Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Possibly the best film ever made about childhood
25 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
*** WARNING: SPOILERS ***

The three films Pather Panchali, Aparajito and Apur Sansar form a trilogy, and, although each holds up well in itself, they are best viewed as a unity. Speaking on a purely personal note, I know of no greater achievement in cinema, and have certainly seen nothing that moves me more profoundly.

The twin themes of these films are progress and loss. The former implies the latter, and both are, in a sense, inevitable. This is, as all summaries must be, an over-simplification. Certainly, the loss of childhood, of innocence, of parents, is universal to the human condition. Growing up, progressing from childhood to maturity, is similarly inevitable. But Apu wills his progress: at least, he wills its direction. He always grapples with life, painful though it is. Only once, after the death of his wife (in the third film of the trilogy), does he turn his back upon life, but this crisis is temporary: the trilogy ends with Apu once again facing the future willingly, uncertain though it is.

It is this refusal to turn one's back, to stagnate, this refusal to renounce, that forms the backbone of this trilogy, and gives it a unity throughout its often disparate episodes. The central character of these films, Apu, always aspires towards becoming something greater, other than what he is. He wants to educate himself. This, in a western context, appears somewhat obvious, but, given Apu's background, education is something to strive towards, to struggle for; and Apu, despite great temptation, never abandons this struggle. It is not that he sees education as a means towards wealth or power: this is not, after all, anything so crude as a rags to riches story. But he does want to outgrow the village, to understand, and come to terms with life and the larger world outside. And in this he is, as is suggested by the title of the second film, aparajito, undefeated.

Over the three films, we see Apu progress from childhood to, perhaps, his early thirties. In this progression, we see his character develop through experience. This experience is often painful, and Apu is not always capable of rising above the pain. Perhaps no other film has depicted with such a terrible intensity the emotional pain of loss; but the vision, ultimately, is far from tragic. The last film - Apur Sansar - actually ends with a sense of joy. The joy is by no means unqualified: it has been hard won, and we, the audience, recognize its fragility. But it is, nonetheless, exhilarating.

Pather Panchali, the first of the trilogy, takes place some time early in the 20th century, and covers the years of Apu's early childhood. We see him born into a poverty-stricken family in rural Bengal. Later, we see Apu at play with his sister, Durga; we see him excited by the travelling players; we observe the uncomprehending wonder of Apu and Durga as they see a train for the first time. We are shown all those events of childhood that are apparently trivial, but which nonetheless shape the adult personality.

Apu's mother Sarbojaya (the superb Karuna Banerjee), is understandably harassed, trying to keep her family clothed and fed. The father, Harihar, is good-natured, other-worldly, and quite unpragmatic. With the family lives an aged aunt, Indir. She is a pathetic figure, helplessly eking out a meagre existence on the charity of those who barely have enough for themselves, and relying on Durga - with whom she has a close relationship - to supplement her inadequate diet with stolen fruit. Aware of her status, Indir generally speaks and acts in an ingratiating and conciliatory manner; but there is a repressed rage within her that bursts out on occasion. It is a magnificent performance from the aged actress Chunibala Devi. Sarbojaya has no patience with this old woman, and takes little trouble to hide the fact that she is unwanted. This is not out of deliberate cruelty, or indifference: it is simply that looking after her own immediate family is burden enough. The old woman, desparately trying to retain the last vestiges of her dignity, is forever storming out, attempting to find a roof to shelter under from some other relative. But she keeps returning: even a hostile roof, after all, is preferrable to none. It is a picture of desperation which moves the heart beyond mere pity. There is one particularly heart-rending scene where she sits in the dark singing of death in her old, cracked voice.

This first part of the trilogy ends in tragedy - Durga's death - and I know of nothing in cinema that delivers so powerful an emotional punch. It took me quite unawares at first viewing, and even on repeated viewings, it moves me like nothing else I have seen. Particularly unforgettable is Apu's final, quiet act of love for his dead sister, which really needs to be seen in its proper dramatic context to be appreciated. It is the end of a chapter in the family's life, and they move on. The sense of loss is overwhelming.

This is perhaps the best film ever made about childhood. I watch the entire trilogy about once every year, and wonder afresh at what cinema, at its best, is capable of achieving.
64 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A monumental achievement: a summary of Bergman's career
24 July 1999
Bergman knew this was going to be his last film, and I can only imagine that he intended it as a sort of summary of his cinematic career: this film covers everything - joyous celebration and high comedy to stark austerity and tragedy; and, finally, a mysterious, dream-like final act reminiscent of the later plays of Strindberg. Yet it never appears episodic: it is all effortlessly contained in this huge, magnificent film.

In the end, this is a celebration of the magic of cinema: one comes away exhilarated at the sheer range of what cinema - in the hands of a master - may be capable of. It is a monumental achievement.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Innocents (1961)
The most frightening film I have seen
24 July 1999
"The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James is far and away the best and most frightening ghost story I've ever read, and this magnificent film does it justice. The script, direction, performances, and, of course, Freddie Francis' wonderful black-and-white cinematography, are absolutely first rate. All combine to make this the most terrifying film I've ever seen - with not a special effect in sight!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Third Man (1949)
10/10
Cinematic magic
21 July 1999
Everything comes together perfectly. There's Robert Krasker's startling photography; Anton Karas' zither music; superbly paced direction from Carol Reed (who would have thought that final shot would come off so superbly?); Graham Greene's razor-sharp script; and the performances: Joseph Cotten, Allida Valli, and the much underrated Trevor Howard. Even in the minor roles, Bernard Lee and Wilfred Hyde-White provide some ofthe best comic relief I've seen. And, of course, Orson Welles, in surely the greatest cameo performance ever - full of irresistible charm while dripping with evil.

And yet, the whole is actually GREATER than the considerable sum of its parts. This film is touched with rare magic - something you can't quite put your finger on, but is there all the same. Every single scene is magnificent; the timing and pacing are absolute perfection. And, just when you think you've seen it all, there's that final scene.....
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casablanca (1942)
10/10
Sheer entertainment, and also finely crafted
21 July 1999
Is this really a love story? The leading man spends virtually all the film being really nasty to the leading lady, and the only decent thing he does is to give her away at the end to another man! I'd have thought that the real theme of this film is not really "love" - the private lives of a few people really don't amount to "a hill of beans" - it's heroism. In this respect, Paul Heinreid's part is superbly underplayed: the film would become unbalanced if he outplayed Bogie - he couldn't anyway - but, at the same time, we must think it right that Else ends up with him rather than with Rick. And Henreid is very convincing in projecting this heroism.

The whole thing is so irresistibly entertaining, that we often forget how finely crafted it is. The plot is complex, but we always know what's happening - there's even a little sub-plot included (about a young couple desperate to escape) that reflects the central plot. And, although Rick behaves badly through most of the film, director Michael Curtiz is careful to ensure that he never forfeits the audience's sympathy.

As for the rest, it's all been said before. The most entertaining film ever made? I wouldn't argue with that. On a par, in my book, with "The Maltese Falcon", "The Third Man" and "Singin in the Rain".
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Charulata (1964)
10/10
Absolute perfection
20 June 1999
As cinema appears to become ever more loud and brash, a work as delicate, subtle and understated as this may easily pass unnoticed, or mistaken as insipid. That is a great shame, since this is obviously a great masterpiece. Set in India in the last century, Charulata is trapped in a dull, stifling marriage. What starts off as innocent flirting with her brother-in-law soon sets off emotions that none of them, decent though they all are, can really control. There is no adultery as such - the betrayal is all in the mind - but the trust implicit in marriage is broken, and the future can only be faced with uncertainty.

This is a film of great grace and elegance, and also of considerable wit. But underneath the surface charm is a great seriousness. As always, Ray depicts the development of the characters with great insight and sensitivity, and coaxes fine performances from his cast. Western critics, in discussing this film, often draw parallels with the works of Chekhov or of Henry James, but Ray's inspiration was actually the great Bengali writer Rabindranath Tagore, on whose short novel this film was based. As a piece of film-making, it is absolute perfection - a real gem.
36 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Stark and uncompromising
9 June 1999
Set in the working class environs of Northern England (Yorkshire), this is a stark and uncompromising film. Richard Harris gives a performance of a lifetime as a rugby player who, both on and off the field of play, seems able to express himself only through violence.

Lindsay Anderson directs wonderfully, insisting on gritty realism, and stripping everything of any hint of cinematic glamour. Unlike the French "nouvelle vague", Anderson wasn't interested in technique for its own sake: he was more concerned with actual substance. Here, he explores the depths of the characters, and their relationships with each other; and, in particular, their emotions, which are volcanic. Never have such naked passions been portrayed on screen with such power. One feels somewhat drained by the end.

Something was happening in the British cinema in the 60s. Where did it all disappear?
33 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fine set pieces, but little sense of pacing or structure
9 June 1999
The opening sequences are superb, but, for me, it all goes wrong after the scene in the UN lobby. Just when Hitch should have been tightening the screw, he inserts a scene where a committee of FBI agents reveal to us that they know our hero (Cary Grant) to be innocent. This robs much of what follows of any real tension. Just when the pace should be hotting up, Hitchcock slows things down with that long sequence on the train, which, surprisingly, lacks any sense of danger. As so often with Hitchcock in the 50s, he seemed more interested in glamour than with anything else. And glamour doesn't mix very easily with menace.

The famous scene where Cary Grant is attacked by a plane is fine, but it isn't integrated with the rest of the plot. (If someone wanted to kill Cary Grant, why didn't they just hire a gunman instead of a plane?) The plotline is perfunctory: Cary Grant makes his way into the villain's house, and instantly discovers what one of the best FBI agents has failed to uncover in years. The scene at the auction and the final chase on Mount Rushmore are, once again, memorable. But overall, this film appears to confirm my view that while Hitchcock was superb with individual set pieces, he never gave much thought to the overall structure or pacing. Even at his best (e.g. "The 39 Steps" or "Rear Window") Hitchcock doesn't give an impression of having an artistic vision to impart, which makes his reputation as a great director rather puzzling. No doubt his admirers see more than I do.
37 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Harrowing, but required viewing
3 June 1999
This film takes as its subject the Bengal famine of 1943 when, due to the negligence and indifference of the authorities, some 5 million lives were lost. The subject is certainly harrowing, but one does not come to a film like this for light entertainment.

Ray focuses on a remote village, where the war is little understood, and is merely "distant thunder". The warplanes flying overhead are regarded uncomprehendingly, but with wonder. Soon, shortages of food start making themselves felt; the price of food rises above what may be afforded, and there is starvation.

At the centre of this is a young Brahmin couple, who make use of their caste to earn a living. The horrific turn of events bring home to them the concept of social responsibility. When an untouchable girl dies at their door, they break the greatest caste taboo of all by deciding to dispose of the corpse themselves. In the context, this action is heroic; but this is heroism on the brink of extinction. The final unforgettable shot, where the sheer scale of the holocaust is brought home to us, sends a shiver down the spine even on repeated viewings.

In dealing with this very difficult subject, Ray displays his usual all-embracing humanism, and a level of artisty that appears well beyond that of ordinary directors. This is not an easy film to watch, but is required viewing for anyone who values cinematic artistry, and by those who believe that horrors such as those depicted here should not be forgotten.
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed