Michi (Chieko Baishô) evokes memories of her past over the phone: she goes through her life with great melancholy, and she appears grateful to have someone to listen to her. Nothing but her own voice can be heard in her kitchen. On the end of the phone, we find Yoko (Yumi Kawai). She is much younger than her and she remains silent. Even though she would be interested in the old woman’s story, her head is elsewhere. A sudden alarm interrupts Michi’s flow of words: her time is up. Yoko is holding back tears. Eventually Yoko explains to her what will happen the next day and she keeps begging her not to do “it”. Michi hushes “Sayonara.”
The Fire Within è un film che non si concentra tanto sull’interesse di Herzog per i vulcani – già dimostrato in La Soufrière (1977) e Into the Inferno (2016) – quanto sull’opera di Katia e Maurice Krafft. Un requiem, come suggerisce il sottotitolo, che ruota attorno alla morte dei due celebri vulcanologi, mentre studiavano da vicino quei giganti verso cui provavano una vera e propria ossessione.
“Abramo si alzò di buon mattino, sellò l’asino, prese con sé due servi e il figlio Isacco, spaccò la legna per l’olocausto e si mise in viaggio verso il luogo che Dio gli aveva indicato” Genesi 22:3
Il racconto biblico dimostra che Abramo, mosso da una grande fede, non ebbe esitazioni. Leonid però è pagano, Leonid non crede. E pur di offrire il futuro migliore alla propria progenie è disposto a trasgredire norme etiche e leggi umane, arrivando di conseguenza a sfidare Dio.
Il 4 agosto 2020 una tremenda esplosione distrugge il porto di Beirut causando 220 morti e 7000 feriti. Solo un giorno prima il regista Karim Kassem arrivava in città – proprio nella zona portuale – per girare un lungometraggio che non girerà mai, Octopus. Al suo posto questo Octopus: resta il titolo ma è un film completamente diverso. È il lamento sinfonico di una città rimasta senza voce.
The main difference between us and History is that History does not speak, but we force it to do so. What would happen, however, if it looked us in the face, took us by the hand and started making small talk, telling us about its regrets and pipe dreams? This is exactly what Aleksandr Sokurov’s “Fairytale” aims for: to make History speak spontaneously, quietly and with a hint of humour.
Adolf Hitler, Iosif Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Winston Churchill find themselves reunited in the afterlife, chatting as they wander through a dark, foggy forest, waiting for the gatekeeper to decide whether to let them into heaven. What about the content of these conversations? Despite their different languages, they mock each other while asserting their political and social ideals. Their speeches focus on their private dimension and therefore erase the aura given by their public function and by History itself. Words thus serve as a tool to reconcile the different points of view and as an attempt to overcome the past and the crystallised image we have of these historical figures. Built through archive footage and without the use of deep-fakes or other artificial intelligence tools, the film calls into question the relationship with reality, verisimilitude, memory and the demythologisation of these personalities. This is an objective that could not have been pursued by using actors to replace the faces, bodies and gestures that changed history. Moreover, the voices lent to the protagonists are perfectly given through an excellent lip-sync that breathes life into the faded images shrouded by the misty reminiscence of the past.
Sokurov seeks to make sense of the challenges that mankind is facing nowadays by taking a step back and lingering on the figures who most shaped the reality we know, namely the protagonists of World War II, the main event that eradicated positivist beliefs about human progress. Trying to empathise with figures such as Hitler and Stalin is the arduous task proposed to the viewer, who through this process realises that behind every historical event, even the most terrible and evil, there are men.
Presented and competing at the fortieth edition of Torino Film Festival, and already winner of the Camera d’Or at Cannes, competing in the Un Certain Regard section, War Pony marks the directing debut of actress Riley Keough and producer Gina Gammell, featuring an inspiring portrait of the Native American community, directly involved in the making of the film.
Honoured by the 40th Turin Film Festival with a retrospective and awarded with the Stella della Mole prize, Malcolm McDowell has been one of the best-known British actors in the world for more than half a century. In particular, for his unforgettable performance as the sadistic and violent Alex De Large in Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971).
It is difficult to talk about such a popular but atypical figure without repeating what has already been written about him over the decades. McDowell has never been a canonically understood star or even the darling of a specific season or cinematic current. Nevertheless, he has been able to traverse a variety of narratives in European and overseas contexts throughout his prolific career, often guided by great auteurs.
After gaining experience in the theatre, he made his debut in 1968, immediately starring in one of the last peaks of British Free Cinema and a Palme d’Or at Cannes, Lindsay Anderson’s If… (and with this director he would repropose the character of Mick Travis in a sort of truffautian cycle in the following O Lucky Man! in 1973, and Britannia Hospital in 1982). After the unjustly forgotten Figures in a Landscape (1970), an en plein air dystopian film directed by Joseph Losey, Kubrick had no hesitation in calling him out. The ineffable tenderly childlike gaze capable of transforming itself into a perverse grin with the mere hint of a smile was indeed truly unique and terrifying, and embodied the very essence of the very young criminal from the pen of Anthony Burgess.
Having attained his place in the pantheon of the seventh art (not without courageous sacrifices – just remember the serious corneal injuries suffered during the endless filming of the famous ‘Ludovico technique), McDowell’s image was marked for better or worse by those dazzling beginnings, failing to follow up on that first happy season. However, by stubbornly getting back into the game from the 1980s onwards, he was able to start a prolific second professional life, carving out a space in which to express his versatility, often in secondary roles, but always leaving a personal mark beyond the actual merits of the films.
We remember Cat People by Paul Schrader (1982), The Assassin of the Tsar by Karen Shakhnazarov (1991), Gangster No. 1 by Paul McGuigan (2000), Evilenko by David Grieco (2004), a couple of Altman and Mike Kaplan’s tasty one-man show Never Apologize (2007) to remember his friend/mentor Anderson in his own way. We tasted this ability as a performer also during the festival, in a masterclass full of anecdotes and brilliant jokes and, again, in the witty presentations of the films on offer, demonstrating a verve (79 years old and he looks great), the charisma and at the same time the affability of the star capable of involving even the youngest audiences.
The Turin prize helps fill the gap of the far too few awards given by the film world to McDowell (he was snubbed by the Oscars and the Baftas, he had a single Golden Globe nomination, a special European Film Awards, and a special Nastro d’Argento), but meeting him in person allowed us once and for all to dispel the evil aura that surrounds his cinematic double: Malcolm was never Alex.
Omaggiato dal 40° Torino Film Festival con una retrospettiva e insignito ieri del premio Stella della Mole, Malcolm McDowell è da oltre mezzo secolo uno degli attori inglesi più noti al mondo, in particolare per l’indimenticabile interpretazione del sadico e violento Alex De Large in Arancia Meccanica di Stanley Kubrick (1971).
Arduo parlare di una figura così popolare ma atipica senza ripetere quanto già scritto su di lui in questi decenni. McDowell non è mai stato una star canonicamente intesa e nemmeno il beniamino di una specifica stagione o corrente cinematografica, eppure ha saputo attraversare nell’arco della sua prolifica carriera svariate narrazioni in contesti europei e oltreoceano, guidato spesso da grandissimi autori.
Dopo essersi fatto le ossa a teatro, esordisce nel 1968, subito protagonista, in una delle ultime vette del Free Cinema britannico e Palma d’oro a Cannes, Se… di Lindsay Anderson (e con questo regista riproporrà il personaggio di Mick Travis in una sorta di ciclo truffautiano nei successivi O Lucky Man! del 1973, e Britannia Hospital del 1982). Dopo l’ingiustamente dimenticato Caccia sadica (1970) distopia en plein air diretta da Joseph Losey, Kubrick non ha alcuna esitazione nel chiamarlo: l’ineffabile sguardo teneramente infantile capace di trasformarsi con il solo accenno di un sorriso in un ghigno perverso era infatti davvero unico e terrorizzante, e incarnava l’essenza stessa del giovanissimo criminale uscito dalla penna di Anthony Burgess.
Raggiunto il suo posto nel pantheon della settima arte (non senza coraggiosi sacrifici – basti ricordare le serie lesioni corneali subite durante le infinite riprese della celeberrima “cura Ludovico”), l’immagine di McDowell è stata segnata nel bene e nel male da quei folgoranti inizi, non riuscendo a dar seguito a quella prima felice stagione. Rimettendosi però in gioco con caparbietà a partire dagli anni ’80 ha saputo avviare una prolifica seconda vita professionale ritagliandosi uno spazio in cui esprimere la propria versatilità, spesso in ruoli secondari, ma lasciando sempre un’impronta personale aldilà degli effettivi meriti dei film.
Ricordiamo Il bacio della pantera di Paul Schrader (1982), L’assassino dello Zar di Karen Shakhnazarov (1991), Gangster nº 1 di Paul McGuigan (2000), Evilenko di David Grieco (2004), un paio di Altman e il gustoso one man show di Mike Kaplan Never Apologies (2007) per ricordare alla sua maniera l’amico/mentore Anderson. E questa abilità di performer l’abbiamo gustata durante il festival, in una masterclass ricca di aneddoti e battute brillanti e, ancora, nelle argute presentazioni dei film proposti, dimostrando una verve (79 anni portati splendidamente), il carisma e al contempo l’affabilità del divo in grado di coinvolgere anche il pubblico dei più giovani.
Il premio torinese contribuisce a colmare la lacuna dei davvero troppo pochi riconoscimenti assegnati dal mondo del cinema a McDowell (snobbato da Oscar e Bafta, una sola nomination ai Golden Globe, un European Film Awards speciale, un Nastro d’Argento speciale), mentre l’incontrarlo dal vivo ci ha permesso una volta per tutte di scacciare l’aurea malvagia che circonda il suo doppio cinematografico: Malcolm non è mai stato Alex.
It is the 27th of February 2012 when, during the eviction in Chiomonte, Luca Abbà climbs on a high-voltage pylon: the aim is to slow down the operations of expropriation carried out to widen the construction site of the tunnel, of that “great strategic work”, still pending to this day. The contact with the high-voltage cables causes him to fall ten metres. Although unconscious, his body keeps being traversed by electric shocks. He has a punctured lung. He goes into a deep coma.
Nagisa, a debut feature film by Japanese director Kogahara Takeshi, can be interpreted as a complex and layered attempt to reframe a bond, to redefine that thin filament that connects the body of those who survive and the increasingly evanescent memory of those who are no longer with us. The world that is portrayed is thus the result of a blurred mental condition, a set of indistinct reenactments created by the mind of a boy detached from reality.
The protagonist is Fuminao, a Tokyo boy tormented by guilt over the death of his younger sister Nagisa, who died three years earlier in a bus accident on her way to visit her brother. One night, the boy accompanies his friend Yuki to visit a tunnel that, according to some popular beliefs, appears to be haunted by ghosts. In this mysterious and gloomy place, he will again face his past, his origins, until he relives in his mind the intense relationship with his missing sister. The film is basically a reprise of a homonymous short film by Kogahara himself in 2017, in which the two main characters, again Fuminao and Nagisa, are two young people in love. The adolescent “love story” of the former is thus contrasted, in this second work, with the memory of a deceased person and the reminder of the faint sigh of death, in a mad dance involving Eros and Thanatos until they become part of the same being.
The protagonist’s apathy, as well as the alienation that affects his existence, arise from the strong trauma triggered by the loss of a loved one. For this reason, the young man’s life is constantly punctuated by mechanical movements and continuous silences, depicted through the use of repeated and interminable fixed shots. The story is fragmented, not at all linear, as if every shred of memory spontaneously resurfaces when Fuminao savors certain physical or emotional sensations. This makes the film a real labyrinth with no way out, a puzzle in which, at times, it is difficult to understand the meaning of certain events.
At the end of this enigmatic existential journey, there are many questions that arise, raising more doubts than answers in the protagonist’s mind. “Do ghosts really exist?” the boy hesitantly asks a policeman he meets by chance outside the tunnel. The man’s answer will come only after a long and ostentatious silence: “The ghost is you.” It is those who have remained anchored in the past, unable to continue a normal life, like a woman wandering the streets in search of her missing son, who represent the real ghosts of society.
Michi (Chieko Baishô) rievoca al telefono i ricordi del proprio passato: racconta la propria vita con malinconia, grata di avere qualcuno che la ascolti. Nella sua cucina non si sente altro se non la sua stessa voce. Dall’altro capo del telefono Yoko (Yumi Kawai) – molto più giovane di lei – è in silenzio. Vorrebbe concentrarsi sul racconto dell’anziana signora, ma la sua testa è altrove. A interrompere il flusso di parole di Michi è un allarme: il tempo a sua disposizione è scaduto. Yoko, trattenendo le lacrime, inizia a illustrarle cosa succederà il giorno seguente e le ripete, quasi come se fosse una supplica, che non è obbligata a farlo. Michi risponde, con tono sommesso: «Sayonara».
The unbearable weight of manipulative ambiguity, unfounded guilt, and complicit silences. Maria Schrader’s new film, out of the competition at the 40th edition of the Torino Film Festival, is a protest against Harvey Weinstein that unleashes the desire to cry out that women have been deprived of for so long, and thereby redeems the right to their voice.
A young woman at the very start of her career, her soul bursting with dreams and her eyes full of naive hope, is overcome by a request as unexpected as it is inappropriate just when she was planning to attend a business meeting. “He ripped out my voice that day, just as I was starting to find it,” discloses Laura Madden, confessing her years-long belief that she was the only one who did not have the strength to stand up to the harassment from the powerful and feared Miramax producer. Laura was far from alone, but her persecutor was for a long time protected by a well-established system that systematically and scrupulously shielded the offenders. New York Times’ reporters Megan Twohey (Carey Mulligan) and Jodi Kantor (Zoe Zakan) undertook an investigative enquiry to expose the harassment and sexual abuse committed by Weinstein, who had crossed not only professional boundaries, but also national borders, committing countless abuses overseas.
(from left) Jodi Kantor (Zoe Kazan), Megan Twohey (Carey Mulligan), Dean Baquet (Andre Braugher), and Rebecca Corbett (Patricia Clarkson) in SHE SAID, directed by Maria Schrader.
The She Said crew is well aware that they are telling a true story and do not allow room for unnecessary violence, to which women are already abundantly exposed.
Weinstein’s towering physical presence is rendered by the oral testimonies of women who describe episodes in which he holds the unmistakable authority of the perpetrator. At the same time, his voice is emblematic, as we hear it in voice over, as violent and arrogant as the suffocating agreements he induced his victims to sign, ‘legally’ depriving them of their dignity. We retrace, guided by these testimonies, the spaces from which they would have so much wanted to escape, as in a nightmare from which they were not allowed to awaken. This film, however, also wants to be a safe space for all the women involved in order to express themselves and share their grief and anger. First and foremost, Megan and Jodi, that we follow far beyond the investigative processes and that Maria Schrader reveals to us with great sensitivity and respect. The cooperation and supervision of those directly involved and their permission to enter into each other’s private lives were undoubtedly essential to achieve the goal of producing a film that resonates strongly and encourages women to trust each other.
Having a proper compass on which one can rely can often prove to be a necessity in order not to lose one’s way too much; especially in a society which changes its skin year after year. Sometimes the right compass can be found close by, in one’s own backyard, in the apparent simplicity of a sentence spent by a person close to one’s heart; at other times, it is necessary to move away, especially if one’s loved ones, or at least those who once were, have emigrated, crossing borders, hoping for a better future. Daniele Vicari’s Compass for over ten years was Ettore Scola and Orlando, presented out of competition at the 40th Turin Film Festival, is dedicated to him.
Avere una bussola adeguata sulla quale si possa fare affidamento, spesso, può rivelarsi una necessità per non perdere troppo la strada; soprattutto in una società che muta la propria pelle di anno in anno. A volte la giusta bussola la si può trovare accanto a sé, nel proprio giardino di casa, nell’apparente semplicità di una frase spesa da una persona vicina; altre volte occorre invece allontanarsi, soprattutto se i propri cari, o almeno quelli che un tempo lo sono stati, sono emigrati, superando i confini, sperando in un futuro migliore. La bussola di Daniele Vicari per oltre dieci anni è stato Ettore Scola e Orlando, presentato fuori concorso alla quarantesima edizione del Torino Film Festival, è dedicato a lui.
TFF40’s Back to life section dedicated to film restoration proposed a diptych of particular interest on Italian polar, restoring two of its rare gems to their original splendour. Made at a distance of time and with different characteristics, the two films are united by the cold reception they received from critics and audiences at the time of their release and then rose to cult movie status.
Milano calibro 9 (1972) today represents not only the pinnacle of Fernando Di Leo’s career, but also the only Italian polar film of the period able to hold its own against the vaunted American and European crime films (between 1970 and 1972, masterpieces such as Friedkin’s The French Connection, Melville’s Le Cercle Rouge and Hodges’ Carter were released). And we would be talking about perfection if it were not for the Manichaeism of some scenes between the commissioner (Wolff) and his deputy (Pistilli) imbued with cheap socio-political rhetoric.
The restoration presented by the Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia – Cineteca Nazionale has the great merit of restoring the overlays of the hours and days wanted by the director for the cyclical development of the plot (the title that was originally chosen was “Da lunedì a lunedì“) and of restoring the right visual and sound polish to the events of Rocco (Adorf), Nelly (Bouchet) and, above all, Ugo Piazza (a granitic Moschin), the victim, or diabolical architect, of a violent redde rationem in the organised underworld of Milan (this will become clear in the finale with a splendid triple act). The digital copy enhances the masterful direction aimed at dictating the tight rhythm (Di Leo himself, without modesty, stated “no one in Europe, apart from Melville, had the grit of an American cut that I had”) and the faithfulness of the screenplay to Scerbanenco’s anthology of hard-boiled tales from which it is based.
The picture of the acknowledged progenitor of the Italian-style detective film is completed by the neo-realist setting in which a gallery of extraordinary pulp characters act (Tarantino, by his own admission, will draw on this with full force), the pressing music by Bacalov and Osanna, and the creeping underlying determinism.
Nevertheless, one has to shift to Turin thirty years later for the other submerged and ‘cursed’ neo-noir.
Tre punto sei (2003), the debut and only feature film by the late Nicola Rondolino (son of the well-known film critic and historian Gianni), due to a series of production and distribution issues, it required a delicate recovery operation by Cinecittà, the National Cinema Museum of Turin and Augustus Color, who aimed at overcoming the obstacle of the absence of an original negative.
A versatile and much-loved figure in his hometown, who died prematurely in 2013, Rondolino immediately demonstrated an uncommon talent in his debut picture (but only few noticed it), bending genre clichés into a narrative that is not ordinary thanks to a contemporary style composed of dizzying ellipses, telluric action scenes and meaningful dramaturgical moments of clashes between the different characters. The vivid coherence of the multi-ethnic criminal imagery set in the Turin neighbourhood of San Salvario strikes a chord, avoiding the traps of the most retrograde racial prejudices, while the intense Binasco stands out in the role of the corrupt policeman madly in love with the woman contended by his best friend (a darker-than-ever Giallini), a disillusioned gangster in the service of a sui generis drug clan (an interesting experiment in quotations from The Sopranos).
The rediscovery of Tre punto sei is therefore a necessary step in the 40th anniversary of the festival that saw Rondolino as selector for a long time, regretting what he could have given to our cinema.
Nagisa, lungometraggio d’esordio del regista giapponese Kogahara Takeshi, può essere interpretato come un complesso e stratificato tentativo di rielaborare un legame, di ridefinire quel sottile filamento che collega il corpo di chi sopravvive e il ricordo, sempre più evanescente, di chi non c’è più. Il mondo che viene rappresentato è dunque frutto di un’offuscata condizione mentale, un insieme di indistinte rievocazioni partorite dalla mente di un ragazzo distaccato dalla realtà.
Il protagonista è Fuminao, un ragazzo di Tokyo tormentato dal senso di colpa per la morte della sorella minore Nagisa, deceduta tre anni prima in un incidente stradale mentre andava a trovare il fratello in autobus. Una notte il ragazzo accompagna l’amico Yuki a visitare un tunnel che, secondo alcune credenze popolari, pare essere infestato dai fantasmi. In questo misterioso e tetro luogo si troverà ad affrontare nuovamente il suo passato, le sue origini, fino a rivivere nella propria mente l’intenso rapporto con la sorella scomparsa. Il film è in fondo la riproposizione di un cortometraggio omonimo realizzato dallo stesso Kogahara nel 2017, in cui i due protagonisti, sempre Fuminao e Nagisa, sono però due giovani innamorati. Alla “love story” adolescenziale del primo si contrappone quindi, in questa seconda opera, il ricordo di un defunto e il richiamo al flebile sospiro della morte, in una folle danza che coinvolge Eros e Thanatos fino a renderli parte di uno stesso essere.
L’apatia del protagonista, così come l’alienazione che ne condiziona l’esistenza, nascono dal forte trauma scaturito dalla perdita di una persona amata. Per questo motivo la vita del giovane è costantemente scandita da movimenti meccanici e continui silenzi, raffigurati attraverso l’utilizzo di reiterate e interminabili inquadrature fisse. La storia è frammentata, per nulla lineare, come se ogni brandello di memoria riaffiorasse spontaneamente quando Fuminao assapora determinate sensazioni fisiche o emotive. Questo rende il film un vero e proprio labirinto senza vie d’uscita, un rompicapo in cui, talvolta, risulta difficile comprendere il senso di alcuni avvenimenti.
Al termine di questo enigmatico viaggio esistenziale sono molte le domande che sorgono, suscitando nella mente del protagonista più dubbi che risposte. «I fantasmi esistono davvero?» chiede esitante il ragazzo a un poliziotto incontrato casualmente fuori dal tunnel. La risposta dell’uomo arriverà solo dopo un lungo e ostentato silenzio: «Il fantasma sei tu». Sono coloro che sono rimasti ancorati al passato, incapaci di proseguire una vita normale, come una donna che vaga per strada alla ricerca del figlio scomparso, a rappresentare i veri spettri della società.
Presentato in concorso alla quarantesima edizione del Torino Film Festival, già vincitore della Camera d’Or a Cannes, dove concorreva nella sezione Un Certain Regard, War Pony segna l’esordio alla regia dell’attrice Riley Keough e della produttrice Gina Gammell, con un appassionante ritratto della comunità di nativi americani coinvolta direttamente nella realizzazione del film.
When approaching the work of Albert Serra, we cannot help but notice the great contradiction at the heart of his cinema: that between the setting of his images, which nestle in the past of the European history (from the 1980s of his debut film to the 1700s French – his favourite historical period – of La mort de Louis XIV and Liberté) and the sense of atrophy, of an absolute and out-of-time present that apocalyptically pervades his characters, always waiting for a climax that will never come, or that perhaps has already arrived.
A spasmodic wait for the end that becomes nuclear paranoia for a Benoît Magimel called to play the ambiguous protagonist of Pacifiction, a diplomatic commissioner who has arrived in the former French colony of Tahiti to try to investigate unsettling rumours of an imminent resumption of dangerous atomic tests. Serra works on the extreme stylisation and opacity of the characters and on the exhibited artificiality of lights – as was already the case in the unforgettable finale of Liberté – to create a highly suggestive visual texture, a floating and uncertain space in which it is possible to perceive the abstraction of power in all its ruthless and pervasive senselessness. It is between half-voices and hints that the protagonist De Roller – designated intermediary between the politicians and the population – probes the island moving as if in a limbo – a somnambulist wandering in what seems to be an only-apparent state of life. The viewer is restrained in the hypnotic movement of the film, which concedes few clues and casts wide, unresolved grey areas, constantly moving to an unknowable off-screen that weights like an omen.
To duplicate and amplify the feeling of threat that travels under the skin, there is the eerie presence of the ocean, which with its surface engulfs and conceals. De Roller is driven by a desire for clarity that will never become tangible reality. In the most important dialogue-monologue of the film, the protagonist talks about a world that has lost the conception of time and memory, of a humanity that must have as its primary need that to illuminate, to see the withered skins of power that have already been embodied by the exposed and dying body of Jean-Pierre Léaud in La mort de Louis XIV. With Pacifiction, Serra continues his work on the perception of the present and the invisible decomposition of a frozen and motionless time, aiming his gaze for the first time at contemporaneity.
Quando ci si accosta all’opera di Albert Serra non si può fare a meno di notare la grande contraddizione che sta alla base del suo cinema: quella fra l’ambientazione delle sue immagini, che si annidano nel passato della storia europea (dagli anni ’80 del film d’esordio al 1700 francese – periodo storico da lui prediletto – di La mort de Louis XIV e di Liberté) e il senso di atrofizzazione, di presente assoluto e fuori dal tempo che pervade in maniera apocalittica i suoi personaggi, sempre in attesa di un climax che non arriverà mai, o che forse è già arrivato.
Un’attesa spasmodica della fine che diventa paranoia nucleare per un Benoît Magimel chiamato a interpretare l’ambiguo protagonista di Pacifiction, un commissario diplomatico arrivato nell’ex colonia francese di Tahiti per cercare di indagare su inquietanti voci che vogliono un’imminente ripresa di pericolosi test atomici. Serra lavora sull’estrema stilizzazione e opacità dei personaggi e sull’artificialità esibita delle luci (come già avveniva nell’indimenticabile finale di Liberté) per creare una tramatura visiva di grande suggestione, uno spazio flottante e incerto in cui si riesce a percepire l’astrazione del potere in tutta la sua spietata e pervasiva insensatezza. È fra mezze voci e accenni che il protagonista De Roller, tramite designato fra i politici e la popolazione, sonda l’isola muovendosi come in un limbo: un sonnambulo che vaga in quello che sembra uno stato di vita solo apparente. Lo spettatore viene imbrigliato nel movimento ipnotico del film, che concede pochi indizi e lancia ampie zone d’ombra irrisolte, rimandando costantemente ad un fuori campo inconoscibile che grava come un presagio.
A duplicare ed amplificare la sensazione di minaccia che viaggia sottopelle è la presenza inquietante dell’oceano, che con la sua superficie inghiotte e nasconde alla vista. De Roller è guidato da una volontà di chiarezza che non si concretizzerà mai: nel dialogo-monologo più importante del film il protagonista parla di un mondo che ha perso la concezione del tempo e della memoria, di un’umanità che deve avere come necessità primaria quella di illuminare, di vedere le pelli avvizzite del potere che sono già state incarnate dal corpo esposto e morente di Jean-Pierre Léaud in La mort de Louis XIV. Serra continua con Pacifiction il suo lavoro sulla percezione del presente e sulla decomposizione invisibile di un tempo raggelato e immobile, puntando il suo sguardo per la prima volta sulla contemporaneità.
When Mateo (Manel Llunell) is diagnosed with brain cancer, his mother Libertad (Ángela Molina) gets the chance she was looking for: Mateo is now harmless, in need of care and attention that only she can give him. Eduardo Casanova proposes an Oedipal love story with his second full-length-film “La piedad”, presented in competition at the 40th edition of Torino Film Festival.
Mateo never leaves home without his mother, they sleep together in the same bed, and whenever one of them gets sick, both of them experience symptoms. Their personalities are blended to the point that they sometimes get swapped or one merges with the other; they laugh, cry, and suffer together. Mateo was born to satisfy his mother’s need to be essential for someone. What scares Libertad is the prospect that one day her son will grow up and be independent, take a bath on his own, and leave home. She wants him to stay in their little bubble in which she breastfeeds him and nurtures him forever, even though he is a grown man. The relationship between mother and son is compared with the parallel story set in North Korea, where dictator and subject cannot live without each other. Firstly, Mateo’s absent father plays the tyrant’s role, as he appears in Mateo’s dreams in the place of di Kim Jong-un while killing a unicorn, but the son will soon realize that the real cause of his discomfort his is mother.
As it is true with his first work, Skins (2017), Casanova is not scared of showing images that bring cinema back to pure visual art, building a voyeuristic relationship among the viewers that ask themselves whether they want to keep looking at the screen or not. The colour pink dominates the scene, exposing and dissecting the characters’ unspeakable secrets. They lose their humanity and become torn, sick pieces of flesh. The director is much interested in psychic anomalies rather than physical ones. Therefore, Casanova investigates the result of the combination of two psychic disorders: firstly, the Münchausen syndrome by proxy is the syndrome which leads Libertad to keep her son in a sickly stage by secretly drugging him, and secondly, the Stockholm syndrome that leads Mateo back to his tormentor, his mother. The son’s Oedipus complex, which makes him hate his father (whom he replaces) without even knowing him, contributes to the couple’s toxicity. Moreover, even though his mother is the cause of all his misfortunes, Mateo cannot survive without her, since he does not conceive anything except the morbid love that has accompanied him from birth.
Il blog delle studentesse e degli studenti del Dams/Cam di Torino
