Turandot (2015-2016), Aura and Film's Authenticity

Conductor: Paolo Carignani

Turandot: Nina Stemme

Liu: Anita Hartig

Calaf: Marco Berti

Timur: Alexander Tsymbalyuk

   In my life so far, there has been only a few things in my bucket list. I was totally indifferent anything but myself, so naturally, there has been nothing particularly interesting. Fortunately, I could come here, New York and NYU, and it opened my perspective vastly. That was the moment when I started longing for Turandot. Last summer, I watched Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, which borrowed its leitmotif from Turandot. The two leading characters' interchanging relationship represented both romantic and incompatible aspects of secret agents. Finally, I could see this opera today, as my self-birthday-gift, at Lincoln Center Opera House.

   Calaf is an exiled prince who unexpectedly meets his father Timur, a superseded king, in ancient China. Timur lost his vision from a battle but could survive thanks to a female servant, Liu. China is ruled by a merciless princess Turandot, who beheads every suitor. Initially, Calaf deplores such tyranny, but as soon as he sees the princess' beauty, he becomes enthralled. After solving Turandot's three mysterious riddles, he declares that if she can tell his name until next morning, she will not be obliged to marry him. On the verge of his victory, he nervously waits the morning to come. However, the princess torments his father and Liu to know his name. For her master's happiness, Liu sacrifices her life by herself and this action makes the princess realize what true love is. Finally, she accepts Calaf's love and happily marries him.

   I once watched this opera on Met VOD (Metropolitan Opera Video On Demand), but seeing directly was obviously different from seeing in a small computer screen. Set design highly emphasized height and depth of the stage, so that it made the princess and the emperor seem inaccessible and sublime. Especially, when the golden palace was revealed in "Gravi, enromi ed imponenti", astounded audiences applauded though that score was not finished. I was one of them. The stage setting was undoubtedly artificial. However, I could not help but be fascinated by the magnificence that the opera propagated. Such actuality was something that I could not acquire in a film theater.

   Also, Anita Hartig, who played Liu, presented authentic performance. Specifically, leading a 9-minute solo, "Tu che di gel sei cinta - Liu bonta!", without any boredom was literally extraordinary. With this score, she conveyed infallible sacrifice of the humble servant and touched me. From the above-mentioned set design and Hartig's breathtaking devotion, I could feel a kind of aura today.

   However, Marco Berti's Calaf was not compelling. The biggest reason why I wanted to see this opera was definitely "Nessun dorm!". When it was played, I was all ears with my hands folded together. Disappointingly, I could not sense any emotional eruption from Berti because of his timid devotion.  And I think the others felt in the same way since no one ventured to applaud though his solo was finished. Overall, Berti's performance made the whole opera partly mediocre by deteriorating other outstanding points that are mentioned above.

   Consequently, this experience made me consider the concept of aura. Defining aura, Walter Benjamin related aura to "authenticity" and "the her and now of the original". Precisely, he defined aura as "the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be". I am still not sure what kind of distance he indicated, but I guess that he meant the distance between a recipient and an art work which marked an outstanding moment in history. In this sense, the 1987 version of Turandot, in which Plácido Domingo played Calaf, can be considered to possess an aura, due to matchless performance of him and other partners whereas this 2015 version lacks it. However, now I am skeptical of Benjamin' statement:

In the light of this description, we can readily grasp the social basis of the aura's present decay. It rests on two circumstances, both linked to the increasing emergence of the masses and the growing intensity of their movements. Namely: the desire of the present-day masses to "get closer" to things, and their equally passionate concern for overcoming each thing's uniqueness by assimilating it as a reproduction. [...] by means of reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what is unique.

(Critical Visions in Film Theory, eds. Timothy Corrigan, et al, Bedford/St. Martin's, Boston: 2011 ,233-234. Emphasis original)

   It is true that the result of filmmaking does not possess actuality - that is, "the here and now" - because it was photographed and edited prior to spectatorship. And throughout reproduction, any audience can experience exactly the same quality. However, theatrical actuality is easily accomplished because of its intimate distance from the audience. In other words, production of theatrical art becomes a moment of consumption immediately.

   Nevertheless, such immediacy is not a spontaneous expression of an artist's talent. A successful stage show is a result of countless rehearsals. I assume a theater artist's state on the stage is an overlapped sum of various possibilities, which can be varied by his/her practices and other circumstances. For instance, even though Plácido Domingo has prepared his performance hundreds of times, if he fails to touch the audience due to his illness, the very show will not be authentic. 

   On the other hand, a movie is an extracted essence of authenticity. To pursue perfection in their profession, the filmmakers do not hesitate to photograph the same shot for hundreds of takes. In this case, "the here and now" does not exist in the prospect spectator's point of view. Instead, the filmmakers contain their "here and now" in their work. Thanks to the camera, filmmakers present the actual sites in which they recorded such moments as a sunset on the seashore, the first kiss of lovers, or tragic crime against a  victim. And thanks to cinema's reproducibility, this essence can be inherited to next generations intactly. It is irony that we can feel Plácido Domingo's aura via the recorded video of his 1987 performance.

   Therefore, I argue that aura is not an medium-specific concept. Although this conclusion is superficial, I think this might be able to stave off unjust prejudices, which downplay cinema a mere reproduction of reality or a relatively easier art form. In addition, I think that other arguments regarding the verisimilitude of CGI can be stemmed from this interpretation of aura. If cinematic reality can be also defined as an aura, it is debatable if CGI lacks authenticity.

Kundo: Age of the Rampant (2014)

Director: Yoon Jong-bin

Writer: Jeon Cheol-hong

Production Co.: Moonlight film, Showbox/Mediaplex

Starring: Ha Jung-woo, Kang Dong-won, Lee Sung-min

   Yoon Jong-bin is one of the hottest Korean filmmakers. From his problematic debut The Unforgiven, he has scrutinized a variety of contradictory social systems. For example, The Unforgiven, he dealt with military service, which is inevitable to Korean males; and extravagant nightlife in Beastie Boys; corrupt Korean society in '80s in Nameless Gangster: Rules of the Time. Likewise, an old aristocratic society, which begot severe inequities, is dissected in a framework of vengeance story. Its subject matter is also related to current trend in which a number of Korean creative works represent either anger to social inequity or hope to supplant it.

   In terms of this film's form, the Western style is partially observable. For instance, the horse riding mob in both opening and ending sequences invokes outlaws in the Western, due to the camera movement and deserted landscape. Also, other elements such as extreme zoom-in/out and transition between big close-up shots are worth noting. However, the film is more influenced by Wuxia genre. Not to mention its vengeance code, representation of characteristics via individual weapons is also a trait of Wuxia genre. It is the fast and dynamic duel sequences that generate imagery tension. However, enhancing such tension is the different qualities of weapons. For example, characters using a huge sword or a heavy mace present their outstanding strength. On the other hand, the other characters with smaller and subtler weapons try to overwhelm the former with speed and accuracy. 

   To be honest, there is not much room for considering social inequity since this is more an entertainment film than an arthouse movie. However, Jo Yoon's (Kang Dong-won) ambivalent character invokes a question: who is noble? who is lowlife? what distinguishes between these two?

   The most powerful strength of this film is its valued actors. Not only the leads but also supporting players has performed for a significant time, and some of them has worked with the director. Especially, Yoon Ji-hye, who acquired fame from some television series, plays Mi-hyang and expresses a different spectrum.

   [Spoiler] However, it is the film's abrupt plot in the last 30 minutes that deteriorates its advantage. After compiling all attractive characters, Yoon suddenly kills most of protagonists, even though he could have deepened his characters after their Pyrrhic victory upon aristocrats. What makes this transition abrupt is a previous dilemma that was coerced to Ddaeng-choo (Lee Kyeong-yeong). After being captured by Jo Yoon, he is forced to choose either to reveal his fellows'  haven or to sacrifice innocent peasants of the town, Najoo. As Jo Yoon kills five peasants, Ddaeng-choo changes his mind and tell him where the haven is. Dilemma resonates only when every choice is indispensable. However, at this point, it is hard to say that saving his comrades is equivalent to saving innocent people. This is because not only his comrades but also children in their haven will be killed as a result. In other words, he abandons his neighbors too easily only to save strangers. Consequently, this unreliable element weakens the later part of the narrative.

   It is transparent that Yoon tried to bypass conventional story in which an outstanding hero restores peace. He emphasizes ordinary people's power to change their world. Nevertheless, [Spoiler] using a gatling in the climax was a too easy resolution to defeat evil extras. The film's temporal background is much earlier that the American Civil War. Even though you do not give a damn to such historical facts, I still feel it like a deus ex machina. 

   Yet, it is undeniable that Yoon is one of the most creative Korean film directors. I just feel sorry that this could have been better if he maintained his talent and effort until the end.

The Revenant (2015)

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu

Writer: Mark L. Smith, A.G. Iñárritu

Production Co.: New Regency Pictures, et al.

Starring: Leonardo Dicaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson

   Simply, it can be regarded as a "sequel of The Avatar in the early days of America". The hero is a man on the border between civilization and wilderness. This outsider, once punished by the mother nature, seeks to avenge his only son. There are no hidden clue or reversal, but animalistic suffering and killing.

   The most important point in this film is the gravity of life and death. Alejandro G. Iñárritu delivers this through three ways: long take, close up, and special effects. First, long take shots confer verisimilitude to the actions. Especially, the first long take shot in the earliest battle is significant because the camera presents ephemerality of life by mingling from the killer to the killed. Secondly, the director employed a number of close up shot to make spectator look around multiplicity of characters' appearance. By this, he suggests us to focus on their sufferings and anger instead of the story or tempo. In my point of view, this is a similar strategy that was used in Les Misérables, which drew its narrative with close up and music scores to encourage narrative-oriented auds. However, it is not reasonable if we do not pay equal attention to VFX (stands for Visual Effects) because that brings reality and sensation throughout the film. It is mandatory to witness the scene where Glass (Leonard DiCaprio) faces his first adversity while leading his fellows back to the town. What VFX bring ultimately is brutality of human beings.

   Basically, its semantic elements make it plausible to categorize this film to the Western. As I mentioned above, Glass is posited between two different groups. However, because of the brutality that is brought by VFX, the distinction between wilderness and civilization is blurred. As a result, it leads us to consider what civilization is and what a human being is. In addition to this, Iñárritu added a religious message on top of his western story by comparing human's vulnerability and overwhelming Providence. Providence is evident in several points in which it is hard to explain how Glass's life is saved. On the other hand, any human values - violence, contract, business, and so on - are not effective to bind the characters and to bring peace. Consequently, unlike a typical Western hero who retrieves peace by violence, Glass finds his peace in god (not God). This film alludes contemporary circulation of violence all over the world.

   It generates tremendous interest if DiCaprio will finally win best actor Oscar. In fact, I doubt it. It is difficult to distinguish actor's passion and character's perfection. Although DiCaprio went through various obstacles, what I mainly witnessed from Glass are yelling, groaning, mourning, staring, fighting. Maybe this negative feeling is due either to the frequent usage of foreign languages or to the guy who intermittently kicked my chair from the back row.

The 5th Wave (2016)

Director: J Blakeson

Writers: Susannah Grant, Akiva Goldman, Jeff Pinker
(based on the novel of Rick Yancey)

Production Co.: Columbia Pictures

Starring: Chloë Grace Moretz, Nick Robinson, Ron Livingston


   Interestingly, this film reminds me of a Bradley Cooper movie, Burnt, which I reviewed a few months ago. Although they belong to totally different genre, both films are similar in terms of their strategy to target audience. While employing conventional and proved plot, they boast their main player (Cooper and Moretz, respectively) to intrigue moviegoers. Unfortunately, Burnt turned out to be a flop since it just kept showing Cooper yelling. On the other hand, it seems that The 5th Wave will not experience the same case.

   Figuratively, this film is a mediation between The Hunger Games and The Twilight. The film adjusts well to recent trend of independent juvenile heroes. Unlike other young hero movies such as The Maze Runner or Ender's Game, in which kids are coerced to be soldiers either covertly (the former) or indirectly (the latter) or symbolically (The Hunger Games), the young characters in this film are obliged to stand on the front line directly. Although all these films share the same sarcasm of exploitation of younger generation, the mood of The 5th Wave is less grievous. Instead, the filmmakers blended teenager romance in the story, like The Twilight. However, they do not stay too much on the romance, and stick to their original problem: survival.

   Due to such light atmosphere, lack of causal relation is palpable in some parts, especially in the sequence where Cassie (Chloë Moretz) rescues her younger brother. But, that's fairly tolerable because the film is balanced well between serious subject matter and exciting spectacle. Sometimes it is doubtful of what Cassie really wants. However, the filmmakers did not venture to explain it in two hours. They were clever enough to conclude this film at a proper point. Although somewhat too optimistic perspective seems naive, I expect this will be a fine beginning of a new sci-fi serial. Whether some scenes are silly or not, Chloë Grace Moretz compensates all flaw. And more importantly, this film gives us a hopeful message: if you are pretty enough as Moretz, you can easily survive a pandemic disaster!

Spectre (2015)

Director: Sam Mendes

Writers: John Logan, Neal Pulvis and two more

Production Co.: Eon productions
(+ various copyright holders)

Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Saydoux


   This latest Double-o-seven film was released in Halloween season. On the contrary to its trailer and poster, the main plot is not necessarily unfolded on that event. Anyway, this movie is a finale of Craig's James Bond quadrilogy. Unlike previous 007 series, this quadrilogy is structured as a serial. Therefore, without knowledge of the former three episodes - Casino Royale (2006), Quantum of Solace (2008), and Skyfall (2012) - it is a bit hard to comprehend the story of this one.

   This modification of format is relevant to that of casting. Daniel Craig already announced that he would not play James Bonds any more. However, Sam Mendes' attempt to incorporate four different episodes in a long serial seems to be less organized. Although its visceral elements have survived throughout the serial, some others, which could have been profoundly developed, were neglected. For example, in Quantum of Solace, the film described as a number of international politicians were involved in the evil organization Quantum and it seemed that Quantum would disrupt the world in a complicated manner. However, the biggest conspiracy in this quadrilogy turns out to be, in fact, simpler than expected. The narrative is not the only thing that is simple, but also the characters (both the good and the bad). Most crucially, since there is no overwhelming villain, except the evil boss Blofeld (Christoph Waltz), the trajectory to the boss is filled with less exciting action sequences and some predictable humors. Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) is more powerful than Bond, but without his strength, this character does not have any particular trait. Blofeld is undoubtedly an attractive villain. He is gentle, but also cold-blooded and merciless. However, his motivation of global conspiracy is somewhat silly because it is too individual. Even the protagonists are simplistic. To put it simply, they  just do what they are supposed to do. On the other hand, the sequences of such other characters as M (Ralph Fiennes) and Q (Ben Whishaw) provide more tension.

   What fills the paucities is the actors' performances and the characters' psychological stories. That does not justify less creative action sequences, which were expected in this film. From the climax sequence, I felt that the filmmakers might had merely wanted to finish the serial. To get it straightforward, it should not have been like a Steven Seagal movie.
 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Director: J. J. Abrams

Writers: Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt

Production Co.: Disney

Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver

   Star Wars: The Force Awakens (The Force henceforth) sheds light on what has been looked over. In previous episodes of Star Wars, they have been indifferent to intimate difficulties of characters. Yes, we all know Anakin and Luke had suffered from absence of parents' love. The other characters also had faced their own psychological problems. What I indicate here is the characters' material and tangible struggle in everyday life. In this sense, The Force is quite subtle that it presents how long Rey has spent in AT-AT, how she works, and what she eats. Through such descriptions, the film makes the audience sympathize to Rey's loneliness and her desire to go back to Jakku for waiting her parents. For example, in the scene where she eats Again, this is what has not been achieved in this series previously.

   J. J. Abrams conferred novelty to this film by presenting improved relationships. Rey, obviously, denies conventional feminine character which has functioned as an object. On the contrary, Fin represents immature boy trying to be close physically to the girl whom he falls in love at first sight. Fin's dilemma between running away from First Order and staying with Rey consequently develops his maturity. Other relationships, such as those between Leia and Han, or Han and Chewbacca, invokes nostalgia that satisfies the old fans.

   However, I cannot say this one as attractive as the former episodes, due to its lack of cinematic perfection. In terms of narrative, what determines perfection of a film is causal relation. Although the filmic causal relation do not have to be equal to that of reality, at least the narrative should introduce basic elements to explain what comes further. For example, the dogfight between TIE fighters and Falcon is visually exciting. However, since there is no explanation of Rey's adept flying before the sequence nor after, it weakens the film's logistics. Most of Rey's qualities (such as mind-trick, lightsaber duel) are not explicated throughout the film. As a result, it is hard to feel any tension when she confronts a crisis because everything will be resolved even though she does not know how to do. Eventually, she is the central reason that collapsed Kylo Ren's character. It becomes questionable how Kylo Ren, who is defeated by a former stormtrooper and a novice force-sensitive, could ruin the New Jedi Order, which was constructed by Luke Skywalker. Some attributes his defeat to his injury by Chewbacca and his intention to turn Rey to the dark side. However, that is the very point that makes this villain idiotic. Both Snoke and he acknowledge that he must complete training. His incompleteness makes his trial to seduce Rey nonsense. How can an apprentice like him teach someone? Also, if he needs more practice, how could he destroy the Jedi Order? He is sandwiched in a dilemma between being a powerful Sith apprentice and a ham-handed juvenile delinquent.

   Fundamentally, what critically dismantled the quality of The Force is predestined directions. As above-mentioned statements, Rey magically realizes how to use the Force because she is chosen by Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber! I have never had an idea if a lightsaber possesses its own will. Predestined directions also affect the actors' performance. [Spoiler] At the climax, Kylo Ren walks toward a bridge in the middle of the power facility and Han follows him. It is unnatural because Kylo Ren has no motivation to be on the bridge. Then Rey and Fin enters and the light dramatically illuminates Han and Kylo Ren. Everyone is watching, but no shooting, no talk. The other characters are just posited to witness the two characters' interaction. This composition of elements makes the scene like a well-drawn still image of a comic book, but definitely, it is histrionic. It is clear when this scene is compared to "I am your father" scene in The Empire Strikes Back. Although Luke and Vader stand in the middle of the space as Han and Kylo Ren, it is perfectly motivated because Vader put Luke in the dead end throughout their duel. Unlike Luke and Vader's duel, it seems Kylo Ren just moved to the center because J. J. Abrams told him so. In other words, it represents inept subordination of performance to narrative, which only heads to ending crudely.

   Ironically, the worst part in this film is its final battle scene. First, it was naive to copy the same crisis, same strategy from A New Hope. The evil side builds a super weapon again and the resistance attacks it in the same way. Moreover, since the focal point is divided into two points, the tension of dogfight becomes loose. Simply, the X-wing fighter merely exist to explode the super weapon. Although they do countdown, the film does not generate the same anxiety that was presented in A New Hope.

   Some assert that J. J. Abrams, the director of Lost, intentionally loosened the film to remain questions for the next episode. However, when too much questions are remained, it hardly becomes tolerable to some audiences. To prepare a sequel, it should maintain self-closedness to a certain extent. Furthermore, it is illogical to undermine evident flaws of the present one while expecting the future one to cover them. Textual perfection of the present film should be discussed based on the present text. Therefore, I think this film is not as satisfactory as other Star Wars films. Nevertheless, it seems that watching this series now became a cultural ritual rather than an ordinary spectatorial experience. 

Negotiating Hollywood

Author: Danae Clark

Publisher: Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Publication date: c1995


   Before studying in the States, I had had a fantasy of Hollywood major studios that they achieved full employment, nurturing not only stars but other surrounding laborers such as extras, technicians, and so on. Such fantasy stemmed from unstable job security of current film industry. However, this book helped me realize that even stars could not secure their job stability in the studio era.

   Danae Clark's goal is to identify star subjectivity and whereas escaping from conventional star studies that pays attention to star image and spectatorial reception. Combining theoretical and historical aspects of actors' labor, the author reveals how actors gradually acknowledged themselves as workers and struggled to attain their rights in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

   It is surprising the major studios' tyrant and cunning treatment of actors (mostly of extras, but also of stars). The only thing they concerned was exchange of commodities, not basic human needs such as adequate rest or timely supply of food. By divorcing acting profession and labor - in other words, nominating acting as an artistry instead of working - they created an oppressive hierarchy of star system. More dubiously, even though it was the studios that made such structure, they either hailed or criticized stardom according to their contemporary interests.

   What is more striking to me is that the tyrannies described in this book resemble what is happening in Korea. A plethora of anonymous players are still trying to gain stardom, but most of them realize how their hope is reckless, sooner or later. Without any change of political regime or social activism, what will be left is only "an accumulation of facts and anecdotes regarding extras' working conditions". (Clark, 113)

Clark opened possibilities of future star study that will enhance understanding of actors' labor and subjectivity. She also mentioned that many studies, including film studies will further articulate uncharted aspects of the topic. This gave me a clue to consider what to do with my learnings in Cinema Studies.

Gettysburg (1993)

Director: Ronald F. Maxwell (Ron Maxwell)

Writers: Michael Shaara (novel), Ron Maxwell (screenplay)

Stars: Tom Berenger, Martin Sheen, Stephen Lang

Production Co.: Tristar Television, Esparza / Katz Productions, New Line Cinema, Turner Pictures


Speeches! This four-hour-film is full of speeches. Even when they say that they are not trying to preach, they actually preach. There are infinite ways of delivering speeches in a film, but the director presents them by mere shot / reverse shot editing. "I don't believe a man should be judged by what his father deserves... I fight for justice."; you are obliged to hear such typical quotes with big close-ups presenting heads of characters. I understand they are setting emotional ground for climax, but such boredoms are posited too often between sensational sequences.

     What helps to overcome such boredom are the music and battle sequences. Their battle is primitive. Though they were living in an era of industrial revolution, soldiers of the Civil War helplessly marched against well-armed enemy lines because they inevitably chose line battle due to poor accuracy of firearms and long reloading time. Thus the characters in this movie do the same thing as well as characters in other films like The Patriot (2000) or Barry Lyndon (1975). However, this film's battle sequences do not look dull because of two points. First, the film shows the soldiers' constant redeployment to attack/defend flank. It reveals rapid movements were still needed in the era of musket whereas that does not mean they could not avoid marching directly and slowly ahead enemy guns. In other words, the film does not downgrade the battle as a mere repetition of shoot-and-walk. It presents relentless efforts of privates and generals by introducing the overall situation of the battle.

     Secondly, the director consistently shows anonymous soldiers by frequent use of tracking shots. A number of shots show unnamed individuals who participated in the war, and it invokes that the war is not a simple political game of aristocrats or generals but a historical moment that involves common people. During exchange of fires, the director shows falling soldiers for a long period of time. Honestly, that is an excessive choice. He just could shorten the long takes. However, since the director made such a long story - 2 hours for the Northerners, 2 hours for the Southerners - it may be pointless to complain the film's timidity.

     Martin Sheen's performance is matchless. In fact, his Robert Lee is not a typical, authoritative general. However, from beneath his softness, Sheen directly and indirectly reveals Lee's inner conflict as a general who determines the lives of his men, and as a human.