“In the Mood for Love” - Wong Kar Wai (2000)

In the 1990s the uniquely romantic films of Wong Kar Wai (Wáng Jia-wèi) burst upon the scene as almost a new form of cinematic expression, something like a Hong Kong nouvelle vagueEach of his films during this period – As Tears Go By (1988), Days of Being Wild (1990), Ashes of Time (1994), Chungking Express (1994), Fallen Angels (1995), and Happy Together (1997) – featured Wong’s moody depictions of amorous yearning that seem to wander about in search of any form of structured plot [1].  His In the Mood for Love (Faa Yeung Nin Wa, 2000) was a continuation of this style and is perhaps the Wong film we remember the most.

For all of his films, Wong would begin shooting without having a script in hand and would more or less make things up a he went along.  What he did have in mind was not really a story (in its usual sense) but a mood.  So he would reshoot scenes many times looking for a particular angle that he had only vaguely in mind and had not pre-articulated.  Naturally this usually led to enormous shooting ratios and schedule overruns.  For example the shooting of In the Mood for Love took 15 months.  The results are not to all tastes.  Some people find his films aimless and boring; others find his films richly rewarding [2].  I am one of the latter type, and I think Wong’s films push the boundaries of creative cinematic expression.

Films often have two main narrative threads: one involving some quest in the external world and another focused on the (usually romantic) relationship between two principal characters. Both threads have a goal, a target to be reached, with possible adversaries potentially blocking attainment of the goals.  With Wong films, however, any external goals are obscure, and the focus is almost entirely on the relationship thread.  But the relationship thread lacks clearly defined goals, too, and often doesn’t seem to go anywhere.  Nevertheless, there is something unusually enchanting about Wong’s stories all the same.  He is always the Master of the Broken Heart.

In the Mood for Love represented to some extent the epitome of Wong’s moody style, taking his aesthetic expression of unfulfilled longing to its furthest point. As usual with Wong, the film featured big-name Hong Kong (and often Cantopop) stars, in this case Maggie Cheung (Maggie Cheung Man-yuk) and Tony Leung (Tony Chiu Wai Leung).  And once again Wong worked with his usual creative assistants:
  • Christopher Doyle, the wondrously expressive cinematographer whose camera stylistics were always an integral part of Wong’s mise-en-scene.  On this occasion, though, because Wong’s off-the-cuff directorial style led to 15 months of shooting, which interfered with prearranged Doyle commitments, Doyle had to leave the project before shooting was finished.  His replacement was the equally gifted Mark Lee Ping Bin, who was Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s regular cinematographer. So Doyle and Lee Ping Bin shared the cinematography credits for this film.
     
  • William Chang, who is credited with both production design and film editing.
What they create is a melancholy embodiment of urban alienation.  A key feature of this is Wong’s depiction of the always-crowded nature of city life.  In Wong’s environments, space is so cramped, one can barely move around or even find a place to sit; and privacy, as well as private spaces, are out of the question.  This is particularly the case and almost a signature aspect of life in Hong Kong, and it was probably doubly intense there in the 1960s, when this film is set.  Wong’s family had immigrated to Hong Kong from Shanghai in 1963, when he was five years old, and his experiences growing up in that environment probably left their mark on him [3]. His early Wong-style breakout film Days of Being Wild was also set in Hong Kong in 1960.

This alienation, and hence internalization, is enhanced by both the sentimental soundtrack music and the short depth-of-focus interior cinematography. The lack of privacy feeling and reflective alienation is accentuated by all the mirror reflections shown in the shots where the two principal characters are alone together.  These are trademark Wong effects. But there are some interesting narrative innovations, too:
  • For example there is no voiceover narration expressing the internal thoughts and feelings of a principal character, as is common in Wong’s earlier films.  So the narrative witness doesn’t get a special perch inside the thoughtful mind (i.e. expressible in text) of any character.  All the narrative witness has available are the external images (which, admittedly given the above-mentioned mise-en-scene, are expressionistic) and the music.
     
  • But even with respect to the external images, the narrative witness (i.e. the viewer) doesn’t get any visual exposure to something crucial that we know must affect the feelings of the two principal characters, Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan.  Both of them are hurt by their respective spouses’ marital infidelities, and they must often be thinking of their spouses and what led them to be unfaithful. Yet the viewer is never shown the faces of the two adulterous partners; we are only left to imagine what they might look like.
These two narrative effects are curious, because they somewhat distance the viewer from the focalization of interest – what is going on inside the minds of the two protagonists.  All the viewer has available to digest are the polite social gestures, which are made in the context of a not-so-private social environment.  So the viewer, like the two protagonists, must try to make out the extent of any amorous feelings on the part of the other in a somewhat constricted environment. Note that from I have been told, the lack of privacy, as characterized in the West, is a generic characteristic of Chinese society. One must operate there largely in a public space, and maintaining appearances and decorum is an important concern for social survival.

All of these circumstances and expressionistic effects combine to give one the feeling of being on the verge of falling in love.  This, of course, is a magical, thrilling feeling, but it is often only momentary. It is a tipping point that cannot last – either it happens or it doesn’t happen.  It then moves on to some other, more stable state.  Even films that capture this moment, such as Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), only hold on to it for a moment. In contrast, the beauty of Wong’s In the Mood for Love is that this knife-edge tipping point of falling in love is maintained for much of the entire film.  That makes the film a rare viewing experience.

Although the film, like most of Wong’s films, doesn’t have a clearly structured plot (that is why Wong can add or delete scenes in the editing stage without much change to overall presentation), we can identify five general phases through which the narrative passes.

1.  Meeting in Hong Kong, 1962

In the beginning it is 1962, and a young woman, Su Li-zhen (played by Maggie Cheung), who is also referred to as Mrs. Chan, arranges to rent an available room for herself and her husband from an apartment owner, Mrs. Suen, in crowded Hong Kong.  Almost at the same time a young man, Chow Mo-wan (Tony Leung), also seeks a room for himself and his wife and finds that the next-door apartment, owned by the Koos, has a single room available. So Su and Chow move in and become neighbors and, given the crowded apartment conditions, occasionally bump into each other.

We soon learn that both Su Li-zhen’s husband and Chow’s wife have jobs that involve business trips and night shifts that often keep them away from home.   So Su and Chow frequently find themselves separately going to a local noodle shop for dinner and sometimes run into each other there.

Note that Maggie Cheung also appeared in Wong’s Days of Being Wild, which was made a decade earlier but which was also set in Hong Kong in 1960.  In addition, Cheung’s character in that film had the same name, Su Li-zhen.  This has led a number of reviewers to presume that the two roles are the same character [4].  I don’t think so, however. The two characters played by Cheung are quite different – they dress and act very differently, and, of course, Cheung is now ten years older.  I think it is more a matter of Wong making a sly reference (or homage) to another of his works, something that he has done many times (see, for example my review of Fallen Angels).

2.  Discovering Infidelity
In the second phase of the film, Chow and Su gradually suspect that their two spouses (whose faces are never shown in the film – they are only sometimes fleetingly seen from behind) are having an extra-marital affair with each other.  Finally Chow invites Su out to dinner, and they share and confirm their  suspicions.  But now they are getting to know each other more and seem to tentatively be attracted to each other.

3.  A Growing Relationship
Su and Chow are still only politely acquainted, but they start doing little favors for each other.  Chow gets Su to agree to help him with his project of writing a wuxia (Asian martial arts) serial.  But their meetings have to be clandestine given their nosey landlords and neighbors.  Eventually Chow rents a hotel room where they can meet and work on his wuxia writing.  Su cautiously agrees, but assures him, “we won’t be like them”, meaning they will not stoop to the sordid level of their marriage partners. 

The hotel room where they meet has a room number of 2046, which has special meaning for Hong Kongers, since that is the date when Hong Kong’s right to maintain a separate administrative and economic system expires. The scenes shot in this room are particularly atmospheric because of the short-focus and moving-camera cinematography in the context of numerous mirrors.  The multiple mirror images intensify the growing sense of attraction between Chow and Su, and this is a film highlight.

These trysts are finally interfered with when the busybody Mrs. Suen lectures Su about her unseemly practice of going out alone at night.  Chow and Su do have further meetings, though, but they are only by happenstance and still clandestine.  Finally Chow tells Su that he is going to take an indefinite posting in Singapore, because he knows that the cautious Su will never have the guts to leave her husband.  He also finally admits to her that he loves her.

4.  Singapore, 1963
As he is about to leave, Chow invites Su to go with him to Singapore.  She hesitates, and when she finally goes to see Chow, he has already left.  This whole phase of the film is a series of missed opportunities for the two of them finally getting together.  It is clear that they love each other, but social propriety holds them back from making the definitive gesture.  Su had earlier been given a free boat ticket to Singapore, and she does go, but again they don’t make the true connection.

On one occasion in Singapore while conversing with his colleague Ping, Chow tells him despondently how in “the old days” people would bury a secret.  They would carve a hole in the trunk of a remote mountain tree, whisper their secret into the hole, and then fill the hole up with dirt and depart forever.  Such is Chow’s sad mood of melancholic resignation.

5. 1966
The story then jumps forward to 1966.  Su, after a long absence and now with a small son, returns to visit Mrs. Suen and learns that the woman is moving away.  So Su inquires about buying Mrs. Suen’s apartment.  Shortly thereafter Chow returns and visits the next-door Koo apartment, where he learns that the Koos have moved away and that the next-door apartment formerly occupied by the Suens is now occupied by a young woman and her son (suggesting that Su is no longer with her husband).  Chow looks at the apartment door where Su presumably lives, but he doesn’t make the connection, and he passes by without knocking.

The closing scenes show Chow visiting the Angkor Wat ruins in Cambodia.  Angkor Wat, a colossal, now-empty 900-year-old Hindu and Buddhist temple complex, is itself a haunting site that you must visit someday.  It evokes in the mind a vast lost world of innumerable stories and secrets.  Chow finds a hole in one of the temple columns and whispers his secret into it. Then he fills the hole with dirt.  And so the mystery of Angkor Wat reminds us of the boundless world of irrecoverable memories.


In the Mood for Love is very much an extended voyage into melancholia.  Throughout the film it sustains a feeling of hopeful yearning for the unearthly experience of love.  It never arrives at the hoped-for destination, though, and leaves one suspended on the knife-edge of falling in love but never arriving at a blissful state. Rather than a conventional narrative account, it has the feel like a series of impressionistic recollections.  Thus to some extent we might say that the film is the ultimate expression of Wong’s romantic expressiveness, and accordingly the film has never lost its appeal.  It is ranked 24th on British Film Institute’s 2012 critics’ list of all-time greatest films, which is the highest rated film from the 21st century [5].
                           
As for me, I liked the film even more on the second viewing.  It is an enduring mood piece that artfully links sound and image to create a feeling of an imminent losing of oneself into love’s ecstatic embrace.  Two memorable aspects of the film come particularly to mind.  One is the soulful music, especially the recurring mournful cello music of “Yumeji’s Theme”, which comes to stand for the lovers’ doomed romantic inclinations.  There is also the velvety music of Nat King Cole that suggests an otherworldly romantic innocence far removed from our world of mundane activities [6].

Another key element of the film is the subtle and touching performance of Maggie Cheung as Su Li-zhen. Perpetually clad in long, body-hugging cheongsam gowns, which gracefully display her svelte and sensuous figure, Cheung seems to be an ideal personification here of civilized sensibility.  The cheongsam gown, by the way, was something of a symbol of the modern Chinese woman and became popular in Hong Kong after 1949 when Shainghainese emigrants brought with them the fashion that was then discouraged back in China by the new Communist government.

One can view a few deleted scenes from In the Mood for Love, which are available on distributed DVDs.  Some of them show Chow and Su consummating their love, others show them meeting again in the 1970s and dispassionately revealing how much they have changed since those old days.  However much those scenes may fill in the gaps of a narrative that the viewer may want to learn more about, Wong was wise to leave them out.  The package that he released instead was the ultimate, resonant cinematic embodiment of the haunting “Yumeji’s Theme”.
★★★★

Notes:
  1. Kent Jones, “Of Love and the City”, Film Comment, (January/February 2001). 
  2. Steve Erickson, “In the Mood for Love: Haunted Heart”, The Criterion Collection, (2 October 2012). 
  3. Stephen Teo, “Wong Kar-wai’s In the Mood for Love: Like a Ritual in Transfigured Time”, Senses of Cinema, (April 2001).   
  4. Li Cheuk-to, “In the Mood for Love”, The Criterion Collection, (4 March 2002). 
  5. “Critics’ Top 100", Analysis: The Greatest Films of All Time 2012, Sight and Sound, British Film Institute, (2012).
  6. Joanna C. Lee, “Music from In the Mood for Love”, Notes on the Music,  In the Mood for Love, The Web Site, Wong Kar-Wai, (n.d.).  

“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” - Sergio Leone (1966)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo, 1966) was the third installment of Sergio Leone’s famous Man with No Name Trilogy (aka Dollars Trilogy), whose earlier offerings were A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and For a Few Dollars More (1965). Although at the outset Leone did not have the intention of fashioning a trilogy and the plots of the three films were not serially connected, they all featured the same iconic lead – the laconic gunslinger, “The Man With No Name”, played by Clint Eastwood.  Also, because they were Italian productions and were all released in the US in a single year, 1967, American critics began referring to them (and their subsequent Italian progeny) collectively as “Spaghetti Westerns”.

Each successive film in the series was more grandiose and had more than double the budget of its predecessor.  But each one still had Leone’s distinctive cinematic stylistics:
  • wide-view long shots tightly intercut with sequences of extreme closeups.  These are used to orchestrate the numerous and deadly man-to-man confrontations in the story.
  • an episodic plot structure operating in the context of some predominant issue (usually money), with each episode culminating in a confrontation.
  • scenic landscapes and settings that immerse and isolate the viewer in an atmospheric context.
  • moody, evocative soundtrack music by Leone’s longtime friend and former classmate Ennio Morricone.
  • And always there is the Man with No Name, whose gunshot marksmanship (along with that of other key principals in the stories) is impossibly accurate at long distances, while there thuggish adversaries always miss.
All of these effects combine to establish a highly expressionistic interior landscape for the viewer, who becomes completely immersed in all the tense psychological confrontations that arise. In some respects we might refer to the whole collection of these effects as “operatic” and somehow appropriately Italianate, considering their source. In any case Leone was a master of this expression, and to see one of his films is to enjoy plunging deep into the emotion-laden waters he fashioned. And with each successive output of the Dollars series, Leone went deeper and more emphatically into his form of orgiastic expressionism; so that with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly it was almost reaching self-parody. 

The film’s story concerns the efforts of three ruthless gunslingers who are independently seeking a cache of stolen money.  It was scripted by Leone and Luciano Vincenzoni, with assistance from Agenore Incrocci and Furio Scarpelli. The three desperados are
  • “Blondie” (The Man with No Name, played again by Cline Eastwood).  He is calm, calculating, and merciless.  Since among the three main characters he is the least evil, he represents “The Good” in this story.
     
  • “Angel Eyes” (Lee Van Cleef) is a cold-blooded and sadistic psychopath who, unlike Blondie, seems to take pleasure in carrying out his hired assassinations.  His nickname is a cynical reference, because his eyes are not so much angelic as they are demonic.  So he is “The Bad” in this story.
     
  • Tuco (Eli Wallach) is the stereotypical Mexican scoundrel. Although he is also a vicious criminal, he is not so cool and cold-blooded as Blondie and Angel Eyes.  He likes to ingratiate himself with others, but he is clearly a phony who will double-cross at the least opportunity.  He is also obsessed with his own low-standing dignity and is eager to take revenge when he feels insulted.  When he does take his revenge, he goes overboard in mocking and insulting his adversary.  At the same time he will try to take advantage of anything that could be of use, no matter what.  Thus whenever he is around death, he is reminded to make the Christian Sign of the Cross, just in case that gesture might gain him some protection from God. Thus he represents “The Ugly”.
Since Eastwood and Van Cleef appeared together in the preceding For a Few Dollars More, one is tempted to link the two stories, especially since both characters wear pretty much the same outfits in the two films (Van Cleef is always the “man in black”). However, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is set during the US Civil War (1861-1865), almost a decade earlier than the time setting of For a Few Dollars More, so at best it would have to be considered a prequel.  But even this linkage is weak, because the two characters played by Van Cleef are very different in the two films.  In For a Few Dollars More Van Cleef plays Colonel Douglas Mortimer, a former Confederate Army officer and a more principled individual; whereas in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly as Angel Eyes, he is a sometime officer in the opposing Union army and a cruel sadist.

In any case what distinguished The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from the earlier films is the utterly uncool character of Tuco.  He occupies a considerable amount of the narrative, and his psychological vulnerability becomes a focus of the viewer’s attention as the story moves along.  Some people might be put off by the stock characterization of Tuco and see it as an example of ethnic bigotry.  It is interesting that the actor in this part, Eli Wallach, was Jewish and famous for playing stock characters of a number of different types.  On the whole I would say that Wallach’s performance here is very good, and even in spite of the oftentimes over-the-top characterization, his Tuco essentially energizes the entire story.  This turns out to be both a strength and a weakness of the film.

If there is an overriding theme to Leone’s tale, it might be about death, itself.  Throughout the story there are people being killed in a matter-of-fact fashion, and the total body count is very high.  This suggests a cavalier, even flippant, attitude towards death.  On the other hand, maybe that is the film’s sardonic and self-mocking point.  The artificial notion of the Western Hero is held up to ridicule in Leone’s films as merely a hollow justification for mindlessly lethal violence.  And this point is further hammered home by the film’s showing how still more absurd is the notion of war heroism and even the very idea that war has any justification at all. The film is set in the midst of the US Civil War and provides a sample illustration of how a country with a population of less than 35 million could engage itself in the senseless process of self-mutilation that led to 750,000 war deaths.

The story of the film passes through roughly six episodic stages.
1.  Introducing the Three Principals
The film begins with a classic Leone opening scene showing a murderous confrontation without dialogue.  Three bounty hunters have come to kill the wanted criminal Tuco, but Tuco shoots them and manages to escape. 
Then in a separate episode, the deadly contract killer Angel Eyes confronts a man named Stevens.  Only via a lengthy process of slow disclosure will the viewer eventually learn that three men – Stevens, Baker, and Jackson, the latter of whom has changed his name to Bill Carson – stole a large sum of money from the Confederate Army. This money will be the target prize for the three principals of this story.  Angel Eyes has been contracted by Baker to kill Stevens and then coerces Stevens to contract him to kill Baker, after which he kills both of them and gets doubly paid.

The third episode of this act introduces Blondie.  The wanted man Tuco has at this point been captured by three more bounty hunters, but Blondie intervenes and kills them.  Then he captures Tuco and turns him in to the local sheriff to get his $2,000 reward.  But when Tuco is about to be publicly hanged in the center of town, the precision marksman Blondie shoots from a distance through the hangman’s rope, enabling Tuco to escape.  Blondie’s intention is to repeatedly run a scam operation, turning Tuco into the authorities to collect his reward and then freeing him at the hanging site so that they can split the reward and do it all over again.  However, Tuco proves to be too cantankerous for Blondie to tolerate, so he cold-bloodedly takes the still hand-cuffed Tuco out into the desert some 70 miles from town and leaves him there to die.

So at this point we know how vicious and cold-hearted each of the three protagonists is.

2.  Tuco’s Vengeful Pursuit
Tuco somehow manages to make it back to town alive, and he is determined to take out his revenge on Blondie.  This is the subject of the second act, with a considerable focus on Tuco.  Although Blondie kills the henchmen assassins Tuco hired, Tuco does capture Blondie in another confrontation, but his repeated attempts to execute Blondie are interrupted by extraneous war-related events.  Through one of these events, Tuco learns from the dying Bill Carson that there is a treasure buried under a grave at the Sad Hill Cemetery.  However, only Blondie, still Tuco’s  captive, manages to serendipitously find out under which of the many graves in the vast cemetery is the treasure buried.  Blondie, of course, refuses to tell Tuco what he knows, so the two of them have to work together from now on. Being unprincipled opportunists, these two once-sworn enemies have no problems now becoming allies.

3.  War Interruption 1
Tuco and Blondie, now wearing stolen Confederate army uniforms, get captured by a passing Union army and placed in a prison camp, which, as it oddly turns out, happens to be overseen by Angel Eyes, who is now operating as a Union army officer.  Seeking information about the treasure, the sadistic Angel Eyes has Tuco cruelly tortured in a lengthy scene lasting eight minutes.  As in past Leone films, the torture portrayed would kill ordinary people.  Tuco survives, but reveals everything he knows.

Angel Eyes now dispatches his deputy to take Tuco on a train back to a town to be hanged.  Then he decides to team up with Blondie to find the buried treasure.  Again the unscrupulous scoundrels change partners at the first opportunity.

4.  Shifting Alliances
In the fourth act the alliances will shift once again.  Tuco manages to miraculously jump from his train, kill Angel Eyes’s deputy, and escape. He makes it to town and encounters a previously-seen bounty hunter who appears ready to kill him.  But in a memorable moment, the bounty hunter first taunts Tuco, who then shoots him dead, after which he admonishes the corpse,

    “When you have to shoot, shoot! Don’t talk.”

Meanwhile Blondie, not trusting Angel Eyes and his five henchmen, chooses to bolt.  He runs into the just-escaped Tuco, and the two of them decide to reunite and work against Angel Eyes.  In a typical Leone-styled shootout, they knock off Angel Eyes’s men one by one, but Angel Eyes, himself, gets away.  So they decide to head for the Sad Hill Cemetery.

5.  War Interruption 2
Before they can get to the cemetery, though, they are captured again by the Union army, and we come to Leone’s anti-war segment of the film.  The Union and Confederate armies are engaged in a mutually annihilating slaughter over the control of a bridge.  Blondie and Tuco need to get to the other side of the river, but they cannot go anywhere while the two armies are relentlessly engaged in suicide charges.  So they decide to blow up the bridge with stolen war explosives; and once they do so, the senseless killing stops, and the two armies withdraw.

6.  Finale at the Sad Hill Cemetery
The last act, for which the viewer has been waiting for more than two hours, takes place at the cemetery, where Blondie, Tuco, and Angel Eyes converge.  And Leone plays it up for all it is worth.  When Tuco arrives at the cemetery, he begins running desperately, searching for what he thinks is the right grave (but, of course, he has been deceived by Blondie).  As he does so, the camera begins panning past the graves he is running past, and the swirling images lapse into a deliriously accelerating montage that lasts for three minutes.

When Blondie, Angel Eyes, and Tuco finally confront each other and are ready to draw their guns, they move into a classic three-way Mexican standoff.  Nobody will die until somebody makes the first move, but each has to decide at whom he will take aim.  Leone builds up the tension by showing a shifting montage of momentary extreme closeups of the three desperados lasting more two minutes.  This is probably the most memorable sequence (among many candidates) of the film. Then the shootout ensues. In the end they do find the money, but you will have to see for yourself who winds up with it.
Perhaps the outstanding feature of the film is the way the cinematography and editing build up psychic tension throughout the tale.  Famed cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli was working on his first Leone film, but he would continue to do the cinematography for Leone’s three remaining features. One aspect of this camera work I particularly liked was the way the extreme closeups have the characters almost, but not quite, looking straight into the camera.  This has a slightly unnerving effect on the viewer that heightens the tension.  And all of these shots are tightly integrated into the flow by the editing of Eugenio Alabiso and Nino Baragli. 


Perhaps because of this fascinating mise-en-scene, a number of reviewers rate The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as the best film of the Man with No Name trilogy [1,2].  However, although I think this is a good film, I still think For a Few Dollars More is a more tightly integrated and effective work.  The problem, for me, with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is its self-conscious indulgence in the comedic, and it all comes down to the Tuco character as presented by Eli Wallach. Admittedly Wallach’s performance provides vitality to the film, and his character of Tuco is one that we get to know much better than Blondie and Angel Eyes.  But this spoofing performance interferes with the suspension of disbelief, which is crucial for films of this nature. 

Comparatively speaking, in For a Few Dollars More, the viewer is immersed in a tense and constantly life-threatening world that holds together in the viewer’s mind.  Not so in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, where the coherence of such a tense world is constantly mocked.  In For a Few Dollars More, death is a disturbing possibility that might appear at any time, but it is more often a threat and not always a desired goal.  In The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, death becomes a joke, a game earnestly pursued by all three principal characters.  Depending on your tastes, you might buy into this spoofing, but such a flippant approach undermines the overall effectiveness of the expressionistic presentation.

Sergio Leone’s movement towards the self-parody seen here in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly would not continue, however.  His best films, Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984), were still to come, and they presented further expansions of his expressionistic scope.
★★★

Notes:
  1. Murtaza Ali Khan, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966): Sergio Leone's Epic Tale of Greed and Betrayal”, A Potpourri of Vestiges, (March 2012). 
  2. Roger Ebert, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, Rogerebert.com, (3 August 2003).  

Ebrahim Golestan

About Ebrahim Golestan:


Films of Ebrahim Golestan:

"The Brick and the Mirror" - Ebrahim Golestan (1965)

Ebrahim Golestan’s remarkable first dramatic feature, The Brick and the Mirror (Khesht va Ayeneh, 1965), is sometimes seen as a groundbreaking early work of modern Iranian cinema.  But I would go further and say it stands as one of the great films on any world stage. It certainly deserves a wider viewing audience if a digitally restored version of the print can be made available.

Golestan, born in 1922, established himself early on as a writer, translator, photographer, and documentary filmmaker [1,2]. He set up his own film production company in 1956, and in 1958 met and hired the brilliant young woman poet Forough Farrokhzad, who aspired to be a filmmaker and with whom he began a romantic and working partnership that continued until her tragic death nine years later [3].  They collaborated on her mesmerizing documentary film, The House is Black (Khaneh Syah Ast, 1962) and soon began working together on Golestan’s initial feature film, The Brick and the Mirror, in 1963.  They started production shooting with only the first nightmarish scene in script form, and they improvised the rest of the narrative as they went along [4]. Given some of the film’s interesting personal thematic elements, I suspect that Farrokzhad’s’ contributions to the story were significant [5].

The story of the film concerns a taxi driver in Tehran who discovers that a woman passenger (played by Forough Farrokhzad) has left a small baby in the backseat of his cab.  After his frantic attempts to track down the woman fail, he is faced with the problem of what to do with the child.  The rest of the film is concerned with his efforts to do the right thing and at the same time stay out of trouble.

The loneliness of the nocturnal urban milieu evoked in the early scenes of the film may remind some viewers of past American movies set in the “asphalt jungle”, and indeed Tehran was a rapidly growing metropolis going through the same depersonalization processes that had beset cities the world over. Given the city’s underdeveloped mass transit facilities at the time, the streets were crowded with cars and taxis, and being a taxidriver there was a reasonably lucrative, if exhausting, way for an uneducated man to make a living. But taxi drivers were also perpetual witnesses to the stress and alienation of the big city.

Perhaps from considerations along these lines, some reviewers see The Brick and the Mirror as being concerned with social issues in pre-revolutionary Iran [1].  But for me the film’s themes run more along existentialist lines, and a more interesting comparison would be to Taxi Driver (1976).  In fact given that both Taxi Driver’s director, Martin Scorcese, and its scriptwriter, Paul Schrader, were graduates of famous academic film schools, I wonder if they had been exposed to and influenced by The Brick and the Mirror prior to the making of their film.

In some ways, though, The Brick and the Mirror concerns more universal aspects of existence even than Taxi Driver, and to me it had perhaps greater affinities with Antonioni’s L’Avventura (1960). Both L’Avventura and The Brick and the Mirror are primarily concerned with love and what it means to love. And the ways they explore and engage us concerning this topic are what makes them both great films.

A key aspect to any love concerns commitment: to what extent is one going to permanently lock down his or her life and devote it to one person. Given the ephemerality of most love relationships, young people are understandably cautious on this score.  But commitment is not just something concerned with love; it is a major issue with respect to all of modern life.  Given the relatively higher degree of autonomy that modern people have, they need to consider their options carefully at all times.  Keeping one’s options open for as long as possible means keeping the door open to making a decision later in the day, when more information is available to make the right decision.  So delaying commitment is a recommended strategy in connection with many modern activities. In particular, the strategy of delaying commitment is a recognized optimal policy in the field of software engineering [6].  If we can build a software module with a minimally prescribed interface; then we are only committed to the interface, and we can change the module’s internals further on down the line.  Of course we can delay commitment, but we cannot avoid it forever.  At some point we must seize the opportunity and engage.

So young men, in particular, are often committed to delaying commitment, and this goes for romantic relationships as well as everything else in life.  The idea is to keep your options open and make sure that you do not get locked into a disastrous situation. Being a taxidriver is a perfect occupation along these lines.  The driver just takes on short transport jobs and is only committed for the term of that ride.  This way, he doesn’t get locked into an unbearable position.  This is the world view of the main character, Hashem, in The Brick and the Mirror.

The story of the film is told in ten scenes that can be grouped into four acts.  Acts 1 and 3 focus on the protagonist Hashem’s concerns about delaying commitment.  Acts 2 and 4, on the other hand, emphasize, by means of Hashem’s interactions with his girlfriend Taji, the importance of seizing the opportunity, which is the countervailing option to delaying the commitment.

1.  Hashem in the Night with an Unwanted Bundle

In the opening atmospheric night scene the taxidriver Hashem (played by Zackaria Hashemi) takes a woman wearing a chador (a full veil – many middle class women did not wear the chador at this time in Iran) to a dark urban area and drops her off.  After she disappears into the night, he realizes that the woman left a baby in the backseat of his cab.  He runs after her with the baby and comes upon an abandoned building project, but he cannot find her.   Instead he only encounters a couple of lost souls and a forsaken woman who seems to be on the edge of madness.

Not knowing what to do with the abandoned baby, Hashem visits his customary evening hangout, a local nightclub, where his usual drinking companions are gathered. This gang of Damon Runyonesque characters immediately offers him their views on what to do: disengage. They swaggeringly tell him the whole thing is likely to be a trap, and if he tries to find the baby’s mother, he will only get into trouble. One young pal, with a more intellectual bent, waxes eloquently on the virtues of concealing the truth with lies.  All in all, they are telling him to avoid commitment and to keep his options open.

So Hashem takes the baby to the police station, but the officers there offer him no support.  They are only committed to doing the minimal as defined by the law.  Doing the “right thing” is not their concern, it is only a matter of identifying and punishing who is guilty.

2.  Hashem with Taji
Coming out of the police station and still carrying the baby, Hashem meets his girlfriend Taji (Taji Ahmadi), who had been briefly seen earlier at the nightclub.  They argue about what to do with the baby, until Hashem finally accepts that she can come over to his flat for the evening and help him look after the baby.

The 32-minute scene in Hashem’s one-room apartment is beautifully done – it is shot mostly from a low angle and is a film highlight.  Here the story focusses on Taji’s compassionate engagement with the baby and with Hashem, and Taji Ahmadi’s performance in the role is beautiful.  Taji emerges as the narrative counterweight to Hashem and becomes an equal protagonist.  Hashem loves Taji, but it only for the present moment; there is no commitment for tomorrow.  He has too many practical concerns to worry about: his limited funds, the always-watchful and intrusive neighbors, and the dangers lurking around the next corner.  For her part, Taji loves Hashem, but for her it is different – it is all the way.  She wants to cast her fate to a life with him.  And she feels the baby offers them a heaven-sent opportunity to engage together deeply with life.

There is a beautiful two-minute shot of Taji, with Hashem’s help, attending to the baby.  Then there is an extended scene of the two of them in bed in the dark – wonderfully performed and unusual in Iranian cinema. Taji later tells Hashem that the baby watched them making love and approved, thereby confirming and sealing their family union.

In the morning Hashem is shown self-absorbedly doing his daily bodybuilding exercises by swinging traditional meel weights.  He then goes out with the baby, telling Taji not to go out of the apartment alone during daylight, when nosey neighbors might see her and draw dark conclusions. 

3.  Hashem at the Government Offices
Hashem takes the baby to a hospital, but they won’t accept her unless she is proven to have no identified parents. Like the police, they don’t want to engage with Hashem’s human problem; they already have too many problems with abandoned babies to deal with.  So he has to go to the government law offices and seek an affidavit verifying the baby’s parentless situation. 

At the government tribunal offices, there is an extended montage showing Hashem wandering from room to room looking for the right person to talk to.  He finally approaches a well-dressed and clearly lettered man filling out a form at a public writing stand, and he asks the man if he would write a letter for him.  It as at this point that Hashem is revealed to be functionally illiterate.  Hashem wants the man to write him a formal letter to the tribunal office requesting authority to adopt the baby. Being unmarried, he cannot mention Taji in the application letter, and so he has to ask if he can adopt the baby on his own.  Anyway, momentarily at least, he seems to have succumbed to Taji’s wishes.

However, the lettered man dismisses Hashem’s plans as foolhardy. Raising a baby is only trouble, he tells him, and it will diminish his freedom. Again, as in Act 1, Hashem gets a strong warning to avoid commitment.

4.  Hashem Returns to Taji

When Hashem returns to his flat, Taji tells him that she loves him and asks about the baby.  To her horror, he tells her that he just dropped the baby off at an orphanage. There is then another beautifully shot and extended scene showing the two of them arguing about the baby. To Taji the baby represented all of her dreams of being with Hashem. The baby was to be the seed and the bond of their married life together. To Hashem the baby only meant trouble and was a problem that he had now solved.  He did not want bad things to happen. But this is where Taji’s point is eloquently made, when she tells him,
“If you let things happen to you, you’re lost.”
In other words, you have to take action.  And when he dismisses her wacky dream of the two of them raising the baby together, she tells him,
“To be awake you must dream.”
Since he has so rudely thrown away her beautiful dream, she tells him that he is only a coward and that they should break up.  She asks him to take her to the orphanage to see the baby.

In the 12-minute scene in the orphanage, Taji, on her own now, sees all the innocent babies there looking to play and be hugged, and she becomes increasingly despondent. This is an emotive and rueful scene suggesting life’s always hopeful beginnings and rarely fulfilled outcomes. 

Meanwhile outside on the city street, Hashem is alone and wanders past a TV store showing on the TV screens inside the same lettered man he had seen earlier in the day at the government offices.  But now the lettered man is shown expressing the homily that the good life necessarily entails doing one’s duty to help his (or her) fellow man.  Engage with your brothers, he is effectively saying. This is just the opposite of what he had told Hashem privately at the government offices. 

The closing shot shows Hashem driving away into the soulless urban darkness.


When The Brick and the Mirror was released, it was not well received by either the critics or the Iranian viewing public [2].  Nevertheless, I think it is an outstanding film.  The wide-screen mise-en-scene of Golestan and cinematographer Soleiman Minassian has both an expressionistic presentation and an existentialist feel to it.  One feels while watching it that one has been projected into a Dostoevskian world, where people eloquently, but naturalistically, make comments of philosophical resonance. There are a number of brilliantly conceived shots that linger in the memory. I have only mentioned some of them. For examples, there is one shot sequence during Hashem’s and Taji’s final argument in a narrow alley when they actually come to blows. But this is interrupted when they have to make way for a funeral procession of men carrying a coffin that brushes past them.  There is another, three-minute, shot of them arguing in the taxi at the end.  And, of course, the orphanage scene is haunting.

Unfortunately, the visual quality of the version of the film that I saw was not of acceptable quality, and the soundtrack was not in sync with the visuals, either.  It is my understanding, however, that the University of Chicago’s Film Studies Center has produced a digitally-remastered version of the film [7].  Hopefully this version of The Brick and the Mirror will soon be made available  to a wider audience.

Incidentally, the title of The Brick and the Mirror is said to have been inspired by a line from the great 12th-13th century Iranian Sufi poet Attar [8]:
"What the old can see in a mudbrick,
 The young can see in a mirror.”
You can decide for yourself how that relates to what is told in this film.
★★★★ 

Notes:
  1. Jean-Baptiste de Vaulx, “Viewing Diary: Brick and Mirror (1965, Ebrahim Golestan)”, Cinescope, (1 April 2015).      
  2. Parviz Jahed, “Directors, Ebrahim Golestan”, Directory of World Cinema: Iran, Parviz Jahed (ed.), Intellect, Chicago. (2012). 
  3. See Michael Hillmann, A Lonely Woman: Forugh Farrokhzad and Her Poetry (1987), Three Continents Press, cited in “Films/Theater”, Forugh Farrokhzad, (http://www.forughfarrokhzad.org/filmstheatre/films.htm). 
  4. Ehsan Khoshbakht, “Brick and Mirror (Ebrahim Golestan, 1963-64)”, Notes on Cinematograph, (8 July 2016).  
  5. Forough Farrokhzad had been married at the age of sixteen into an unsatisfactory household, and she had later obtained a divorce at the expense of leaving her small son with his father.  She felt anguish about this lost motherhood for the rest of her remaining life.
  6. Harold Thimbleby, “Delaying Commitment”, IEEE Software, Volume 5 Issue 3, May 1988, pp. 78-86.  
  7. “Khesht va Ayeneh (The Brick and the Mirror). 1965. Written and directed by Ebrahim Golestan”, Calendar, Museum of Modern Art, New York, USA, (24 November 2015).  
  8. Ebrahim Golestan, “The Brick and the Mirror / Selected Answers from Ebrahim Golestan”, Sounds, Images, (Ignatiy Vishnevetsky), (7 May 2007).  

Forough Farrokzhad

About Forough Farrokhzad:
Films of by Forough Farrokhzad: