Daily Archives: Monday, July 27, 2015

  • The Gleaners and I

    Les glaneurs et la glaneuse

    Agnès Varda (2000)

    By coincidence, I saw The Gleaners and I immediately after La grande bouffe.  Agnès Varda’s documentary was a restorative.  Unlike the suicidal gourmandisers of Marco Ferreri’s film, the people who feature in Varda’s are often have-nots, at least in material terms.  The chief characteristics of Varda’s style and outlook in The Gleaners and I – humanity, economy, imagination – are also the polar opposite of those expressed in the direction of La grande bouffe. The subjects of Varda’s film are just as the title indicates but the gleaners in evidence are remarkably various.  The work is beautifully structured yet it’s also a continuing journey of discovery for the film-maker – and her audience.

    Varda includes a range of cultural reference points but The Gleaners and I never feels remotely academic.   An elderly winegrower quotes the sixteenth-century poet Joachim du Bellay (‘Like the gleaner who, walking step by step, gathers the remains of what falls behind the harvester’) and Varda applauds the man’s knowing Du Bellay’s words by heart.   Most of the references are art-historical (or to art of the present day – in the work of contemporary artists whose compositions incorporate recycled materials).   Key paintings include Jean-François Millet’s The Gleaners (1857), Edmond Hédouin’s Gleaners Fleeing the Storm (also 1857) and Jules Breton’s The Gleaner (1879).  These nineteenth-century paintings afford a natural point of comparison with Varda’s images of present-day countryside gleaning of corn and root vegetables but she visits vineyards and seashores and the city too.  (The hauls include, inter alia, grapes, clams and oysters at low tide, perishable goods rejected by supermarkets, fridges and ovens.)  The Breton painting allows a different comparison.  The picture is unusual, in an art history context, in depicting the gleaner as a lone figure rather than as one of a group.  This enables Varda to contrast traditional rural gleaning with rooting through litter bins etc at the end of the twentieth century – a normally solitary occupation.  And while gleaners on the walls of art galleries are nearly always women, urban gleaning has now become a unisex activity.  There’s a crucial reference to the history of cinema too.   Varda is keen to interview a winegrower known for his particularly enlightened approach towards the gleaners of his produce.  He turns out to be a descendant of Etienne-Jules Marey, the inventor of ‘chronophotography’, and the connection seems to eclipse what we thought was Varda’s original interest in his relative.  (She is delighted by the possibilities of the lightweight digital camera that she used to make this film.  There’s an amusing moment comprising accidental footage – the result of forgetting to turn the camera off – which she accompanies with a jazz score  and calls ‘the dance of the lens cap’.)

    Marey’s descendant is a good example of how this film takes Agnès Varda in unexpected directions.   (Jean Laplanche, a viticulturist who was also a well-known psychoanalyst, is another.)  Varda is fascinated by people and their appearance in The Gleaners and I is rarely subjugated to the director’s preconceived idea of their role in the story she’s telling.  It’s not a surprise that a left-wing film-maker gives a sympathetic hearing to gypsies, the unemployed and environmental activists, all of whom provide compelling interviews.  What’s more striking about Varda’s approach is that, when she goes into a two-star Michelin restaurant, you’re primed – and she persuades you that she too is primed – to deplore excess and waste.  She finds instead that the head chef, a still young man who went gleaning as a boy, forages daily for ingredients and takes care not to waste a thing.  Of three lawyers who appear in the film, two are genial and Varda acknowledges that the third, in laying down the law, seems not unreasonable.  The two genial ones are a middle-aged man and a younger woman.  He stands in a field, she in a city street.  Each wears a red gown and is armed with a red book – the penal code that enshrines the laws regarding gleaning and – an important distinction, as the female lawyer notes – the taking possession of discarded objects.

    Varda asks the male lawyer if he think it’s right that the relatively affluent, who don’t need to glean, are allowed, provided that they observe the rules that also govern the genuinely indigent, to do so as a leisure activity.  His reply is that, if these better off people want to glean, they have some kind of need to glean.  Whether Varda’s silence indicates acceptance of what the lawyer says may be arguable – but we don’t hear her argue with him.  She naturally likes people:  there are those in The Gleaners and I who don’t make a major contribution to any kind of political argument but who are simply delightful interviewees – like a middle-aged couple who now run a bar and who describe their first date.   Although her commentary includes disparaging remarks about, say, fruit-growers who forbid gleaning on their land, Varda is warm and friendly towards most of the people she actually meets – or, at least, those whom she has appear and talk on camera.

    She concludes with what she describes as two particular highlights for her – a choice that seems up to sum up the humanist breadth and the cultural aspect of her film-making.  One of the highlights is an urban gleaner – a man who looks to be in his thirties.  Varda observes his daily routine, which strikes her as particularly systematic.   It turns out that the man is a science graduate, very knowledgeable about the dietary benefits of the discarded food that he selects on the streets of Paris.  He’s opted for this way of life.  He has a job albeit one that earns him very little, selling papers outside the Gare de Montparnasse.  He lives in a hostel.  At the end of his working day, he returns there and spends several hours each evening giving French lessons, for free, to Malian and Senegalese immigrants in the hostel.  Varda is impressed, not to say humbled, by his moral integrity.  The second highlight is her visit to an art gallery, to watch two of its staff bringing out of long-time storage the original of Hédouin’s Gleaners Fleeing the Storm.

    Varda has an admirably light touch and doesn’t push the environmental apocalypse theme obviously (except, perhaps, in the contribution of two French rappers on the soundtrack).  But Hédouin’s painting naturally shows a threatening sky and there is in this turn-of-the-millennium film, as well as a lot of humanity and humour, a quality of ominousness – perhaps this quality registers more strongly now than it did in 2000.  The analogy between documentarian and gleaner is obvious enough, especially given Varda’s method here, but the end-of-the-world element of the piece also relates at a more personal level to the glaneuse.  (It’s a pity the autobiographical element is so much more obvious in the English title of the film but I can’t see how that could been avoided in translating the French.)  It’s essential to Varda’s purpose that we are always aware of her identity – an identity transmitted through images that include, and words that refer to, her own home and her own person.

    Gleaners collect what’s left when the best bits have been harvested or consumed and Varda is acutely aware of her advancing years.  (She had just turned seventy when she made this film, the best part of a decade before The Beaches of Agnès.)   One of the rejected objects that she picks up in her own urban gleaning is a clock without hands.  It appeals to her for its eccentricity and because it arrests the passage of time.  The clock becomes another ornament in her home.  She’s clearly attached to the place (and her cats); she’s also drawn to observing – and cherishing – its signs of structural wear and tear and shabby decor.  When she films her own hair and, especially, her hands, she’s appalled as the person whose body they’re part of but fascinated by them as an artist.  The words ‘hand-held camera’ take on a new meaning in The Gleaners and I.

    15 July 2015

  • The Imitation Game

    Morten Tyldum (2014)

    Alan Turing is renowned for his cryptographic endeavours at Bletchley Park; widely regarded as (in the words of Wikipedia) ‘the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence’; and commemorated as a grievously wronged homosexual.  The Imitation Game is, in theory anyway, the culmination of the attention that’s been paid in recent years to what Turing did for his country (and the world) during the 1940s and what his country did to him in the early 1950s.  In 2010, Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for ‘the appalling way’ in which Turing was treated following his prosecution in 1952 for homosexual acts.  In 2013, the Queen granted him a posthumous pardon for the crime of gross indecency of which he’d been convicted.  The royal pardon is summarised in one of several legends at the end of Morten Tyldum’s film.  These have an anxiously insistent feel:  you’re being told not to forget you’ve been watching An Important Movie.  First, there’s a reminder of the crucial importance of the breaking of the Germans’ Enigma code – ‘historians’ reckon this shortened the war by two years and saved very many lives.  The final legend notes the influence of ‘Turing machines’:  ‘Today we call them computers …’   In between, there’s a statement that thousands of men were imprisoned in Britain for homosexual acts in the period from 1885[1] to 1967; this is followed by a summary of Turing’s pardon, noting his ‘exceptional achievements’.

    The juxtaposition of these two legends is logical but the words on screen unfortunately imply that the royal pardon was thanks only to those ‘exceptional achievements’.  The pardon gives rise to various objections and questions.   It seems not to make technical sense:  since homosexual acts were illegal at the time and there’s no suggestion that Turing didn’t take part in them, this was not a miscarriage of justice.  If Turing deserves to be pardoned for his conviction under a law that is viewed today as morally indefensible then why don’t others?  (And, if all those convicted for homosexuality were to be pardoned, posthumously or otherwise, why not move on to people charged under other obsolete laws?)  Is a reason for the apology that Turing, instead of serving a prison term, chose the alternative that was offered to him of chemical castration?  (How unusual was that ‘treatment’ – and choice?)

    It isn’t the responsibility of Morten Tyldum to answer those questions but it’s surely an omission that – despite the message of the closing legends that Alan Turing’s sexuality is a crucial element of his life story – the film is opaque about his private life.  The main emotional attachment that Turing develops is during adolescence, with Christopher Morcom, a fellow schoolboy at Sherborne.  Thanks largely to the performance of Alex Lawther as the early teenage Turing, the flashbacks to Sherborne are, for the most part, one of the strongest elements of The Imitation Game.  After flaccid scene-setting and cross-cutting between Manchester in 1951, when the police are called to investigate a robbery at Turing’s home (an incident which leads to his own eventual arrest), and his arrival at Bletchley Park at the outbreak of war in 1939, the first Sherborne sequences have an immediacy and an upsetting charge.  The boy Alan, who painstakingly separates the different types of vegetable on his school lunch plate, has a tray of carrots and peas emptied onto his head.  He is then buried by other boys under the floorboards of the dining hall; Christopher Morcom (Jack Bannon) rescues him.  As their friendship grows, Christopher and Alan develop a private code for the transmission of messages; the film doesn’t explore whether their affection for each other is expressed in other ways but, when the headmaster (Laurence Kennedy) breaks to Alan the news of Christopher’s death from bovine tuberculosis, Alex Lawther shows compellingly Turing’s intense determination to deny the emotional importance of what he’s being told.  Christopher is the name that Turing gives to the code-breaking machine that he builds at Bletchley and its replacement, constructed in his post-war home on the outskirts of Manchester (from 1948, he worked at Manchester University).

    The impression you get that Turing’s first love was his greatest, perhaps his only true one, is the result of not only the strength of feeling that Alex Lawther conveys but also the character of the adult Turing that the screenwriter Graham Moore has created and Benedict Cumberbatch interprets – a man who it’s hard to imagine being capable of an intimate relationship of any duration.  Although there’s a real spiritual continuity between Lawther and Cumberbatch, the latter’s portrait of a closed-off genius verges on cliché.  Cumberbatch’s Turing is monomaniacal in the pursuit of his science and borderline autistic in his mannerisms; fanatically literal-minded, he lacks social skills and understanding.  Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley) is a key member of Turing’s group at Bletchley; they become engaged so that (according to the film) he can retain her exceptional cryptographic skills; but Turing, anxious about their sexual incompatibility, confides in a male colleague that he’s gay and that he’s ‘had affairs with men’.  You wonder what these ‘affairs’ amounted to.  Were they more than casual pick-ups, or attempted pick-ups, in pubs, of the kind that took place shortly before the break-in – carried out by the pick-up and a pal – at Turing’s home in 1951?

    Neither the title of the film nor its protagonist, as the subject of biographical drama, is new to the screen.  The Imitation Game, written by Ian McEwan and directed by Richard Eyre, was a BBC Play for Today in 1980.  It focused principally on a woman (played by Harriet Walter) working at Bletchley Park during World War II but featured a significant male character, Turner (Nicholas Le Prevost), who had more in common with Alan Turing than the first three letters of his surname.  In the mid-1990s, Hugh Whitemore adapted his stage play, Breaking the Code, for television:  Herbert Wise directed and Derek Jacobi (who had also played the role in the theatre) was Turing.  Enigma, a crudely effective page-turner by Robert Harris (published in 1995), tells the story of the Bletchley code-breakers without including a recognisable Turing figure among them:  it became a cinema film, directed by Michael Apted, in 2001.  In spite of these progenitors, Alan Turing’s life is so extraordinary that it would seem a challenge to turn it into biopic boilerplate but The Imitation Game is an indifferent, unimaginative piece of storytelling.

    This is the Norwegian Morten Tyldum’s first feature in English (he’s best known for the 2011 film of Jo Nesbo’s Headhunters) and his direction is uncertain. There are numerous scenes which, even if the events they describe really happened, come across as phony because they’re generic and staged in a lacklustre way.  A few examples.  Joan Clarke arrives late for the exam for potential Bletchley Park recruits and, because she’s female, is assumed to be a candidate for a secretarial job; she then wows the male assembly, Turing included, by completing the exam in double-quick time.  The code-breaking team’s other members – who, up to this point, have seemed to find him a pain in the neck – all stand up for Turing, when their pompously hostile boss (Charles Dance) tries to fire him.  The eureka moment occurs when a chance remark enables Turing to crack the Enigma code and he and his team race back from the pub, past security men and into Bletchley Park’s Hut 8.  The schoolboy Alan waits, at the start of a new term, for the return of his friend and watches all the boys in the school arrive back in the Sherborne quad – all except Christopher …

    The Manchester sequences contain some gross anachronisms:  a police detective (Rory Kinnear) talks about the likes of Burgess and McLean being ‘radicalised’ and uses Tipp-Ex (first marketed in 1956); his superintendent (Steven Waddington) has designer stubble.  Morten Tyldum includes a mishmash of World War II newsreel footage, which is strong, and CGI simulations of warfare and other reconstructions, which are lame.  When the Germans surrender, Tyldum gets together a crowd to enact Victory in Europe celebrations in the grounds of Bletchley Park for the sole purpose of pulling back to reveal the scene being watched from inside a window:  a stunning waste of budget.  The director seems worried too that the audience may get bored: there can be no other reason for pouring Alexandre Desplat’s tiresome music over the soundtrack.  When, near the end of the film, Turing has been convicted and Joan Clarke visits him at his home near Manchester, the scene gives Benedict Cumberbatch the opportunity for a big finish (which he takes) but is confusing in all sorts of ways.  Has Turing asked the now married Joan to visit or does she happen to drop by?  (The real Joan Clarke was living in Scotland at the time.)  Tyldum has already shown on the screen a newspaper report of Turing’s conviction yet, in her conversation with him, Joan alarmedly asks if he realises ‘ … how serious this is – you could go to prison!’  (Since he’s opted for chemical castration rather than jail, you wonder what that newspaper report said.)

    Benedict Cumberbatch demonstrates a great deal of technical skill, even if some of the vocal and gestural mannerisms he’s developed for the role don’t seem fully absorbed:  on the whole, I found him more persuasive (because less calculated) when he was reacting to other characters than when he made the running in a scene.  Among the other men on Turing’s team at Bletchley Park, Matthew Goode does creditably in spite of looking miscast for as long as the character he’s playing is meant to be a cool, snooty rival to Turing.  Keira Knightley is better than she often is but still rather bland (as well as too glamorous) as Joan Clarke.  The BBC screened Enigma to coincide with the release of The Imitation Game:  watching Kate Winslet in the earlier movie makes you all the more aware of the telling details of character and the eccentric energy that are missing from Knightley’s performance.   Enigma is mediocre – it’s essentially a plot and the purpose of its cardboard characters is to drive that plot forward – but Winslet’s characterisation of a Joan Clarke type and, in a broader vein, Jeremy Northam’s turn as a super-suave MI5 man make it worth watching, and at least the film’s intentions are clear, unlike some aspects of Morten Tyldum’s film.  The Imitation Game does, however, feature an excellent performance from Mark Strong, as the military intelligence chief, Stewart Menzies.  Alan Turing, although he can decipher the impossible, can never read this man.  Mark Strong’s well-judged blend of firmness and calm gives him a quiet edge:  Menzies is always one step ahead, so always dangerous.

    18 November 2014

    [1]  This was the year in which revised legislation, enshrined in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, took effect (although that isn’t mentioned in the text on screen).

Posts navigation