Mikio Naruse is somewhat a nonentity in the United States. Despite support from several prominent critics like Susan Sontag & Audie Bock his films are generally unavailable. As of this publishing there is not a single Naruse film available on DVD in the United States and Amazon.com only lists two (of eighty-nine) on VHS. His sober shomin-geki films should have made him a giant along the lines of Ozu and Kurosawa long ago. The current tour of Naruse films will be at the Gene Siskel Film Center through the end of February and should not be missed by anyone with an interest in cinema.

Wife

“A woman has many faces.”

Mikio Naruse specialized in making shomin-geki, films depicting lower class people in Japan. He’s perhaps most notable for the strong female characters that inhabit so many of his movies. In 1953’s Wife, Naruse again guided a story of an economically struggling woman in an unenviable position. This time the films also features her husband as similarly, if not equally, trapped in an undesired position.

Wife begins and ends with competing voice overs from Mihoko Nakagawa (Mieko Takamine) and her husband Toichi (Ken Uehara). They don’t talk, they don’t make physical contact and they don’t really appear to like each other. Toichi wonders, “After ten years is this normal for a couple?” Immediately after this the only major problem with the film begins. Naruse introduces different characters at a rapid clip and does not take time to develop all of them properly. It makes the film feel much busier than the dull relationship the two protagonists suffer in. Mihoko comes across as somewhat an aggressive whiney type and rather than try to work out their mutual alienation, Toichi finds comfort with coworker Fusako (Yatsuko Tanami). They begin to find fulfillment in their time spent together while Mihoko is just about abandoned. She makes a few efforts to interrupt the affair and temporarily moves out in protest. During all this Mihoko discusses her failing marriage with her sister, two different friends, her parents, and a couple of the lodgers in the guest rooms the Nakagawas keep. One of the lodgers, Tadashi (Rentaro Mikuni) is interesting but the larger subplot of the separation of another pair seems only superficially relevant in that it involves a troubled couple. The exceptionally strong performances by Uehara and Tanami do a lot to make the story a bit more cohesive but it fails to congeal totally.

Despite the somewhat messy plot this is still a Naruse film and remains interesting despite its flaws. Meditations on the living conditions of hundreds of thousands of war widows in the early fifties are poignant showing how despite a strong numerical majority, Japanese women remained an underclass of sorts. While Naruse’s views on W.W.II are unknown to this reviewer, in 1953 he certainly had some misgivings about it. One of the supporting cast is a veteran who came back to his wife physically intact but “like a balloon without air”. Through all this Wife remains a thoughtful film about a relationship that has long run its natural course, yet continues. It’s not a question of whether they have the strength to stay together. It’s whether they will be brave enough to part ways.

Mikio Naruse is somewhat a nonentity in the United States. Despite support from several prominent critics like Susan Sontag & Audie Bock his films are generally unavailable. As of this publishing there is not a single Naruse film available on DVD in the United States and Amazon.com only lists two (of eighty-nine) on VHS. His sober shomin-geki films should have made him a giant along the lines of Ozu and Kurosawa long ago. The current tour of Naruse films will be at the Gene Siskel Film Center through the end of February and should not be missed by anyone with an interest in cinema.

Wife will be showing at the Siskel on Saturday, February 11, at 5pm.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada

“Wanna shoot a coyote?”

It’s been a rough thirty years for western cinema. But for a few highlights like Unforgiven and Dead Man there hasn’t been much to write home about since 1976. Quality westerns it seemed, might have run their course. Then just about two months ago the genre was revitalized and reimagined (or perhaps realistically imagined) with the release of Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain. In the weeks since, that excellent film has been reviewed with something close to uniform awe and has herded awards to Lee’s mantle. Last week saw the release of another western with a strong political message. It’s not surprising that The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is a good film. What is surprising is that it might be even better than Brokeback Mountain. Tommy Lee Jones’ big screen directorial debut is simply wonderful. Set in today’s Texas and Mexico the film explores border politics and contrasts the value attached to the lives of Mexicans and Americans by the US Border Patrol, all done through a story of friendship, loss and redemption set to an Addie Bundren theme.

The film opens with shots of the rural landscape near the Texas border and immediately gets down to business with the discovery of the body of Melquiades Estrada (Julio Cesar Cedillo). Estrada was the best friend of local ranch foreman Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones). Pete’s grief over the loss of his friend is profound and he isn’t really able to deal with it. He hassles Sheriff Belmont (Dwight Yoakam) to find the killer but Belmont’s not too keen on the idea because Melquiades “was a wetback”. The very overt ideological racism of Belmont is contrasted with the pragmatic racism that comes with the job description at the Border Patrol. An exchange after part of a group of undocumented Mexicans is apprehended is revelatory.
BP1: How many got away?
BP2: Three.
BP1: Well somebody’s gotta pick strawberries.
One gets a sense that they, and the other Texans in the film, know the deal well enough that they recognize the myths about undocumented immigration (job loss, national security, etc.) for what they are. This however does not stop Border Patrolman Mike Norton (Barry Pepper almost, but not quite, redeeming his participation in Battlefield Earth) from beating down those border crossers who try to run from him. He and wife Lou Ann (January Jones) have just arrived in town from Cincinnati and are just as out of place in Van Horn, Texas as they are in their own marriage. Norton has a different sensibility to him than most of the other patrolmen. He’s rather the bad apple of the bunch in the sense that he has approximately zero problem abusing undocumented immigrants. The other patrolmen aren’t seen as participating themselves largely for professional reasons but they certainly don’t make much effort to reign in Mike. Norton doesn't take his job seriously that seriously though. The abuse of prisoners is just another facet of his callous, self-centered, detached approach to his surroundings. This is just as clear in the casual caveman sex he has in the kitchen as it is when he busts a young Mexican girl’s nose. This mindset provides him with the opportunity to have a brief interlude with Miss Michigan while on patrol. Busy with his Hustler magazine he doesn’t notice Melquiades with his goats. Mel takes aim at a coyote to keep it from the herd. Thinking he is being shot at he shoots and kills Melquiades (fear not for spoilers, this is made clear very early in the film). Having promised to make sure that Melquiades was buried in his hometown and not “under the billboards” Pete undertakes a journey to find some closure for both his friend and himself.

The story is told non sequentially. In two previous films he scripted, Amorres Perros and 21 Grams, writer Guillermo Arriaga played with the same style. Melquiades is dead at the beginning of the film but shows up at various interludes. For a style that could seem gimmicky it turns out remarkably well. The film is slightly grainy in the gritty style of an old Sam Peckinpah western. It’s very brightly shot giving lush colors to the border landscape and really capturing the hot sun of the area. The cinematography itself would likely be a fine enough film. The shots of cliffs and rocky hills near the border are achingly beautiful. Equally moving are the scenes where Pete tries to care for the corpse as it rots along the journey. There is a dark and sad comedy to the scenes that only adds to the effectiveness of the drama. That comic demeanor is not limited to those instances. Especially good are the exchanges between Belmont and Rachel (a terrific Melissa Leo).

There are many subplots in the film but it doesn’t feel padded in the least. Minor characters and transitional locations are given enough development to make them an integral part of the story. Instead of a tangled web this one is woven neatly. The politics as well are nicely done with a clean, fair shot taken at immigration policy in the US without coming across as didactic. As the story moves to Melquiades’ final resting place the characters, the ones that are alive anyway, find their own destinations, or at least pathways to get there. All but one that is. Jones’ Pete starts the film appearing to be lost in grief. By the end it becomes clear that grief is just one of many shades of lost for him. His confusion has a pathos all its own. There’s a purity to it that suggests an childlike soul beneath the worn cowboy exterior. As that cowboy rides off towards the sun the viewer is left to try and reconcile how there can be so much beauty in sadness.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada is playing at multiple locations in Chicago

Out in the Streets

“One year after Iraq invasion, Chicago, 2005”

If there’s one sure way to get in the good graces of this reviewer it would be to make a film about and sympathetic towards the many protests and rallies for progressive causes in Chicago over the last 3.5 years right? After having participated in most of these rallies and having helped to organize some of them a documentary that’s “a celebration of those who go out into the street and speak their minds” is sure to be a good fit right? Right? Regrettably, the answer is a resounding “No”. Out in the Streets is pointless, incoherent and interminably dull. Director Michael Markowski has made nothing more than a series of vacation slides, without the narration.

From October, 2002 through January, 2006, Michael Markowski attended “over 30 protests, rallies and marches” along with his digital video camera. While he did manage to capture some interesting footage he does exactly nothing with it. Given that he filmed parts of many different demonstrations on several issues it’s not surprising that there is approximately zero discussion of the issues themselves. What one would then hope for is some type of documentary about public displays of morality. One can imagine a very interesting film about how and why, from a theoretical perspective, demonstrations are organized. That certainly would not be this film as it is not at all interesting nor informative. It’s just some footage. The footage isn’t even generally representative of the demonstrations. If people show up to counter a demonstration it makes sense to investigate their views if you’re making a film about protests. One would think that the amount of time given to the counter-demonstrators would be roughly proportionate to their numbers compared to the demonstration or perhaps proportionate to their influence on the demonstration. That would make sense. Out in the Streets instead dedicates significant time to counter-demonstrators at almost every protest represented. In the case of the 2004 Gay Pride Parade much more time is given to the antigay bigots than to the marchers themselves. Markowski was branded a cop by several demonstrators. Instead of using the footage to investigate security culture or paranoia on the left, again a potentially interesting documentary, he instead just engages in some petty macho posturing between documentarian and protester [A tip for the director, if you don’t want to be labeled a cop then...how to put this...um...don’t stand with the police and film protestors.]. Every single issue that could possibly come up during any of the protests is left similarly unexplored. But for a brief clip of protestors in NYC totally misunderstanding a The Daily Show gag the film is largely without entertainment.

Out in the Streets is a bad film with a soundtrack that’s even worse. It doesn’t even get the year of one of the demonstrations correct. It’s entirely artless and what’s more, isn’t even artless agitprop. There’s no story, no message and no point. For people who participated the demonstrations in any way it might be, though probably will not be, very slightly pleasant to see the faces of the people you know and stood with. For anyone else it’s likely to have an effect similar to that of a heavy dose of valium. The director wants to add more to this film after this March’s demonstrations. For all those who were worried previously and see him again in a few weeks, Markowski is not a cop, but he’s not really much of a filmmaker either.

Out in the Streets will screen at the Siskel on Sunday, February 12 and Thursday, February 16.

The other two reviews will be posted on Sunday. Comments and discussion welcome. Peace, JJ