Film No. 26. 11th film shown Sat 12th May 2007
Lizzie Francke said "Douglas started working on this whilst at film school. It charts his growing up in a Scottish mining village in the 1940's - a stark childhood evoked with an unsentimental lyricism. Sadly the only other full length film he made was the sweeping epic Comrades about the Tolpuddle Martyrs. One wonders what longer career this true poet of cinema might have had, had he been born in France rather than Newcraig hall"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
An excellent film and deserves the title 'lost classic'. Given its style and content, it would struggle to get an audience today, even among cinephiles. Some of us reacted to it as if we had been given a dose of castor oil we know that it is good for us, but we don't want to have any more of the medicine for a while!
What makes the Douglas trilogy special is the way in which it juxtaposes realism with a poetic style, characteristic of the traditional European arthouse film. Lizzie Franks speculates as to what kind of career Douglas might have had, if he had been born in France. I can see what she means. But is she is comparing Douglas with say marcel Carne, then I don't think he quite fits that category. Carne combines realism (the fact that life is unfair, unjust, etc.) with a poetic form; e.g. a rhetorical narrative structure, wherein we often get parallel stories, especially betaeen lovers (as in 'Hotel du Nord'); also paradox, especially the theme of art imitating life and vice versa (as in 'les Enfants du Paradis', which has to be in the top ten films EVER MADE!)
The Douglas trilogy, however, combines naturalism (as in the literary works of Zola) rather than realism, and with a different kind of poetic form: Firstly, we are reminded, in no uncertain terms, of the stark misery of a postwar Scottish mining village, also the experience of a young boy who lacks a real fatther, who is surrounded by tough women, which has a strong bearing on his later life. But this time the poetic form is more to do with strong symbolism rather than a rhetorical narrative structure: We see recurring images, such as the roads going up - or down - a hill, bisecting a firld of corn. (It is in strong contrast and reminds me of Bill Brandt's photography from the same period.); apples feature prominantly several sections of the trilogy, which ends with an apple orchard in blossom. This suggests that Douglas may have been influenced by the work of Russian cinema, especially the work of Tarkovsky, rather than French cinema
My apologies for the spelling mistakes in the previous blog!
Trilogies are interesting. Should they be seen back-to-back, or with some time in between? Should there be a continuity of style, form or narrative throughout?
In these 3 films, made over 5 years, the main character Jamie is played by the same actor. This continuity certainly holds our attention and makes us care more, I think.
For me, the first 2 films felt like 2 halves of the same film, as one picks up immediately after the other, in the same time and location, and with the original actors. Despite this, I did think there was a development in Douglas's filmmaking. It felt more assured, better paced and reigned in than the first. Although probably due to circumstance rather than design, Part 1 was shot on 16mm, the other 2 on 35mm. I actually think this visual disparity works in the films' favour, whereby rough childhood is 'grainy', and education/adulthood/friendship are 'finer/smoother'.
A few in our group felt the 3rd part jarred alongside the other 2. I personally liked the shift from coal dirt scotland to the sand, mosaics and blinding light of Egypt. (Jamie's indifference to the pyramids are maybe due to his overfamiliarity with the similar coal hills?) Two things stood out for me in part 3: the genuine humanity of the headmaster was so jolting and fresh it physically hurt me; the introduction of Jamie's pal Peter through sound/dialogue. Beautifully filmed scene.
Because there is a time leap in the 3rd part, I wonder if we would have viewed it differently if we'd left it a while to watch after the first 2.
Even though we could find parallels of this story in other films (eg The 400 Blows), I think this trilogy does stand apart because of its time and place, and it being very much Douglas's own story.
Other highlights for me: Part 1's poetic imagery, like the older brother joyously engulfed by steam; him running along the picket fence; the 70's haircuts in 1945!; Part 2's fight scene ending in a 'new wave' freez-frame of Jamie's silent scream, his head on hearth; the top'n'tail shots of the corn field dissected by ambulance and hearse; Granny on the rocking chair, slowly and blindly stretching her arm out behind her for Jamie. Creepy!
I think Lizzie Francke was making a simple observation that in France, Film/Cinema is much more revered, and perhaps an auteur of Douglas's personality might have been more encouraged or nurtured within that environment.
Post a Comment