Dissent & Disruption: Alan Clarke at the BBC

Message

Charles · #726 Post by **Charles** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:18 pm

My shipping box was mildly crushed at either end, enough so that I held my breath while carefully opening it. Despite only a folded piece of kraft paper as cushioning, the box set was in absolutely untouched condition.

And the Oppo plays the format perfectly. Not that I expected otherwise, but a good thing nonetheless.

criterion10 · #727 Post by **criterion10** » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:00 pm

Mine came today as well. Shipping box was slightly beat up, while the box set only has some very minor scuffs around some of the corners. No major issues. It's beautifully designed, and I can't wait to dig into it.

MichaelB · #728 Post by **MichaelB** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:16 am

The Digital Fix covers Nina and Bukovsky.

AidanKing · #729 Post by **AidanKing** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:40 am

I think Gary C's Digital Fix reviews of the set are excellent. One of the interesting insights in the review of Diane is that Clarke seemed to be paring the content of each successive work more and more down to the essential as he moved from project to project, in a process of subtraction. That's another link to Bresson, of course.

Big Ben · #730 Post by **Big Ben** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 am

AidanKing wrote:I think Gary C's Digital Fix reviews of the set are excellent. One of the interesting insights in the review of Diane is that Clarke seemed to be paring the content of each successive work more and more down to the essential as he moved from project to project, in a process of subtraction. That's another link to Bresson, of course.

Yes I noticed that films like The Firm were originally supposed to be at least two hours but Clarke, by the time he had reached that point in his career could shape screenplays to his wishes. The auteur really began to take greater shape later in life. This is argued in the Rolinson book about Clarke which I agree with MichaelB is essential.

Big Ben · #731 Post by **Big Ben** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:38 pm

What to say about Christine, the film I watched this morning? Brilliant? Horrific? Both?

"What's the time?"

SpoilerShow

I'm again surprised by Clarke's matter of factness in this film. Nowhere to be found are the usual moral suspects in a "drug" film. Christine is a film that occupies time and space. It simply exists. For a little less than an hour I watched a young girl deliver and do drugs with her friends. Without much plot and without any action (other than the physical doing of drugs) I watched in eventual horror at the plasticity of these poor kids existence. There is no horrific overdose scene, no moralizing policeman. It's pure cinema and I deeply appreciate Clarke's handling of it. More and more as I watch these films I come to realize what a tremendous early loss Clarke was. The amount of trust he put in the viewer is something sorely missing from today's television and cinema viewing.

#732 Post by **domino harvey** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:29 pm

Cracked into the set with the Hallelujah Handshake at Nick’s suggestion and my first exposure to Clarke is indeed a positive one. Part of the playfulness of Clarke’s structure is in its surprises, so I’m going to spoiler all of my discussion of the film.

SpoilerShow

Our protagonist, whatever his name at the moment, is so desperate to be accepted that he’s perverted the open-arms nature of Christian churches and has apparently made a career of hopping from one denomination to another. Tony Calvin’s character gravitates towards children because they are the most apt to be immediately accepting, especially in the ~10 year old age group we hear he specializes. Think back to the playground days of your own youth and how you made friends: you walked up to someone and decided, bam, this guy or girl’s your new bestie for the most arbitrary of reasons. Maybe you like her pink eyeglass frames, or the way he laughs at his own jokes. It doesn't take much to form an immediate bond as a child. Calvin works the same way, and his methods of friendship and kinship are likewise grounded in juvenile tactics. I want you to like me, so here’s a bunch of lies that make me sound like the bee’s knees. Here’s some toys or a radio I know you’d love. Please love me. It’s sad but understandable. Coupled with what many in the film perceive to be homosexual tendencies (I'm not certain I'd agree, as the bizarre failed pass / brusque "rebuffing" of the projected affections of his married colleague seem to show this is a man with no clear adult concept of intimacy on any plane of human interaction, much less sexual orientation), perhaps these outward displays of affection are considered by Calvin to be more socially acceptable than his own desires and are therefore preferable but socially awkward nonetheless?

What immediately struck me about the film and what made watching it such a fascinating journey was how Clarke frames all of the characters into a context in which their decisions make absolute sense and are reasonable (for them), even when two different views or stances butt up against each other. The film doesn’t offer easy answers or even pick a side. I don’t think sides factor into it. The members of the first congregation do by and large seem to care about Calvin, sometimes for selfish reasons (including the minister, who takes it as a personal affront when Calvin leaves his church, leading to that wonderfully comic car chase sequence that looks like something out of Father Ted, and later, and more seriously, when he refuses to speak up for him at the trial) in sharp contrast to the members of the second flock who are all quietly biding their time til they get their chance to badmouth him to their clueless leader. But we understand their frustration. This guy has no idea what he’s doing and doesn’t belong. But does the first church have a right to him as a member if he chooses to leave? Calvin’s not an indentured servant to their church, or their God for that matter. There’s very little in the way of genuine Christianity on display in his actions, only transactional faith: daydreaming about buying vestments or spell-binding a Sunday school class. It's doubtful any Christian looking close enough could confuse his mannered recitation and fakery for sincere faith, but the distrust he inspires in the second church also seems more closely tied with the ambiguity of his sexuality, in stark contrast to the more open-minded indulgence he found from the first (though that too eventually had a breaking point), but also a hierarchical jealousy for his sudden rise through the ranks.

Clarke’s time-jumping editing is clever throughout, as for most of the film we’re sure this is headed down a path of pederasty (accused or actual), and so the reveal of Calvin’s pathetic and almost inconsequential crime is a relief. But also depressing, as the film begins to heavily hint from the galleys of the courthouse that maybe jail will change this fragile flower for the worse and the film shows signs of winding down to a conventional resolution. And the brief interlude in confinement, with the jailhouse shower baptismal and all, lowers our optimism further. But then we get that final shot and the realization that this isn’t a cheap film with easy answers. Things haven’t changed at all, apparently. Calvin’s out and at it again, this time with a Salvation Army marching band, calling to mind Tom Courtenay’s similar march to self-deluded oblivion at the end of Billy Liar. Or is this too not reality at all but proof of our protagonist lost in the cycle of his own dreams like Courtenay? Either way, he’s a lost cause from the churches we’ve met so far, and presumably will be for the ones he encounters going forward. And so the overarching question posed by the telefilm becomes: Is it the responsibility of these institutions to save their parishioners from their very character, or to accept them as-is? The film gives us a variety of answers, and any are valid based on what we see.

#733 Post by **zedz** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:47 pm

domino harvey wrote:
SpoilerShow
What immediately struck me about the film and what made watching it such a fascinating journey was how Clarke frames all of the characters into a context in which their decisions make absolute sense and are reasonable (for them), even when two different views or stances butt up against each other. The film doesn’t offer easy answers or even pick a side. I don’t think sides factor into it.

This characteristic you identified is absolutely central to Clarke's cinema, so you should see much more evidence of it throughout his work. In a sense, it's even embodied in a radically abstract form in Elephant -

SpoilerShow

in the sense that "the sides don't matter" rather than "the characters' decisions are reasonable".

Big Ben · #734 Post by **Big Ben** » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:27 pm

I elected to watch Contact this morning and was completely and emotionally drained by the experience. The film brought tears to my eyes. Spoilers within!

SpoilerShow

I was initially terrified I would have to wade into the potential danger zone of politics. (The Troubles as I've come to find out is still a very thorny subject for individuals living in the UK to this day.) Again however, to my surprise Alan Clarke handled the subject matter in a manner I should have expected by now. With great care. Nowhere to be found are the usual "soldiers" in this film. Nowhere to be found is the usual commanding officer. No, rather than rely on concepts so familiar to this American both Clarkes (the writer and director both being named Clarke) made the decision to create a nearly wordless film (Other than orders not much is really said) that revolves around the consequences of action and the results on the lives affected. No sides like I'm used to. Just the consequences of violence.

Sean Chapman, the lead actor gives an incredible physical performance here. While he is not even named we get to know him and his men very well even through all the silence. Out of all the Clarke performances I've seen this one strikes me as incredibly honest. Chapman doesn't even need to say anything. All we need to know is written in his body language and his face.

Several scenes from the film stuck out:

The opening scene with the car. I initially thought a murder had taken place and that the film was going to be about the awfulness of said squad. No I came to find out. The driver of said car was indeed reaching for a gun and his death was indeed justifiable by the military. It turns out this disorientation was intentional as Clarke cut a shot of the man reaching for a gun!

- The scene with the children. Was the young boy afraid? Was he condemning the commander? I don't really know. Haunting in every respect.

- The sequence where the commander goes to investigate the car is filmed in a long take and is incredibly tense. Will it blow up? Will he be shot?

- The scene however that brought tears to my eyes was indeed the last one. Right after a bomb explodes (killing an unknown number of men) Clarke cuts directly to the commander in his bunk looking devastated. How long with this conflict go on? How many more men will he lose? When will his luck run out?

Absolutely exceptional filmmaking. One of the best I've seen so far from the yet.

manicsounds · #735 Post by **manicsounds** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:02 am

Watching "The Love-Girl and the Innocent" and was surprised and pleased to suddenly hear the voice of Jean-Luc Picard come through.

Big Ben · #736 Post by **Big Ben** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:14 am

I watched Psy-Warriors today and was simultaneously disturbed and puzzled. Puzzled in the sense that I wasn't quite familiar with all the references thrown out about British Politics at the time. Disturbed in the sense that many of the sequences reminded me of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I won't comment much on this one as I'm not entirely convinced it was all that successful, at least at this time.

Can anyone frame this in a light in which I might understand better? Have I even provided enough information?

nosy lena · #737 Post by **nosy lena** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:55 am

RossyG wrote:I'm longing for the American reaction to Goodnight Albert.

I just started the set (watching it chronologically) and watched Goodnight Albert last night. I assume you are referring to the dialogue? Subtitles helped for sure but there were still a line or two by Albert that went over my head... On a different but I guess related note, I wish more releases had two English subtitle tracks, one without the hard-of-hearing bits (like (LOUD MUSIC PLAYING)). I guess companies don't do it because there isn't much need for it, but at the same time, it can't be much work or take up much space right? Very minor obviously, the set is fantastic, duck.

What A Disgrace · #738 Post by **What A Disgrace** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:52 am

I received mine here in the states yesterday, though I used a more expensive shipping option from Amazon. The box itself was in great condition, but the ribbon immediately got bent as I dropped it onto the floor in front of an excitable and heavy cat. I can't wait to dip into this.

mistakaninja · #739 Post by **mistakaninja** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:20 pm

Fat cats were always a problem for Clarke.

criterionsnob · #740 Post by **criterionsnob** » Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:00 pm

My set arrived in Victoria, BC today with no damages. I popped the first BD in and relieved it plays on my Seiki 660. Can't wait to dig into what is surely to be the set of the year. Well done!

Big Ben · #741 Post by **Big Ben** » Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:39 am

I watched Elephant this morning and out of all the Clarke films I've watched so far this one ranks among the best, at least to me. I'll use spoiler tags because I don't want a single aspect of this ruined for first time viewers.

SpoilerShow

Perhaps what bothers me most about Elephant was just how easy it was to watch. The film consists, literally, of eighteen carefully choreographed sectarian murders in Belfast. While this may seem monotonous to some I found the experience increasingly disturbing. I knew exactly what would happen next and I dreaded each subsequent murder with a sort of sickening dread. What side were these men on? Why are they doing this? Clarke doesn't answer that. He merely turns our gaze towards cold blooded murder and the result, in this viewers opinion, is an incredibly power film about violence. Stripped of any political context we watch the murders for exactly what they are, a tremendous waste of human life. "And for what?" asks the essay included in the book. And for what indeed.

The shots I found most effective were the ones lingering on the dead bodies. Here is dead human being yes, but it's so much more than that. Here is a dead human BEING. These deaths mean something. They aren't your average sequences of blood and gore. They're humanizing shots. Ones that become increasingly uncomfortable to watch as the film goes on. The final shot, a long take

The book included in the set states that Elephant feels like an early piece of "slow cinema". I think this is fitting only in the sense that it requires one to contemplate what you're watching through long takes (The film is certainly no Satantango at a whopping 38 minutes).

peerpee · #742 Post by **peerpee** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:07 am

Big Ben wrote:Can anyone frame this in a light in which I might understand better? Have I even provided enough information?

That's what the essay in the book does!

Big Ben · #743 Post by **Big Ben** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:54 am

peerpee wrote:
Big Ben wrote:Can anyone frame this in a light in which I might understand better? Have I even provided enough information?
That's what the essay in the book does!

Indeed!

After doing some research on the film (This included reading the essay) and reading about it in Dave Rolinson's book the film made a lot more sense in context. This would be an opportune time to recommend it for anyone who wants some context and critical analysis!

Werewolf by Night · #744 Post by **Werewolf by Night** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:03 am

Is anyone else working through the set chronologically? Seems like those posting have jumped straight to dessert and I'm still on my salad. The salad is great, though. I'm surprised by how much of Clarke's sensibility is already apparent in the early half-hour plays. Or maybe it's a case of these particular writers having a huge influence on what eventually became his sensibility.

RossyG · #745 Post by **RossyG** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:02 pm

I'm going through it in order. I was tempted to watch Scum and Penda's Fen, which I'm familiar with, but have refrained. It'll be interesting to see them in their chronological place amongst AC's greater body of work.

What A Disgrace · #746 Post by **What A Disgrace** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 12:25 pm

I won't be able to get started on this set properly until my week-plus vacation is over (whatever I get for my upcoming birthday, and the long overdue Rivette set, will take precedence and all of my movie time), but I have every intention of watching the films in the most out-of-order possible fashion. The weekends will favor a mixture of the longer films (Love Girl and the Innocent, Diane, etc) and the half-hour plays, while free time on the weekdays will be spent with the shorter films (Scum, Christine, etc).

MichaelB · #747 Post by **MichaelB** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 1:53 pm

God knows when I'll get round to it properly - I had a Clarke binge earlier this year, and clearing the time for that was hard enough.

But this has just reminded me that I should probably get my skates on and actually get a copy of my own, not least because I don't have the book or the extras and my extant copies of the films themselves are standard definition, low bitrate and covered in timecode, which isn't ideal.

nosy lena · #748 Post by **nosy lena** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:12 pm

I just watched The Fifty-Seventh Saturday last night and,

SpoilerShow

at the very end Maive seems to imply that (she knows) he's not married and he's just pretending to have a wife? Did I get that right?

English is not my native tongue so the subtitles for this are a savior.

Werewolf by Night · #749 Post by **Werewolf by Night** » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:35 pm

Yes, that's correct.

And the subtitles even help those of us for whom English IS our native language. "Goodnight Albert" was a particular struggle without them.

MichaelB · #750 Post by **MichaelB** » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:06 am

Get your popcorn ready...