This topic was briefly discussed in another thread (Werckmeister Harmonies), but I’ll reiterate a little here.
IMO, Tarr’s adaptation was consistent with his filmmaking style, but while the film is still a good one, what prevents it from being “great” is this very trademark style. As you say, very little philosophizing is done in the film and perhaps it would have benefited if there was more of that and, say, a minute or two trimmed off some scenes. And I don’t think that merely the conversion to a different medium is to blame because with a filmmaker like Tarr, one goes into his films expecting to be taken on a long, meditative journey and it would’ve been the perfect environment for him to work in a few more philosophizing moments.
Of course that aspect of “universality” as you mention is reproduced rather well in Tarr’s adaptation, but there’s still that tendency of Tarr to linger so long on a shot that it sometimes works against him on several scenes in Werckmeister Harmonies.
So, all in all, to me at least, it seems that the problem with the film is that Tarr didn’t have enough running time to devote to a more suited version. Because the film that is out there now doesn’t really have anything wrong with it (if one were to ignore the accuracy to the source material), so it would’ve been just a matter of integrating the extra philosophizing in with the film that’s already there (I’m not sure how that would effect the balance though).
However, if one had not read its subject matter and simply evaluated the film standing on its own, I think it would probably fair better. So, it really depends on where the audience is coming from. If I hadn’t have read the source material I probably would have just dismissed what I regard now as ‘shortcomings’ as simply ‘over-criticism’.
You’re right about the viewer’s expectations in regards to Tarr’s work, but do you think that if the film had been much longer (as long as Satantango for example) that he would have been able to recreate the impact of ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’? I think that if the film had more dialogue and philosophy to justify a longer running time then it would have been much better, but I don’t know if it would have the same force of the novel. (After all, how do you film an ending like that?)
I do agree with you that the film stands strong on its own merits, but after reading the book my opinion of it has been damaged. I’ll probably need to see it again, though.
I think what Deckard is saying is partly true: what prevents it from being “great” is this very trademark style.
The reason I think the film was cinematically illiterate is because his visual style is incohesive with what the narrative is trying to say – that creates a film narrative full of stylistic red herrings.
I think the problem with what you are saying if the film had more dialogue and philosophy is that isn’t what Tarr does – it might be better, but it would be someone else’s film.
I’m not sure comparing the book to the film can rehabilitate the film – the film is literally cinematically illiterate.
Or possibly it is speaking in a way that is being mis-read…..
Well, that’s possible – how are you reading it?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the film is “cinematically illiterate”, I mean if we were to dissect the majority of films today I’d say they’re comprised of unintentional “cinematic dissonance” (if I could meld two unconnected terms together for a moment) either as a result of an inexperienced director or a director simply unconcerned with convention. And while Tarr’s films do seem to rely very heavily the average length of his shots (perhaps out of adhering to a consistent style or whatever the reason), I wouldn’t call any of his films “cinematically illiterate”. On the other hand, perhaps I cut Tarr more slack than he deserves.
Though I do agree with Robert on the point that Tarr was not the right choice to adapt this story (unless I read Robert’s post wrong, heh). The result is certainly interesting (and the mythical atmosphere was brilliantly captured – perhaps even enhanced by the film), but yeah, Tarr’s style just isn’t suited for a story of this kind, though at first glance it seems to be. There’s problems with length (though a 7-hour adaptation a la Satantango wouldn’t work either – that would be the other extreme) as well.
I’m not reading it, I’m experiencing it, existing with it, with Janos and the others. I think that makes all the difference when dealing with Tarr- otherwise, if it was simply a film that is cinematically illiterate, then it wouldn’t be having the profound impact that it’s had on many viewers .
Yeah, I didn’t mean to draw you into my assessment, which is admittedly harsh, but it is just this film – I like his other films – even his Cassavetes stuff.
I gotta go back to my German lessons with Hanna – only 5 hours left !
But Jesse, there’s a difference between intentionally making a film unconventional/experimental and doing so out of misjudgment or inexperience. Of course, we all can agree that Tarr is certainly not inexperienced (even his detractors must recognize his skill in the medium), but he’s also not perfect and can make mistakes.
The two (book and film) just aren’t compatible in the sense that the most potential of the story wasn’t realized in Tarr’s version of the film. Many successful films would qualify as “cinematically illiterate” (though I myself don’t normally use the term quite like that), so whether the audience recognizes it or not isn’t really a reliable argument. The audience, as we know, are fickle and cast judgments illogically and often flippantly. Perhaps I’m side-tracking this thread, so I’ll just stop there, heh.
No one’s saying you’re opinion or appraisal of the film is wrong, Jesse, bby the way.
@Deckard
I don’t feel that Tarr was trying to do a literal translation of the “story” of the book. In fact, I would argue that Tarr isn’t terribly interested in “story” in that sense at all. I’m not saying that a filmmaker, even a great filmmaker like Tarr can’t make mistakes, but I personally don’t see it in this film. Keep in mind that he made this film after Satantango (acknowledged by most as a masterpiece) and a whole hell of a lot of other films- so inexperience as you agree, is not a problem- so this would indicate that he had reasons for making the film the way he did, rather than blundering through it.
I’ll have to get back to this tomorrow, with some Tarr quotes ‘cause I’m falling asleep.
And I agree with you that Tarr didn’t blunder through it and I’m fairly certain that everything he did was intentional, however, I’m not as trusting in his infallibility. He’s a wonderful filmmaker (I even thought The Man From London was well done – though it tends to suffer from the same problems as Werckmeister, and really liked Damnation – not to mention, Satantango which is perhaps his work IMO) and really all his films have moments of brilliance in them that are unparalleled in modern cinema, but the problems I tend to have with him lies purely in his sensibility rather than any doubt as to his talent. His strength (and IMO, sometimes his weakness) is his insistence on drawing out these sequences that really don’t warrant it. I’m all for unbroken, uninterrupted long shots, but the scene also has to live up to this elaborate cinematography otherwise it’s just for the mere aesthetic of the thing and that’s just as empty as Cameron or Bay relying on CGI to tell a story.
And to briefly touch on a point you made … I don’t expect Tarr to adapt the story verbatim (that’s pointless, by doing that it reduces the film to a mere artistic exercise), but there was some rather well written “scenes” that he could’ve incorporated – and I think the film kind of loses the point of the original story in Tarr’s attempt to stamp his trademark on it, and in doing so it just kind of flounders trying to find a direction to head to. It becomes SO existential that the meaning behind the original story is only “clunkily” tossed in … but I digress. Let’s just say that despite whatever potential was lost in the adaptation, it’s still a fine film.
Anyway, I think we agree that Tarr is one of the great filmmakers still working today, we just disagree on terms of sensibility, which is fine by me because that’s just our subjective opinions talking (nobody’s “wrong” when it comes to that). I am looking forward to those quotes though.
I still need to pick up the book, and have wanted to for some time now.
In regards to Tarr’s thoughts on story, this quote is taken from his statement “Why I Make Films”:
Because I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another. Because today there are only states of being – all stories have become obsolete and clichéd, and have resolved themselves.
This statement was made during the pre-production of Damnation, fifteen years before Werckmeister Harmonies was released, so it is possible he no longer feels this way, but I doubt it as it speaks directly to the style of the latter film. I don’t agree with what he says, that all stories are obsolete and clichéd, but I think there is great truth in the idea that we are mislead into thinking that things happened, or are happening, when life is merely a series of vain attempts to free ourselves from various conditions we don’t wish to be in.
Jesse’s assessment that the key to Tarr’s films is experiencing them, rather than merely viewing them, is apt because the characters in Werckmeister Harmonies are average and universal: They are us and we are them. In the end we are all helpless and simply go with the flow, whether it is due to our resignation, or in spite of our resistance.
The full statement “Why I Make Films” can be viewed here, in case anyone is interested.
Let’s talk about scenes from the film. The book is irrelevant because I am not watching a book – It doesn’t matter whether Tarr followed the book or not.
The first scene, the one everyone likes, is important because it establishes Jancos as having the power of agency – the ability to enact an idea in the world. At the request of the barkeeper, he assembles drunks to perform an eclipse.
Only the next day do we understand that he does this often and it is a joke among the townspeople.
The next scene, one that everyone hates, is the walking scene to the town square. Again, Jancos is showing agency, the ability to get his disaffected uncle to act at Jancos’ behest. Nonetheless, when we arrive at the town square, Jancos runs away to get lunch showing us he doesn’t really have the power be part of change.
The third scene is with his aunt. This is the one that drove me nuts. As she was telling him they would find him and kill him, I could see over their shoulder the longest vanishing point in the film. I knew we would watch Jancos walk that distance – and then the camera slowly turns to focus on the puzzled look on the old woman’s face. She lied to him and sent him to the railroad to be safe. (This, by the way, is what the German’s told people as they were being deported: that they were going to a safer place.) At this point near the end, Jancos is susceptible to lies and acts only at the direction of others. He has completed the downward spiral that leads to the end.
The basic narrative is an entropic spiral to an ineffectual existence. Some suggest that it represents Hungary caught between Russia and Germany; hence, the whale (Russia) and the German orator.
The three scenes (I have arbitrarily chosen those three) are dramatic set pieces that are supposed to provide a payoff, resolution, or transition. The payoff is to show us Joncos’ increasing ineffectualness. We experience Jancos as a bobbing cork on a sea of events.
Once one knows the narrative it is easier to determine whether the camera work (Tarr’s style) is necessary or makes sense.
Does it?
Do we need to see him walk home from the bar?
Do we need to see him walk (around & around) with his uncle to the square?
Do we need to see him walk away from his aunt?
Most of it is only representing Tarr’s philosophy that today there are only states of being.
It is convenient for Tarr that all stories have become obsolete and clichéd, and have resolved themselves.
@Deckard C, Henry K…
Henry pretty much covered what I was going to post with that quote. I have some more to add from interviews with him around the times of Satantango and Werckmeister…
As far as Tarr saying “all stories are clichéd and obsolete” I think the words are harsh for a reason, but I think he’s just suggesting that there are maybe new (and more authentic) ways in which we can think of “story”- because with the way many people think of story- the results DO end up being clichéd.
Also Deckard, I’m not sure I understand when you have problems with his sensibility, but not his talent… I’m not sure what that means, because I see them in Tarr as being inseparable- like Tarkovsky, or Bresson, or Vigo…
“The whole thing started…well, we read the novel and thought it was good, but we didn’t want to make a movie about it. And about five years ago we met in Berlin with Lars Rudolph, the actor who plays Valushka, and we immediately thought that we had our Valushka and that we had a reason to read the book again. The real reason we decided to make the film is because we met the person who could be Valushka. We were influenced by his personality and afterwards we started to work on the script.”Q. Can you tell in your own words what the movie is about, or rather, what do you want the audience to understand about the film?
A.I have a hope, if you watch this film and you understand something about our life, about what is happening in middle Europe, how we are living there, in a kind of edge of the world. That’s all. After you see the film, I think you know a bit better.
“…during this time Laszlo wrote his second novel, The Melancholy Of Resistance. And we read this book and liked it very much, but we said to him “we definitely don’t want to make a movie of this novel!”. And several years later we met our main character in Berlin. His name is Lars Rudolph and when we met him we decided immediately “we have a Valushka now” and we called our writer and we said “Okay, let’s go ahead because we found the perfect guy to play Valushka and we would like to make a movie about him. And we would like to use your novel”. But the movie is different from the novel and that’s the reason why the movie has a different title."
“I think the story is only a little part of the whole movie. I have to tell you I absolutely hate the movies that I can watch at the theatres. They are like comics. They always tell the same stories. We don’t like these stories because for us every story is always the same old story from the Old Testament. After the Old Testament we have no new stories. We have no news. If you want some news you can watch it on the TV or read it in the newspaper. But movie stories are not new and that’s the reason why we think “okay, the story’s only a part of the movie because the other things, time, rhythm, noises and.”
FD & MLC: Music?
BT: Music, of course. And we are just trying to find something like a complex or total movie which isn’t only the story. And that’s the reason why we look for the locations, and why we spend so much time location hunting because we have some main characters but the location must be the other main character as must Time.
So these are some quotes from interviews in Bright Lights Film Journal and Senses of Cinema.
@Robert-
I can’t comment on an objective, shot by shot analysis of the film, because I don’t own a copy (I’m trying to avoid over-watching things and that would definitely happen if I have copies of Tarr’s films).
But again, I think objective analysis is not the proper way to understand Tarr’s work. (This, of course is not always easy to do, once we’ve been trained to do this)…
On a side note I feel like Jarmusch’s “Limits of Control” was a failed attempt at this kind of approach to filmmaking. His big downfall in my opinion was his need to connect the images to symbols. Tarkovsky already taught us though that this is unnecessary…
Jesse
I think for this film there were many screen writers. I may have read that each one wrote a section of the film. Apparently, and this is just a guess, Tarr envisioned stringing them together as states of being.
It is the way in which they were strung together cinematically that doesn’t work for me.
Apparently, and this is just a guess, Tarr envisioned stringing them together as states of being.
It is the way in which they were strung together cinematically that doesn’t work for me.
Fair enough then.
H. K. ‡
After having finished László Krasznahorkai’s ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’ I am struck by how brilliantly it was brought to cinematic life in Werckmeister Harmonies by he and Béla Tarr, while embracing a style that is polar opposite from that of the novel. Where ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’ gives, in excruciating detail, a potent and whole view of all its characters, Werckmeister Harmonies provides only vague, fleeting characterizations and much is left up to our imagination. Where ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’ ponders the meaning of human nature and humanity’s existence in the universe, Werckmeister Harmonies only offers the same bleak world view with very little of the philosophizing. Overall Werckmeister Harmonies doesn’t go nearly as deep into the subject matter as ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’ (simply because of the limitations of its medium) without sacrificing any of its eerie, ominous universality.
My question, for those who have read the novel and seen the movie, is this: What do you think of this adaptation? And how is it that ‘The Melancholy of Resistance’ and Werckmeister Harmonies are so similar and yet so different at the same time?