To clear the air immedi-ately, the film mentioned above is not Bullet in the Head. Rather, it's Rosales' earlier movie La Soledad (Solitary Fragments is the less than enticing English title). Not that "Bullet" doesn't deserve to be seen. But Jaime Rosales' new work is such an audience-unfriendly movie that only major fans of Rosales (I am definitely one) and perhaps a few new converts (those who demand something different, the less accessible the better) are likely to remain in the auditorium until the end.
If you've read anything about this new film, you'll already know what happens because there are really only two events in the entire movie, both toward the finale, one following the other in rather quick succession. What you've also heard (or will now) is that the film is dialog-free except for two words, shouted twice, I believe, just prior to the first "event." This is not a silent film, however; there is plenty of ambient sound throughout: of traffic and trains, mumbled voices, horns and whistles.
Because Rosales places his camera behind windows or glass, or far enough away that anyone positioned at camera-point would not be able to hear what the characters are saying, this lack of comprehensible dialog is believable. But "believable" just isn't enough. After a time (viewers will have to discover their individual breaking points) the lack of dialog guts the movie of any real context. Who are these people and why should we be observing them? Unless you can read Spanish, you may not even know in which country the film takes place (I believe it changes national locations at least once).
The film could also use a few subtitles translating signage that appears prominently in the background; during his excellent Q&A following the press screening of "Bullet" during the NY Film Festival, Rosales mentioned the importance of these signs, yet for anyone not fluent in Spanish, this will be lost. Consequently, you may find yourself, as did I, observing (and observing again) the color of the paint on the walls, some especially beautiful flowers in a vase, the composition of the frame -- if only to keep your mind from wandering into certain other areas (the world economic situation or what's for dinner).
Once the event kicks in, much of the context does, as well -- suddenly and strongly -- and if you have stayed the course thus far, you will certainly finish the film and, I warrant, think about it at some length, as did the small group that had come to the press screening. (The film made its once-only public debut last Sunday with a single NY Film Fest screening at the Ziegfeld Theatre.) Every question asked of the director by audience members was intelligent, thoughtful and demonstrated the viewer's interest in learning just why Rosales has chosen to make his film -- and make it in this peculiar manner.
 |
The most compelling part of the Q&A came when Rosales told us of his feeling that, because of the condition of the world today, audiences around the world need a new motion picture paradigm, a new way to see things and understanding what we see. As much as loves Johnny Guitar, for instance, he feels that this kind of film no longer works well for the world in which we live.
After the Q&A, I arranged for a one-on-one interview with Mr. Rosales. What follows is a good portion of that interview (apologies for not being a fast enough typist to get it all).
Trust Movies: This Q&A for Bullet in the Head, considering how difficult a film it is for many people, was surprisingly good-natured and responsive. The press who stayed around to listen and ask questions were respectful and genuinely interested, I think.
Jaime Rosales. Yes, they were. In Spain the critical reaction was out of control -- very extreme. Yet I had a reaction in Paris similar to the one here in NYC, where people were quiet and respectful and truly interested in thinking about the movie. The ETA/Basque separatist movement is a very local problem. But it should not be such as difficult problem to solve, yet it is -- because it has now been so emotionally contaminated that it seems like such as huge problem. Yet the terrorists live normal lives, they do normal things.
Well, yes, until they don't.
The important thing to me is that this is NOT an understandable thing. It is not something we can fully comprehend. A key writer in Spain who is very much involved in this conflict has said that my film does not bring light onto this conflict. Well, I am not trying to bring light onto this.
One reason for different reactions from different countries may be that the Spanish are so close to these terror events. If you had made a film about the Algerian terrorists in France during the Algerian War, or a movie dealing with terror attacks now by Muslims in the USA, audiences would no doubt react a bit differently.
Yes, if I were to make a film about a terrorist living here in NYC or in France, my film would be different in some ways, yet it would be the very same in other ways. In Spain we say, "With terrorism you throw the stone but you hide the hand." Things are different in a conventional war in which you have fighting between armies, when uniforms are identifiable. But terrorism is extremely problematic: It's random. And when anyone from a mother and her children to a policeman or a politician can be killed, it seems very arbitrary.
I mentioned at the Q&A that your lack of dialog deprives the film of context. But I also realize that, in one sense, the terror event itself lacks context. This is what makes each event seem, on some level, so arbitrary.
This is contradictory to the basic ideas that the people who are using terrorism claim to believe: that they are simply trying to attack the power that is in place. One would say to them: I understand why you have these ideas and why you want to attack, but why do you do it through arbitrary violence? Why not do this through political activism?
Because, they might tell you, political activism has not so far seemed to work.
 |
We need to understand the psychological motivation that lies inside the human being. Every man has a monster inside the cage of his body, and sometimes this monster can get out. In Spain of late there has been much domestic violence -- husbands attacking their wives. (Ed: Interesting examples of this can be seen in the Spanish films Solo Mia and Take My Eyes.) It is important to understand that behind terrorism there is always irrationality. Always. No matter how good the cause it serves. No matter how much you might agree with it.
One of the things you talked about during your NY Film Fest Q&A was the need to find a new paradigm in film. Could you elaborate on this?
We need a new paradigm, a new model: a general model that binds our whole society together.
Do you mean something like what we refer to as The Social Contract?
Yes, like the social contract. Yes, the meaning of life, as connected to faith, metaphysics. For some the contact does not have to do with faith. But for me it does.
As in God?
The word God is problematic for me. I believe there is a part of us connected to the non-material. But we have to change our concept of God.
Yes, but how do we do this until we can understand this part of it? Really: how can something as insignificant as man claim to understand something as all-encompassing as "God"?
Through history, for one thing. Just as the social contract has changed over time, the way we interrelate with the world and among ourselves is something that also changes. So the paradigm has changed over time and must change again. This is something that we human beings can do: As when civilization, around the time of Abraham, moved from the belief in many gods to the belief in a single god. All this had its place and its meaning at the time. But now, with the development of science, it is very difficult for a rational person to believe in the old paradigm. So we must change our concept of the spiritual, of god, from something outside ourselves, to something inside our own nature -- and something in nature, in wildlife, too. This will mean the necessity of respecting nature differently. The main problem at the moment is that we cannot continue as we are.
    |
The very manner in which we believe in god now allows us to kill people, whatever they are: Christians, Jews, Muslims. If we change this concept of god, we need to change it into one in which we can no longer kill people, because we are then killing god, since god is within us and within nature. If we can do this, we will be more civilized, move loving and much less aggressive. Our world now has an excess of negative energy. This is not sustainable.
I believe that your previous films, even more than Bullet in the Head, hew to a different or new paradigm -- particulary La Soledad. (The link is to my earlier review of the film, when it made its debut at the FSLC's 2007 Spanish Cinema Now.) The fact that this movie, which last year won the Spain's Goya award for Best Picture, has not yet been seen in the USA (outside of a few festival showings) is scandalous, stupid. This win was amazing. It would be something on the order of, uh... I can't even think of an American comparison: Maybe something like Scott Predergast's Kabluey (which is good but nowhere near as rigorous, artful or deep as La Soledad) winning Best Picture. My point is that nothing like this has ever happened (nor probably ever will) at our own Oscars. We can hope, of course. So how did this happen in Spain?
The win was very surprising to all our industry, as well. This was first time ever in Spain that an art film had won Best Picture. But still, even now there are forces at work to defend the old paradigm. There is an enormous resistance to change. These forces are strong. At the same time, there are people working to change things. The result of a changing idea comes only in years, decades. One puts a new idea out, then forces work hard stopping this idea. But if the idea is strong enough, it will happen.
Could you call La Soledad a success? I mean economically.
Yes! It was a huge success for an art film. Normally if an art film does around 10,000 admissions in Spain, this is considered average. 13,000 admissions would be very good. La Soledad did 125,000 admissions! It was released in England, where I know it opened theatrically and then on DVD worked very well. And it played in many other countries, too. For the United States, well, my Spanish distributor told me that my films are different from most. My first worked well in some countries but not others; the next did just the opposite in terms of where it was successful.
With Bullet in the Head, I know I am pushing the envelop and that my film is really, really difficult. I just knew I wanted to do it and that I wanted to do it in this way. While I was filming, I realized that, once I finished, I might not have any film at all. I know I took the money from my investors: 40,000 Euros from a French investor, and 80,000 from one in Spain, and I put up the other 80,000 myself.
What's next for you -- or do you even know at this point?
My next project is about the problem of the need to change how we see what god is. I think it will be a long complex film about the problem of spirituality in modern society. This is a lot to chew, so it is going to take me awhile to come up with a script and start the financing. The budget will be maybe $2-3 million Euros. My best-case scenario is that the film would be ready for principal photography in two years, then finished in three.
Jaime flies off to Europe later today, so we must let him pack and get ready. Meanwhile, listen up, you intelligent, truly foreign-film-loving distributors out there (all three or four of you who remain): Regarding La Soledad or even Bullet in the Head, contact Señor Rosales' distributor, The Match Factory. E-mail: michael.weber@matchfactory.de
I have it on good authority that terms to please all parties can be arranged.
No comments:
Post a Comment