Well, Borzage on many occasions.
I don’t know what it is that we are supposed to discuss about these directors, but I will say that any discussion about “mystical cinema” that does not include Robert Bresson is out of synch.
This resembles similar threads where we have discussed religious vs atheistic approaches to cinema. In those discussions, it is natural to bring Bresson and Bergman into the equation. Both have many examples of a mystical outlook in their films. If all these directors – and I think Trier is a very interesting addition – have this quality in common – just what is it and how do we define it – ie, mysticism in film?
This is a question that gets to the heart of how filmmakers themselves see reality – or better yet – what is behind reality. Is there a common thread? Are there films that define ‘mysticism’ for us? In any case, one feature of all these filmmakers is a certain allusiveness in their films. They never go for obvious solutions or trite answers. I think so many of the films I know and love fall into this category. I will throw a couple more out there: Carol Reed’s Odd Man Out and Resnais’ Last Year at Marienbad. LTaM may or may not be a ‘mystical’ film, but it is an allusive one. What about Jodorowsky? Are his films mystical or just vapid allusions to it? Where does Bunuel fit in? OK, let the discussion foodgates open…
Nathan M., I could not agree more. I only intended a starting point—Balthasar is as good as it gets in cinema—if I had a list that did not change with additions-Au Hasard Balthasar would be definitely be at the top. Thanks, Bobby.
Bob, you ask more hard questions than I do—I am retired teacher/professor as well as editor which explains why I ask too many questions I guess, Of course, you’ve got to include Bresson and Bergman. My 5 or 6 were suggested as only astarting point to open the floodgates of discussion.
Pasolini’s Teorema should also be considered, imo.
I do not much like that film by Pasolini but certainly an interesting, provocative choice—some of the critics at the time of its release suggested much the same—allegorical, but allusive at the same time.
In regards to the allusiveness that Bob mentioned above: I think allusiveness is the only way to attempt a “mystical” cinema. There may be dozens of ways to be allusive, but allusive you must be. I think this is because “mystical” implies that there is something beyond what we experience with our senses. Movies, by their very nature deal primarily with our senses – sight and sound -, and so any attempt at a spiritual cinema must work to focus the viewers attention to what is not on the screen before their eyes.
I’ll use Bresson, because he’s both my favorite of the directors thus far mentioned, and the one with whom I’m most familiar. His allusiveness (and to a degree the allusiveness of the other directors mentioned) is created by a deliberate undermining of common film grammar. There is nothing stylish or cool about the way in which these directors do this. This is not Godard throwing a jump cut or cool movie reference in the middle of the story. These directors tend to hold shots beyond the natural limits our our attention, they make actors into models meant to carry the burden of the unseen world, and in turn force the viewer to see our world as a mere mirror to a world that we cannot see. It is these traits precisely that make “mystical” filmmakers difficult to watch at times. Their techniques don’t seem to be designed for our enjoyment at all, but rather to force us to imagine a reality outside of the characters on the screen; a reality that may be more real than the one we see.
Watching the films of these directors is like looking through a glass darkly. I suppose that I’m not saying anything new here, but I think the quality of allusiveness is not only what makes these films difficult to watch at times, but also difficult to interpret. We know that these directors are alluding to a reality that we cannot see, but because we cannot see it, it’s hard to place the reality they refer to. In most of these directors I’ve found almost no interpretive value. The images are often so obscure that they eschew standard interpretive methods. “Mystical” movies almost never seem to offer answers of any kind. They assume a reality beyond our own, and force us to ask questions about that reality. Even the specific religions that these films use don’t often point toward anything concrete. In many cases (Bresson, Bergman, Dryer) these directors operate from a Christian, and especially Catholic, perspective. But there is nothing in their films to suggest that even these religious motifs and systems are anything more than a vague hint at the things behind reality.
I’m sort of rambling now, and I’m not sure if I have much of a point. But maybe the fact that I don’t have a specific point is in keeping with this thread about allusive, mystical films.
Bobby I am retired library worker, frustrated writer, dreamer, closet mystic, and also a hard-nosed skeptic; so I come by my questions honestly. I am also, as many can attest – a good b.s.-er. Mainly, I approach film – and substitute here literature or music – from the standpoint of one who is in wonder of the ineffable. My favourite filmmaker is Tarkovsky and my favourite film of his is Stalker. I have talked about this film and Tarkovsky many times here already. I won’t repeat myself here except to say that what appeals to me is just his sense of mystery. It is in all his films. You can almost see it and you can certainly hear it. He surrounds all of his profundest moments in his films with a sense of wonder at the natural – and super-natural – reality that abounds around us. It is difficult to place him in any standard religious situation – at least, at the time in the Socviet Union when he was making films. His use of Bach in The Sacrifice – like a similar use of Bach in Bresson or in Bergman’s The Silence – is done to heighten a certain type of reverence, which is not necessarily religious in intent.
Rather than droning on, I would much rather hear from others on what mysticism means to them in film. It is difficult on a public chatroom type forum to get serious about so personal a subject for me. If I do get carried away, someone will always bring me back to reality with a cold, hard thump. If you look up these directors: Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kieslowski, Tarr – and I will add Greenaway here too – on the search forum feature, I have comments about them all throughout that pertain to my individual take on the subject. My own choice of top films contains also Kubrick’s 2001 which is another film with a strong mystical attraction for me. I will get back to this when others have had a chance to post – thanks.
I think that’s probably the purpose of all the baffling shots of feet in Lancelot du Lac and The Devil, Probably — to show how un-spiritual these characters are. They’re grounded, earthbound.
At the same time, film can depict “miracles” through special effects as in the scene where the maid levitates in Teorema.
Maybe another question we could ask is this:
What separates great “mystical” directors from cheap imitators? I’ve seen films that seem to be attempting to point toward mystical realities. Those films make the techniques of these great directors into instant cliches. Long close up shots of slack faces, Holding the camera on an object for way, way too long, and muddled imagery can be the staples of bad movies just as easily as those of a mature spiritual cinema.
Harry Smith
Bresson, Ozu, Mizoguchi, Murnau
Was Murnau a religious-oriented director? I’m not sure about that.
Bresson.
Sharunas Bartas, totally.
Have you read (or tried to) Tarkovsky’s “Sculpting in time”? He attempts to explain how he sees cinema and his role as a director. There you can see that he had a kind of mystical conception of cinema: he saw himself as a medium between a sort of “truth” and the film itself, like a passive bridge between the two. This translates essentially into movies stripped out of concepts and focused on senses, memories, metaphores. Poetic cinema, if you want.
Like Bob Stutsman, I am an absolute fan of Trakovski, really crazy about the guy. His movies are a pure spell: you don’t understand it but you cannot turn your gaze away from it. But I also think that, like many geniuses, his masterpieces have had a very bad influence over the later generations. I have seen way too many directors trying to be tarkovskian and completely failing to so and I would include someone like Bela Tarr in that club.
The only positive example I know is mexican director Carlos Reygadás. “Japón” is pure Tarkovskian mysticism done by a genius. His last feature, “Silent Light”, is also amazing. It focuses on the build-up of a miracle and mixes Tarkovskian aesthetics with a strong thematic influence by Dreyer’s “Ordet”. The opening and closing sequences are sunrise and a sunset in the nature: that’s pure mysticism, you cannot go further.
P.S.: I personally discriminate between “mystic” and “religious”. I don’t find Bergman mystic at all, he’s way too cerebral and his reflexions on life and death, faith and rationalism are dialectical. This has nothing to do with mysticism. I would say the same for Pasolini’s “Teorema”, just as the title suggests.
P.S.2: I am surprised nobody has mentioned Terrence Malick. Now, that’s mystic!
http://nachoasenjo.blogspot.com
Nacho – I think I understand how someone could discriminate between “mystic” and “religious”, and in the case of Malick the two never explicitly meet. However, most of the directors that are under discussion here use blatantly religious iconography as a way to express their vision.
I’d also agree with you generally about Bergman. His interests, while they encompass “mysticism” and “religion” in various films seem to be rooted in a psychoanalytical cinema. So maybe it would be a good idea to ditch both “religious” and “mystical”, because the terms lend themselves to obscure interpretations. Maybe we should say “philosophical”? I suggest that term, because philosophy also deals implicitly with the unseen. As a discipline it tends to ask “why, or what, is behind our daily lives”. The answers that it gives are not always religious in nature (or at least religion in an organized sense), and so this allows us to include directors like Malick along with Bresson, and everyone else. I think “philosophical” might work particularly because when listening to, or reading, interviews by the directors mentioned, they tend not to advocate any particular religious system over another. Their concerns are metaphysical, but rarely very specific.
Anyway, this post is only about semantics. I think most of us know what we mean when we say “mystic”, and most would be happy to include a wide variety of directors, both religious and non-religious.
Nathan M, again I could not agree with you more—I actually think the word metaphysical is more accurate. Mystic is one of least favored words but I used it for its repetitive M—I thought such a word might draw more posters. Thanks, Bobby
In any case, we are certainly all of us too cerebral. We pass most of our discussion defining the frame of the discussion itself.
So let me come back to the starting point.
Dreyer is certainly a mystic director and his concern about religion is very nordic, profoundly stepped in Kierkegard. It’s dry, dialectic and, for me, often diffcult to get in. Von Trier has been perceived as a kind of heir to him, but my personal feeling is that this guy does not take the issue seriously. I mean, with thim everything has a second reading and the basic assumption is irony. That doe snot mean I don’t like him: I do, quite a deal, but I do not see him as a Master of Mysticism. I think he just took this subject in “Breaking the waves” as he has taken satanism in his last feature, just showed in Cannes. You could argue that “Dancer in the dark” have mystic aspects to it, but I really cannot see it in moral tales like “Dogville”.
So, B. Dubois, it was smart of you to throw Von Trier over there, but I, for one, reject it.
Excuse my ignorance: I have never heard of Paradjanov or Nacer Khemir. Can anyone enlight me, please?
@Bob
I think Jodorowsky’s the real deal. I’ve only seen HOLY MOUNTAIN (twice now), and I’m blown away by it. I could only ascribe to him an “imitator” status perhaps on the grounds that his criticism of modern mores is on display in equal part to his mystical explorations in that film, and maybe that comes off as snarky. But, man, what a movie! Some of the set-pieces blew my mind (I know, a bit cliched, but true).
Nacho – I have also found Dryer to be difficult to watch (“The Passion of Joan of Arc” aside). I know that you, and dozens of others, are on a lovefest with Tarkovsky, but I’ve been afraid to come back to him ever since seeing “Andri Rublev”. Actually thats not completely true as I’ve seen “Ivan’s Childhood”, which I much prefer. Perhaps “Andri Rublev” was just too long for me to stomach. However, the overwhelming sense of awe that so many on this site have for him is gradually pushing me to try something else.
Nathan, I agree with you on nearly everything you said except Breaking the Waves which I maintain is extraordinary. Nacer Khemir is a real Sufi mystic—rent his Trilogy of the Desert at Netflix—Paradjanov is a combination of both Christian and Sufi mystic if that’s possible—he also has several movies at Nexflix. Good luck, Bobby.
I, like most of you who’ve commented here am a Tarkovsky devotee. I also agree with the Bresson and Bergman suggestions, however I think Tarkovsky’s films seem most to embody how I personally interpret the idea of mysticism in film. My take on it is that mysticism in film is similar to Magical Realism in literature. That is to say, the narrative is based, for the most part, in reality, but the film also includes elements from the fantastical and spiritual realms, used as expository or illustrative mechanisms in depicting the subconscious, the inner self, the abstract, or the otherworldly. The juxtaposition of the two elements creates a dreamlike aspect to an otherwise non-escapist kind of realism… not unlike the works of Borges, Kafka, Fuentes, or Calvino. I’m also in total agreement with Justin Vicari about the inclusion of Pasolini’s Teorema in this category.
Nacho Asenjo, re: Paradjanov, see this forum thread, Impression Made by the Color of Pomegranates
http://www.theauteurs.com/topics/2120/comments
I make a distinction, which is quite fluid, between directors whose style can be to some extent described as mystical,
metaphysical, or transendental,
and those whose films deal with metaphysical subjects and themes. Of course there is overlap.
Paradjanov and Tarkovsky fall into both categories.
But I wonder if David Lean’s excellent presentation of Hindu mystical elements in
A Passage to India puts him firmly in my second category.
Also, Peter Weir and Philip Kaufman have, to varying degrees, employed what can at least be called magical realism
in certain pictures.
Along that line, I think it is possible to see Terence Malick as a metaphysical or transcendental stylist,
and the same may be said of Peter Greenaway.
I’m also thinking that a transcendental approach is evident in Errol Morris’ The Thin Blue Line,
and definitely in Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control.
I place Trier in both of my categories because I read Breaking the Waves as a meditation on,
or perhaps a postmodern extrapolation of, Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc.
Bobby – I think our record of agreement still stands. I haven’t commented on “Breaking the Waves” here. Nor will I. I haven’t seen that movie for a solid eight years. I remember being pretty blown away by it, but my memories of the actual film are too hazy for me to make any sort of informed statement on it. Which reminds me that I need to see it again.
Breaking the Waves has always felt slightly contrived and constructed, like most of von Trier’s work. To the extent that it has to do with religion, it suggests that Bess, in her autistic childlike isolation, has conceived a relationship with God which both echoes and contradicts that of her extremely puritan community. In throwing God’s voice when she converses with him, she is trying to give an actual corporeal identity to the abstract. She views him as cautionary, paternalistic, punitive, all the things which her community views him as — yet she makes herself “special” (by this “talking to God”) in a way that her grim, no-frills community would frown on. Her attempt to have a special relationship with God is like her marriage to the “handsome outsider” — a point of pride. However, her downfall is depicted to us exactly as the townsfolk must see it — she has given her obedience not to spiritual law but to a fallen man whose interest in her becomes wholly sexual. Her sexuality becomes martyrdom, which means it might be God-directed after all, but there’s nothing in the film that objectively supports this. One can see it as a study of mental illness or retardation as much as a portrait of religious faith or mystical connection with God. That’s kind of what makes it so appalling, the attachment of possibly spiritual significance to something that very likely has none.
I don’t find Dreyer difficult at all. He seems to have fully digested his ideas before presenting them so that what remains is a great lucidity. His cinema is quite simplified and ordered so as to leave very little in question. His characters are always saying how they feel, what’s going on inside them.
Wajda
Jodorowsky
I don’t have 5 but these are my sacred quartet:
Kenneth Anger (Lucifer Rising, Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome)
Stan Brakhage (Dog Star Man)
Sergei Paradjanov (Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors)
Andrei Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublev, Solaris)
streetcar desire
Paradjanov, Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Nacer Khemir, and Trier—let’s be brave and discuss any or all these directors—go for it! P.S. add any others you consider metaphysical. Certainly add Kieslowski.