ALEXANDRA looks

February 10th

In Alexandra, Galina Vishnevskaya has a formidable screen presence which is effective even when it is not known that she was a great diva. Her acting is subtle but Sokurov gives us in this film a woman of 81 who is physically there. In her flimsy shoes, loose fitting dress, and her hair in a bun she moves in the army camp like an old woman. She is hot and tired, she is aware of the smells and sounds of the environment, she expresses physically tenderness and affection. But above all she looks.

Looking is the kingpin of the film, mainly Alexandra’s but the others looking at Alexandra too. To situate a woman of 81 in an army camp is to offer a very unusual view of the army and war. This, Sokurov conveys in powerful images.

In the first few sequences, Alexandra examines her surroundings in a self assured way, whereas two soldiers look out through slit like windows from the armoured wagon of the train. One soldier has got a gun the other has his eyes shut. This contrast between the freedom of the old woman and the constrained view of the men is carried throughout.

There are many kinds of looking. In many scenes Alexandra looks at the soldiers in a way similar to an officer checking his troops. She is acknowledged as they crowd into the train, a panning shot shows her looking as they wait for their meal and she observes them sleeping as she walks between their bunks in the tent.

In one sequence her gaze dwells on the blistered sore feet of her sleeping grandson and she then examines his uniform to the three stars on the epaulettes. In other sequences the look is directed towards the contrasting textures of the war hardware and the vulnerability of the bare chested very young soldiers.

A few shots/reverse close up shots reveal an exchange of stares between Alexandra and different young men. The men start serious and sullen and finish by smiling at her. One guard starts playing with his gun like a child and he is told off : “ stop playing with your gun’”.

Occasionally we see a soldier looking at Alexandra and enquiring: “Are you looking for somebody? why are you staring at me? stop looking at me.”

This emphasis on Alexandra looking often in long takes, stresses the expressions on her face which change from curiosity at the beginning of the first part of the film to infinite sadness in the tank sequence and later ones.

When Alexandra goes to the local market jostling with soldiers and civilians a dramatic change in looks occur. It is Alexandra who is being looked at as she walks. At a stall a young local man does not respond to her enquiry but in a long take, stares at her silent and accusing. It is the first time Alexandra is outstared. A soldier stands and look down at her sitting next to a local woman stall holder. She ceased to be the old woman but becomes the occupier. The women in the market however smile and engage with her and an ex-teacher invites her home to rest. Their conversation is filmed in shot reverse shots of equal exchange. With Ilyas the young man who accompanies her back to the camp the exchange of looks is again equal.

What is interesting in this second part of the film is that the bombed-destroyed and ruined buildings are not seen from Alexandra point of view. They are filmed in long shot with the two diminutive old women walking hand in hand while the foreground in the left corner of the screen is a military vehicle.

In the last part of the film, back at the camp Alexandra eats her missed meal under the stare of four soldiers. In this sequence there is a brief cut away shot of Iliyas walking in the field.

In this third part ‘looks’ become less important except for one instance when a soldier peeps, unseen at Alexandra’s and Denis’ farewell embrace.

In this post I have concentrated on the ‘looks’ in Alexandra because as an older woman I felt compelled to see the army with her eyes in the first part of the film. In the second and third parts I was an onlooker on the effects of occupation and war.

I will consider other aspects of the film in my next post.

ALEXANDRA 2007

February 7th. 2010

Since my MA dissertation on Le Chat (le chat.pdf) I have been fascinated by the various factors that affect the reception of a film.

I mentioned in November how the description of Since Otar Left in the advertising flyer, biased the audience discussion and no doubt its reception. In that same flyer the film Alexandra was advertised as “Older Women and Younger Generations”. Expectations of the viewer are an important factor in the reception of a film and this tag line seriously misleads. The film was shown last week at the Lexi/U3A film group session. The contributions from the audience covered the main themes: The futility and cruelty of war and the humanising effect of the old woman on the soldiers, the potential tenderness of the men opposed to their killing function in the army, the specific but also universal war situation, the political context, the affection between grandmother and grandson, the  immediate rapport between the women on opposing sides. Other comments also made were about the incongruity of an old woman visiting an army base and details of the mise en scene, : the music, the colours and light and close ups of young faces.

But what about the critics? Widely reviewed both in England, France and the US, the majority were very favourable.

Since my main interest is the old woman in films I will start by noting the words used by the critics to describe Alexandra: (I have translated the French reviews)

A very few critics fall in the usual cliches: old lady with rheumy legs, rounded matronly old grandmother, almost comically the quintessential Russian image of the babushka, mother Russia figure, fierce busybody, recently widowed lonely and cranky octogenarian, granny and last but not least, a hive of inconsistencies.

The majority of reviews were very impressed by the presence and subtle acting of Galina Vishnevskaya: Old woman, ageing grandmother, eightysomething woman, elderly female, opiniated, stubborn, proud and not afraid to express her feelings, representative of the warmth of home life, formidably solid, weakened physically by age but very much the kind of Russian woman burnished by WWII, unsentimental and fearless, not a sweet little old lady, confident, imperious manner, performance of monumental depth, no-nonsense, irascible magnetism, down to earth stern and stolid, almost a monument, blunt and plain spoken, warm maternal figure, tender, stately stride of her elderly body, wise for all her years, undaunted, generous baboushka, heavy body, hesitant walk, hair in a silvery bun, her body evokes life long tiredness, a grandmother with a dignified face, soft form and wizened face, stout and sturdy, tough old bird, unmistakable hauteur, redoubtable, rebellious, inquisitive, yet as vulnerable as a nation at war with itself.

This descriptive assortment devoid of ageism conveys a very unusual rich image of an older woman. Sokurov stated in an interview that he made the film specially for Galina Vishnevskaya the famous opera singer. Together with her husband MstislavRostropovitch she fought for cultural freedom during the Soviet regime and had to live and settle in the USA for a while. On their return to Russia in 1990, they were involved in social and charitable work and Galina opened an Opera School. She was 81 during the filming and had recently lost her husband.

It is interesting that the Lexi audience did not comment on Alexandra as a character. Is it because as the critic of Variety says ‘’she is every mother viewing the wasted lives of young men and wondering why?”

About the incongruous presence of the old woman in an army camp a U3A member recalled a news item she had heard at the beginning of the war in Chechnya the content of which can be found in the Boston Globe (January 25, 1995Fred Kaplan): “When Valentina learned that her son’s military unit was being sent to Chechnya to fight in the war she drove 300 miles to his army base tracked him down, had him change into civilian clothes and brought him home to Moscow. In recent weeks more than 500 mothers have done what Valentina did at army bases all over Russia.

Another source : http://www.alliance21.org/2003/article3017.html also is witness to the likelihood of some scenes in the film. “We are in close contact with the Chechnyan women. We understand each other very well. We share the same pain and misfortune and we think we can overcome them together. When our Russian mothers go to Chechnya, they live in the houses of the Chechnyan women and share their bread with them. When the Chechnyan women come to visit us, we help them as we can, with medicine for example, and we take the list of their missing and try to publish it.”

Whereas the audience at the Lexi perceived the film as an anti war film, some critics took an exclusively political point of view. Thus it is reported that the film was received at the Cannes Festival with cheers but also jeers. For some reason commentators saw it as Russian propaganda.

I will come back in my next post on these points and on the fact that some reviewers talk of ‘a bizarre sexual pulse, near erotic fondness and homoerotic images.

Mrs. Caldicot’s Cabbage War

December 21st. 2009

This month people  braved the snow flurries and bitter cold, to come to the Lexi for our film club. They all enjoyed the film, so imagine my surprise to read  Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian the very next day quoting Mrs. Caldicot’s Cabbage War in a column entitled Talking in films:

“At the end of one dire day of screenings, we critics once sat down to a horrible tear-jerker called Mrs. Caldictot’s Cabbage War. Pauline Collins played a lonely widow who is pathetically grateful to be given a nice lunch in a restaurant. She simpered: ‘I haven’t had many afternoons like this’. ‘We have’ remarked the Observer’s Philip French drily. (The Guardian 17/12/2009)

Not one word referring to the film is accurate, they all misrepresent it. The film is not horrible, it is definitely not a tear jerker, Pauline Collins does not play a lonely widow, she is not pathetic and at no time does she simper.  Six years after its release, Bradshaw sees fit to denigrate this film again. On its release in January 2003  he said in the Guardian  : ” About 10 mins in, I all but lost the will to live”.  When it was scheduled on TV in December of the same year : “We’ll have enough turkey on our plates without having it on the telly as well. Most people reading this will not, for example have seen Mrs. Caldicot’s Cabbage War, a horribly twee British comedy that came out this year starring Pauline Collins and John Alderton, about a feisty lady packed off to an old people’s home.

What is it in this film that so disturbs Bradshaw that he needs to attack it again and again? what is it in this film that puts off critics, reviewers, distributors and programmers alike?.  Is it pure ageism? Amongst the unfavourable reviews the following comments would point to this:   ’It’s hard to imagine anyone under 60 judging this worth a trip to the cinema (ch4 film reviews)’ ‘its target audience is undemanding oldies (Sunday Times) , ”An old biddy campaigns against cabbage in an old folk’s home”. (Time out)”, Pauline Collins plays a geriatric Shirley Valentine in this senile comedy that’s well past its prime”. (BBC film review)

The comedy it is true deals with many issues concerning older people. The exploitation of a recently widowed mother by her son, the unscrupulous property developers, the running of care homes for profit rather than care, the sedation and neglect of older people, the manipulation of the media.

The story is a simple one. Thelma Caldicot  has been oppressed and cheated on by her husband all her life. After his death she is tricked by her son into a care home. The care home managed by a tyrannic manager and matron and poorly trained staff, abuses its residents by denying decent food, stimulation and genuine care. There, she is so sedated that she signs her rights away. Thanks to an understanding nurse she regains her self confidence, leads a revolt of the residents and eventually with the help of a sympathetic journalist obtains the ownership of the home.

The acting of all the well known actors and the less famous is very good and the script intelligent. There are extremely well observed and very funny scenes. The opening sequences recall Shirley Valentine and suggest the coming rebellion against authority. The breaking of the news of the death of her husband to Thelma by two novice police officers is hilarious in its realism. The comic quality of a slightly demented Audrey in a luxury hotel ordering a profusion of room service food challenges our preconceptions. Why should not care homes be more like luxury hotels? Finally the TV presenter, his put downs and Thelma resistance are satirically brilliant.

There are other touches which are fun. The cabbage which is the smelly everyday food is transformed into a football for young men, and boule for the pensioners. The idea of ‘mature students’ hijacking a school bus raised a laugh in our U3A audience.

But there are also touching moments. The relationship between Thelma and the nurse, the solidarity of the residents with Thelma, the change from passivity to creativity in people who have been overmedicated. Joyce who repeats what everyone says suddenly regaining her lovely voice.

It is true that there are a few misjudged scenes, and that a more stringent editing out of some redundant ones would have improved the pace of the action. It is also true that this is a film that conveys a message in an obvious way. That is not to say that all the issues it raises are not important ones that need to be aired and presented to a general audience.

Have all these people who decide what we see on the big screen no mothers or fathers, have they not heard of the the appalling regime in some rest homes and hospitals? Have none of them had to make the difficult decisions about their parents’ care? Many members of the Lexi audience said that the conditions of the Twilight Care Home do exist in real life, and that the film was worth showing in the cinemas. The comments of users on a variety of web sites were also complimentary

Does the genre of the film defeats its purpose? Maybe for some people but why not give the opportunity for the audiences to decide?  Only around 3000 saw it  in the UK and it has had no international distribution at all. Why?

Yet Mid August Lunch where the old women are infantalised and trivialised has been praised and internationally distributed in spite of being described as slight , anecdotal, good for TV by a good number of critics.

What is the difference between these two feelgood films about old people and their carers. In Mid August Lunch the old women are one dimensional and amenable. Their sons and carer gentle and inoffensive. In Mrs Caldicot’s Cabbage War the old people are characters in their own right. They rebel against an uncaring system.

The first film is seen from a younger person’s point of view. The second from an older one’s. The first film gets acclaimed, the second ignored.

Mid August Lunch

December 14th, 2009

Mid August Lunch is out on DVD and I am nervous of writing about it. The film has been highly praised by reviewers and has obtained a few awards, in particular the Satyajit Ray Award at the London Film Festival. Friends have recommended it and the majority of people (mainly women) at the Lexi and the Phoenix screenings enjoyed it. It is obviously a feelgood film about ageing and care.

It is not easy to go against other people’s feelgood reactions to films. It is all the more difficult to question this film when it is widely broadcast that the male director lived with his mother and cared for her in the last ten years of her life. But havins seen the interviews with actors on the DVD extras I am more confident to propose that the film reinforces prejudices about older women  and diminishes them.

There are a few feature films that deal with an older woman and a carer as the main subject : Tati Danielle, Driving Miss Daisy, Pauline and Paulette, Iris, not to forget the wonderful Paul Cox’s A Woman’s Tale. There are fewer that films featuring a group of old women: Alive and Kicking, The Company of Strangers, and Starukhi. Unfortunately the better of these films have had very little distribution and are unknown to the general public.

Mid August Lunch described as a comedy is unusual in that it features four old women with the son of one of them as carer.

The action takes place in Rome one hot August week-end. A middle age man (Gianni) who likes his drink and has financial difficulties cares for his demanding mother. The manager of his residence asks him to look after his mother Marina and aunt Maria over the Ascension week-end. His doctor who is on duty, also begs to bring his mother Grazia because her Rumanian carer is away. Both sons offer financial incentives for this favour. Initially the four women behave in an obstructive manner. Eventually they all get together and share a convivial Ascension day meal.

The style of the film has a documentary flavour. Filmed with a handheld camera in natural light, in the restricted space of a Roman flat, the shots are mainly close-ups, and big and extreme close-ups.  A lot of the shots focus on the hands, arms, faces and hair of the women. It is dark and claustrophobic in the flat. Marina’s escape is filmed in the night light and a very long shot,  and retain the feeling of containment.   The one escape from this confined atmosphere is when Gianni goes shopping for food in the light of a summer day.

The titles sequences set the underlying idea of the film. A close-up shot follows the hand and arm of an old woman in bed and settles on her profile. Lines, folds, liver spots are prominent on the skin. The next shot shows a middle age man sitting by the bedside reading aloud from the Three Musketeers. The woman interrupts to ask him to describe d’Artagnan. The man is forced to leaf through the book in search of the relevant pages. She declares petulantly that she would not ‘fancy’ his beaked nose. She eventually goes to sleep. He turns the light off. In the next scene we hear her call  !Gianni!. It is the middle of the night and we see him patiently get out of bed to attend to her.

The contrast of the close-ups on skin with the bedtime story, the choice of reading matter and the interruptions suggest strongly the idea of a child mind in an old body. This idea pervades the rest of the film.

The other scenes suggestive of children are the ones where the other women are dropped at Gianni’s house as parent drop children at a day care centre. The women have nothing to say and the sons talk directly to Gianni and give him instructions. In a more subtle way, the behaviour of the women can be described as childish rather than adult. Gianni’s mother declares she will welcome Marina but then does not want to share the evening meal with her. She then repents. She lends her TV to Marina and then wants it back. Grazia eats irresponsibly

Physically the women seem able-bodied. Maria does not show any sign of having lost her memory in spite of her nephew mentioning it. The characterisations of the four women are very thin indeed. Each one has one main feature: the mother is concerned with her appearance and is seen making up with great care, Maria is good at making pasta and we see her doing so, Grazia dwells talks incessantly on the past, and Marina is the bon vivant. She smokes, drinks and makes sexual advances to Gianni.

When finally the women communicate, their activities and talk remain as puerile. They watch TV, they read palms, they set the table. And a jolly time is had by all including Gianni and his friend.

When I first saw the film I thought it was boring, that most of the laughs were at the expense of the women and their childishness. Gianni’s infinite patience and dependence on alcohol was somewhat funny and there were too some laughs of recognition in the dietary restrictions and amount of pills needed. But otherwise it was difficult to understand why the film was so praised.

It is only when I read the interviews with Gianni  - the director- that I understood that despite a very poor narrative, no characterisation and no tension, the magic of the cinema worked to project the personalities of the women by their sheer presence and possibly some of their contributions. The director said “I was overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of the four ladies, entering the scenes with the power of their personalities, twisting some parts of the screenplay and bringing a sense of truth and superior spontaneity to what I had written.”

He also said previously that before filming he “… was struck by their (old women in general) vitality but at the same time by their vulnerability and the fear of loneliness”, “ I wanted to underline the sense of possession that some mothers have on their sons and especially singletons. Alas none of these interesting dramatic intentions are reflected in the film.

He is also quoted as saying that there was something of his mother in each of the women. By imbuing only one of his mother’s trait in each of the women he has impoverished each of the characters. It can be argued that the women are not supposed to be full-blown realistic persons. Alas the style of the film would be in contradiction with this notion. Also how come none of the women displayed any signs of intellectual life? The enduring concern with one’s appearance and sexual feelings in old age are touched upon but Gianni’s mother’s make-up is more like that of a pantomime dame than a dignified old woman and Marina’s sexual advances is played for laughs.

Philip French of the Observer found the film witty. There is not a single line uttered by any of the women that is funny or intelligent. As mentioned before, the laughs at both the Phoenix and the Lexi screenings were mainly in response to the childish behaviour of the women, the carer’s alcohol dependency, his infinite patience.

On the DVD, the visits to the old women actors none of them professionals, shows powerful, competent, intelligent women with an independent life and with no need of carer for a week-end. Marina Caciotti who played Marina displays real rebellion. She objects to the inclusion of the scene where her character is said to have used a bidet cover on the cake she brought as an offering. She also rebels at the editing that she says deprived Marina of any substance.

It seems to me that this film functions on the audience as Gianni’s dose of herbal infusions and sedative pills that he used to pacify the women. The women are comfortably well off, they are able in body and not too questioning in mind, they rebel gently and are brought to reason gently. Their sons are concerned enough, the carer with the help of good wine and some money is patient. Give them good food, wine and forced company end everybody will be happy.

The reviewers are nearly unanimous in liking the film. Why is it acceptable even laudable to portray old women as immature children? Are old men similarly treated in films?

Michelle Hanson who looked after her mother and wrote about it in the Guardian says from an older woman point of view.“But I am torn over this film. Is this the only sort of old lady future on offer for us? Because it’s more or less the only one we ever see. I know these are Italians, but old women are apparently the same over here. A bit childish, with nothing much to say for themselves, and not much interest in the wider world.

How about you readers? Will you turn into silly old ladies who tantrum because they can’t have the telly, who have no friends, can’t manage on their own and live a lonely life, dependent on their children?

In this film there is no space to think and ponder why perfectly able and capable women accept to spend the night in the flat of a stranger, and why their rebellion is so tame and why the Italian heat wave of August 2003 killed 8000 old people.

In the context of sexism/ageism of today’s media, this film and its success is disturbing.

Come back Tatie Danielle.

Mid August Lunch

This month both the Phoenix and the Lexi cinemas screened Mid August Lunch. Both sessions were well attended. At the Phoenix the panel consisted of Pauline Moran for Equity, and Michelle Hanson columnist in the Guardian.

There was a lively ‘discussion’ in both cinemas after the viewing.  At this point I would like to change the use of  this term for what is in fact an exchange of views by members of the audience. There can be no informed ‘discussion’ without demonstrating the different points with actual footage. This can only be done in actual study sessions where the film is examined scene by scene. In my experience of showing films to groups of people, details and even whole scenes of a film can go  unregistered or misremembered. Reactions to a film  on a first showing are subjective,  involving  many factors from personal experience and expertise to ideology.    The sharing of thoughts about a film with other people enriches the experience of going to the cinema and makes it a social exchange as it exposes  different point of view. However this  does not help to understand and assess the film any better.

I do think that some films representing older women need to be examined in detail. Some, because they reinforce ageist attitudes and some because they stimulate the intellect or engage the emotions.

Mid August Lunch is in my opinion a film that reinforces prejudice and I hope to demonstrate this by analysing it when it is released on DVD.

Notes: One member of the audience at the Lexi contradicting my last blog  did identify with the protagonists.

Michelle Hanson in the Guardian of 27th March wrote an interesting column about it. It is worth reading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/nov/27/michele-hanson-mid-august-lunch

The ‘otherness’ of the older woman

November 25th 2008

The ‘otherness’ of the older woman

It is very common for people to quote in an amused way their older relatives say “No I would not want to go to a retirement home and stay with all these old people”.

Of course the word ‘old’ is full of meanings and the reluctance to admit that one is old is prevalent nearly everywhere. There are some myths that being old is in some societies more appreciated, more respected, valued than in our western societies but it is only very recently that 80+, 90+ people enjoy healthy ageing.

When I first started to show films featuring women of 60 years and over to my contemporaries, I was 63. Some of the women in the groups were older, but one thing is certain is that time and again I noticed that women when discussing the film and their feelings about it, and in particular the old woman role, referred not to themselves but to their mothers, their aunts, their neighbours, never to themselves.

Now 12 years later at a showing of a film at the Phoenix in their Older “Women and Film” season,  some women were of my age and older, and one woman  declared being 84.   Still the same phenomenon occurred the comparison was made between the women on the screen and mothers alive or dead. Not with themselves.

In discussions the question is not often posed in the following way : “Would I like to be portrayed like that?” “Does this correspond to my personal lived experience?”. “What does this film say about ageing and the way older women are perceived ?”

Why are older women ‘other’ even to older women?

 

 

Pauline and Paulette

November 16^th 2009

Pauline and Paulette

The film shown at the Lexi at the October U3A film group meeting was Pauline and Paulette (2001). The session was well attended.

Although the film is simple and gentle it provoked in the audience a host of thoughts and comments about mental disability, the difficulties and rewards of caring, ageing, retirement, guilt, the state of social provision for the mentally disabled,

This unusual film with four main female characters over 60 years of age has a very slight narrative. Pauline is a 66 years woman with a developmental disability and a mental age of 6. Martha, the eldest of her three sisters, her carer, dies and leaves her inheritance to share between the three sisters, on the condition that one of the two sisters Paulette or Cecile looks after Pauline. Pauline lives with Paulette for a while but the disruptions to Paulette’s life are too great and Pauline is sent to Brussels to live with Cecile. She soon escapes back to Paulette who in the meantime has decided to forego the inheritance, put Pauline in a care home and retire to the seaside.

Dora van der Groen who plays Pauline is entirely realistic and details of her behaviour are accurately observed and executed. Her way of walking, eating, drinking are so convincing that somebody in the audience asked if she was disabled. Close ups show every line and fold lines on her face and neck without make up. Pauline has one passion: flowers and a fascination for her sister Paulette.

It is through this fascination that we are made to understand Pauline and her touching childlike character.

Everything in Martha’s house is brown, Pauline’s room, the sheets on her bed, the carpet, the wall paper, the kitchen, the clothes they wear. Cecile’s minimalist white and blue town small flat and conventional clothes conveys dullness, lack of freedom.

Paulette, on the other hand is all show. Physically she is big, heavily made up and bejewelled. Her bedroom is all pink with a profusion of knick knacks, and fabric roses and frills on the bedspread. She sings in the amateur operetta group of the town and is still more flamboyant on stage. Her Ladies’ Wear shop is red, fuchsia, pink both in the décor and the clothes she sells. The wrapping paper printed with red roses enchants Pauline and is one of the motifs of the film. It is used on the cover of the DVD .

At the beginning of the film, we see alternating shots of Pauline peering through the shop window and close ups of the objects in the shop in all their colourful variety of reds and pinks. The delight and immense pleasure expressed by Pauline’s face make us see this kitsch shop with her childlike eyes.

There is little narrative drive in the film or dramatic changes, but isolated small details of the behaviour of the three sisters and the few other characters give the viewer space to think and negotiate between the two worlds of Pauline and the others. The subtle changes that occur in the three sisters and their relationship show with nuances, the development of affection, tenderness, tolerance rarely seen in family dramas.

It is an unusual film in that although three of the main protagonists are over 60. Experiences of age like retirement and death are present as normal events in life but the main theme is not ageing but relationships.

It is not is not a feel good film about mental disability, it is a film that gives the viewer the opportunity to think about it.

This was reflected in the profusion of comments from the audience. It was also gratifying to talk to a person involved in ‘Brent Carers’ who thought that the film would be enjoyed by the members of the association.

 

Since Otar Left

November 1^st. 2009

Supported by Film London, the Phoenix cinema in East Finchley started a series of monthly events consisting of a matinee screening of a film featuring an older woman, followed by a panel talk and a discussion.

The first film shown in January 2009 was Fassbinder’s Ali, Fear Eats the Soul (1974). The session was very well attended. Unfortunately, the panel did not serve this great classic very well. Two out of the three were not familiar with the film or the director. As is usual in Q & A the audience were extremely articulate in expressing their opinions. But did they learn anything about the subject of older women in films in general or about this film in particular? I ask this because the day was advertised as a Study Day.

I could not attend the September showing of Sokurov’s Aleksandra (2007). This film was billed in a very well produced flyer as ‘Older women and younger generations’. I will comment on this inaccurate and misrepresenting title at a later date.

On October 28^th the audience was small. Only one member (U3A) of the panel turned up. The film shown was Bertucelli’s Since Otar Left. The flyer describes this film as ‘Women in a changing society’.

I wonder to what degree the expectations raised by such a simplistic and misguiding categorisation spoil the cinematic experience. During the discussion the contributions of the audience concentrated mainly on the relationship between Paris and Georgia, the two locations, the use of the French language in Russia and the history of USSR and Georgia, the role of Paris as a construct, the difference between East and West. This left little time to explore the depth and complexity of this very special film directed by a woman.

The narrative depends on the presence of an absent male in the household composed of a 90 years old woman Eka, her daughter Marina and her granddaughter Ada. Otar the son, brother and uncle has gone to Paris to find work. In the first part of the film Otar writes and phones home. In the second part Marina and Ada conspire to hide his death from Eka.

This family drama’s main characteristic is its lack of cinematic melodramatic features. There are no scenes of shouting and storming out, no hysterical explosions, no violent outbursts. Instead we have the love and tensions, the closeness but also the differences between the three characters and the effect of the death of the absent male on their lives. The mise-en-scene reflects in a masterful way the contradictions. There are nearly as many night scenes as there are day scenes. The lighting goes from the cold daylight to the warm hues of candlelight. The colours also express these changes in mood. The characterisation conveyed by superb subtle acting and an incisive script, highlights intergenerational relationships in all their complexity.

The old woman in this film is part of an ensemble and cannot be separated from the others. The different life trajectories of the three women, their different points of view, the past present and future, the quality of love and commitment, of caring, of dependance and autonomy, memory and emotions, secrets and protection of the loved ones  - so  many themes that could have been explored beyond the geo-political background that reviewers have tended to write about.

Once more I feel that an important film about women’s lives is neglected and in danger of being forgotten. Julie Bertucelli won the Cannes Festival Critics Week Grand Prize (2003), Best First Work Cesar (2004) and another 11 wins and 5 nominations for her film. Yet only 338,119 people saw it in 27 European countries. 8296 people saw it on the big screen in the UK as opposed to 183 978 in France. As older women we can give it the attention it deserves.

 

The Ladykillers

October 21^st 2009

The Lexi Cinema in Kensal Rise offered the University of the Third Age Film Group a trial period to use their screen for their meetings. We would show a film and then ask the audience to participate in an exchange of views.

The first film we showed in September was ‘The Ladykillers’ (1955). While I personally find the film very funny and the representation of the old woman central to the plot rather sympathetic, a few women in the audience objected to the old woman as a naïve old fool.

I thought that this difference of opinion merits a closer examination of the film.

‘The Ladykillers’ and the Little Old Lady Stereotype.

Of the many and changing stereotypes of the old woman in feature films, the Little Old Lady conveys a picture of a sweet, ineffectual and naïve person.

Mrs Wilberforce, in the Ladykillers has been described by different reviewers as: innocent hostess, sweet old lady, dithery, aloof but well meaning, dotty, schoolmarm, irritating old bat, conscientious senior citizen, naive but determined biddy, loveably dotty, unflappable well-intentioned but moralistic, naïve and mettlesome old woman, set-in-her-ways, doddery old bat, kindly old lady, a pure delight, sublimely ignorant of the world around her, invulnerable, appears senile but is not, pure of heart, a bit askew, not senile but also not fully in tune with reality.

What is interesting in ‘The Ladykillers’ is that Mrs. Wilberforce does exhibit these stereotypical characteristics but the stereotype, instead of obscuring questions, raises interesting ones on the representation of the old woman. The tension and funny scenes in the film arise not by a challenge to the ‘little old lady stereotype’ but by the contrasting her world of old fashioned values with that of groups of younger males: the crooks the police and incidental slapstick characters. It is the other protagonists and their attitudes that makes us look at the stereotype in a different way.

The mise-en-scene can elicit in older women flashes of recognition. Katie Johnson’s acting for which she was awarded the Bafta for best British Actress gives credence to the character. Some details of direction: the forever forgotten umbrella, the reading glasses, the looking for the keys, the perfect timing of her dealing with the air lock, mentions of her past and her husband also accurately suggest older women’s everyday experiences. But basically the plot relies on her naivety, her stubbornness. There is also a momentary change from the Little Old Lady to the School Marm as I shall show later.

Physically Mrs. Wilberforce is small with partially grey hair nearly always covered by a hat. She has the proverbial rosy cheeks, her clothes are old fashioned, she always wears gloves. Her house is Victorian in décor. A picture of her naval officer husband hangs in the sitting room where his three parrots are in residence.

The opening scene shows Mrs. Wilberforce being greeted benevolently by people in the street as she makes her way to the police station. A brief scene at the entrance unsettles the mood. Two young women with a pram are talking on the steps of the police station. Mrs. W. smiling, bends to look into the pram. The baby responds with screams of fear.

This scene misleads us. Are we going to witness a little old lady turn into a frightening individual? Not at all, she remains the same little sweet old lady throughout the film.

At the police station while the superintendent is kind and condescending, there are three other burly policemen in the background laughing at her. She came to apologise for a friend who mistakenly reported an alien invasion the day before. (A nod here to Orson Welles’ 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds.) These sequences at the Police Station, however mild in showing ageist attitudes, will set the scene for the very important closing sequences where Mrs. W thanks to the ageism of the police walks away with the all the money of the heist.

The ageism of the police pale in comparison to the overt, outspoken – and alas still prevalent today – ageism displayed by the crooks. The plot and comedy depends on Professor Marcus using the naivety of Mrs. Wilberforce in the heist he is planning. She is to collect the trunk full of banknotes stolen from a security van outside Kings Cross Station and drive back home with it in a taxi.

Pr. Marcus: “you must appreciate that Mrs. Wilberforce is not a mere appendage to my plan but at the very core of it”

Louis: “the lopsided old Grandma”

Harry: “how do you know we can trust her to do it right if she does not know what she is doing?”

Lawson: “a sweet little old lady . It does not seem right for her to be working with us on a stick up caper”

Louis: “I’ll just tell you this. I just don’t like old ladies. I don’t like having them around. I cannot stand them.”

Harry: “I don’t think we can depend on a screwy old dame like that.“

Although voiced by a bunch of caricature crooks, the ageism so openly expressed in these sentences do have a deep resonance even today.

While the characteristic of gullibility drives the narrative, Mrs. W. shows stubbornness in the slapstick sequences where she is trying to stop a stall holder from beating a horse. Here she is the agent of destruction: of the stall, the taxi and the livelihood of the two men.

A complete change in Mrs. W behaviour from the meek and mild little old lady to the schoolmarm occurs in the sequences where her friends come for tea just after she has discovered that the Professor and his mates were not musicians but gangsters.

These sequences are extremely interesting. We know that older women depend on the friendship of other older women, yet this is never seen on screen. Older women get together for support, education, fun. The U3A (University of the Third Age ) study groups are 74% female for example but there are countless older women groups all over the country.

Mrs. W. receiving her friends for tea is reminiscent of so many reading, U3A, Older Feminist, Growing Old Disgracefully groups etc. who meet regularly in each other houses. The women arrive one by one. They are all caricaturised but each one has a special personality. As her friends start arriving, Mrs. W. suddenly becomes assertive and orders the men around as the headteacher would an assembly of children:

“I suppose there is no need for me to look at the newspaper”

“Indeed I thought not”

“I am shocked, shocked and appalled and I must tell you – all of you.

“Didn’t you hear what I say dear. We are all going in”

“Now there is nothing for it, you will have to come in but please remember this. These are some of my older and closer friends and they must not get the slightest inkling of this disgraceful affair”

“Simply try for one hour to behave like gentlemen.”

After the friends leave, Mrs.W. reverts to the naïve and easily fooled little old lady. The quartet then proceed to try and kill her. But it seems that Lawson who had some doubts about involving the sweet little old lady in their heist, and probably motivated by her disciplinarian attitude, declares himself to be her protector : “nobody touches Mrs. Lopsided”, “I said nobody must do her.” “I am staying with Mum.” Here again we have the look of a man transforming the old woman in something she is not, his mother.

Unable to kill the old lady, the group just destroy each other.

And in a bookends last sequences   Mrs. W walks out of the police station having been told that she can keep the money as long as she does not say anything about it.

A few words about the Coen brothers’s remake (2004). It takes place in Mississippi and the old lady is the stereotypical Black Big Mamma: bowlegged and irascible. She is a caricature while Mrs. Wilberforce was not. In comparison to Mrs. Wilberforce who has very independently held Victorian values of civil duties, Marva is a God fearing church goer. She does not allow smoking in her house, and does not like hip hop loud music. While Mrs. Wilberforce refers to her husband only at a time of internal conflict, Marva is dependent on his name and image throughout the film. Finally in an in-joke that may escape the majority of people: the Bob Jones University that Marva donates her money to has a racist history of which she is ignorant. But what is remarkable is that the old woman has lost the central, reference role that she had in the MacKendrick film.

Why this blog

Why this blog? I am 74 years old and since my retirement at the age of 60  I have been studying the representation of older women in feature films, as well as ageing and ageism.  I have been concentrating on films where the older woman is the main character or part of an ensemble.  I have seen  a great number of available films. I have also led an ‘Older Women in Film’ group for this length of time.

Over the years, I have tried to express the  view of an older feminist viewer but I have encountered ageism at many levels. It started with the professor  who replied: “but who is interested in older women?” when I asked him to supervise me for a PhD.  I gave up on the academic course and decided to go to the grass roots and  formed an older women viewer group.  Of course ageism pervades a great number of the films I came across in my research. The widely distributed films are often the most ageist/sexist. However, others deserve a wider audience specially an audience of older women. But due to the  male and youth oriented attitudes of distributors, critics and cinema programmers these films remain unseen and the sexism/ageism of  more  famous  films ignored.

I am tired of battling with institutions. When they seem to listen  they appropriate the idea and change it beyond recognition. In this blog I will share my knowledge and experience,  with whoever is interested.