Orphée (1950)

 "Men always come back. They're so absurd."

To describe this film as a mere updating of the Orpheus myth to mid-twentieth century France would be to do it a grave injustice. It is a thing of wit, profundity and poetic beauty on a level far deeper than I pretend to understand. It is not only a great work of cinema, but a great work of art. Nothing I say in this blog post has any delusions of adequacy in explaining why.

The myth, with no regard whatsoever for the fourth wall, is summarised in full by the narrator in the first few seconds. No shrinking from that modern concept of spoilers here. The narrator then makes the same plea that is made for modern dress productions of Shakespeare- that myths transcend this or that period of history. We then segue into contemporary France, the intellectual France of 1950, where poets have sway still. And Orphée, a poet, is a celebrity, a hero, surrounded by adoring fangirls. Nothing, perhaps, dates this film so much, sadly, as this cultural power of poetry, which here in the UK faded with modernism. But I digress. What else can one do with a film like this, upon which one feels unable to talk coherently?

The 1940s- the esteemed M. Cocteau very much not included ( I've blogged La Belle et la Bete) disdained fantasy. Where fantasy was employed, there was deep allegory. This film deals with Death as an object of desire- a deep and frightening concept. I think of Keats. "For I am half in love with easeful death"... let us not go there. I know I'm mortal. I don't want to be. I'm not an arrogant person, but it outrages me that one day my ego will just end. A cruel fact. Films like this help us come to terms with that harsh fact, perhaps in the wake of A Matter of Life and Death. There are echoes. 

There's much I have not the wit to discuss, such as the film's use of mirrors. Just see it.

Rashomon (1950)

 "It's not as thougfh men are reasonable."

I call it the Citizen Kane factor. A film can be pretty much sublime yet the hype is such that it cannot be lived up to. Incredibly, this is not the case here, much as the treatment of rape and misogyny is ambiguous... but even there we have wiggle room.

We have three contrasting narratives surrounding a rape and murder, confusing and philosophically troubling our two main narrators, stunned and downcast by their experiences as the rain splashes symbolically. The direction, this being Kurosawa, is excellent. Suspense, unease and uncertainty are constantly with us, somewhat but not quite akin to the grammar of a horror film in the cinematography, camera movements and, not to be underemphasised, the music.

All three narrative arise from trestimonies to unseen judges, and we see all from a judge's point of view, explicitly made to judge for ourselves. All contradict. All, bizarrely, confess openly to the killing. The rape is, well, not really treated by mediaeval society as something that matters, although the film sort of accepts its effect, although the treatment is extremelt troubling. In one, the husband hates his wife, rejects her and calls her a whore after the rape, making him no better than the rapist and a total piece of ****. The male narrators talk of women "leading them on" and display troubling attitudes- and most of the inconsistent narratives give a troubling account of the woman accepting her rapist and insisting on "manly" fighting to the death between the two men. This is, to say the least, uncomfortable.

Yet this can, I suppose, be seen as the attitudes of unreliable and misigynistic narrators. But perhaps I do the film too much credit. This is Japan in 1950, in turn recreating a mediaeval Japan.

I can't deny, though, that this extraordinary exploration of the sliupperiness of truth, of human dishonesty and self-deception rings very true today, as the deluded and incredibly stupid supporters of would-be tyrant Trump continue to lie and lie and lie.

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov

I should say, at the start, that this novel, unlike all the other Asimovs so far, isn’t one I’ve ever read before.

This, like the Foundation trilogy, masquerades as a novel but is not, strictly speaking, any such thing. Yet the various short stories are linked together into a kind of narrative by the narrator, with the common themes revolving around Asimov’s famed Three Laws of Robotics.

Yet the whole thing has a kind of coherence, and the short stories are fun to read- revolving, as the do, on the puzzle of how a robot is behaving in a certain way in relation to the Laws.

It’s amusing, of course, to see the course of the twenty-first century as seen from the 1940s. Gender roles are very much as they were. Smoking is ubiquitous. Even in 2052 there are no issues with oil and gas. The “Machines” that control the economy are interesting to contrast with modern computers and AI, and our fears of the Singularity. There is also an annoying and American prejudice in the final story, seeing Europe as old and exhausting. And we end with a dispiriting kind of infantile utopia where the Machines take care of humanity but we have no agency.

For all its flaws, though, and for all its lacking the depth of ideas of Foundation, this is nevertheless an extraordinary novel that develops the idea of the robot in ways that others- including Asimov himself- would go on to push towards bigger and better things.

Cinderella (1950)

"Bibbidi bobbidi boo!"

Hmm. This film is ok, but, well, it seems to drag out s very short fairy tale to film length with a lot of only mildly funny stuff with cartoon animals and, well, fails to really soar. Is it me, or does this film lack the sparkle either of recent days or of the golden age of Bambi and Dumbo?

No, that's too harsh. It's a simple fairy tale for kids and, as such, it works, but without the charm or heart of Disney's early films or the adult appeal of their late ones, but it does a good job. I'll tell you one thing, though; it isn't made by cat people. The characterisation of Lucifer is a bit harsh to this avowed cat person. It's also disappointing that the wicked stepmother and stepsisters don't get any sort of comeuppance in a rather rushed ending. Still, it's nice to see the animals playing a pivotal role towards the end.

It's a short film and, I suspect, enjoyable for its target audience, although they may prefer Tom and Jerry for the cat and mouse stuff. In a couple of years I'll see what my little girl thinks!