Sometimes in the past at this film festival, I have accidentally picked myself really grim selections of films, or really hard-going selections – whether that means lots of death and murder or lots of political heavy thinking films – but this year I appear to have picked myself a selection of really sad films. They’ve been generally excellent films but I have spent a disproportionate amount of time crying in La Scala this year. My selections from the ‘Highlights’ strand was heavy on both personal highlights and cinematic sadness.
Pyre
This was the first fiction film that I saw during this year’s festival and my immediate thought was that the rest of the films I saw this year were going to need to put in a strong showing to beat it to film of the festival.
The best way I can describe this film is that it’s a film about ghosts and hauntings. Like several of the films in this year’s festival, it’s a film about depopulation and a dying way of life. It’s just that this film represents the step after the one that the other films are experiencing. Many of the houses are not only closed up and abandoned, but actively falling down. There are no children in this village, it has gone beyond the stage of the young people leaving and not returning, they’re actively coming back and taking their parents away. (The youngest character in the film is a young man who is six years post university and whose finally getting a job is the catalyst for everything else that happens in the film.) There’s no road to the village and the path up to the houses is so vertiginous that stretchering someone up or down is downright dangerous – when there’s no one to help Padan take Tulsi to the doctor, he refuses to come out to do a house visit, no matter how many goats Padan offers him.
(This subtext becomes practically text in a late scene in the film, where a heavy mist has descended on the village and Tulsi is shuffling around the paths looking and calling out for her neighbours who have all moved away. For someone so frail, whenever she’s not actively ill she moves with surprising speed. In fact if the postman Bishan hadn’t held onto her hands in one of the later scenes I’d have thought she was explicitly meant to be the ghost/spirit of the village.)
Given the subject of the film, it’s perhaps unsurprising that I spent the last five minutes of the film having a good cry. Surprisingly it wasn’t the thing that you’d expect to happen in a film like this that made me cry – I was ready for that – it was something else entirely.
The History of Sound
Obviously there was a film about ethnomusicologists going on field recording trips and falling in love, how could I not go to see it.
I have a slightly odd relationship with this film, because when I was watching it I loved it. (Josh O’Connor is one of those actors – like Ben Wishaw in Peter Hujar’s Day – that I can just happily watch for hours, just a really compelling performance.) But this is a film adapted from a short story, and I can’t help but feel that it was stretched too thin by the adaptation process. You have too long with the characters to not see the places where it doesn’t quite know what it wants to say with it’s story. The strongest parts are the ones where they’re tromping around the backwoods of Maine, recording folksongs on wax cylinders and being young and in love. (I presume that was the heart of the original story, an old man reminiscing about his lost love and the twin passions that they’d shared.) It’s a historical piece, the chances of our central pairing getting a happily ever after is slim even without the looming presence of the First World War, but oh, I would have given a great deal for it to have been a bittersweet tale of years of sporadic field-trips recording old songs, talking to the people the song belong to, stealing time from the world.
It’s a lovely film, but I do yearn for the film it might have been.
The Thing With Feathers
I was somewhat cautious about going to see this film. It’s always dangerous going to see an adaptation of a book you love, it’s never going to be a neutral experience. I don’t tend to buy novellas in physical form, I prefer to read them as ebooks, however I picked it up in Waterstones one day in 2017, started reading the first chapter to see if I liked it and read about half of the book standing there in the middle of the shop floor. I couldn’t put it down, so I bought it, took it home and finished it that evening. Strange and compelling, but exactly what I needed say my notes from the time and that’s a good description of the film too.
The film is very different from the book – the prose of the book is very poetic, and we’re much more inside characters heads in it – Crow is much more threatening and ominous in the film than I remember it being in the book. (I’d always imagined Crow as an actual crow, perching on your shoulder, pulling at your hair, nibbling on your ears.) But honestly I feel like that works, the sense of living in a horror movie, a nightmare from which you can’t awaken, feels very true to life. Another reason I was a little cautious is that I’m not generally a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch – he’s a fine actor, but he was rather overhyped and over exposed for awhile there so I’ve avoided films starring him for a while because I was bored of his face – but he’s very good in this, properly disappears into the character. But what I think they got really right in this adaptation is the voice of Crow, both in the aural sense with David Thewlis, doing a stunningly good voice performance, and narratively the way Crow and the grief it represents are the driving force of everything that happens, messy and scary and awful and necessary.
(Also I’d far rather read the graphic novel about Crow and grief that the dad is writing in the film than the book about Ted Hughes that he’s writing in the novella.)
I do think it’s fitting that they’ve abbreviated the title here – the novella is making conscious reference to the Emily Dickinson poem Hope Is The Thing With Feathers – because its ending is very much a reminder that the other thing with feathers still remains.
Nouvelle Vague
This is technically a film about the making of A Bout De Souffle/Breathless (Goddard, 1960), but really it’s a love letter to the whole of French New Wave Cinema.
I did spend a chunk of the early parts of the film wondering who exactly the audience for this film was meant to be – obviously the answer to this was that it was the one I was sitting amongst, who were volubly enthusing to their companions about how much they enjoyed it on the way out – it’s certainly a much more fun way for film students to get a crash course on nouvelle vague cinema and how the players all connect to each other than a documentary full of talking heads. (Don’t look at me, I got into nouvelle vague via a book on Luc Besson’s filmography, and ended up down a rabbit hole of french new wave cinema in pursuit of understanding the references.) Though honestly, I had some strong feelings about these films/this trend in film making so I have made a film about it, feels very true to that whole period of Cahiers Du Cinema so fair play Linklater, I’ll give you this one. This is a film for film nerds, full of the little behind the scenes details of film-making, it’s a delightful one though, so if you happen to love nouvelle vague cinema too then it’s well worth your time.