while things are settling down in the US, i found myself back in the audio-visual room of the college of fine arts for another session of film appreciation.  screened by CAM (camera as art movement) this afternoon was “cinema paradiso,” the italian film that won the best foreign-language film in the oscars in 1989.  i’ve heard so much praise about the film and is continued to be cited to this day.  and like, wow!  (there i go again with the wow, but i think i can’t further explain in another word how i feel about the film).  this time i cried in the movie. 

the film followed the story of this man who, as a boy found an unlikely friend and father figure in alfredo, the cinema projectionist.  inspired by his passion for film, this boy would continually bother the burly man until he gives in and shares the magic and secrets of film.  i always thought there is a certain magic lent by foreign languages on film, there becomes this spirit that so fills the senses of which i never feel in filipino and american films.  anyhow, another film that i could relate to cinema paradiso in ‘feeling’ is the french film, “les enfants du marais” (children of the marshland), which also tells its story in a flashback of sorts.  both films elicit nostalgia and despite alfredo’s strong reminders not to give in to it, we will always go look for home and eventually return to it, even for a short while.  there we realize that even though the more things change the more they stay the same (that’s from interview with the vampire, by the way…)  in any case, do watch cinema paradiso and les enfants du marais (shown in last year’s french film fest in shangri-la) and relive the innocence of childhood and the magic of the movies.

last night ta tems and cuzin toots went to watch artificial intelligence.  since i haven’t gone to see it they were practically keeping their reactions and whatnot to themselves and were urging me to go see it first.  i didnt have plans to watch it until wednesday though.  the next morning, my classmates were also bugging me about the movie and were teasing me on giving out details to the film, which i definitely didn’t want to hear!  anyway, they would not stop so one time i had to step out of the room and stayed away from them.  sa akong kasapot gidagan ko sa sm to watch the movie.  before i left, my professor, with whom i also was speaking to about the movie, told me that i should watch the movie only if my morality could take it.  it suggested one should be mature enough to comprehend its issues.  i said i think i could take it.  and like, wow!  this movie is definitely not for everybody.  i’ve been hearing lots of people saying they didnt like it.  but i thought it was great!  for one, they’ve been complaining it was dragging and too long. the length of the film was just right for me, even its pacing, enough to involve viewers and help them absorb what the film had to offer.  if you’ve explored stanley kubrick’s 2001: a space odyssey, it showed that human thought was alien in origin.  its capacity later evolved from the man-apes to the sciences to space exploration and eventually to aritificial intelligence.  later, humanity symbolically overcame a.i. afterwhich humans were “reduced” to pure thought, transcending its physicality.  like, wow.  now here’s spielberg-kubrick film playing around that same train of thought, basically since it was kubrick’s idea to do this film.  based on the book, “supertoys last all summer long,” the film chronicles the journey of one innovation of artificial intelligence.  david, a child mecha (mecha for mechanical while orga is for humans who are organic), is the first of its kind programmed to love.  its programming also allows it to adopt emotions; the goal is to make it as human as possible.  later david is programmed to be child to monica and david, parents to a son who is cryogenically frozen because of… something.  when the son, martin, regains consciousness and is “thawed” the kid and david becomes sort of rivals for monica’s affections.  later, david was left out of the family and had to search the fictional blue fairy (as in pinocchio) and ask her to make him into a real boy.  he feels (i use the word here feel) and believes that if he were real, then perhaps monica will love him and see him as her son.  the movie maintains the fairy tale-like character of the story;  kubrick of course wished spielberg to direct this film because its sensibilities is more up to the latter.  i thought it was interesting to see how humans would create mechanical alter egos and because of the limitations of their own intelligence and capabilities to play god, they later disown their “mistakes” and even label them as freaks.  in reality, whatever the mechas are is because of the orgas.  there’s the danger there and rest assured, there is method to the madness.  in essence, as imperfect beings we have a tendency to make mistakes.  the decisions we do can make or break our society, our future, and even our humanity.  do we have the right to play god?  sure, dolly the sheep is the first and proclaimed as the only by-product of cloning (or is there something else i haven’t read?).  but what assurance do we have that they haven’t cloned a human being already?  the ethical issues are endless.  and with artificial intelligence, humans replicate themselves, generating an alter ego that will move, think, and even look like other humans but is not.  it remains that these creations will eventually grow up to realize and wish they had what no human could possible recreate, the indefatigable human spirit.  hal 9000 grew to be fearful and guilty of screwing up.  david grew up to be unwavering and hopeful that he will become a real boy.  it is ironic that while he remains artificial, we know there is truth and sincerity in his dreams and his love.  and so think all you want, but go watch the film and tell me if you’re not the least disturbed and touched by it.

i just saw dancer in the dark yesterday.  it was so good!  i loved it!  wow, bjork was awesome and i have no doubts why she won the best actress citation in last year’s cannes film fest.  she wasn’t like bjork or anything.  i mean, whenever she was in her dream sequences she was definitely bjork.  but once she snaps out of it, she becomes zelma, the simple-minded single mother who is also slowly losing her eyesight. and the story’s not as simple as just a woman going blind.  it’s the story of this incredible woman who would do anything for the people she loves, mainly her son.  the cast was also something to be reckoned with!  wow!  there’s david morse (contact and the rock) and catherine deneuve (ThE catherine deneuve).  then there’s the actor from “the lost world” who played jeff, the guy in love with zelma; and the actress (i can’t remember their names) playing the prison guard who befriends zelma (she was the secretary in “the negotiator” and the wife in “men in black”).  then there was the doctor (udo something, i’ve seen him somewhere in films screened in shangri-la) and etc. etc.  i wanted to cry in the screening but, well… i just wouldnt want to there (but i would have…).  the film is so powerful you can’t help but be involved.  lars von trier (director) did the camera work himself (on video!).  he also wrote the film. bjork did the score.  if ever, you come across a copy of the video (although you probably wouldnt find one) rent it out and watch it.  you… might not like it (because it’s so uncommercial) but you will definitely be touched by it.