Still Alice

Still Alice is a film based on the novel by Lisa Genova, directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland. It tells the story of a former linguistic teacher from Columbia, who is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at the age of fifty.

Alice’s family forms a rather stereotypically perfect American family portrait. Alice Howland (Julianne Moore), and John Howland (Alec Baldwin) have two exemplary children, Anna (Kate Bosworth), a lawyer, Tom (Hunter Parrish), a doctor, and the artistic rebellious daughter, Lydia, who longs to become an actress and is played by Kristen Stewart. They form a pleasant cast, very much in tune with one another. Alice is therefore surrounded by a supportive family, and the film mostly takes place at her home near the campus of Colombia in NYC, and in part at a vacation home near the beach. 

Aesthetically speaking, the film has nothing we haven’t already seen:  still establishing shots, several steady-cam movements, and anticipated shot-reaction-shots. The picture has a familiar brightness, and depth of field, which we have grown accustomed to seeing through the lenses of DSLR cameras. The film could have been made for television, as it definitely provokes the viewer and emphasizes the emotion through the build up of the music, and the linear narrative. However, those technical aspects do not take over the essence of the film. What remains central and real is how the film treats the subject of the disease.

The film is blunt in showing the development of the disease, and every single detail in the plot counts. From a Dove soap bottle found in the fridge to subtle hints of OCD on her phone, we understand that Alice is holding on to what she can, and the details of her life at home is all she has to hang on to.

Julianne Moore’s performance is outstandingly convincing in its subtlety. Her character is restrained and smart. She breaks down once or twice when she is diagnosed with the disease, but her character stays strong. She struggles to keep control, and adapts rather skillfully to her illness (an example that comes to mind is she uses her phone every day to practice her memory, and answers a list of questions she had written to herself at the earlier stage of the disease).

Alice’s actions are not heroically embellished, because the reality of the disease is impossible to control. Her character resists until the disease takes over. We see her vanish, and she regresses to a childlike behavior. 

Alice is “still Alice” physically, but mentally, she is disappearing: “I am not suffering, I am struggling, struggling to be a part of things, to stay connected to who I once was.” The film is not victimizing in any way, but the bottom line and tone of the film is pure sadness. Alice’s disease makes her unaware of who she is, and one cannot help but feel the deepest sense of pity for her. 

One of the scenes I am constantly drawn to as I recall the film, is when Alice is sitting on the couch. This is near the end of the film, and the state of her disease has become critical. Alice sits alone in her living room and stares into the dining room ahead . The shot focuses on her person through a medium wide shot of her. I remember the look of innocence in her gaze. The emptiness of the room surrounding her emphasizes her solitude.   

Her children and husband are conversing in the dining room opposite where Alice is sitting.  They speak of Alice in the third person, as if she weren’t there. They discuss placing her in an institution. The camera falls back on Alice, but this time at a greater distance from the previous shot of her. The angle is placed from the point of view of the children and the husband. Alice has a faint smile on her pale face, as if lost and confused. Her silhouette reminds us of a ghostlike figure floating in the distance.

I do not recall if the camera is in motion and pans closer into Alice at this point. If it does, the movement is discreet. The image of her sitting alone on the couch is photographed in my mind like a symbol of pure vulnerability and solitude. 

Alice is a person and given her past, she has built her identity.  Yet, she seems empty now, and void of that identity.

There is no use denying the truth: bring a box of tissues or a generous shoulder to cry on. However, once the tears have been shed, embrace the pain in your heart. Your life could be taken at any time, but your strength is your awareness. The London Evening Standard said the film “affirms life.” Take the tissues, venture through the film, and venture out. Alice repeats, “living the moment,” a message that should be taken to heart  by all of us out there, alive inside and out.

Citizenfour

Why ?

Citizenfour is a documentary about Edward Snowden and the ugly truth within the National Security Agency. Laura Poitras denounces the story through Edward Snowden’s testimony: the power that the NSA has to access any individual’s personal information at all times.

At the beginning of the film, Laura Poitras establishes her topic by presenting us an anonymous encrypted email she has received from no other than ex-NSA computer wiz: Edward Snowden himself. The latter is willing to divulge the truth about NSA’s excessive infringement of personal data. Poitras and Guardian reporter, Glenn Greenwald fly to Hong Kong to meet him.

Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald

The film is skillfully built giving emphasis not only to Snowden but also addressing a global  argument through political speeches, footage of news broadcasts, and UN discussions. The diversity of locations (Berlin, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, Hong Kong…) reinforces the universality of the NSA and its global issues.

One could feel distanced by the Documentary genre, as Poitras develops her story with a considerable amount of structure, as if it were a fiction or a thriller. We first witness an introduction to her characters, followed by their twists and turns, and the denouement through political denunciation. However, the problem persists and is occurring. The film ends with a hopeful tone, with Snowden still remaining in exile in Moscow, and Greenwald exposing his next plan of action. The twist is worthy of a Fincher or Nolan ending, with a feeling of ongoing movement despite the end of the film. Citizenfour ends on a active high note, with an Inception (Christopher Nolan) feel, (but less confusing) the top is still spinning, and the future uncertain but still actively running.

There is also a significant progression of Snowden’s character. The development of his case, and personality reminds us of a film noir hero. The focus is closely centered on him, as we see him sitting on his bed in the Hong Kong Hotel. The audience is brought closer to him through this intimate setting. We witness his emotion change as the case progresses.

Snowden speaks with ease at first. We see his genuine personality, ready to do the world justice, and willing to take in the consequences. At first, he speaks with such courage and confidence, as though his dialogue was written in a screenplay.

On a broader spectrum, Citizenfour exposes us to the degraded notion given to “freedom” in the world we live in today.  This is not only shown through the government’s access to all our day to day information but also to it’s association with the term “privacy.” This underlines a certain irony and misdirection to the meaning given to the word today. We used to think of freedom as a state of being and a freedom of speech. However by associating it to the term “privacy,” “freedom” takes on a whole other meaning: one of secrecy and independence.

Citizenfour is shocking and frightening because it tells the truth. Its greatness and impact makes it difficult to believe. Deep down in ourselves, there is a voice of hope wishing for a scam. Orson Welles in his broadcast of War of the World spoke of the world as, “a world being watched intelligently by a world greater than man.” The Invasion from Mars is being replaced by the NSA. The fairytale is real now. The NSA has the power “greater than man,” -– “man” is weak once again, but for real this time.   

TO SAVE AND PROJECT AT MOMA 

To Save and Project was a retrospective for the 12th MoMa International Festival of Film Preservation. October 24–November 22, 2014

The retrospective presented a diverse selection of newly restored films from across the world. The films ranged from early silent movies to films from the 1980s, and depicted a multitude of genres from comedy, documentary, drama, and thriller. Here are two reviews of films I went to see. 

Chaplin Restored, Essanay and Mutual Classics

The screenings were hosted by Serge Broomberg (Founder of Lobster Films in Paris), who not only presented the pictures, but also played the piano during the films. It didn’t take long for this event to become much more than just an ordinary screening.

At first, Serge Broomberg introduced elements of Charlie Chaplin’s early life: He was born in London in 1889 from a very poor family. His parents had been in the performance industry, both music hall entertainers. Charlie and his bother Sydney performed at an early age. At age seventeen, Charlie did comedy sketch, and developed popular burlesque pieces for Casey’s Circus. Meanwhile, his brother had joined Fred Karno’s prestigious comedy company in 1906. He managed to introduce Charlie to the company, and the latter became an immediate hit. Consequently, in 1908, Charlie Chaplin was selected to join the company that toured North America’s vaudeville circuit through Karno. This lead to his introduction to the world of film in America. He was hired by Keystone Studios where he learnt the process of filmmaking. Broomberg showed us an extract from Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914) where Chaplin made his first appearance on screen as the iconic “tramp.”

Later that year, Charlie joined the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company (captured in the title of the event) in which Chaplin made 65 short films from 1914-18. We were able to see three of those: The Bank (1915), A Night in the Show (1915), and Easy Streets (1917). Chaplin formed his own stock company of regular players within Essanay, and was able to take control over his films. Before showing us The Bank (1915), Broomberg exposed us to several rushes of footage restored and found throughout the world. We were able to contemplate the difference between the graininess of the film found in Russia and the scratches on the film found in Italy. This almost became an educational exercise, teaching us to watch films actively and to treat such films as historical rare gems.

Furthermore, Broomberg also mentioned Max Linder as a key influence figure on Charlie Chaplin. The difference between Linder and Chaplin was that Linder was famous for impersonating a wealthy neat man, instead of Charlie’s “tramp.” However, their comedic body gestures were very similar. This was proved to us when Broomberg screened: Rencontre Max Linder/Chaplin (1917), in which both actors appear in a Jules and Jim fashion, overly courteous while greeting one another, and then humorously climbing into a taxi. Linder introduced the mumming birds concept (a representation of the music hall performance, as viewed by a “stage audience”) which was then carried through by Chaplin in A Night in the Show (1915). In fact, Broomberg informs us that the film was censured by Pathé (for whom Linder worked) when it was first made, because it was the exact replica of a film also called A Night in the Show from 1908 starring Max Linder. Chaplin changed some aspects and was able to re-release the film. We were not only fortunate to watch the 1915 version but the original Linder 1908 version as a surprise screening.

Events like To Save and Project are not only exceptional for the quality of the film that we see, but also to bear witness to a dialogue that goes beyond the film. Where else would one discover the similarities between Max Linder and Chaplin, or be exposed to the hard work it takes to re-constitute a film that we are so comfortably sitting down watching? This was a unique experience, largely due to Serge Broomberg, who not only demonstrated his dedication to his work, but also shared his most extended knowledge of what we were about to see. 

Miles of Smiles, and The Family Secret

I went to the second screenings of Miles of Smiles (Alfred J.Gouldings, 1923) and The Family Secret (William A.Seiter, 1924), therefore I unfortunately missed out on the introduction by Ted Griffin, William A. Seiter’s grandson in the previous screening.

Miles of Smiles (Alfred J.Gouldings, 1923) is a short film starring “Baby Peggy” (Diana Serra Cary), one of the three major American child stars of the Hollywood silent movie era (including Jacquie Coogan, and Baby Marie). She is also the star of The Family Secret which was screened in addition to the former. Both deal with the difference of youth representation in the high class versus the working-class of the mid-twenties. Baby Peggy is cast in both the roles of the upper class little girl as well as the working-class girl, who finds refuge and comfort in alleyways and streets, reminding us of Jacquie Coogan in The Kid. Both films were screened with live piano accompaniment beautifully played by Ben Model (one of the nation’s leading silent film accompanists).

Miles of Smiles is the story of twins (both played by Baby Peggy) who are separated as they were still toddlers. The separation scene is humorous however dramatic this may sound, as the twins are first seen in a play pen in a garden, and one of them manages to escape by stepping over one of the bars. She crawls all the way to a miniature railroad (that once ringed Venice, California) where she is saved by the train driver. He takes her under his wing, feeds and dresses her (once more, very much like Chaplin who becomes the adoptive father of the “kid”).

The scene fades out and Baby Peggy is now a five years old little girl who takes command of the train and bosses her adoptive father around. We can’t help but feel amused at the confidence and maturity of such a young little girl. As many silent movies often do, the film takes many unexpected comedic turns, in a Parent Trap (David Swift, 1961) sort of structure. The twins find themselves reunited by accident. The denouement is a parade of chases, and confusions. The title card specifies that one of the twins thinks the other is a ghost, “Is that me or a ghost?” Once more, an unusually witty way for a little girl to be thinking. The final scene celebrates their reuniting at last! Both giggle with their mom and dad; a happy ending considering the childhood separation that the twins had to endure. 

The Family Secret (William A.Seiter, 1924) is an adaptation of the children’s book by Burnett (The Little Princess, The Secret Garden). It has a similar melodramatic undertone as well as a similar class segregation from Miles of Smiles. However the overall sense is a lot more traumatic, and suspenseful (a common way of life in Burnett’s tales).

The feature presents an upper-class woman, Margaret Selfridges, who secretly marries the love of her life – Gary, an accountant. Her parents discover her secret relationship and are appalled by the news. They forbid her from seeing him, and chase Margaret away to the countryside with one of the servants, where she can rest and hopefully forget about Gary.

During this time, Margaret gives birth to a little girl (no other than Baby Peggy, well not yet, it takes another time lapse to get to her), and returns to her parent’s home. She was expecting her parents to be thrilled at the sight of their grandchild, but once more they are horrified. They send Margaret off to her room. The tragic sight of the unwanted infant it heartbreaking. However, this is only the beginning of this heartbreaking tale. Gary breaks in to her bedroom to attempt to meet the infant. The father overhears the break-in, and reports him to the police. He is chased away and sentenced to prison. However, Margaret’s father hides the truth from his daughter. He disguises the situation by telling her that her long lost husband is too much of a coward to return to her.

Baby Peggy is now six years old, a year older than in Miles of Smiles. She is brought up mostly by her strict nanny, reminding us of an orphan-like childhood. Like “Annie,” She often speaks of her father coming back to live with them. This causes her mother a great deal of grief, and she lingers in a deep depression. She stays in most days with a nurse at her bedside, who forbids her to see her daughter for fear of upsetting her.

No matter how disobedient Baby Peggy sets out out to be, her cheekiness is difficult to resist, and even her grandparents develop a liking in her, as well as their servants who are very much fond of her. Her mother adores Peggy, but she doesn’t seem to have the strength to take care of her.

 
This tragedy takes an unexpected turn when Margaret pushes her father away after he attempts to hug her goodnight, “I can’t believe in your love after you drove Gary away.” He begins to feel guilty and realizes how much he has hurt his daughter who is still desperately in-love.

Nevertheless, the story is far from being resolved. Baby Peggy manages to escape to play with some children on the streets. They decide to exchange clothing and innocently help themselves to fruit stalls. They get caught by a merchant who takes them in for a good beating. However, Peggy manages to escape. The Selfridges find out she’s gone missing and they inform the police.

Gary (who has recently been released from prison) happens to find her and brings her to the police station. He doesn’t recognize her since he’s only met her as an infant. She falls asleep on him in the waiting room, and the police chases him away thinking he might be a pervert. The tension rises as we are expecting to see Margaret coming in at any moment, finding not only her daughter but also beloved husband. We have reached our most climatic tragic peak: he leaves just as Margaret enters the police station. It isn’t for another few scenes that we they will finally once more reunite, and the family lives happily ever after – to our great relief. 

The films were not only a nurturing experience for the heart and sole, but it’s always with great interest and pleasure that one (re)discovers early films made by cult directors during retrospectives as such. The Family Secret was an early feature made by William A.Seiter, who then went on to master the art of character comedy on screen. He was best known for his features such as Sons of the Desert (1933), and the musical Roberta(1935), with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Additionally, Miles of Smiles was an early short by Alfred J.Gouldings, former vaudevillian, who made mostly comedy shorts. He got involved with Harold Lloyd and Hal Roach, directing most of their films.

In addition to this, one can’t help but reflect on the positive effect that Comedy has during these tragic silent movies. The absence of synchronized sound encourages a more exaggerated acting technique which is very efficient while staging children. For example, In Miles of Smiles and The Family Secret, the innocence of little Peggy is what keeps us going. Although we are aware of her miming being somewhat hyperbolic, she still remains a six year old child who incarnates a pure and fragile Youth. Charlie Chaplin’s burlesque performance has a similar effect: his films would be incredibly depressing if it weren’t for his tricks, and comical body language. Moreover, his performance balances out the satire and emphasizes the tragedy of his fate.