If you're reading this and haven't seen or heard of the movie, Silent Light, you might want to check out the links to some reviews of the movie provided below.
--Jim Juhnke
--The Mennonite
--Roger Ebert, Chicago Suntimes
--Seattle Times
--Oregonian
--film.com
--Parallax View
To get the discussion started I've decided to post this email dialog between Diane and myself. You may leave your own message at the bottom of this post.
Diane: I watched it again tonight, but I don't think I'm any closer to understanding it or answering your questions. But I have one -- do traditional Mennonites drone like that at wakes? Sounds very Jewish to my ears.
Clif: It's interesting to note that the review from film.com said that it's apparent from the movie "that the Mennonites aren't in it for the music." That style of "Foresinger and response" singing is still typical among Amish. I understand it was typical in Mennonite churches (and many other rural chruches) until near the end of the of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries when Mennonites learned how to sing four part harmony. There was actually some resistance to four part singing because it was considered to be "worldly" and people who did it were being "prideful." These were things that Mennonites believed to be sinful.
Clif: What do you suppose is the meaning of the stopping of the clock near the beginning of the movie, and then the starting of the clock near the end of the movie?
Diane: Clocks (time) symbolize life & death. I don't remember when the clock stopped at the beginning, but it started up again after Esther forgave John -- grace, I guess, gets life flowing, or something like that.
Clif: The clock was stopped by Johan at the very beginning of the movie. After the family has left, he's sitting at the kitchen table alone, he gets up and places a chair under the clock, he gets up on the chair, and stops the pendulum of othe clock. Then he sits down in the chair and begins to cry. I think that everything that happens between the stopping of the clock and the starting of the clock near the end is his imagination or in his mind so to speak. That would justify the dream like quality to much of the rest of the movie. Furthermore, I think it is no accident that Esther and Marianne have similar appearances. I think he is imagining how he wishes his wife Esther could be. It sort of fits then at the end of the movie that it is Marianne that comes and brings life back to Esther, and then apparently disappears from the scene.
Diane: I like your dream theory. It's certainly a better explanation than mine. I missed Johan stopping the clock at the beginning, but that is where the dream (or nightmare) begins. When Esther is having her heart attack in the blinding rainstorm she says "I'm so cold, Johan." Maybe that was also her realization of repressed feelings in all departments! Who knows? Whatever the ultimate meaning was, or the expanded metaphor, it's a film that leaves a deep imprint. I'd be interested to hear what any of your other viewers think.
Clif: What's the meaning of the scene where he drives his pickup in circles while the camera rotates to follow?
Diane: Running in circles I guess. No answers at that point of the film, just a constant circling around the questions.
Clif: Good idea. I think I can make that fit into my dream theory.
Clif: And why the different weather and seasons of the year for different scenes? The snow covered winter scene sure didn't look like Mexico to me.
Diane: All that is a mystery to me too. The seasons even go backwards at one point -- snow, then the corn harvest. Maybe it's just that even the seasons are not flowing along naturally, maybe the seasons are the seasons in people's heads. It's all jumbled. In winter everything appears dead. Not a clue why autumn would follow winter. Maybe things are backwards in some metaphorical way.
Clif: The change of seasons has more to do with conditions of the soul than with chronology of time. Winter is the cold "dark night of the soul." Springtime and water is the peaceful family scene. Summer is the "family working together" scene. Rain storm near the end is pain and separation.
Clif: Is this what they call magical realism? Or is surrealism?
Diane: Beats me.
Clif: How about dream like?
Clif: Do you think the guy who wrote the screen play has any idea what it all means?
Diane: He's undoubtedly got themes and effects in mind that he wants to represent visually, but even the great Robert Frost said he didn't realize all the meanings to his poems that people insinuated into them...but he didn't mind either. At base, artists just want to get people thinking and feeling. This is the post-modern thing -- it means what you want it to mean, what works with your experiences.
Diane: Still, on a very basic level, I'd like to know what Johan found in Marianne that he didn't find in Esther. I'm not sure Johan and Esther lived happily ever after either. But no matter what, the sun comes up, the sun sets. Life goes on, & sometimes the dead come back & tell us to get on with life, stop feeling guilty, forgive ourselves.
Clif: I choose to believe that Johan woke up from his dream and carried on as well anyone can live with personal thoughts living in a repressed environment.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
(Leave your own comments in panel provided at the end of the comments.)
10 comments:
The following is an interesting comment about the Mennonite cast used in the movie. Miriam Toews who is cast as Esther in the movie is a well know writer from Canada. I don't know about the woman who plays the part of Marianne, but with a name like Maria Pankratz there must be a Mennonite connection. The following is copied from the following web address:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/090319/
Silent Light, set in a Mennonite farming community in Mexico, is cast with actual believers from Chihuahua who violated their religion’s doctrine against representing the human form in art to participate in the project. (The two female leads were imported from Canada and Germany.) “I am not particularly interested in Mennonites,” Reygadas told Bright Lights. “I like that they are so uniform, so monolithic. They are all dressed the same. They are archetypes: the mother, grandmother, children.” In shooting the film, Reygadas claims, he didn’t tell the actors the story or anything about their characters; he just gave them their lines and their action in the scene. He wants the essence of the moment, and he doesn’t want anyone getting in the way of it.
I just found the following information about Maria Pankratz, the actress that played the part of Marianne in the movie:
Maria Pankratz was born in 1967 in Kazakhstan. She is from the German minority in the country, which was in most cases forcedly migrated there in 1941. In the 90s she moved with her family to Germany. She can speak German, Russian, English, and the Platduits dialect fluently. Her role in the movie Stellet Licht/Luz silenciosa earned her the Premio Ariel by the Mexican Film Academy.
It's difficult to know what to think of the ending. The following quote by John Hartl of the Seattle Times struck me as an elegant description of the ending:
"The film ends on a note of grace and renewal that couldn't be less expected. Indeed, the ending seems, at first, like a technical error. Only gradually does it reveal itself as quite deliberate."
I'm "hung up" on the car ride in the rain. My theory is, Johan and Esther are on their way to a lawyer's office to initiate divorce proceedings. If you agree, then doesn't it seem strange that there is no conversation about this "elephant in the room"? For Esther to feel nauseous and to want Johan to let her out of the car, even in the driving rain, fits my theory, but for her to become so hysterical and to suffer a heart attack seems almost beyond belief. As a divorced and remarried individual, I would say that one basic problem in this marriage, and maybe by extension, in the Mennonite culture depicted in the film, is not enough dialogue, not venting enough emotion, not seeking professional counseling, etc. Being too cold and "reasonable" may actually be toxic; being out-of-control and expressing raw emotion may actually be therapeutic.
And the fact that the word "silence" is in the title of the film is significant to me and my theory: silence is the enemy of good mental health, and one can not truly be alive and live in the truth and light of God if one does not (or can not) express oneself fully and completely. And isn't it stereotypical that the wife is being abandoned so that the husband can express his feelings. Had he known ahead of time what pain this would cause Esther, I think Johan might have behaved differently. And so it is Esther's responsibility to express herself not just for her own mental health, but also for Johan's.
Extending the analogy to colonialism and slavery and imperialism, can all the blame be put on the colonists, the slaveholders, or the empire builders? The objectors, the dissidents, the pacifists must speak up. Britain needed Gandhi to show it a more just solution as much as India needed him to show it a more effective method of resolving conflict.
I've never seen young children eating breakfast so quietly. It's totally unrealistic!
The following is in response to Clif asking if I thought the Mennonite reputation for good singing was tarnished by the comment in the review by film.com that said, "The only actual religious service in the film is a service for the dead, and includes a hymn that will persuade you that Mennonites are not in it for the music."
Clif….first of all…..i guess that isn’t quite what I was saying. I meant to convey that I didn’t think the guy writing the review knew enough about the Mennonites in Mexico and Mennonites in general to say what he said. Since I don’t think Mennonite was mentioned in the movie, unless he did some research he wouldn’t have a clue who the movie was about. It gets dangerous writing about something you know nothing about…..which may be what I’m doing now!
My other observation was that I thought J was a wimp. He was depicted as a “sympathetic” character. (I’m not sure that is the right word) I could feel no sympathy for him. It’s just the same old story of a man feeling that his needs are greater than anyone else. No real thought for his kids and wife….although he keeps saying he loves her.
The most feelings I experienced were when the family was bathing in the river. I think the movie was true to life…...and probably a good depiction of life in the colony. There didn’t seem to be the same “feeling” to the group as you might find in an Amish community. I would expect some humor in that story. There was no humor here.
I liked this movie. It was certainly slow and yet quite absorbing. Clif's idea about the clock is intriguing, and I can see that the movie is easier to understand with the idea that between the time between the clocksetting is all in Johan's imagination. but it still doesn't quite make sense since jonah stops it and then his father restarts it.
I thought the visuals were really impressive. Beautiful photography, though I did feel as if the color must have been enhanced. Why not do it with natural color?
The "funeral room" with it's white on white was powerful!! So also the naturalness of the water in the pool, to say nothing of the dawning and dusk sequences. I liked those long and languid sequences to absorb the experience. grandpa1
The October 20, 2009 issue of the magazine, "The Mennonite," includes an article on pages 16 and 17 about the movie, Silent Light. --Link To Article
The following is a quotation from the article:
This film turns out to be a plain old resurrection story, told with the Pentecostal glossolalia of Latin American magical realism in a Low German dialect."
Hi, Clif,
It's interesting that you should post on this subject the day before
our small group of Mennonite-reared folk will be watching this movie.
I appreciate the links you provided and will share some of what's in
them with the group, as appropriate.
And provide a few more links and suggestions which I myself found
helpful in approaching "Silent Light."
First, if you nave Netflix, I highly recommend you get and watch the
1955 Danish film, "Ordet." Reading reviews of "Silent Light," I
discovered that Reygadas was influenced by this film. Which is
obvious in its film technique, themes, and plot, particularly the
surprising ending. For people who haven't seen either movie, I won't
describe that ending. But say that "Ordet" like "Silent Light"
explores issues of spirituality, human failings, and redemption.
I.e., a father in an apparently rural area lives with his three sons.
The oldest, who has a pregnant wife whose role is significantly
similar to Esther's in "Silent Light," is a good man who has lost his
faith. Another son, for most of the film, wanders about saying he is
Jesus and making various kinds of religious observations. The
youngest son wants to marry the daughter of a neighbor, a man who
rejects this suit because they come from different kinds of churches.
I sensed some Inmar Bergman here, as I did also when I saw "Silent
Light," not then having seen "Ordet."
Second, I found an interesting interview with the director Reygadas
after his first two films, "Japon" and "Battle in Heaven" but before
"Silent Light."
http://www.close-upfilm.com/features/Interviews/carlosreygadas.htm
--LINK TO INTERVIEW
This interview contains some interesting information about his film
technique, particularly his use of amateurs rather then professional
actors, in all three of his films, I believe. E.g.:
"I would say that my point of departure is the Kuleshov effect*, which for me is a complete insight into the essence of character
construction in cinema. For me it shouldn't have anything to do with
the theatre method of character construction but unfortunately this is how the characters are constructed still in cinema today. The method is basically not giving psychological information to actors, just giving them practical, spatial, temporal information and then letting the editing and the whole of the cinematic process construct the characters. So this is why I don't give them the screenplay or do any rehearsals or give them any psychological background of the characters at all, not even who they are. I would rather trust the energy that the actors give off by the fact that they just exist. This is the method. This is why I don't want them to express emotions. I think that a stronger kind of emotion can pass through if they don't express emotion. Unfortunately this pushes away some viewers who are not willing to accept different codes compared to what they're used to but, well, it's a price to pay."
* The construction of meaning through the juxtaposition of images
(montage) to create ideas not present in either image by itself.
And also:
"Narrative for me is just a vehicle that is probably an evil but a
necessary evil. You do need a story but I don't care about story
because I know that the same story told in a mediocre way is mediocre and the same story told properly is a great story. So I really feel much closer to painting or music where narrative is not important.
Some people think that narrative is important in painting but I don't
think that it is. When I go with my mother, who is a psychologist, to
see paintings by Rubens she's always saying which particular myth a
painting is from. I always say don't be so bothered about who the
people are: just watch the painting and feel it."
(THIS IS THE END OF THE FIRST HALF OF COMMENTS FROM PHYLLIS. IT NEEDED TO BE DIVIDED BECAUSE OF A SIZE LIMITATION OF THIS BLOG SITE. THE SECOND HALF CONTINUES BELOW.)
Phyllis again:
Two nights ago I watched Reygadas' "Battle in Heaven" (which like lots of other films, especially foreign films, can now be watched instantly streaming direct to your computer from the Netflix server). I do not recommend this movie for those who dislike graphic sex and violence. And as Reygadas is an effective image creator, I found many images in this film stayed with me longer than I wished. Not because I object to graphic sex in movies but because of the way it is presented here. Nevertheless, I see the film as exploring some of the same themes--religion, especially religious ritual, human failings, and their relationship to the larger community. But for me at least the title of this film, "Battle of Heaven" is ironic. To me, this movie
presents a picture of hell.
And the contrasts with "Silent Light" were for me telling. "Battle in Heaven" takes place in a large city, likely Mexico City; a world of class divisions and animosities, with little or no sense of community or mutual responsibility or human caring. And in "Silent Light," I think Reygados is positing the Mennonite world as its direct opposite. Not so much as a "heaven," but rather an Eden. And even in this Eden, Reygados is suggesting, Adam will fall. For me, his attitude toward his Adam as well as the two women in his life, is very sympathetic. Because their "fall" is so very inevitable and "natural."
Obviously, to my way of thinking, the movie presents an oversimplified idealization of Mennonite communities. But I think that he wanted this kind of natural communal vision to focus our attention primarily on individual human passion, its inevitable appearance and inevitably painful results. In this sense, the film somewhat resembled Greek tragedy for me---except for the ending, which I will not describe because it would be a spoiler.
"The following articles are in many ways congruent with my observations, I think:
"The Miraculous Sublime in Director Carlos Reygadas' Stelle Licht:
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/648320
--LINK TO VILLAGE VOICE ARTICLE
Ad "The Incarnate Transcendence of Ordet"
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/28/ordet.html
--LINK TO SENSES OF CINEMA ARTICLE
Phyllis again:
I do find some things about Reygados' modus operandi troubling. E.g. in the way he uses his amateur actors. And his apparent insistence that what they do on screen is for the most part "real" rather than staged. For this reason, while I stumbled into the disturbing images of "Battle in Heaven," I do not plan to watch "Japon," which apparently portrays animal cruelty.
Post a Comment