Oh! You pretty things!

Film: Belle Epoque

Some would say that Oscar for best foreign film for "Belle Epoque" marked the final revival of Spanish cinematography. Some will say that the revival happened much before and that Fernando Trueba just stole an Oscar from Almodovar, by offering well known Almodovar's vision in a tamed version, easier for consumption. However, revival of Spanish cinematography is a nice thing either way, it's just sad that it suffers from certain mannerisms that are common for all Spanish directors.

Once, Spain could've become the capitol of cinema. Bunuel's landmark films "Andalusian dog", "Golden age" and "Hurdes - land without bread" were made there. But then Franco came and, as any tyrant, started choking free thinking with false concern for moral preservation. Just like any other tyrant. Many years later, while Franco was still alive, Bunuel returned to Spain to make "Viridiana". That he made the rest of his films in France, is a record of how pleasant return to homeland was. Only 1975, after Franco's death, some things started to move in Spain cinematography, and the new wave exploded all over the world, kitschy and bright-coloured style soaked in cheerful perversion became trademark of Spanish directors.

Now I have to explain why I don't like Almodovar. I believe that his themes and ideas never live up to inventiveness of his style. And his style is so drastic that it asks for strong themes and ideas: it needs them as a reason for existence, or at least as an excuse. Instead, it gets a simple romantic comedy like in "Tie me up" or a romance with misplaced Hollywood happy ending like in "Live flesh". Extremeness of the style goes too far for the bland messages it offers. Almodovar, in fact, uses many elements, starting with genres, of modern Hollywood film; He is one of the most prominent represents of Evroamericana, tendency of European authors to adopt schematic nature of commercial Hollywood films. Another one is Luc Besson, he, as well, tries to attack stunning visuals with European sensibility to classic Hollywood stories. Why European heritage is something that is bad per se and has to be replaced, no one ever explains (except, perhaps that it makes less money and requires more imagination). Ironically, American directors (like Jarmush or Woody Allen) and willingly accepting European influence, however, better parts of it.

But it's true that Almodovar is the key director of Spanish cinema, revival took it's full grasp once he was internationally famous, and there is his mark all over other Spanish director's works. But then again, dripping sexuality might as well be explained by national sensibility.

"Belle époque" is most of all a very charming film, and it takes as much re-watching as I made to realize that there isn't much above that.

“Belle epode” is consisting of so closely interwoven sex and history that it's easy to think that history is the cause and sex is just a mean of explaining the new culture that new occurencies are bringing. It took me several seeings (all of which I enjoyed) to realize that sex is the cause and history is just a way to justify it by putting it in some context.

So is “Belle epoque” a fluff? Yes, charming one, though, but it certainly doesn't have that precise insight in cultural differences and that subtlety that “Mediteraneo”, a film with which it shares some of the atmosphere, has. it's selling sexy misadventures of a young boy wrapped in self-important foil of period film and it gats away with it, at times (and certainly enough for Oscar committee to give it award).

The beginning seems really promising as Fernando, young boy, escapes from army with the dawn of civil war. In a beautifully morbid opening sequence, he is caught while using bushes at the side of the road as WC. Two solders intending to export him to military court, rather execute each other in a short display of contradictory Mediterranean temper. Proceeding from there, Fernando meets an old man Manolo, the most intriguing figure of the film and thus, deemed to never be given all attention he deserves. Manolo is waiting for his four daughters to arrive, and some time later, his wife. Manolo Is a born rebel without a cause, and he explains how he missed an opportunity to rebel against three of most reactionary institutions: army (he was not drafted because of his health condition), church (because he was baptized as a baby) and marriage (because he is impotent with every woman but his wife). His rebellion is obstacled by pure chance.

From that moment on, film starts to walk paths that are... Well, not predictable but schematic at least. Four daughters arrive; he is amazed by their beauty. Daughters of new, liberal Spain, ideas of free marriage, all of four girls have brief affair with him until he settles with the last one and, finally, marries her.

The final part of the film shows some gleeful absurd of character that beginning had but middle part lost. Mother arrives, busty elder opera singer, brings in new cheerfulness in situation that was already somewhat uncomfortable. Her lover arrives with her, thoubled by the thought that she has yet another man. Manolo calms him: Don't worry, you are the only one she's cheating me with.

Come to think of it, film is everything but honest: it insists in presenting some turbulent times with not very happy outcome, as cheerful times of sudden liberation and oportunity. Even if it lets grim reality peak through, it quickly returns to goofy everyday, hurrying to reassure us that everything is still nice over there. So is it dishonest toward Fernando's fate. The fact that he ended us with the girl that was his last choice, not being able to get other three girls for more than a short while, is masked with unconvincing assumption of true love that was hidden beneath until it was convenient to appear. While his bemusement, rushing into these hopeless affairs and confusion he finds himself in, can be assigned to the youthful naivety, there isn't much excuse for writers, for using idealistic political ideas of republics as an excuse for situation in which the goofy guy can get four girls laid in a jiffy without even trying. That's the old trick, retaining macho vision of the world while aligning with trend of sensitive male: a guy will be able to score as much as he wants and run from one relationship to another and still escape the macho cliché if writers simply blame the bust of every relationship on a girl. Guy gets his hands clean, world remains phalocentric, strike of 2-dimensional female characters continues, and I can't find it very plausible, the naive suggestion that Dylan Dog honestly loved every single girl he banged during his adventures. Macho remains macho inside even though it changes its face into innocent boy's one.

There are some nice touches there: four sisters played by four extremely different looking actresses, almost represent four dominant beauty ideals: American, central-European, Hispanic and (almost) Asian. This dedication to globalism can safely be interpreted as a smutty innuendo at mom's "faithfulness" to her husband. There is also a familiar topic touched in a character of a granny who slides from extreme conservative to extreme liberal as governments changed. But all these touches are given very little space, being that Trueba becomes dedicated to telling the central story, all the time trying to convince himself as well as ourselves, that this story is very symbolic.

I like this film. It’s delightful for watching. But don’t make mistake of taking it too seriously.

posted by Srdjan @ 6:51 PM