Tag Archives: TX

Letter Never Sent

 

In traditional narrative cinema, it is rare for a film to achieve a visual expressiveness that matches – yet does not interfere- with its storytelling. By in large, visual panache is subdued in favor of narrative thrust, and moments of cinematographic flair are reserved for punctuation rather than syntax. Every so often, though, there is that perfect combination of look and feel, style and substance, director and cinematographer that imbues an entire work with the magic feeling we call “cinematic.”

Perhaps the greatest of these collaborative duos was that of director Mikhail Kalatozov and cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky whose work together produced a string of world-class motion pictures in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Some of these films have become beloved arthouse classics, such as the 1957 war epic The Cranes Are Flying or 1964’s I Am Cuba, both of which are firmly cemented in the canon of world cinema.  Equally dazzling, yet somehow criminally overlooked, is their 1959 collaboration Letter Never Sent. For reasons unclear, this astonishingly beautiful tragedy never broke through in the West like Cranes or Cuba, and has remained one of the true hidden gems of filmmaking history.

The simple story of four Soviet geologists searching for diamonds in the rugged Taiga wilderness, Letter Never Sent is an allegory of perseverance, endurance, sacrifice and survival. Adopting an unusual two-act structure, the first half of the film tracks the team’s virulent and seemingly fruitless pursuit of the precious stones. No sooner are they discovered though, than the expedition is forced to abandon camp by a raging forest fire. The latter half of the film, then, tracks the geologists’ struggle to save not only themselves, but their invaluable discovery as well.

This parable has explicitly political undertones, which fit it squarely within the tradition of Socialist Realism. Hard work and manual labor are glorified within the first half, while the personal sacrifice of the individual for the greater good is the dominant theme of the latter. Still, a more universal resonance can be found in the idea of working hard to attain something, and then working even harder to keep it. With nature as its formidable antagonist, Letter Never Sent is a testament to Man’s will to survive. With nature at center stage, Letter Never Sent is filled with an aspect at once harsh and sensuous. The epic Siberian landscape not only provides a majestic backdrop for the drama, it is presented as a character, a daunting force the mortals must constantly contend with physically and mentally. Falling over loose rocks, wading through snow and freezing waters, even ducking through burning branches, the group is constantly at the mercy of the elements. Their only defense is the sheer will to survive.

What distinguishes Letter Never Sent from other survival films, though, is no doubt the photography, which is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Utilizing the simplicity of the story and characters, Kalatozov and Urusevsky were able to create a visual language that is endemic to the film. Every shot in Letter Never Sent has been carefully conceptualized, choreographed and executed for maximum impact and visual symbolism. In the film’s very first shot, for example, the main characters are seen from the point of view of a departing helicopter. At first, their faces fill the screen, but as the camera rises and rises, they become nothing more than obscure specks on the vast landscape.

 This type of visual expressiveness had all but disappeared with the advent of talking pictures, yet Kalatozov was able to blend it seamlessly into a distinctly modern approach to filmmaking. Urusevsky’s arsenal of visual storytelling techniques is applied in consistently elegant yet experimental ways, most notably in the incredibly long, impeccably choreographed hand-held shots following the actors through dense forests. This style, which Kalatozov and Urusevsky began with The Cranes Are Flying and fully exploited with I Am Cuba, can be seen as the steppingstone between the Soviet cinema of Eisenstein and the silent era, and the Soviet cinema of Tarkovsky and the “new wave” of the 1960s and 70s. Letter Never Sent is a delight for both the connoisseur and the casual filmgoer. Its reputation is only now growing in the West, making it one of cinema’s best-kept secrets.  – Hunter Shaw, Arthouse Monthly Programmer

 

 

Do Try This At Home

As a young filmmaker, I have been dismayed and disillusioned to observe the mainstream and independent markets growing increasingly homogenous over the last decade. Both arenas have grown stagnant, suffocating on their own proven formulas. Perhaps this is simply indicative of the ebb and flow of tastes and technologies that direct the evolution of cinema, but it can certainly leave a film enthusiast feeling jaded. Sometimes, though, there is a game changer, a paradigm shift, the 100th monkey, the final straw. Every so often a film comes out that clears away all the detritus and residual plaque of junk food entertainment. It is like falling in love again: a familiar high in a brand new variation. It smacks you in the face and says “this is how it should be,” and you know it’s right.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild” is that kind of movie. To its core, it is a revelation in filmmaking. Produced on a miniscule budget by a tiny, close-knit crew of long time friends and collaborators, “Beasts” is bursting with visual splendor, charisma, and emotion. Its very fiber challenges the commonplace excess of mainstream filmmaking, displaying the transcendent quality of Cinema that is all too often squashed by the limitations of the studio system. This is salt of the earth filmmaking, a modern day folktale rendered by true craftsmen.

I was able to speak with director Benh Zeitlin about his unique process with COURT 13, the independent production company he co-founded several years ago. When he talks about making “Beasts,” his first feature film, he frequently says “we” when other directors would say “I.” This word choice speaks volumes about the creative community produced by their immersive approach, and the organic genius it creates.

“That sort of fluidity,” he says, “that’s our paintbrush. That’s everything about how we make films. We had this privilege to really allow a lot of people’s creativity to get on screen, which in a traditional process doesn’t really happen. You see the creative energy get kinda sucked out of people by the hierarchy of the method. I’m definitely not interested in making movies any other way. It’s hard to even separate out, because everybody I know works on the films. Like, my family works on the films. The way that we make the films is almost a lifestyle. And it’s a great lifestyle.”

The rewards of this personal involvement come through most explicitly in the performances. “Beasts” feels organic and real, at times even like a documentary. This can be attributed in large part to Zeitlin’s exceptional direction of a cast comprised entirely of non-professional actors – each of whom turn out award-worthy performances.  “I think that the big difference working with non-actors than actors” Zeitlin says, “is that actors have a very private way of generating emotion. They all have their own method to channel feeling into a performance that you don’t want to interfere with as a director, you want to let them use their own tools. The difference with a non-professional actor is that you are inventing those tools together. So, it’s much more… It’s just much more personal.”

Zeitlin cites Emir Kusturica and John Cassavetes as influences in his casting and directing technique. “Watching those movies you have this affection for not just the character on the screen, but the person playing that character. You sense so viscerally their life outside the movie. Whether that’s accurate or not, the type of performance that is and the type of people that are cast in like ‘Underground’ and ‘Black Cat White Cat’ give you this joy of entering a community that you want to be a part of- or I want to be a part of! It’s like the party that you want to go to.”

“Beasts’” utopian party comes in the form of a fictional bayou village in southern Louisiana called “The Bathtub.” Although the lifestyle doesn’t exhibit the material characteristics typical of western affluence, the people there live a rich life. There is no need for money in The Bathtub because everyone lives off the bounty of the land. Secluded from industrial society, they take advantage of the ecological richness of their environment. But for every few thousand decadent crab feasts, the bill comes in the form of a massive hurricane. Despite this constant threat, the people of The Bathtub live in a harmonious state with nature, and are at peace with its price. In fact, it seems to bring them closer together. Everyday is a celebration in The Bathtub, because tomorrow it might be underwater.

“The Bathtub is a place with no divisive ideology whatsoever,” Zeitlin explains. “It’s this kind of imagined utopia of what it would be like to have a place where there aren’t class issues, there aren’t religious issues, old and young people aren’t divided, you know, races are not divided. It’s an imagination of pure unity.” The metaphor never comes off as overtly political or preachy, which can be largely accredited to the story being told through the inherently non-political point of view of six-year-old protagonist Hushpuppy. We experience her world through her eyes and her thoughts, which brings “Beasts” to life with the unique magic of child-reality. But her reality in The Bathtub is anything but utopian in the traditional sense. She is treated like an adult, and expected to act like one in a variety of challenging circumstances. Her ailing father Wink teaches her to fend for herself, disguising his own pain and sadness with tough love roughness. Never too rough, though, “Beasts” occupies a refreshing medium that displays neither the sanitized vision of Hollywood nor the brutal, shock effect tendencies of certain independent camps.

Indeed, this recipe makes for a wonderfully accessible and appealing film – for my money, one of the best coming of age stories ever committed to celluloid. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so: after it’s Sundance premier, Fox Searchlight purchased the film. Yes, that Fox Searchlight. Though they gave the filmmakers no upfront guarantee, the distribution will certainly get “Beasts” into more than a few mainstream theaters. Hopefully, this will be indicative of a large-scale shift in the kind of films that are picked up by traditional distributors. But if it’s not, at least the Independent scene has a brilliant new auteur.

Despite his “mainstream success,” Zeitlin is resolute to keep making films his own way. At the end of our conversation, I asked Benh what advice he had for a first-time director. He laughed and said, “Oh man, I don’t know. I always hesitate to give advice in any form because we do a lot of crazy stuff. But, I think it’s important to not get too caught up in what people are going to think of your film while you are making it. I always think that the best thing you can make is the thing that emerges the most naturally out of yourself. You don’t want to get bogged down in what type of film is going to get financed or what type of film is going to get into festivals or anything like that. Because, you know, my experience with [Beasts] is that the world is really looking for something different, and they don’t know what they’re looking for. They’re looking to see something that emerges from somebody in an honest way.”

- Hunter Shaw, Violet Crown Cinema