kristen Blog

Under discussion:

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg  (1964)

It’s hard to know where to being to begin to describe my personal reaction to this movie but it helped me to understand a deep tragedy in my life- in the views I had adopted. Maybe it helped me to realize the reality of the love that I had so soundly convinced myself was inconceivable, unobtainable, lost. And so, it is a movie about the lost love of my life and the movie that helped me to find him again.

I begin with my “DEPARTURE” (the 2^nd section of the movie) with Guy. In this section of my life, I convinced myself that even the most real love was suspect and could not sustain a relationship. I believed more in logic than in love because I knew that, from my own experience, I had the best love, the truest love, and that it had escaped me. I tried with all my powers of deception to make love compatible with logic. I convinced myself that I could will myself in love. Now I know this is foolishness, but I had to test the idea. I tried to love another man. He was practical, kind, thoughtful, romantic (in an odd way), eccentric- potentially a match.

He fell in love with me just as Mr. Cassard fell in love with Genevieve. Mr. Cassard’s character is interesting because he is a longing romantic, though admits that he fell for a woman who never loved him. Genevieve reminds him of that woman. But Genevieve gives him new hope and new grounds to walk on. At least he can be completely happy in this relationship. This is probably because Mr. Cassard has never known the love that Guy and Genevieve share. Mr. Cassard only gives love; he has never been loved.

I gave my Mr. Cassard hope. I felt that for all practical intents and purposes that I should love him; should be with him. But the memory of my Guy never left me, not for a day. Genevieve similarly is grateful that someone will accept her in her vulnerable (pregnant) state. She believes that her child needs a father. She wants her love Guy to return from the war but her hope in happily ever after wanes as he consistently forgets to write. So she chooses Mr. Cassard- a completely rational choice- though never forgets Guy (she names her daughter Françoise in memory of Guy). This is how we know she will always long from the love she once had.

She is moderately happy because there are other things in her life to love like her daughter. This happiness is part of the deception I told myself while dating Mr. Cassard. Genevieve lives securely, and like life, security provides a livable happiness.

By the “ARRIVAL” (3^rd Act) I realized that I too had thrown away, given up on my Guy. Why had I stopped believing in the truly magical love of Act 1? Why did I settle for a relationship where only one person loved? Is that happiness?

I was greatly disturbed for the rest of the day. The movie shook the logic that was he foundation of my relationship with Mr. Cassard. The movie does not so much ask what could have been. It knows the answer. Guy and Genevieve had a love so rare that only a few are blessed to have it, but they chose something practical. The movie, however, is never cynical but quite realistic. Even though they never eternally realized their love, their lives continue with moments of happiness. And there’s always the memory of what once was.

Even after the movie, I was happy with just the memory of my Guy. I could not conceive of how we would get back together. Now I realize that the tragedy of Guy and Genevieve was almost my tragedy. I, for so long, denied my first, my only love, my real happiness.

I was so close to experiencing the painful moment years in the future when it became impossible to restart our relationship. I would have had to live with that torturous moment when a married Genevieve and encounters Guy for the first time in years. The bittersweet movie shows how they do have their happiness, but they do not love their spouses out of anything more than duty and security.

Duty and security led me to believe that I loved Mr. Cassard. Now I know that I never forgot my Guy.

This movie helped me avoid Guy and Genevieve’s tragedy. It perfectly shows true love. There is an ever-present sense that Guy and Genevieve should never be apart, but the movie, being a realistic representation, shows what happens in a world where logic survives over love. The movie captures the tragedy that happens to so many people. Yet the movie never denies the greatness of love, even when the characters fully do. That is how the movie is great. The movie knows life but longs for love.

I learned a great deal about life with Mr. Cassard, but thankfully the movie restored my faith in love. I got a second chance with Guy. This time I was able to make a brilliantly illogical decision- all in the name of love.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Gallipoli  (1981)

A better runner film than Gallipoli (1981) is Hugh Hudson’s Chariots of Fire (1981). A better male bonding film is Howard Hawk’s Rio Bravo (1959). A better historical representation film is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) But as a fantasy film, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) works with a grace unique unto itself.

            Archy, Mark Lee, trains hard to be the fastest runner. Gallipoli (1981) does not explore this passion for running as in Chariots of Fire (1981). Running may be a way for Archy to advance in life. However, the film implies that his uncle Jack may like the fact that Archy runs more than Archy does. Archy tells Jack that there is more to life than racing. The film does not explore the dynamics of the sport, or introduce intense passion to win a race.

Instead, the fact that Archy is a runner serves as a base for a friendship with Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson.  In the first organized race of the film, Archy defeats the cocky Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. The two have talent, and their athletic inclinations allow for nonsexual male bonding. Frank and Archy wander in the desert, uncivilized like the cowboys of the west, though their comradery is not as profound as iconic cowboy John Wayne and his partners in Rio Bravo (1959). The bond does not make a deep impression because Archy and Frank are flat characters.

We learn background information on Frank. The British murder his mother and that is why he opposes the war. Yet, Frank remains the lovable rebel for the duration of the film. He has his adventures (he hops a train), his fun (he sleeps with a prostitute), and his problems (he has no money). Frank is good deep down, and Archy sees that. Archy is an optimist and always in good spirits. He is naïve for he devotes himself fully to the war without thinking of the horrors it brings. Archy is too good to be interesting. He risks his life for Frank by refusing a safe position. Frank may have a loose morality, but he would never harm anyone. The two go from a time of joy, to a time of despair in war, yet their outlooks do not change. It seems that the death that surrounds them has no effect. To the fault of the film, the characters are static to an ever-dynamic backdrop.

The Australians remember the Battle of Gallipoli as a major controversial historical event in a way comparable to how Americans remember Vietnam as controversial (“Battle at Gallipoli”). The movie Gallipoli (1981) is a fictionalized account of this battle in World War I (Thompson and Bordwell pp 664). The problem with Gallipoli (1981) as a historical piece is that it spends so much exposition on Archy and Frank (fictional characters) and only leaves ten or so minutes for the battle to take place. The film so loosely bases the story on the battle that the battle becomes irrelevant. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) fictionalizes the Vietnam War with sets and characters, yet captures the controversy of the war. The Vietnam War is an indispensable part of Full Metal Jacket (1987).

Gallipoli (1981) does stand out in one aspect, and that is its 80’s synthesizer-pop score. The synth-pop music initiates when there is a race. This music is so jarring that it takes one out of the atmosphere of the film and places one in a science fiction- fantasy world. Since the characters are flat, the absurd music does a wonder to ruin any gravity that Gallipoli (1981) tries to establish. Three times the film transports us to a world beyond our understanding. The music leaves a more memorable impression than any other aspect, which is why this is such a good fantasy movie. The world is beyond what we would expect, but we like it all the same.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Rabid  (1977)

            Cronenberg redefines the word "sweet". Cronenberg is just the director to pull off a typical plot with such mastery that even though you know what is going to happen next, it shocks you all the same. Cronenbergs second commercial film Rabid (1977) takes the epidemic horror film to a new level.

            It shocks me that I could predict the next move while remaining so tightly wound up in the plot that I felt surprise all the same. The predictable quality of the story ceases to matter. The movie gives the audience what it wants. There are really cool looking, gruesomely gorey scenes, that are not cheesy because Cronenberg knows the film he is making. Rabid (1977) is a film that builds suspense with the threat of horror. It does this in such a way that the audience lives fully in the world of the film. The look of the film (the original special effects true only to Cronenberg films) and the dialogue can be cheesy, but that is what makes the film believable. Only Cronenberg has been able to make this cliched and cheesy film realistic, scary, and even touching. The end of the film poignantly reflects on the effects of violence.

            In Cronenberg form, the characters morph from normal citizens to sexually free characters obsessed with violence. Cronenberg is able to make a point of the horrors of both worlds. We see this theme through many of his other films (all of the ones I have seen, in fact). Rabid (1977) is amazingly entertaining, and has a point as well.

~Kristen Gorlitz