The creator, the creation and the struggle

Eugene O’Neill, one of the greatest playwrights and writers of the twentieth century had a peculiar relationship with his masterpiece, ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night’.

Eugene O’Neill completed writing this play in 1942. When he had already won the Nobel and three Pulitzers. He was a living legend. He was credited with bringing modernism to American Theatre. He was an institution in himself. His influence over American Drama was so profound that Time in his obituary in 1953 upon his death wrote, “Before O’Neill United States had Theater, after O’Neill United States had Drama”. Despite all this today he is remembered the most for his last play. (And many trivia enthusiasts know him as the unhappy father-in-law of Charlie Chaplin).

The play ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night’ talked about real-life situation in Eugene’s life around 1912. When the play was completed it ended up becoming a mirror image of a lifetime of plight. The play was so painful for him that in his will  he prohibited any stage adaptation of the play, not only during his lifetime but for 25 years after his death. However three years after his death his wife Carlotta Monterey had allowed to stage the play.

Such an estranged relationship between a creator and his own creation is not unusual. So often an artists sublimates personal emotions, stories, pains and complains in pieces of art. However once completed, it becomes difficult for the artist to confront that very personal pain again. Hayao Miyazaki, famous animation director from Japan, who probably has made the sweetest animation movie of all time, ‘Tonari no Totoro’ (my neighbor Totoro) had to deal with such a situation. The movie ‘Tonari no Totoro’ is a movie about two young girls, Satsuki and Mei whose mother is in hospital and they meet ‘Totoro’. Miyazaki once said that the same movie would have been too painful for him if he had two boys as protagonists instead of girls because the situation of the girls reflects very much the situation he and his brothers were in as kids.

Art is tough. Creating art is tough. Imagining art is touch. And once your creation is out, confronting your own creation is also tough. O’Neill, Miyazaki and many other artists confront this dilemma frequently. “Should I use my plight as my inspiration? or should I just let it disappear in the amnesia”. For the sake of their obsessive love for their art, they choose to suffer.

The Oscar Goes To……Nostalgia

Tomorrow by this time we will have known winners of 84th Academy Awards. It seems that the top two favorites to win the Best Picture award are ‘The Artist’ and ‘Hugo’. No matter who wins in the end, there is one clear winner this year….’Nostalgia’. Collins English dictionary defines Nostalgia as ‘Yearning for return of past circumstances, event etc.’ So many movies released this year not just deal with the theme of nostalgia but even celebrates it. Well, as a matter of fact many movies deal with the element of Nostalgia. Sidney Lumet even wrote once that there is something really nostalgic about stars. Nostalgia is a driving emotion for a lot of work of art. Insatiable yearning to live, re-live something that just doesn’t exist anymore has driven many writers, poets and painters to do their work. I would like to talk about three movies released this year in this context. Hugo, The Artist and Midnight in Paris.

The Artist: Some reviewer had written that ‘The Artist’ is a bold movie. It indeed is bold and courageous. It indeed takes a lotImage of courage to express your love at such a large scale. The Artist is a bold statement of love for cinema. In many ways, ‘The Artist’ is not an original movie. The basic storyline – ‘A glorious successful man and his career are destroyed and he with the help of his secret lover rebuilds himself’ – has been repeated a zillion times. The very premise of private lives of movie stars, their rise and fall have been shown zillion times. What makes ‘The Artist’ really different and unique is the fact that it has been presented without colors and without sound today. However, the movie is neither just about a silent movie star’s struggle to adapt to the evolution of the industry nor is simply a love story. This movie is a story of lost love. This movie is a silent movie’s ardent admirer’s statement of love towards glorious silent era of cinema. This is a movie about nostalgia.

ImageHugo: In my humble opinion ‘Hugo’ may lose Oscar to ‘The Artist’. But Hugo is a homage to all those creators, dreamers and artists who converted a technological advance called ‘Motion Pictures’ into a genuine form of art and entertainment, called Cinema. One of those mavericks was George Méliès. The two central characters of the movie Hugo and Papa George are in a constant philosophical tussle. On one hand Hugo is constantly trying to find answers to his questions in the past – in his memories – in the old worn out notebook of his father; on the other hand George (majestically performed by Ben Kingsley) is trying very hard to run away from the past, because it’s just too painful for him to revisit those emotions. The movie is about a constant struggle between denial and acceptance of nostalgia. Finally, acceptance wins and denial loses. Hugo finally finds the answer to his questions in George Méliès’ house and he successfully drags Papa George out of his protective shell of routines and takes him to the land of memories. The deep buried past is unearthed, recognized and finally celebrated. Scorsese has masterfully made the movie in 3D and has shown the tremendous potential that 3D holds beyond animation and blockbuster movies.

ImageMidnight in Paris: I am sure, among glittering tales of The Artist and Hugo; this little gem may be lost, overlooked or even forgotten tonight. But years from now, when some philosopher would study the conceptual depth, width and breadth of nostalgia, he will refer to this movie. For some romantic dreamers, nostalgia means a strong craving to live not just in past, but in a completely different era; the era that we have never seen, the era which was long over when we were born, the era that we have only imagined, read about or seen in movies, the era that despite everything said before, dominates our imagination. The nostalgic sensation so beautifully elaborated and celebrated by Woody Allen in this movie is one which strikes a chord with many. Because so many of us have at some point in our lives have felt this yearning to live in another era; either because the present doesn’t satisfy us, or because the unseen past seems more interesting, or simply because we are curious. In other words, we all have been nostalgic at some point in our lives. This movie is an ode to nostalgia and all those who cherish being nostalgic.

I have been late by about 12 hours in posting this piece and the Oscar ceremony has already begun, and within a couple of hours Oscar will have gone to…..Nostalgia.

What purpose does Utopia serve?

Fernando Birri, Argentine Filmmaker

Fernando Birri, one of the earliest movie directors of Argentina, sometimes called ‘Father of Latin American Cinema’, once was invited for a talk along with Eduardo Galeano, Uruguayan writer, by a University in Colombia.

After the talk a question-answer session followed. One of the students asked Fernando, “What purpose does utopia serve?”

Fernando, after a pensive pause responded, “I wake up everyday of my life asking myself the same question. ‘What purpose does Utopia serve?’. Utopia afterall is like the horizon. You can never reach the horizon. You walk towards it and it keeps going away. You walk ten steps and horizon goes away by ten steps, at times twenty, at times five. Utopia is no different. You walk towards it, keep walking towards it and it keeps going away. But then I tell myself, that’s the purpose Utopia serves. To make us keep walking. To make us keep walking towards it. Just like the horizon.”

(As told by Eduardo Galeano on Radio 3 of Spain)

How Smurfs Were Born

This week in Barcelona, the movie Smurfs has been released. While enquiring about the movie I came across this interesting story about the birth of Smurfs.

Belgian comic artist Peyo (Pierre Culliford) (1924 – 1992) has been touted as the chief creator of Smurfs (or Les Schtroumpfs in French). The character Smurf appeared in a Belgian comic series ‘Johan et Piroulit’ in the episode La Flûte à six trous, in the magazine Le Journal de Spirou in October, 1958. However the idea was born during a casual lunchtime conversation between Peyo (Pierre Culliford) and Andre Franquin (1927 – 1992), another famous Belgian comic artist.

It was summer of 1958 and Peyo and Franquin were having lunch while enjoying their coastal vacations. Suddenly Peyo asked Fran

Pierre Culliford "Peyo" (1924 - 1992)

quin to pass him something but momentarily forgot the name. So he asked, “Give me…….Smurfs“. According to Peyo he had created the word to mean ‘a thin, anything, any thingy’ – whatever. Franquin replied, “Here you have Smurfs, when you are through smurfing, you resmurf it for me”. It became a common joke for them and they spent a few days ‘Smurfing’. In their free time they recited classic french fables by La Fontaine and Racine in their  ‘Smurfed’ versions. It gave them sentences like, “Master Smurf on a smurfed tree had a smurf in his smurf”. And so on…..

Eventually by autumn Smurf had appeared in their comic series and in a few decades it emerged as one of the most successful comic series franchises of all times. An interesting example of where ideas come from.

Luis Garcia Berlanaga – The Wizard of Whispers

 

Berlanga - El Maestro

Learning a new language can open windows to an entirely new world of arts, culture and literature.  I have been tremendously benefited from learning Spanish. One of the things I have discovered is wonderful classic Spanish cinema. I will always be indebted to my Cinema expert friend Raúl, for introducing me, among many other facets of world cinema, to the wonderful world of Luís García Berlanga.

Last year José Luis López Vázquez passed away. Last month we lost Manuel Alexandre and now the sad demise of Berlanga! Three doyens of the previous generation of Spanish cinema have died recently. Berlanga in his own right is the most important director of Pre-Almodóvar generation in Spanish Cinema and according to some critics, the best Spanish director ever. Today, Pedro Almodóvar is the face of Spanish Cinema internationally. But he could hone his skills and express himself in a democratic, modern and economically growing  Spain. Berlanga didn’t have that luxury. Berlanga had to show his art during an era of Franco’s totalitarian regime, when freedom of expression was probably limited.  Probably that need to voice his ideas and severe limitations thereon, taught Berlanga the art of subtlety. That’s what makes his movies so special. He was not someone who wanted to shout out loud, his anger, frustrations and complaints. He was someone who just wanted to whisper. Yes! He just wanted to whisper.  That was his forté. Subtle messages – stark realities wrapped in the cloak of simplicity and satire. He was a wizard of whispers.

I am just supposing that it was restriction and censorship that brought out the best of his craft. I haven’t seen all his movies. Especially the ones he made in post-Franco era.  Out of those ones, I have seen only ‘La Vaquilla’ and so I cannot make an objective analysis. But at least ‘La Vaquilla’ lacked sharpness of El Vedugo, Placido, Los Jueves Milagro etc. Berlanga tried to find stories hidden in the mundane routine of common people. His actors were not like Bardem, Banderas or Penelope; full of glee and glamour. His protagonists were Pepe Isebert, José Luis López Vazquez, Cassen and Manuel Alexandre. These were not stars with crowd pulling charisma and exotic beauty. These were humble actors, who started their careers doing theatre on streets, moving from village to village, entertaining the middle class of a country slowly healing wounds of a cruel civil war. They were ‘cómicos’. They were precisely what Berlanga needed to tell his stories; funny, humble, simple and very good at their craft.

A scene from his masterpiece ‘El Verdugo’ – In the middle his frequent collaborator, actor Pepe Isbert

Berlanga’s movies are also like a visual anthropological encyclopaedia for mid-20th century, Spanish society. His movies reflect a deep love for people around him. His movies frequently featured customs, rituals and festivals of people in Spanish villages. Movies like Plácido, Calabuch, La Vaquilla and Los Jueves Milagro have eloquent and elaborate scenes about festivities and rural lives in old Spain. Maybe he knew that someday his country will change. It will change so much that nobody will remember what it was like just half a century ago. That’s why he passionately captured his times, his people and their routine uninteresting lives on screen.

I wouldn’t write here about his movies in detail. Just because I am not sure I know them well enough. I watched ‘El Verdugo’ – arguably Berlanga’s and Spanish film history’s best movie ever – for the first time in 2007, I watched it again in 2009 and finally I watched it last week. Every time I have discovered something new, something fascinating. Same happened when I watched ‘La Vaquilla’ and ‘Plácido’ for the second time. Berlanga’s subtlety is so fantastic, every time you watch his movie you peel off a new layer and a new meaning, a new message emerges from within. His movies were whispers and whispers can be celebrated through whispers only. In the free and democratic world where we live probably Berlanga’s movies may be lost in the maze of memories. But someday, when some curious mind would like to know, ‘what happens when singing is banned?’, one would discover the music in Berlanga’s whispers.

RIP Maestro Berlanga! The wizard of whispers!

 

Football in Legovision – Fabian Moritz’ Creative Simulations

Fabian Moritz is a 19 year old Soccer-&-Lego enthusiast from Laatzen in Niedersachsen. In last one week he has suddenly become an internet celebrity thanks to his own creativity and Lego bricks.

It’s impressive that he, without losing patience and perseverance, worked for more than 10 years to construct an entire stadium, players and spectators. He has shown greater patience in filming these very neatly and meticulously designed animations. He was first discovered by bild.de and then by Guardian. England goalie Robert Green provided him the material for the moment of genius. Look at the video attached below and please wait till the Robert Green howler. It’s truly priceless! (Those who understand German, can listen to Moritz himself in an interview..click here).

Video courtsey – www. guardian.co.uk & www.legofussball.eu

‘Isn’t it Romantic?’ – ‘Tipping Point’ Musical

In 2000 Malcolm Gladwell, a New Yorker journalist,  published Tipping Point. Sold almost 2 million copies of the book and since then has been subjected to extreme jealousy and imitation by all more qualified, more rigorous academicians.

Tipping Point talks about sudden widespread diffusion of ideas. In sociology there have been several attempts to study the phenomenon of diffusion of new ideas across people.

However, I came across something quite interesting while watching an extremely entertaining musical comedy, ‘Love me Tonight‘ (1932), directed by Rouben Mamoulian, one of the most innovative Movie Directors ever. The video embedded below is a wonderful example of ‘Diffusion’. It shows wonderfully how a song that was born in a conversation ends up reaching the army, and eventually the princess.

And the song is great! If you don’t start humming the tune after watching the video, I’ll pay your money back. So enjoy the video, while I go back to envying Gladwell.

Artist & Objectivity : A Case of Oliver Stone’s ‘W.’

Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush in Oliver Stone's 'W.'

Josh Brolin playing George W. Bush in Oliver Stone's 'W.'

Art & Objectivity, kind of, don’t go together always. The eternal contrast between science and art claims that science tries to understand the reality, as it is, while art tries to present reality in form of a subjective interpretation by an artist. Can art be objective? If yes, to what extent?

I thought of this, when I read Oliver Stone‘s own take on his recent movie “W.” on Slate. I couldn’t appreciate all the details that he discusses in the article since, I haven’t watched the movie, as it hasn’t been released in Spain yet, and I really don’t know if it will be released soon. But I found his own take on his function and responsibility as a dramatist, quite interesting. Here he explains what is he supposed to do as a Dramatist and that’s why his movie W, is the way it is. It provides some good insight about how a creator thinks!

Following are some quotes from the article…

“….Our purpose was a dramatization. As you know, these quotes and speeches are strung over years and numerous meetings…… As dramatists we simplify and condense,…….. Drama requires a concrete representation of the abstract “

“…As Dramatist we are shaping the pattern that we see repeating itself in the W.’s presidency.

Very interesting. Quotes, speeches, body language, mannerisms etc, was studied over years, patterns were identified and the character was created. It’s possible for a biopic that some events, some conversations  are included purely for the sake of narrative. That’s where the movie maker needs to present the abstract, but in a simplified way. “W”, despite being a biopic, is very different from any recent movie in the same genre in one respect, i.e. it depicts important events in life of a sitting president. It’s a huge risk. An overcritical or over-dramatized version could written off as a sheer Gag than a serious movie. Probably it’s this risk that makes Stone say the following…

“But as a dramtist, I consider it professional to remove my feelings, to allow the audience to live through him and see as human”

This is what made me think. What does an artist really do? Is it possible for an artist to remove personal feelings from his/her work? Would an artist ever want to remove his/her feelings from the work? I know, Oliver Stone is a skilled artist. He surely has his own style and he leaves his mark on every movie he does, and this movie would be no exception. It was this thought of bringing this element of objectiveness that he attempts to bring to art, which is interesting and makes me curious. To what extend does he succeed in this? I haven’t seen the movie, but I think he has succeeded in it. Because intelligent reviewers have somehow noticed that.

James Rocchi on Cinematical says, “…..you could argue that what it lacks is a point of view…..”; While Patrick Goldstein in LA times blog says ” …“W.” feels flat and strangely passionless, as if it were directed by someone who makes documentaries…”, While Manohla Dargis in New York Times praises the movie in every way but still puts a remark that, “…because he (Oliver Stone) seems keen to weigh in as more evenhanded than usual…”.

Why so? Maybe they all wanted a scathingly critical depiction of man whose tenure as President has created more problem for the world than any other leader in our memory of recent past. Probably they all knew that Oliver Stone is one of the most eloquent critique of George W. Bush and his policies and they were expecting his movie to reflect his feelings rather than an empathatic account of his life.

What does Oliver Stone himself think of his ‘W.’? In the same article, he says, “.…But our film offers, ironically to me, a strange compassion for W, who is so hard to like…“! Maybe, that’s what the critics didn’t expect! But still an interesting experiment in objectivity by a talented artist!

Bookmark and Share

The Chaplinesque Experience

Recently I had a great acting opportunity. I was asked to work as a protagonist in a short film titled “Cocacola, Cerveza, Agua” (Cocacola, beer, water). Director Lluis Hereu was asked to make this short as a homage to Charlie Chaplin and the movie will be shown at upcoming Charlie Chaplin exhibition, in Girona, Spain.

Paco Moreno (As a policeman) and Me during the shoot

Paco Moreno (As a policeman) and Me during the shoot

However working in this movie turned out to be a great learning experience. For the first time I was doing something where no text was involved. It played an important role in the character-building. Students of Stanislavsky always advocate actions as the prime mover of character building. However here we had no other option but to rely on actions to build the character. It came as a surprise to me, how little attention we pay to our body in general. More we thought about each shot and its aesthetics, more we started paying attention to all the minute movements of our bodies. Co-actor Paco Moreno was a great help. He has already done some popular comic shows and he came up with some wonderful suggestions. There were lots of scenes where we were supposed to run across the beach and at one point I was conscious of even amount of sand that was being unsettled by my steps. I am sure in a normal talkie, I wouldn’t have thought of all this.

I also realized why during silent era most of the actors were directors too,

During one of the Chase sequences

During one of the Chase sequences

especially those who relied heavily on action comedy. In this genre of cinema, it is extremely important for the director to know physical limits of the actor and to use it to the fullest. During this short we all were exploring our limits. Fortunately, the director Lluis was open to new ideas and he allowed us to improvise a bit at some stages and I guess that worked well. But the most important aspect was choreographing fight and chase sequences. I wouldn’t reveal much about them but let me tell you, it was tough, demanding and extremely satisfactory.

This short film gave me a chance to meet some extremely talented artists like Paco Moreno, Lluis Hereu, and Rebla who was assistant director of this short. But above everything else it reinforced the idea in my mind that Charlie Chaplin is the greatest Movie-maker of all times.

Where do Ideas come from?

While reading Charlie Chaplin’s autobiography, I came across a very interesting paragraph about ideas. He says that people asked him several times, about how did he get all the ideas to make movies. But he never had a satisfactory answer to that. Chaplin says, “……ideas come through an intense desire for them; continually desiring, the mind becomes a watchtower on the lookout for incidents that may excite the imagination—music, a sunset, may give image to an idea.
I would say, pick a subject that will stimulate you, elaborate it and involve it, then, if you can’t develop it further, discard it and pick another. Elimination from accumulation is the process of finding what you want.”

However, he impresses profoundly, when he says, ” How does one get ideas? By sheer perseverance to the point of madness. One must have a capacity to suffer anguish and sustain enthusiasm over a long period of time.”

Well, most of this, we have heard elsewhere in one form or the other. The only reason, why I wanted to share this is because, it comes from one of the most creative geniuses of the human history. Economics tells us that access to unique information creates an advantage. But advancements in technology have nullified this information advantage. It’s hard to retain unique information about anything. Hence, ideas and ability to generate them have assumed much greater importance as sources of advantage. This is where most of us are struggling. Be it movies, literature or business, being original is the biggest challenge. The fastfood lifestyle has had a detrimental effect on our patience and attention spans. Hence, the reliance on sequels, imitations, copies, and adaptations. The key to victory is,  as Chaplin would say ‘perseverance to the point of madness’.

(Thanks Prof. Lee Hansen for suggestions and precise quotes from the English (original) version of the autobiography)