Bridges of Madison County (1995) - 10/10

Odd thoughts come in to my head. Watching a scene in this movie taking place at a breakfast table with Francesca (Meryl Streep) serving coffee to Robert (Clint Eastwood) makes me wonder about what it was that would happen in a similar situation in my house when growing up. We didn't have coffee. No, the preferred drink was Tea. With drinking Tea comes the price that rarely a limitless supply of it is available (unless you are seated at a Tea-shop). If anyone wanted a second cup someone had to brew it. It seems that in all those years, quite often someone obliged.

Although Bridges of Madison County is about two people who fall in love, the thing that strikes me most sitting here now and writing this is that the movie is moving because it reminds me of home, of growing up with my family and most of all my parents. It's odd that a movie billed as a romance should do that. It is even billed as a "chick-flick" in some circles if an issue of Men's Health is to be trusted. Why is it that romances are classified as such? Is the average man not interested in romance? I fear it is partly a perception drawn from movies themselves. Significant therefore, how this movie's perception is. The point being that a "Romance" comes with a certain amount of stigma attached to it. But this movie is far from a cliched romance and in the hands of Eastwood takes on many more dimensions. Strangely, besides the fact that it reminds me of my parents as I write there is also Chopin's Raindrop Prelude playing in my head. I believe the reason for that is that the central piece of the score by Lennie Niehaus (and apparently supported by Eastwood) certainly seems to be drawing from it.

I have said before that A Perfect World is my favourite Eastwood directed movie. Now it seems it will have to become this one. I hope this opinion does not change over time because I committing this to the Web. (Thankfully, in the even such commitments may be undone). However, that does not mean that I will change my mind. I don't think I will. This is much like what happens in the movie: In a way, some commitments cannot be undone.

There are so many things going for this movie that is hard to pick a place to start. The story, a novel by Robert James Waller is perhaps nothing special (although it has a certain appeal, which is discussed in Ebert's review), but here a lot of elements work together to elevate the material. I have mentioned the score before, which is subtle, almost minimal in its use but very effective. It is nicely complemented by Blues / Jazz numbers playing whenever possible on the nearest available radio. The cinematography is also quite brilliant, full of beautiful images and with the use of the lighting gives the movie an almost under-stated, elegiac tone. The performances by Streep and Eastwood are masteries of subtlety in almost the same way. That they manage to become a sort of argument for main-stream (read Hollywood) movies and the acting in them is a tribute to the skill of the actors here. There are critics of mainstream movies and their acting such as the opinions of Ray Carney of acting in Hollywood movies in the last 20-30 years. I understand where he is coming from but can't help feeling sorry at times for the fact that they (probably) don't feel anything when they see a movie like this (or The Shawshank Redemption). To them this is fake art, and maybe it is. But oh... it is so darn good.

Consider the many poignant moments that Eastwood and Streep achieve here together. Eastwood has a seen where Francesca gets angry at his character, Robert and suggests that the thing that they have had (their love affair) us like plenty of others that he has had before. The suggestion is so very painful to him. He doesn't say anything and really his expression doesn't change at all. But so much is conveyed (this reminds me of some moments in Forrest Gump). Watching Eastwood grow out of his type-cast of Dirty Harry / Sergio Leone days to a wise actor (and man) is one of the rewarding experiences of being a long-time movie fan. Not that Eastwood was not a good actor then, only that he has grown wise and learnt even more about his craft. I am reminded of Tow Wilkinson and his performance in In The Bedroom. But Eastwood has the ideal foil in Streep (much like Sissy Spacek in In The Bedroom) and in fact there were moments when I had thought that She was challenging her co-star to rise beyond himself, but that is being a little unfair. There is a time, when She is in a red dress looking on after him driving off into the darkness, which is indescribable for what a torrent of feelings it brings to me the viewer. Thus begins the final moments of the film and little smiles, nods mingled with many tears are the things are most heart-breaking.

Although Ebert feels that the rest of the cast, characters were a bit weak, I disagree. I thought in a strange way by adding shades of eccentricity they became more believable and contributed more to the telling of the story (apart from the necessary narration device). For example, a look at the end by the Michael's wife (Phyllis Lyons) is very striking.

The other odd thing that I was thinking about while watching this, happened somewhere around the middle of the film when Francesca and Robert had made love for the first time and were kissing intimately. I thought suddenly of the actors involved in this and other such scenes and the amount of themselves that they invest in the process of acting. That, in a way, we as human beings have a need to be voyeurs and peeking into other people's lives (and this thought is not restricted to just the kissing or the sexual aspect of things that the word "voyeur" inevitably conjures up in one's mind these days; maybe observer is a better word, but somehow an observer seems to have less involvement than a watcher). As human beings we have a need to hear (watch) other people's stories. It perhaps derives a little from the basic need for society but is more than that. It enables us to empathize with fellow humans and their concerns and in turn informs our personality. That in the century when we have apparently become most obsessed with the self is also the century in which we have invented a way of looking at (and hence feeling for) others seems at length a healthy development. That is exactly why the Art of movies is justified because done right it can sometimes do more (or at least different things) than any form before it (like books), and in effect it reaches more people because there is a much shorter / easier investment of time and attention on the part of the viewer, to get to it.

A very good movie if it makes me think about all that. I am left with reflections about Art, of Artists and their contributions, movie-makers, and of my fellow beings, how much I am interested in their condition (and also an uncanny need to begin answering the Ray Carney brigade). At the center are thoughts of my parents, their sacrifices, compromises in raising me, the commitment and the things they might have given up. Ultimately, I am overwhelmed and I cry.

The films of Krzysztof Kieslowski

The first movie by Krzysztof Kieslowski that I saw was Blue. I loved the movie and therefore had to complete the rest of the Three Colors Trilogy: White and Red. The Trilogy is undoubtedly one of the great masterworks of modern cinema and should be considered one of the greatest works of all cinema. It is often hailed as director Kieslowski's greatest achievement. This is likely true but I am always put off by such statements because I think this often encourages the average viewer to see this and then disregard the rest (I am pretty sure that this happens based on first-hand evidence). There is somehow the impression that if you have seen (heard) the best work of an artist then it's enough and one can move on to the next artist. I guess this happens in part due to the fact that people are usually stretched for time and in part because a lot of people are simply not interested in delving deeper or knowing more about a particular artist. It is left for college students, academics and lovers of art to do this. To obsessively follow the arc of an artist's work through his/her lifetime. Although it is understandable that most people would not want to go into all this. However, it is true that between seeing the best work and obsessing about an entire career there is also a middle path (or several) which is to see a more representative set of the artist's work. For example to see Fellini, it is not enough to watch 8 1/2 and move on, but to at least see La Strada and Amarcord as well (and even that isn't enough, one must also see La Dolce Vita and more - his works before like I Vitelloni - you see where this is going). Apart from the fact that a great artist doesn't become a great artist in a day and so a lot of work done by the artist is likely to be very good, there is also the fact that seeing these other works often gives us a heightened perception when watching the said greatest work (if you don't believe me, watch 8 1/2 first, then La Strada and the 8 1/2 again and you'll know what I mean). It tells one a little about where the artist is coming from. It is arguable that this may not necessarily be the best approach, which is why I am not saying that you need to start with an artist's lesser works but just that you need to be aware that all this other work exists and get to them eventually after seeing the best.

Returning to Kieslowski, it is needless to say that since then I have seen a number of his films and liked each and every one of them. The next film (or set of films) that I saw was The Decalogue and this work in general benefits from being at least a little aware of the Kielowski psyche. Not that one will be disappointed if they are unacquainted with Kieslowski's work but that they may feel a little left in the dark (although every person's reaction is no doubt different). In any case, this is another masterwork of cinema and therefore is not to be missed. It is also a wonderful conversation aid because almost everybody's take on it is different. However, it is recommended that conversation be carried out soon after watching the films because it tends to blur in one's memory: stories seemingly intertwine and characters appear in other stories in one's memory. All of the stories happening in the same apartment complex with people actually appearing in more than one story alongwith the consistent look and feel (although managed by 10 different cinematographers) heightens this effect: I think Kieslowski wanted a little of this while making it.

Since then, I have seen The Double Life of Veronique, Camera Buff and No End. Each of those movies is worth watching for different reasons. The Kieslowski sensibility and general-outlook-on-life permeates through each of those works but they also have a great story to tell as and in of themselves. I imagine Camera Buff is the most autobiographical of the lot in more ways than one, in essence the ending of the film seems to mirror what happens (or is about to happen) in his own life. In the late 70's and early 80's is when Kieslowski went through a process of gradually giving up the making of documentaries. This is in some way the director starting to look inward rather than the outside world. This does not mean that the director actually began filming himself from here on in but rather that from here on in he worked exclusively in the realm of fiction. He had a worthy ally through most of this in his co-screen-writer Krzysztof Piesiewicz, who collaborated with him beginning with No End and together they helped shape a lot of the remainder of Kieslowski's movies. Piesiewicz was a lawyer and is it a co-incidence that the first film that the two wrote together, No End has a trial in the center of the story? One of the great things about the writing and the film-making is that although Kieslowski almost always has a lot to say, the film's are rarely didactic or otherwise painted with obvious plot points to indicate exactly what the author is thinking. Some things are easy to see of course, such as the high level political inklings as perceived in No End. But even then it is less than clear what the political message of the film is. There are the knee-jerk-reactionists who say that the film is about this and so on but that is much too simplistic a viewing of it. The same reactionists who would label Kieslowski a pessimist no doubt. Again that is much too simplistic a viewing of his work. To me Kieslowski is in the realm of realism but is rarely pessimistic. He does differ from the likes of Ray in that he does not necessarily see a lot of good in the way a lot of people live but that does not make him a pessimist. He is less in love with romantic ideals and more interested in how real people actually lead their lives. Read some more of my thoughts on this here.

It is true that my overall opinion of Kieslowski and his psyche is coloured by the fact that I saw his later works first. It is true that those later works are definitely more hopeful than the rest. But then again as I have said here a film like Blind Chance is wonderful because it offers us a view of these different outcomes. Which one of these is the one that happens, which is one is the best outcome are all things for us to contemplate. However, it is important to see that although we exist in the ideal that we shall always find the best for us in life, this rarely happens and a Kieslowski in showing us what an effect chance plays on our lives is in fact suggesting at least two things: that the outcome is not always (if ever) in our hands therefore we need to make the most of it and how we are affected by each freak of chance is largely upto us. In effect characters in great drama are always more courageous and emotional than we are and it is incumbent upon us to try and become a bit like them. The quality of one's life is determined largely by the person himself/herself.