New Yorker Films
A review in the New York Times (February 2, 2012) of Straub and Huillet's 1975 film Moses and Aaron reminded me how common it has been for films to depict the biblical Hebrews as Bedouin. This film, however, is anything but what one youtube commenter calls a "sword n' sandals" epic, Hollywood style. The music is by Schoenberg, meaning it is in many ways the antithesis of Hollywood soundtracks.
And the Times reviewer, David Kehr, informs us that the directors "had come to prominence as the creators of a meticulously Marxist-materialist presentation of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, 'The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach' (1968), and the same systematic refusal of transcendence is at work here." And Kehr concludes, "more than ever 'Moses und Aron' seems like one of the monuments of 20th-century cinematic modernism..."
And yet, those costumes still remind one of Hollywood representations, don't they?
Check out this scene from the film. Love the dancing in front of the golden calf.
2 comments:
“Moses and Aaron” by Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet is based on Arnold Schoenberg‘s opera, and a film at the same time unites with Schoenberg’s unique music in its depiction of Biblical events of the history of the Jewish people, and makes it the object of cinematographic analysis. The film is a double (critical) deconstruction - of the relationships between Moses and Aaron as political leaders and the Jewish people whom they lead into the future, and, on the other hand – of Schoenberg’s tendency to monumentalize and aggrandize these relationships by the music. Throughout the film Straub and Huillet examine the psychological roots of Old-Testamental theological imagination – the proclivity of people to interpret their socio-political motivations as a result of their special rapport with God. Mobilizing their visual imagery as instrument of analysis the directors show Moses as a paradigmatic case of a traditional totalitarian leader who uses despotic ideology to rule over the population, and they represent Aaron as a neo-totalitarian ruler, creator of a political system based on worshiping the Golden Calf. In “Moses and Aaron” we see the depiction of two totalitarian systems – one based on direct power and deploying pompous ideological imagination to help people to liberate themselves from their humiliated condition and to lead them towards national glory, and the other is financial totalitarianism when a real leader of the masses is the Golden Calf who instead of commanding the obedience seduces people into consumerist orgies. The conflict between Moses and Aaron becomes that of two equally totalitarian but differing systems that those who lived through the second part of 20th century had a chance to observe in the clash between Soviet Russia (a typical incarnation of traditional totalitarianism) and democracies of the West (which today, in 21st century, with their austerity programs for the populations become more and more resembling the despotic rule of the Golden Calf). The sacrifices to the Golden calf shown in the film in a rather elaborate way remind us today’s austerity programs in action and the growing unemployment, pauperization and cultural illiteracy as a result. The chorus through which people’s fears, hopes and contradictory moods express itself, is especially unforgettable as mediation between orchestra and the dramatic action and stays with us after watching the film not less than Moses’ character, Aaron’s mind and the intensity of Schoenberg music. Those today, who don’t just take life as it happens but try to grasp the meaning of existential situations and political events, will take from this film a lot of fertile impressions that’ll help them to better understand our historical past and the present. The film shows that history repeats and rejuvenates itself, and we better understand more about it not to be its victims but its participants. By Victor Enyutin
“Moses and Aaron” by Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet is based on Arnold Schoenberg‘s opera, and a film at the same time unites with Schoenberg’s unique music in its depiction of Biblical events of the history of the Jewish people, and makes it the object of cinematographic analysis. The film is a double (critical) deconstruction - of the relationships between Moses and Aaron as political leaders and the Jewish people whom they lead into the future, and, on the other hand – of Schoenberg’s tendency to monumentalize and aggrandize these relationships by the music. Throughout the film Straub and Huillet examine the psychological roots of Old-Testamental theological imagination – the proclivity of people to interpret their socio-political motivations as a result of their special rapport with God. Mobilizing their visual imagery as instrument of analysis the directors show Moses as a paradigmatic case of a traditional totalitarian leader who uses despotic ideology to rule over the population, and they represent Aaron as a neo-totalitarian ruler, creator of a political system based on worshiping the Golden Calf. In “Moses and Aaron” we see the depiction of two totalitarian systems – one based on direct power and deploying pompous ideological imagination to help people to liberate themselves from their humiliated condition and to lead them towards national glory, and the other is financial totalitarianism when a real leader of the masses is the Golden Calf who instead of commanding the obedience seduces people into consumerist orgies. The conflict between Moses and Aaron becomes that of two equally totalitarian but differing systems that those who lived through the second part of 20th century had a chance to observe in the clash between Soviet Russia (a typical incarnation of traditional totalitarianism) and democracies of the West (which today, in 21st century, with their austerity programs for the populations become more and more resembling the despotic rule of the Golden Calf). The sacrifices to the Golden calf shown in the film in a rather elaborate way remind us today’s austerity programs in action and the growing unemployment, pauperization and cultural illiteracy as a result. The chorus through which people’s fears, hopes and contradictory moods express itself, is especially unforgettable as mediation between orchestra and the dramatic action and stays with us after watching the film not less than Moses’ character, Aaron’s mind and the intensity of Schoenberg music. Those today, who don’t just take life as it happens but try to grasp the meaning of existential situations and political events, will take from this film a lot of fertile impressions that’ll help them to better understand our historical past and the present. The film shows that history repeats and rejuvenates itself, and we better understand more about it not to be its victims but its participants.
By Victor Enyutin
Post a Comment