Showing posts with label shomingeki No. 18 print issue (engl. Version). Show all posts
Showing posts with label shomingeki No. 18 print issue (engl. Version). Show all posts

Friday, September 23, 2011

The New World - A pure masterpiece

The New World, USA: 2005, Terrence Malick (Berlin Filmfestival 2006, Out of competition)

I am writing on this film which was the most memorable cinema experience of the Berlin Film festival 2006.

The film shows what Northern America once was, an eternal wide nearly pure and eternal beautiful land. The film is going to show how soon it will change when it is discovered and acquired by the strangers, the Englishmen. Wit the first tree that falls and with the first native who are called here "Naturals) who will be killed, the changing begins. The English who come from a landscape which is mostly formed and changed by men do not understand this wild and beautiful landscape and they understand even less its habitants who live in harmony with this land formed by nature.

"Come spirit, help us sing the song of our land", we hear Pocahontas, daughter of an indian king praying on a river landscape at the beginning of the film. This prayer is the initial point of the film. Terrence Malick, an American can´t tell the story of this people and he never pretend in no part of the film to do so. But what he tries is to create himself an access over imagination manifested in this dream of an America in an Era far away back in time with a culture which exists today only marginal.

The Virginia of the 17th Century is reconstructed by Malick with all the cinematic technics available in the 21. Century. On the other hand he relinquished in a lot of technical tools which the contemporary cinema is used today like artificial light or computer-animated visual effects. What is told in this film is the legendary, deficient recorded love story between the Englishman Smith and Pocahontas. The film is partly reconstructed and partly an interpretation.

How men are moving in rooms or in the open landscape in places they know or in places strange to them gives an idea of the richness of this film. When the English step first time on this new discovered country where nature is nearly untouched or how Pocahontas and a member of her tribe discover for the first time the man made landscape of english cities brings this film exactly to the point. English like Natives are confused by places unknown to them and their orientation is irritated. Through a unique sense for space, Malick is able to transport us back into the past. This realized idea is one of so many miracles offered by this film.

The few war scenes between English and Natives are films with handheld camera. They confuse the audiences orientation. We are in the middle of an event but in a scary and disturbing way. Every movement brings insecurity. Fear and the ugly work of killing is all what we see. We are used to appreciate even the worst slaughter in films like LORD OF THE RING or TROY as an spectacle. The short scenes of violence in Malicks film are likely like in Kubricks BARRY LYNDON sudden interventions of terror in a film of a slow and meditative pace. And this scenes of violence are as well a foreseeing of the violence which will dominate in a bigger dimension the whole continent.

As the film begins with a prayer of Pocahontas even the images of landscapes appear to me as visual prayers: Landscapes, water, plants or birds which do not refer to the plot obviously seem to show at the same time nature unmoved by human actions. At the same time it is an evocation o of a paradise -like landscape like in Kurosawas DERSU UZALA. The images of them are upsetting because of our knowledge about their loss.

Where reconstruction through fragmentary historic sources is limited, Malick begins literally to dream in images. He can not know what Pocahontas has thought or felt. He is able to make images of her - or like it seems to me he dreams her out from the depth of time into his images. With the coincidental discovery of Q´Orianka who was hardly 15 years old at the time of the film was shot he got unexpected help from the reality. The unadorned face of the protagonist, which makes visible the inner changes of the protagonist is at least as impressing like the face of Renée Falconetti in Dreyers LA PASSION DE JEANNE D´ARC. The characteristics like intelligence or gentleness, described by the journals of Smith found here their evidentiary embodiment. The way she moves and especially the movement of her glances, her all-seeing eyes seem to be in a strange competition with the impressing handheld camera which finally though their technical perfection appears as a machine which is reproducing something. Pocahontas is not only seen (by the English and the point of view of the camera) but she is reacting immediately and appears from the first second of her appearance as a realized and a realizing person. The image, Malick made from Pocahaontas is impressing because her presence is always more than an image.

The use of the Adagio from Mozart's piano concert No. 23 as the "love-theme" of Pocahontas and Smith seems to be at the first sight an anachronism. This music with an almost singing piano a close relative to Mozart's Da Ponte-operas seems to be made for this film. It is known that Mozart (especially in his operas) was able to transform all possible human emotions into music. And here as well the use of Mozarts music is an interpretation. The strange combination of eloquent lightness and deep melancholy interconnects with Malicks Pocahontas-interpretation. The music is used 4 times, the first and second time in unadulterated moments of happiness and the last time at the last meeting between Pocahontas and Smith where this happiness is only a memory. But even at the first moments of happiness the music is as already an idea of a skepticism. We will remember these moments and Mozart's music when Pocahontas is banished by her tribe, uprooted and when she almost breaks mentally because of this unhappy love to Smith. When she dies at the end of the film as very young woman, we won´t hear the music of Mozart.

There is much more to say about this film. Among others there are the voice overs, monologues of single persons or the mostly very quite, almost whispered spoken dialogues which seem to be spoken in the zone between sleep and Awareness. That is also part of the dreamlike character of the film.

THE NEW WORLD is also an elegy on the american dream, the dream of the first, mostly impoverished settlers from Europe about the new world, the soon beginning nightmare of the genocide against the aborigines - but as well the Conquerors dreams of the expanding most powerful countries and the aggressive exploitation of the newly discovered continent.

In LA VIE SUR TERRE by Mauritanian Abderrahmane Sissako there is a Malick-like voice over-comment which says that not the encounter between Africa and Europe in itself was a tragedy but the time this encounter took place.. This is an attitude which I can imagine as well from THE NEW WORLD:

There are rumors that Malick at least for a DVD edition will release a three hour long version of this film. Until then and if the rumors become true I will be satisfied with the 135 minutes long version.

Rüdiger Tomczak (translation from german in shomingeki No. 18, October 2006)

NOTES on the extended version of Terrence Malicks THE NEW WORLD (translated from shomingeki No. 21, Summer 2009)

In October 2008 the 172 minutes long extended version of THE NEW WORLD, edited by Malick is released on DVD. Unfortunately this extended version of the film which was partly filmed in 65 Millimeter won´t get a theatrical release. I already loves the 135-minutes long version (the film was once edited from its first 150 minutes-version to 135 minutes) and there is nothing  have to regret in my very enthusiastic critic from shomingeki No. 18.The advantages of the long version are evident in fine details. It is less plot-oriented than the shorter version and like expected the voice-over monologues established by Malick since THE THIN RED LINE are more frequented. But more striking is the fact that Pocahontas is more in the center of the film and she is even more clear as the feeling but also reflecting individual. Except the last chapter which takes place in England (where only very few scenes are added)the 40 more minutes are often in small moments divided in the film. It makes not much sense to describe all the single moments of the added scenes. More important is the new impression. The relation between Pocahontas and the use of Mozart's piano concerts seems to be much clearer. Q´orianka Kilchers performance wins in Nuances. How Kilcher (just 14 when the film was made) lets her character Pocahontas maturating and  even aging seems to be almost uncanny and it will remain one of the secrets of this extraordinary rich  film. Even though the advantage of the long version is a matter of nuances - there is a small scene which appears at the first moment understated but at the second view it is probably the heart of the film. It is a dialogue between Pocahontas/Rebecca and her uncle from her former tribe. He is ordered by the native king to join the travel to England for "counting the white man" and for looking for the god "they talked so much about". In an english garden, Pocahontas/Rebecca tells him "that she made a lot of mistakes which brought her into this strange new world". The answer of her uncle is very laconic. He says that "there is nothing to do about because the white are as numerous like the grass.". She says "that she hopes that her people  will forgive her one day."(From the context of the film we learnt that Pocahontas was banished by her tribe and that she purposeless caused the victory of the English against her tribe. "Her heart", she continues "has dies several time with her people". She considers herself still as her fathers daughter. Her uncle leaves without answering her farewell greeting. And suddenly the smile in her face has vanished and replaced by a melancholic expression. This small scene is so unspectacular and subtle like a moment in a film by Yasujiro Ozu but as well as precise. The tragic of the Pocahontas-character comes exactly to the point. Pocahontas/Rebecca dies again one of her "many deaths". This is the most moving moment of the film.

THE NEW WORLD appears to me (at least in this long version) as one of the last miracles in contemporary cinema. The film  once was knocked down by a stupid film public. Among the only 4 films of his filmography (film No. 5 is in the process of post production) THE NEW WORLD is Terrence Malicks most beautiful film.

Rüdiger Tomczak

A text on THE TREE OF LIFE in my blog.

In my texts on Yang Yonghis documentaries, I also mentioned Malicks masterpiece from 1999, The Thin Red Line in the last parts of the chapter on SONA, THE OTHER MYSELF.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Provisorily translation of a text on DEAR PYONGYANG

by Yang Yonghi, Japan: 2005 (International Forum)

(shomingeki No. 18, October 2006)

Another film I can´t get out of my mind, Dear Pyongyang by Yang Yonghi.
This film reminds me in some films which are in its reduction of the image-making gadget and in its transparency it is winning intensity through the lack of a big distance between the vulnerable individual who films and the spectator. 

It is the story of the filmmaker which begins with a historical introduction on Koreans living in Japan. After the Korean civil war, this comunity is divided in followers who identify themselves as North Koreans and those who consider South Korea as their homeland. Encouraged through the economical growth in North Korea, a lot of "North Koreans" living in Japan went to Northkorea, or in other words "returned". Yangs father sent his three adolescent sons to Pyongyang. They can be visited there but they can never leave the country.

The film is now focusing completely on Yangs family where history occurs in small details of an average family and finally about Yang Yong-hi herself. Since he was a young man, Yangs father remained a communistic activist and whenever he talks about Northkorea, he talks about a mythic paradise. The films presents every day situations and the travels of the family to the now adult sons.
The filmmaker (we learn from her off-commentary) was for a long time trying to lead a different life, without serving her "homeland" unconditionally.
The long conversations between her and her father are seemingly banal at the first sight, sometimes even funny. But after some time we feel the drama beneath the surface of seemingly harmless little quarrels between father and daughter. The first impact arrives when Yang interrupts these long conversations with a serial of shots of family photographs. On one of these photographs, we see the very young Yang Yonghi beside her brothers during her first visit in Pyongyang. Her face looks sad and she must have cried. The separation from her brothers must have meant to her a very traumatic experience. She can´t even talk in the off-commentary about all what moved her. The traditional parental love and her worries about the brothers who live in a country where every small contact with outside is observed with mistrust hemmed in her a more open rebellion. There is also the fear of lack of love when she doesn´t conform the expectations of her parents.

When I saw the film the first two times, it took place in closed press screenings. Just the third time, I saw this film in an open Berlinale-screening. At the beginning I still found the small quarrels between her and her father amusing.
While seeing the film third time, I could not laugh anymore.

Except her hands we see Yang Yonghi only on children- and youth photographs and listen to her voice. Everything we see, we see through her eyes. For me, the leaps through time forth and backwards seem the essential accents which gives the film a kind of poetry. It seems to me the aesthetical form of some one who tries to tell about herself on different levels what is difficult to put in only in words.
This kind of insight into the intimate sphere of a family which doesn´t work for me in every documentary, evokes the feeling that someone tells us confidential things. The film develops an unique drama between her discomfort not to fit in her parents expectations in her commentary contrasts with her fine observations of her family every day life. Yang is part of this family and at the same time an outsider.

A sudden cut and we see a hospital. Yangs father has suffered under a heavy stroke. There is an intense moment of helplessness which is burnt into my memory. Yang Yonghi goes wit the camera to her father´s bed whose body is connected with tubes and lines to medical machines. It looks bad for him. He is totally defenceless exposed to her daughter´s views and ours. At the same time we know through the film that the father made decisions (even without bad intention) under which her daughter suffered a lot. Then she holds with one hand her fathers hands while his voice makes uncomrehensibles noises and at the same time her other hand serves the the small video camera. When I saw the film the first time, I wasn´t sure if someone should get as far. But nevertheless this moment moved me deeply.
This moment is very close to the undefinable feeling to be left alone with a personal sad event, like I experienced on that terrible day in 1997 when I visited my seriously sick mother at the emergency station of a hospital in my hometown Bochum. The feeling of discomfort about the power parents had at least for a special period in our lives is contrasted with the helpless fragile body of the father. What makes this scene even harder to bear is that the filmmaker is exposed too even if we see only her hands. I even think, I heard her crying, but I don´t know for sure.
I don´t know anything at all anymore.
I forgot the big screen and the seat where I was sitting. I was totally divided in the terrible memory of my mother and the awareness that here in this recorded moment, the invisible filmmaker Yang Yong-hi experienced one of the most terrible moments of her life. Because of the fact we can´t see her face, in my imagination she is metamorphosed back into the sad young girl which we saw on a photograph.

 Rüdiger Tomczak

an english text on Yang´s second film is here

Friday, September 9, 2011

Mr. and Mrs. Iyer

Mr. and Mrs. Iyer, by Aparna Sen India: 2002

for Lyne Beaudry

“Maybe all men got one big soul where every body is part of it. All faces of the same man one big self.” ( Monologue from THE THIN RED LINE by Terrence Malick.)

Mr. And Mrs. Iyer directed by Aparna Sen opens with a collage of news excerpts and different voice over. It deals with communal massacres motivated by religious fundamentalism. It opens the scars of Hindu as well as Muslim fundamentalism perpetrated by political mafias who are at loggerheads over ethnic issues. At the start of the film we confront a little red and white bus appearing coming like a beeline. A voice tells about two strangers, meeting at a bus journey.
But there is also a third opening of the film (before the film begins to tell its story). Meenakshi, a young orthodox Hindu woman from the South, is prepared by her mother for a long trip. Her hair is done by the mother and a lot of rituals are made for the daughter. The daughter being docile but she is sometimes bothered by the verbal didactic her mother. Meenakshi in a bus travels back to her husband in Calcutta with her nearly one year old son.

 A bus terminal where a lot of strangers are waiting for a travel: among others a woman with her adolescent handicapped son, an elderly man with his wife and his sister or two Sikhs. The travellers are like the spectators who are waiting together in front of an entrance of a film theatre. If this accidental group of people becomes fiction, for building up a story, some certain narrative constructions have to be invented. Meenakshi’s father is the forest caretaker of this region. Raja, a liberal open minded Muslim with a Hindu name. He is a wild life photographer (who owes Meenakshi’s father the permission to photograph in this region). He is asked by Meenakshi’s parents to help the young woman who is travelling with a baby and a lot of luggage. Finally the bus and the film begin to move at the same time. While the titles appear we see the bus driving on narrow roads through a green mountain landscape, I feel reminded of the wonderful road movie Arigato-san /Mr. Thank you, Japan by Hiroshi Shimizu.

Our gaze is drawn to slew of persons now stuck into a narrow place. In a cobweb, some situations and funny moments are created which the film begins to unfold with wit. The film captures these different people who are separated by language, age, gender and religion, a mosaic of a human life. Aparna Sen has given these people special characteristics which specify visual memory. Like in the films by Ford, Ozu or Renoir these different ages of a human life develops into a nonverbal correspondence between different age groups. We have 30 minute long bus sequence packed with visual and narrative ideas that give the film an enormous depth. We learn something about the multi-cultural facets of the sub continent India. It also partly highlights the spiritual tenets of the sub continent cinema.
In the necessary reorganization of time, Aparna Sen brings together seeming different visions of cinema. When the interior scenes in the bus appear in real time where every cut means a glance, they are interrupted by panorama shots of the moving bus. This panorama shots mean short but also longer pieces of moving times. That has to do on one hand with “the overcoming of time through space” (Truffaut on Hitchcocks The Birds). The montage in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer is at the same time poetic and analytical. I don't believe there is a real contradiction between a cinema of identification and one of reflection. Mr. and Mrs. Iyer shows how these seeming different attitudes about film making can co-exist side by side.

Aparna Sen seems to move freely in a spiritual landscape that seems to me created by more than 100 years of cinema. And how she brings together the past of narrative cinema with its present is collected in unique connections between the different (life -) times of her characters. These lead to moments which I would like to call pure poetic cinematic moments. There are among others two examples which seem to be plain at the first sight but which are for me reason enough to love this film.
In one scene Meenakshi is in trouble with her crying child. She turns her head behind her, looking for Raja who is placed some rows behind. Directly behind her seat is a young couple (can be identified obviously as Hindus because of the woman´s Bindi). This couple is flirting. We see Meenakshi how she looks at them for a few seconds. For me, this glance has the subtle idea of longing and envying of a woman who is bound in marriage at early stage with motherhood. This glance of just some seconds is intense and unforgettable and gives an idea what a single glance of Konkona Sen Sharma can evoke. She seems to look at another possibility of her life, that she hasn't lived.

The other moment is more complex and a wonderful example how Aparna Sen creates connections among her characters. The old Muslim is grumbling to his wife about the noisy young people. “Let them, it is their time for fun”, she answers. Another time he complains about the “shameless” kind how the girls are dressed. Some moments later, the girl Kushboo takes her guitar and sings a song which includes the phrase “Don't say a word.” The old man gets cheesed off, his face looking dreamy, absent-minded expression. Just a moment ago, he has talked with his wife how they first met many years ago. When his wife is arguing with him because he always takes in and out his dentures, he answers half sleeping and enchanted by the girls’ song more singing than talking: “Don't say a word.” The present youth of the singing girl and his own youth in the past come together in a magic vein like that of John Ford’s style of choice. The girl and the old man have found each for themselves a place for their own dreams, like in a darkened cinema hall.

What Mr. and Mrs. Iyer has in common with Ozu’s last masterpiece Samma no aji/An Autumn afternoon (1962) is a complexity we don't recognize at the first sight. Once I tried to track patterns in Ozus film in listing all the rooms and places in the film. In Aparna Sen’s film I could make a sketch how the persons are placed in the bus. Each of the characters has a kind of pendants which can be a mirror, a personification of another possible reality or another life time like Raja and the Indian Jew Cohen, Meenakshi with a young and old Hindu woman or Kushboo and the old Muslim. Like in Ozu’s film, past and present are connected in these images.

Suddenly the bus with its mostly sleeping passengers has to take another road, because the main road is closed. But even the other road appears soon blocked by parking trucks and buses. It is twilight, the passengers walk around and ask the driver. The old Muslim celebrates his evening prayer, his face toward the setting sun.
A Sikh mentions an assassination on a train motivated by religious fanatics which caused hundreds of deaths.
Finally, Meenakshi and Raja are awakening. (for practical reasons they sit now in the same row.)She smiles when she finds her hand on his one. The last dying sunray is reflected on their faces. And this light on the faces of Konkona Sen Sharma and Rahul Bose is beautiful like an escaping nice dream. Suddenly, there is noise, excited men are running around with cudgels in their hand through a river landscape. A police jeep appears and an officer pronounces a curfew. He won't take responsibility for people who are staying outside the buses in the darkness of the night. The religious motivated riots could be found before in small traces in the newspapers the passengers have read during the bus travel. This small traces are now an obvious danger. The people are in the middle of a region of a riot between Muslims and Hindus.

The community was during the travel not only a “little India” how Aparna Sen once said like the community in Shimizus Arigato-san was a cross over of people suffering under the Japanese economical crisis in the Thirties. The buses in both films have also an affinity to cinema. They drive through fragments of the world visible in the windows like looking at the limited frame of a screen. The bus as a cinema-like place in Mr. and Mrs. iyer was despite all cultural and religious differences a relative peaceful and civilized place. But now the community is split. Hindus and Sikhs blaming Muslims and even Meenakshi is irritated when she learns that Raja is a Muslim. Only Raja, Cohen and the teenagers are reserved with resentments and pre justice. Now all have to spend the night together in the bus. It is dark, the windows are black and the space becomes very narrow. The symbols of civilization are out of function. The cars and buses can't continue and all portable phones don't work any more and this little India, exemplary for the subcontinents civilization seems to be separated into tribal rivalries.

Fanatic Hindus enter the bus, obviously on the search for Muslims and there is no doubt in their intention to kill. Some men have to drop their pants to proof their religion. Surprisingly Cohen, the Jew, informs them about the old Muslims couple. They are deported out of the bus, first with patience, later with violence. The old couple is at first unsuspecting which contrasts to the obvious intention of the fanatics. The scene is depressing even though the violence takes place outside of the frame and in our imagination. Depressing silence.

Only Kushboo stands up, begs the men for leaving the old people in the bus. One of them beats her in the face and make her silent. When Raja stands up in indignation, Meenakshi hands him in a quick reaction the baby. There is a very moving moment with Rahul Bose which goes far beyond the context of this scene. There is an expression on his face which gives an idea like an understanding of his own powerlessness. He, whose profession is to record moments and images is condemned to be unable to act. The only thing he can do is to take the crying baby in his arms for calming it down. Meenakshi pretends that Raja is her husband which saves him from the sure death. The film is now opening a new element in its story. The characters Raja and Meenakshi do now the same what the actors Konkona Sen Sharma and Rahul Bose do; they play fictive couple.

When Cohen is asked why he had betrayed the old couple he answers weeping: ”They would have killed me. I am Jewish. I don't have a foreskin.” He, who belongs to an even smaller minority acted out of fear to death and acted against his vision of the world. Many other passengers in the bus could have reacted like him.

Identifications like in a dream

I am the old Muslim who is deported with his wife out of the bus, who is band with her banned from the community and who is killed with his wife in a hidden place.
I am the Indian jew Cohen, who gives away the old couple to the Hindu fanatics out of fear he himself could be a victim. He is also banned from the community.
I am also Meenakshi who was married too young for guaranteeing the continuation of her orthodox family and whose dreams are betrayed.
I am also Raja, the photographer, who seems to be open minded but who is unable to name his feelings, his fears and his wishes. He is married with his camera and several natural parks in India where he collects images.
Maybe I am also Santhanam, the Baby, who is neither blind for the beauty nor for the ugly sides of the world.
The child who doesn't know pre justice, who accepts people for their own sake as long they are friendly.
All this souls have spoken to me like in a dream, I always have when I see this film.
This film is heaven and hell at the same time.
All these persons are sometimes alone:
when they dream,
when they love,
when they fear,
when they die.

The dawn of the next day. While we hear a song which bases on a suffi poem from the 11th. Century, we see Cohen walking lonely through the landscape. He leaves this film likely sad as Jean Renoir did as Octave in his film La Regle du Jeu (Rules of The Game, France, 1939). This shot gives him a certain kind of dignity. We know that he himself could have been the victim. Cohen is the third tragic character in this film. This film might here point as well to the history of its making, where in India, at times, Hindu fundamentalists who often used Nazi- paroles were participating in the government.
Raja leaves the bus too. He, who wasn't unable to act records now traces of the terrible night of murdering: the dentures of the old Muslim beside the broken box and his broken specs. Beside these crystallized traces of the tragedy Raja photographs situations of people who can't continue their travel and who are doing every day actions. Raja is like a spectator. The only thing he can do, is observing and recording. That reminds of the passivity of the spectators in a cinema which is at times hard to bear.

The whole long night.
The sound of the water says,
what I am thinking.
(Gochiku, Japanese Haiku-poet)

While the curfew is still on a police officer brings Raja, Meenakshi and the child to a deserted forest house. This is again an isolated place. And this strange place which seems to be in another time and space in the middle of the riot (which concerns the whole region). Only an old care taker lives there, a man who lives in his memories of times when his late wife was still on his side. The film brings the world like it is and how we can dream it together. Out of this tension this film will take its power from now on. Raja and Meenakshi (who are considered by all as a couple) are not only strangers but they are also separated by religion and language. The English in that they are talking to each other is the compromise. But though there is a strange intensity between them like it can happen when people with or without their will make a travel together or are stuck together for a certain time.
Independent of that, almost less of gravitation above the plot or what we call a story - there are always moments which resemble the poetry of a haiku. Once we see Meenakshi with the baby in her arms. She is anxious and scared spending the night with a strange muslim in this house. In the depth of the image we see a labour elephant passing by. Santanam, the child recognizes it puts his fingers in the direction of the animal and his voice is excited in joy. Meenakshi doesn't even realize this moment. The child leads our attention to a complete other detail in the image. We can realize the world like Raja, Meenakshi or the stressed police officer. But we can realize it as well like the child who sees something beautiful and which is fun for him.

There is an argument between Meenakshi and Raja and later the reconciliation. .As varied the confusion of different languages and accents are, the feelings and tensions between Meenakshi and Raja are mostly told in images. Raja, the discrete photographer takes images of situations, persons and things which touch him like for example when he takes pictures of Meenakshi and her child. The wonderful light of cinematographer Gautam Ghose visualize an idea of an emotion in his face. Rahul Bose reminds me in the young Henry Fonda in some films by John Ford, an actor´s type who is moving exactly because of his discreet kind. And Konkona Sen Sharma’s Meenakshi is one of the most moving female characters I saw in a film after a long time. She is praised for her unique ability to adapt, in a short time, different inflections and accents with the almost playful zest as evident (the American-English accent) in Shonali Bose’s Amu. But here the magic of her performance can be found especially in her mimicry of the real and the temporal that fills her character with an unusual uncanny soulfulness.

Again in the city close to them where people can buy some necessities as long as the curfew is withdrawn for a few hours. We get into a shot with Meenakshi and Raja sitting in a tea shop. The young girls from the bus travel are joining them. They are curious to learn the “love story” of this couple. Meenakshi and Raja are telling the (fictive) story of her first encounter. Raja invents more and more a detailed story of “honeymoon” in a temple in Kerala. Though we know (like Meenakshi and Raja) this tale is pure fiction, it will nevertheless evoke emotions and longings and here is a moment in the film I would choose if I had to describe this film in one scene: Raja is telling about never really experienced full moon nights in Kerala. “ “We didn't need oil lamps, did we, Meenakshi?” says he and looks at Meenakshi. She is totally absent-minded, like in a day dream. You must have seen her face and her glance back to Raja to understand that I stopped breathing. This silence of Konkona Sen Sharma mirrors one of the most beautiful moments of the film. What is cinema? Aparna Sen’s film answers this question in a few seconds with one single shot of Konkona Sen Sharma.

Then is introduced a sharp cut which lets us for awakening. The police officer brings them back to the forest house. The road is blocked by the religious fanatics and they have to take another way. They pass through a village which is burnt down. Before we see the village, we see the terror reflected in the passengers’s faces. This time a village is destroyed by the Muslim fanatics. A totally traumatized child cries and it seems to be the only sign of life in this village. Back in the forest house, Raja tries to write down the experiences of the last days. We hear Meenakshi singing a beautiful lullaby for her child. Later after the child has fallen asleep, both are talking on the veranda. It is getting dark and the world has turned again in this kind of twilight light. Raja and Meenakshi become closer. Despite the reality there remains something like a vision of love. Through Raja’s camera lens they observe the animals in the forest. The kind how Raja lets Meenakshi look through his camera has a unique tenderness. Suddenly and for the last time another invasion of terror breaks into the quietness. A group of fanatics chase a man in the forest. Meenakshi and Raja lock themselves in the house and watch this dreadful hunting through the tele-lens of Raja’s camera how the hunted man will be killed. We don't see the murder but the reaction in the faces of Raja and Meenakshi confirms their fear. Meenakshi is extremely shocked. He helps her, lays her softly on the bed, covers her with a blanket and sits down in front of the bed.

She wakes up in the night calling her husband’s name. It will remain her secret if she means the real name of her husband or the fictive name of Raja.
Then, they are driving in a truck of a military convoy (the police officer organized this ride for them) on the way to the railway station where they will finish their long interrupted travel to Calcutta. They enter a shabby railway compartment. Here one finds the dark colour of Meenakshi’s sari as a strange harmony with Raja’s clothes. He is asked by her about places he has travelled to, wants to participate in a life which she is never allowed to live. And with a facile curiosity she asks him if he had travelled alone to that or if he will travel alone to the next place. For one moment they are becoming close, with a physical touch making it look almost kissing each other until they are disturbed by a passenger who walks through the narrow isle. Again a sharp cut is used which skips the last hours of this night. Meenakshi plays with her child. He has just woken up and smiles. She drinks from the water bottle in the kind of orthodox Hindus (who never touch the bottle with her lips and let the water drop into their mouths). He smiles again and when she asked why he smiles he turns his head shyly to the window. When the train has a longer stop, Raja leaves the train for buying coffee. Irrational but nevertheless moving is Meenakshi’s almost whispered sentence to her baby:” He has left us and is gone, Baby.” Raja returns, puts the coffee cups on a little table, takes Santhanam silent in his arms and sits down. In a strange physical confidence she leans her head on his shoulder.

And then again a cut - this time the most heartbreaking of the whole film. The train arrives Calcutta central station. Meenakshi’s husband is waiting for them. Meenakshi’s husband thanks Raja who is introduced by her as a Muslim. Raja says goodbye in a very laconic way, while Manni, Meenakshi’s husband calls his father over mobile. Both parts integrate each other. Suddenly Raja stops and takes the film out of his camera and returns to Meenakshi. “For you”, he says and gives her (who saved his life twice) the undeveloped film.
That is the only gift he can make to her.
Then he says: “Goodbye Meenakshi”, emphasizing the pronunciation of the double e. She, almost with tears in her eyes says: “Goodbye, Mr. Iyer”.
How Raja moves toward the people who are waiting for him and whom we can't recognize in the blurred background he seems to walk from one reality into another one. I am the one who parts and the one who stays back at the same time.
And I feel like Raja or Meenakshi who probably don't know how and whom they should tell about their encounter, their voyage or about all the things they have experienced intimately on human level. Without turning back his eyes Raja goes towards a group of men who are expecting him. Then once again Meenakshi’s face who looks at him while he parts. The frame freezes. While the credits run, we see once again fragments of the moment when Raja took pictures of Meenakshi and her child. This moving images turn always into a freezing one. The images become more and more blurred.
Now there is nothing we can recognize any more.

There are films on which I could write like on voyages, encounters or own experiences despite the fact that I deal with a cinematic tale which takes us temporarily away into an invented identity. After seeing the film several times, we will follow a trace and it takes some time until we can express some comprehensive, universal thoughts and feelings about such a film. The film is still in my system; it stays with me like a dream.  

Rüdiger Tomczak (shomingeki No. 18, October 2006, english translation, published also in FIVE INDIAN DIRECTORS (Pradip Biswas and Rüdiger Tomczak, Kolkata, October 2009)

See also a text on Aparna Sens The Japanese Wife.
German version  of the text on Mr. and Mrs. Iyer (differs slightly from the english version).