the bitter cold and their treacherous surroundings, the most difficult journey they both must make will be the one within themselves.

With stunning cinematography by Xavier Liberman and Franck Rabel, shot on the sea ice in sub-zero polar temperatures, Inuk features performances by teenagers from the Uummannaq Children's Home, all playing roles close to their real lives. Created as an original road-movie on a sea of ice, Inuk is both an authentic story of Greenland today—a country torn between tradition and modernity—and a universal story about the quest for identity, transmission and rebirth after the deepest of wounds.

Unfortunately, I watched Inuk at the Palm Springs International on screener on my laptop after fortuitously meeting Ole Jørgen Hammeken and composer Justin Michael La Vallee in the press lounge. My schedule didn't allow me to watch the film's final PSIFF screening and I didn't have the chance to meet director Magidson. I hoped even then that an opportunity might arise in the future where I could view Inuk on screen in-cinema. When it didn't show up at the San Francisco International, I thought I had missed my chance; but, the Roxie has redeemed all regrets.

In retrospect, I feel honored to have met Hammeken who plays the hunter Ikuma who—along with Inuk—has had his heart frozen by loss. Both stare at the world with eyes of ice. How the two find each other and heal each other through traditional Inuit ways is the driving momentum of this classic coming of age tale, bolstered by breathtaking austere landscapes, wonderful footage of dog teams at work, and a soundtrack that mixes modern and ancient melodies to atmospheric effect.

Hammeken advised he wasn't originally considered for the role of Ikuma, admitting he was not truly a hunter, even though familiar with dog sledding through expedition work. The hunter that was originally cast to play the role of Ikuma had to drop out of the project because hunting season started and his priorities were firm: hunting took precedence over filmmaking. As the bristly Ikuma whose eyesight (and confidence) are failing, troubled by the loss of his son, Hammeken delivers a pitch-perfect performance. When I teased him that he would now become the go-to actor for future Greenlandic productions, he laughed and said no, no, that would not be the case, though he has been working on securing footage of his northern expeditions and, undeniably, has enjoyed traveling the world accompanying Inuk, most recently to Seoul, South Korea.

Hammeken and I swapped expedition stories; he in Greenland, me in Central America. I admitted how I don't much like ice and snow and vividly recall his smiling reaction—ice, after all, comprises the Inuit soul—but, after seeing Inuk, nothing would be more of an adventure than accompanying Hammeken on one of his expeditions. I’ve only seen Greenland from the air on transatlantic flights, but recall it being beautifully blue from high above. How wondrous it would be to experience it from a dog sled! To see shadows shift across the ice as in one particularly memorable sequence in Inuk.

We discussed the documentary Chasing Ice. He knew some of the people involved in that project. We both expressed disbelief that there are still those—in the face of surmounting evidence—who disclaim global warming. He has seen firsthand how the ice is going “bad.” For him it is dramatic, definitive evidence. He wonders if Americans can possibly comprehend? Only by degrees, I responded. It’s now official: 2012 was the hottest year in American history, by one degree. And look at all the damage that caused!

My fingers have been crossed that Hammeken and I might have the chance to cross paths again, and it will be a delight to finally meet the film’s director, Mike Magidson, who will be present for a Q&A after the film’s first screening. This proves a poignant homecoming as Magidson is originally from the Bay Area, born at the height of the 1967 “summer of love” in Oakland, California. After getting a college degree, Mike immediately set off to Los Angeles where he was cast in a series of small theatre productions. Unable to pay his rent with his modest actor fees, Mike took a job as an apprentice editor with one of Hollywood’s top ranked trailer producers, Intralink Film Graphic Design, where he began to dream of a career as a filmmaker. Following his heart and a strong curiosity for French culture, in 1992 Mike packed up a suitcase, and moved to Paris, France. After several years editing for such reputable directors as Pan Nalin, Antoine de Maximy, and Jean-Michel Carré, in 1998 Mike borrowed a friend’s camera and made his first award winning documentary, Kanada. Eleven years later, Mike has written and directed over twenty documentaries and shorts. Inuk is his first feature-length narrative film.

Saturday, September 21, 2013

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW (IL VANGELO SECONDO MATTEO, 1964)—A Critical Overview

"Someone who walks up to a couple of people and says, 'Drop your nets and follow me' is a total revolutionary."—Pier Paolo Pasolini

I envy anyone their first viewing of Pier Paolo Pasolini's Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew, 1964). Hopefully, that first viewing will be in-cinema with a 35mm print so that the film's defamiliarizing visuals can achieve their full and intended impact. My first viewing was at home on DVD screener, yet—even as such—I was tremendously impacted by this film, thrown off by it you might say, and it has lingered with me weeks afterwards. I eagerly anticipate a second viewing tomorrow when a restored 35mm print of Matthew screens at Berkeley's Pacific Film Archive (PFA), as part of the Bay Area's multi-venue tribute to Pasolini.

As Judy Bloch has written in her PFA program note: "What was seen in 1964 as a daringly direct, almost reportorial account of the Gospel of St. Matthew, set against the everyday life of the times, today looks like a radically stylized classic. Pasolini employed a cast of nonprofessional actors, and settings of rugged Southern Italian landscapes and hill towns, shot with a mixture of cinema-verité techniques, expressive close-ups, and ingenious set pieces. His Christ (Catalonian economics student Enrique Irazoqui) is an anguished and determined revolutionary, setting children against their parents as he has turned against his, a peripatetic preacher against the afflictions of social injustice. (He has an artist's ego: 'Only in his own country, a prophet goes unhonored.') His miracles are as matter-of-fact as Pasolini's pageantry is gritty. The faces Pasolini has chosen are those of the rural proletariat, but they evoke parallels with Italian religious art; similarly, the music is a mixture of black spirituals, the Missa Luba, and Bach."

The story goes that the idea to make a Passion film came to Pasolini in October 1962 during the Pope's visit to Assisi. The filmmaker was trapped in a hotel room and had nothing better to do but read a copy of the Bible. He found the text incredibly rich and decided to bring it to the screen. Pasolini dedicated the film to Pope John XXIII, who turned around centuries of Christian anti-Semitism with the Second Vatican Council.

Matthew premiered in competition at the 1964 Venice Film Festival, where—according to John Wakemen, editor of World Film Directors Volume 2: 1945-1985—crowds had gathered prepared to boo Pasolini. He had scandalized Catholic sensibilities a year earlier with his short film La Ricotta—deemed contemptuous of the state religion—earning him a conviction and a four-month jail sentence. Instead, the film was awarded the OCIC Award and the Special Jury Prize, audiences cheered, and his conviction was voided by an appeals court. Matthew went on to have a robust festival run, opening theatrically in the United States in 1966, receiving three Oscar® nominations for Art Direction (Luigi Scaccianoce), Costume Design (Danilo Donati), and Score (Luis Enriquez Bacalov).

Matthew also won the grand prize of the International Catholic Film Office, which screened the film inside Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, and it was one of 45 films recommended by the Vatican in 1996 in honor of the centenary of cinema; honors that—Kenneth Turan reports—were "huffily condemned" by fellow director Franco Zeffirelli whose religious films Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972) and Jesus of Nazareth (1973) did not make the list. Zeffirelli complained Pasolini was "not only mediocre but also an atheist.''

As Roger Ebert pointed out, along with right-wing Catholic groups who picketed the film, "the French left was as outraged as the Italian right, and Sartre met with Pasolini, telling him somewhat obscurely, 'Stalin rehabilitated Ivan the Terrible; Christ is not yet rehabilitated by Marxists.' "

As Matthew approached the U.S., anticipatory reviews were more consistently enthusiastic. Writing for the Autumn 1965 issue of Film Comment, Maryvonne Butcher asserted: "In my opinion, The Gospel According to Matthew is incomparably the most effective picture ever made on a scriptural theme." Veteran British critic Alexander Walker likewise proclaimed that Matthew "grips the historical and psychological imagination like no other religious film I have ever seen." Nearly 40 years later, Roger Ebert concurred: "Pasolini's is one of the most effective films on a religious theme I have ever seen, perhaps because it was made by a nonbeliever who did not preach, glorify, underline, sentimentalize or romanticize his famous story, but tried his best to simply record it." Reporting from the New York premiere for The New York Times, Bosley Crowther praised the film's "flinty" language, naturalistic sense of place, Pasolini's "remarkable avoidance of clichés", and the surprisingly memorable performances of his unskilled actors. As summed up by The Virginia Pilot, Pasolini's film suffered "no starched laundry."

A critical overview of The Gospel According to Matthew requires attention to the sequential waves of criticism reacting to the film: the first wave in the mid-'60s, as stated above, when the film premiered at festivals and during its early theatrical life. The second, nearly 40 years later, occurred in the wake of the controversy elicited by Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2004), which inspired reviewers to make comparisons with the existing canon of films depicting the life of Christ, including Pasolini's. One might argue that this seeming necessity emerged as a very good moment indeed for Pasolini's Matthew to be rediscoverd, revisited and re-appreciated, not only comparatively, but on its own terms (which—let's face it—shouldn't have required Gibson's folly).

Of the reviews comparing Gibson with Pasolini pro and con are Kenneth Turan's for the L.A. Weekly, Roger Ebert for his site, Christopher C. Fuller, Ph.D. for The Society of Biblical Literature (interestingly analyzing fidelity to source in both films), Russell Hittinger and Elizabeth Lev for First Things, and Stefano Ciammaroni for Reverse Shot.

Ebert provides, perhaps, the most trenchant comparison: "To see the film a few weeks after seeing Gibson's is to understand that there is no single version of his story. It acts as a template into which we fit our ideas, and we see it as our lives have prepared us for it. Gibson sees Christ's suffering as the overwhelming fact of his life, and his film contains very little of Christ's teachings. Pasolini thought the teachings were the central story. If a hypothetical viewer came to The Passion with no previous knowledge of Jesus and wondered what all the furor was about, Pasolini's film would argue: Jesus was a radical whose teachings, if taken seriously, would contradict the values of most human societies ever since."

Of course, as Pasolini's films began to be shown in institutional retrospectives, regional critics responded. By way of example, when Matthew screened as part of the Harvard Film Archives' September 2010 retrospective, Peter Keough wrote of Pasolini's "perverse poetry" at The Phoenix: "Although Pasolini remains faithful to the original text, his Christ … stirs crowds like a revolutionary, and the Marxist subtext couples with a meditative stillness that builds to an epiphany. Everything, including miracles, occurs with blunt literalness but also shimmers with immanence. And so the blunt Crucifixion and the threadbare Resurrection pierce ideology and open into something deeper."

In 2012, Masters of Cinema released Matthew on DVD/Blu-Ray, initiating a fresh suite of critiques, several which were profiled by David Hudson at his Daily (then at MUBI), including Philip French's Guardian review and David Jenkins at Little White Lies, let alone a sizeable earlier quote from Martin Scorsese regarding Pasolini's influence on his own The Last Temptation of Christ (1988).

To Hudson's list, I might add the write-up at Covey on Film, which is refreshingly informed as to the historical context of the gospels, particularly the Gospel of Matthew, allowing Covey to more fully recognize the artistic license Pasolini took filming particular passages. The challenge of creating a dramatic narrative while adhering to a verbatim text is astutely analyzed, and questions regarding Pasolini's reasons for stylizing and/or omitting the gospel's five sermons are intriguingly raised.

Perhaps most importantly is when Covey questions Masters of Cinema's "misplaced emphasis" on changing the English title from its previous cinematic releases by removing the "Saint" honorific, thereby restoring the film to its original Italian title. Apparently the addition of "Saint" during the film's U.S. distribution caused Pasolini "considerable anguish." Pasolini's personal wishes aside, Covey suggests it's all much ado about nothing considering most "scholars, Christian and not, have recognized since the 1600s that Matthew wasn't the author at all. The fact that it is an anonymous text did not keep it from being associated, from a very early date in Christian tradition, with one of the first apostles, but the fact is, calling the author 'Matthew' is really just a convention, in textual history terms." Notwithstanding, I follow Master of Cinema's impetus to honor Pasolini's wishes.

A third wave of critical appreciation—this one having more the feel of a tsunami—attends the touring retrospective of remastered 35mm prints (currently at Berkeley's Pacific Film Archive). When the films screened earlier this year at the British Film Institute, Geoff Andrews considered the challenges of making a plausibly religious film. "Just as prayer is hard to get right in a movie," he writes, "so too are most things to do with faith and notions of divinity. …Even with the magic of cinema, miracles and visionary epiphanies often come across as incredible, simply because we know how editing, special effects and film artifice in general are so often devoted to deceiving the eye. And then there's the perennial question of how to represent holiness: too often it comes down to the clichés of dramatic backlighting and filters, a soaring, saccharine choral score and actors behaving in a way which seems so angelically distracted that they barely feel human at all. Perhaps that's why the films which depict divinity, spirituality or religious faith most persuasively are very often those which adhere most closely to a kind of materialistic realism rooted in the physical aspects of existence." Here, of course, Andrews extols Pasolini's specific achievement, earlier cited by Russell Hittinger and Elizabeth Lev as a "relevant Jesus mode" (emphasis added).

At The Guardian, Peter Bradshaw categorizes Matthew as a "brilliant and entirely unforgiving neorealist Passion play" that "looks as if it has been hacked from some stark rockface." He adds: "This really is raw film-making, in a political vernacular which speaks of Pasolini's high, theocratic Marxist belief in the sovereignty of the people, like the publicans and the harlots that Christ said understood him. The texture and feel of what's on the screen is abrasive and uncompromising…. A fierce magnesium flame of a movie."

"Pier Paolo Pasolini's greatest strength as a filmmaker," writes Vagrant Café, "was his ability to take scenes from canonized literature and transform them into literal images." At the London Review of Books, Michael Wood delivers an eloquent analysis of Matthew's opening scene, first to praise Pasolini's use of the faces of non-actors to tell the story of Matthew's gospel as images—later with images—at which point Wood criticizes the film's impatience "to finish, to run away from a story it now finds crowded rather than interesting." Wood writes that "Pasolini has taken Matthew's jagged narrative and made it into a bleak, Brechtian epic." He grants that Pasolini's portrayal of Jesus is "an impeccable artistic response in the Brechtian sense" (in that it is "a tangible representation of an impossible case") but cautions that this theologically sound disconnect—"this is the son of God, how could he look like anybody, talk like anybody?"—can't be kept up forever. When the disconnect no longer serves its defamiliarizing purpose, Wood complains that "everything lapses into bathos. The film becomes a school nativity play taking itself too seriously. The person who a moment ago had been a vivid but schematic, almost abstract representation of Jesus (or Peter or Judas or Pilate or Mary), a figure in a tapestry say, now seems to have wandered in from a Fellini film, or better, an audition for a Fellini film in its early stages of planning. And we can't even enjoy the effect of the grotesque here, since the austere style doesn't allow it. The figures just seem stranded, real people watching their notional identities walk awkwardly away from them."

Also in response to the BFI retrospective, Mamoun Hassan introduced a screening of Pasolini's Matthew to a full house at the National Film Theatre in London on March 8, 2013, and this has been captured on video and offered for viewing at Vimeo.

Pasolini's The Gospel According to Matthew is available for mail rental at Netflix, and streaming on Hulu Plus, Amazon, and Fandor. Fandor synopsizes: "The birth, life, teachings and death on the cross of Jesus Christ presented almost as a cinéma-vérité documentary. Pasolini's second feature seemed a strange choice for such a revolutionary director, but it is an attempt to take Christ out of the opulent church and present him as an outcast Italian peasant. Applying Neo-Realist methods, the director shot in Calabria, using the expressive faces of non-professionals including that of his mother as the Virgin Mary. The Gospel According to Matthew is considered the greatest screen version of the 'greatest story ever told' and this freshly remastered version brings the film to life in a way that has never been seen before." Also at Fandor is Kevin Lee's appreciative video essay "The Gospel Faces of Pier Paolo Pasolini".

The trailer for the film is available at YouTube, where the film can likewise be found in its entirety. At the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive CineFiles database, several rare documents on Matthew can be studied.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

RAYMOND DURGNAT ON PASOLINI'S THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW (1964)

To reinforce the value of accessing the CineFiles database administered by the University of California Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, and following an enthusiastic cue from Jonathan Rosenbaum to familiarize myself with the work of Raymond Durgnat—gradually being collected at a dedicated website-in-progress—I contribute this transcript of CineFile 22270. My thanks to Jason Sanders for sourcing this review to the UK publication Films & Filming, June 1967.

* * *

Pasolini is an interesting character—a young man of good family who very sensitively immersed himself among Rome's layabouts, a professed Marxist and agnostic who wishes he could share the Christian faith. These contradictions provide good reason for hoping for a film about a Christ which, for once, isn't bowdlerised, paralysed and altogether emasculated by a complacent reverence which in these days of napalm and thalidomide is as useless for Sunday School children as it is for adults. Christianity, when it was young, was a revolutionary religion, even if the revolution was not that of the sword. Pasolini might show Christianity as the faith of those who try to move mountains, not of those who pretend they're not there.

The difficulty is perhaps that Christianity is so many-faceted and ambiguous that every Christian meets his own Christ, and a director who doesn't have some sort of personal conviction is going to have immense difficulty making up his mind as to which Christ he means to make a film about—especially as all powerful organizations with different views are going to denounce him as heretical, blasphemous and so on. The prospect of a Marxist Christ is very exciting, especially in view of the current Marxist concentration on "alientation" and other spiritual diseases. Again, a hard-headed approach to the founder of Christianity might enable the cinema to catch up with the "historical" Christ proposed by Dr. Schweitzer, who erred humanly as well as forgiving divinely; or with the "socio-political" Christ emerging from current studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other forms of historical research.

Pasolini, understandably, has refrained from embarking on the (immense) complexities of applying Marxist theory to biblical times, or venturing into the furious cross-currents of biblical scholarships. He has explored another way of bringing a rough vigour into the Gospel Story. His "Holy Land" is the Italian countryside; all the actors are non-professional peasants; Christ himself is played by a young Spaniard. The script restricts itself to the St. Matthew's Gospel (which omits certain cherished details), and the resultant storyline gives a rough, raw "cinéma-vérité" effect with which the direction and the photography are also imbued. Thus, at Jesus' trial, the camera peers round from behind heads, which seem to block the view. The visual "transpositions" (of modern Italy for ancient Palestine) have an absorbingly abrasive effect on the overgrowth of the picturesquerie, and a sombre beauty itself sufficient to act as a new commentary on the Gospels. Familiar sayings and exchanges take on a new pith and point in peasant mouths and faces, which relate them to the thinking-style of an oral culture, like that which produced them, rather than to our literate culture: they take on far more sharpness. The St. Matthew Christ is a Christ who harshly curses; and Pasolini's Saviour, though as sensitive and sad as tradition demands, has, also, a quality of inveterate sullenness, of irreconcilable rejection, of the world. He smiles only once, to the children clamouring round him. His sadness has a certain pitilessness which itself is poignant, and without the weak piety of the pre-Raphaelite Christ whose influence has ruined so many films. It rings true, frees the imagination and is perhaps the film's profoundest point. After all, Pasolini's Christ is as near the Wild Angels as the swinging nuns of St. Mary's, and that's the only position from which Christianity can begin.

The style of playing evokes Bresson (the sermons delivered in a fast, hard, impassive style), and the film is in a sense the spiritual rendezvous of Bresson and Rossellini. Pasolini's "neo-realism" paradoxically results in a major poetic departure. The magnificent settings are visibly in ruins (an effect matched in certain Renaissance paintings), giving a strange pathos and timelessness, while the village-size crowds give a trenchant intimacy to the Jerusalem scenes, too often handled in an emptily spectacular way.

In other ways, though, Pasolini makes too many concessions to various conventions. At one moment, a newsreel-style camera—at another, elaborate compositions. The angel of the Lord appears matter-of-factly, but has Botticelli curls. Stylising his "harsh Christ", Pasolini overindulges shots of him snarling as he strides away—remarks which are curiously audible in extreme-long-shot. During the Massacre of the Innocents, little bundles of rags pretending to be swaddled babes are thrown into the air with a curiously unconvincing effect. The priests and the Pharisees have hardly a redeeming feature, so lending a melodramatic tone to the Bible's purely moral opposition. Perhaps Pasolini's best moment is an uncompromising close-up of a hideously disfigured leper, and one holds one's breath as at Buñuel; but the healing gives the game away, switching one's thoughts from Christ to the make-up department. And miraculous healings conclude in expressions of joy which strike one as glib and silly—surely the miraculous is awe-inspiring, even fearful, too.

Gradually, in fact, the film capitulates to the conventional reverences surrounding the Christ story. One's interest has to shift to the aesthetic level rather than the spiritual one, and consider each of the various episodes as a challenge to which Pasolini responds—always intelligently, but with varying success. Pasolini's is the most convincing visualisation of how Jesus might have upset the moneychangers in the Temple, and the crucifixion has a horrible casualness, making no concession whatsoever to the greatness of the event, and sharpening the physical anguish through the reactions of a fellow-victim. But the admirable moments are swamped by longish scenes in which Pasolini's "cinéma-vérité" style becomes something of a cover-up for a lack of interpretative trenchancy. Too often the modern peasant faces in archaic clothing suggest nothing so much as a village pageant approach to the Gospel. Pasolini's reliance on landscape is itself a symptom of withdrawal from the real drama. The basic trouble is clearly that Pasolini, having thought of a "sullen" Christ, hasn't much more in the way of spiritual challenge to offer. Devout Christians will no doubt be more moved by it than I, and sentimental ones healthily startled. A half-hour digest might have been overwhelming, but as it is I found myself thinking how much longer to go.

Whether or not this is Pasolini's original cut, I don't know (the Venice Festival version was considerably shortened). But, just for the record, it doesn't, as has been said, show Matthew's Gospel fully: notably, omissions include Matthew 19:12, 22:24, 24:29, 26:35, 27:37 and various thoughts and details which I should have thought more important than the (historically dubious) Massacre of the Innocents.