Week 37/2024

This week’s agenda singles out three city films. Avila, present! starts its fall tour with Seagulls Die in the Harbour [Meeuwen sterven in de haven]. Ciné Mangiare shows Chaplin’s City Lights in open air. Monokino’s SHHH festival concludes with F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. All three films capture part of the essence of urban life. Yet Sunrise and City Lights take place in invented cities built in LA studios, while Seagulls, shot around the Antwerp harbour, is grounded in its location. Nevertheless, the Belgian pioneering film professor André Vandenbunder argued that the use of the city in Seagulls is closer to that of the romanticized Rome in Roman Holiday (1953) than to Roberto Rossellini’s Rome, Open City (1945). In Vandenbunder’s view, the actual city of Antwerp doesn’t play along. It’s as if it’s only seen through the perspective of the Belgian documentary school because nothing really happens on those streets, docks or market squares.

In all three films, a protagonist-with-no-name is attracted to a city woman. In Seagulls, he has murdered his unfaithful wife. In Sunrise, the adulterous man thinks he has drowned his spouse. Meanwhile in City Lights, the man saves the woman by rescuing someone from drowning himself. The latter’s famous waterfront set, reminiscent of the Thames embankment, is one of the many decors based on Chaplin’s London childhood. Although City Lights was originally set in Paris, the critic Robert Sherwood noted its “confusing resemblances to London, LA, Naples and Tangiers,” concluding that “it’s no city on earth and it is all cities.” Sunrise’s introductory intertitle rings true: “This song of the Man and his Wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere, at any time. For wherever the sun rises and sets… in the city’s turmoil or under the open sky on the farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet.”

Meeuwen sterven in de haven

A man is seen wandering around in Antwerp, avoiding all contact with other people. He is penniless and desperately wants to leave the country, but can’t pay for his travel. The only people who like him are the boatman’s wife, a prostitute and a little orphan girl called Gigi. Slowly but surely it becomes clear why he is hiding and why he needs to flee.

EN

Seagulls Die in the Harbour introduced aesthetics into Flemish film and heralded the beginning of a serious, fully-formed cinema. The film is at times reminiscent of classics such as The Third Man, Forbidden Games and On the Waterfront.”

Luc Joris1

  • 1Luc Joris, "Meeuwen sterven in de haven," in Belgian Cinema/Le Cinéma Belge/De Belgische Film, ed. Marianne Thys. (Gent: Ludion, 1999), 344.

NL

“Met dit noodlotsdrama werd de esthetiek in de Vlaamse film geïntroduceerd. Voor het eerst is er sprake van een ernstige, volwassen filmvorm, met verwijzingen naar The Third Man, Jeux interdits en On the Waterfront.”

Luc Joris1

 

“De charismatische Schoenaerts doolt als de verloren en getormenteerde ‘Prince’ in het atmosferisch krachtig gefotografeerde Antwerpen. Enerzijds existentialistisch, zwart-wit met diepe en lange schaduwen. Anderzijds helder, modernistisch met de architectuur van Renaat Braem op de achtergrond. De geslaagde visuele sfeer, de gelaagde beeldtextuur en het straffe acteerwerk worden extra kracht bijgezet door de verrukkelijke jazzscore van de Antwerpse muzikant Jack Sels. In die zin is Meeuwen sterven in de haven een heerlijke prelude op Ascenseur pour l’échafaud (1958) van Louis Malle of À bout de souffle (1960) van Jean-Luc Godard.

Meeuwen sterven in de haven is een Vlaams meesterwerk, weliswaar met een aantal gebreken. De dialogen zijn soms stroef en de plotwendingen zijn niet altijd even geloofwaardig. De film  kreeg positieve kritiek van de Belgische filmpers en werd als eerste Vlaamse film ooit geselecteerd voor het filmfestival van Cannes in 1956.  De gerenommeerde Franse filmhistoricus en filmjournalist Georges Sadoul schreef genuanceerd lovend over de film. Dankzij diens communistische sympathieën kwam Meeuwen sterven in de haven in Sovjet-Rusland uit op ongeveer 1000 kopijen. Het Russische publiek kreeg zowaar een gedubde Schoenaerts te horen.”

Wouter Hessels2

 

"Er was geen filmindustrie. Er was geen filmcultuur. Er waren geen filmscholen. Er was niets wat aanleiding gaf om met film iets te gaan doen. We zaten eigenlijk in de woestijn. Daarnaast was er de fascinatie voor de grote naoorlogse, buitenlandse films. Die vermenging van de leegheid bij ons en de overrompeling vanuit de Amerikaanse, Italiaanse of Franse filmwereld heeft waarschijnlijk de vonk gegeven om iets anders te doen dan alleen maar naar film te kijken.

In die tijd was het het pure cinematografische, het vormelijke. Wat kan men met dat medium doen? Wat is de schoonheid van een camerabeweging? Wat is de intelligentie van een goede montage? Dat boeide mij in de allereerste plaats.”

Roland Verhavert3

 

"Wij hadden eigenlijk geen echte filmische traditie van enige betekenis, vonden wij. Terwijl we in de literatuur en in de schilderkunst moesten optornen tegen grote namen die al bestonden van voor de oorlog en die de musea vulden. Dat was met de film niet het geval. In de film kon je nog echt pionierswerk verrichten. En we hadden zo veel voorbeelden. Het leek allemaal zo makkelijk. De eerste films van het neorealisme uit Italië, de films van Ingmar Bergman, The Third Man. Het leek zo vanzelfsprekend. Dat moest kunnen."

Ivo Michiels4

 

“Ooit interviewde ik Sergej Paradzjanov in zijn kamer in het Hiltonhotel in Rotterdam. We bevonden ons op een van de hoogste verdiepingen van het hotel en aan de enorme ramen vlogen in de koude januarilucht luid schetterende meeuwen voorbij. Ze herinnerden Paradzjanov aan een Belgische film, vertelde hij, Meeuwen sterven in de haven. Een film die ik ooit had gezien, maar verder dan een havenkade in zwart-wit kwam ik niet. Paradzjanov leek het zich nog allemaal voor de geest te kunnen halen: een zeeman in een zwarte coltrui op een verlaten kade, en de doelloosheid van de held, die maar niet kan beslissen of hij al dan niet zal aanmonsteren. Blijven of vertrekken, het was het thema van de film. Overwoog Paradzjanov in Rotterdam te blijven? Was dat de verholen boodschap achter die herinnering?”

Peter Delpeut5

  • 1Luc Joris, "Meeuwen sterven in de haven," in Belgian Cinema/Le Cinéma Belge/De Belgische Film, red. Marianne Thys. (Gent: Ludion, 1999), 344.
  • 2Wouter Hessels, “Meeuwen sterven in de haven. Een Vlaams filmmeesterwerk,” Avila.
  • 3Roland Verhavert, in De Meeuwen sterven in de haven archieven, DVD, Koninklijk Belgisch Filmarchief, 2004.
  • 4Ivo Michiels, in De Meeuwen sterven in de haven archieven, DVD, Koninklijk Belgisch Filmarchief, 2004.
  • 5Peter Delpeut, Het vergeten kwaad: De herinneringen van cineast Jonas Mekas (Amsterdam: Atlas Contact, 2021).

FR

« Ce drame introduisait style et esthétique dans le cinéma flamand. Pour la première fois, une forme cinématographique se révélait sérieuse et mûre. Les mouettes meurent au port rappelle des classiques comme Le troisième homme, Jeux interdits et Sur les quais. »

Luc Joris1

 

« Tranchant sur la médiocrité de la production dominante (certains y virent un temps l’amorce d'une possible nouvelle vague), Meeuwen sterven in de haven marque une date capitale dans l’histoire de la cinématographique flamande. En effet, si ces jeunes Turcs connaissent par la suite des fortunes diverses, le film, quant à lui, sert de référence à l’élaboration d'une politique cinématographique flamande, qui voit définitivement le jour en 1964. »

Marc Holthof2

  • 1Luc Joris, "Meeuwen sterven in de haven," dans Belgian Cinema/Le Cinéma Belge/De Belgische Film, éd. Marianne Thys. (Gent: Ludion, 1999), 344.
  • 2Marc Holthof, “Erection (oprichting): Geboorte van een officieel academisme,” dans Une Encyclopédie des Cinémas de Belgiques, eds. Guy Jungblut, Patrick Leboutte & Dominique Païni. (Crismée: Editions Yellow Now, 1990), 109.
screening
Buda, Kortrijk
City Lights

With the aid of a wealthy erratic tippler, a dewy-eyed tramp who has fallen in love with a sightless flower girl accumulates money to be able to help her medically.

 

“Charlie Chaplin, master of screen mirth and pathos, presented at the George M. Cohan last night before a brilliant gathering his long-awaited non-dialogue picture, City Lights, and proved so far as he is concerned the eloquence of silence. Many of the spectators either rocking in their seats with mirth, mumbling as their sides ached, "Oh, dear, oh, dear," or they were stilled with sighs and furtive tears. And during a closing episode, when the Little Tramp sees through the window of a flower shop the girl who has recovered her sight through his persistence, one woman could not restrain a cry.

Mr. Chaplin arrived in the theatre with a police guard, and after greeting some of his many friends in the house he took an aisle seat beside Miss Constance Collier. When the picture came to an end he went to the stage and thanked those present for the enthusiasm with which they had received his work.

It is a film worked out with admirable artistry, and while Chaplin stoops to conquer, as he has invariably done, he achieves success. Although the Little Tramp in this City Lights in some sequences is more respectable than usual, owing to circumstances in the story, he begins and ends with the same old clothes, looking, in fact, a trifle more bedraggled in the last scene than in most others of his comedies. He has the same antics, the same flip of the heel, the same little cane, mustache, derby hat and baggy trousers.”

Morduant Hall1

 

“If only one of Charles Chaplin's films could be preserved, City Lights (1931) would come the closest to representing all the different notes of his genius. It contains the slapstick, the pathos, the pantomime, the effortless physical coordination, the melodrama, the bawdiness, the grace, and, of course, the Little Tramp - the character said, at one time, to be the most famous image on earth.”

Roger Ebert2

 

Lobby Card City Lights (Charles Chaplin, 1931)

screening
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

A sophisticated city woman seduces a farmer and convinces him to murder his wife and join her in the city, but he ends up rekindling his romance with his wife when he changes his mind at the last moment.

EN

This song of the Man and his Wife is of no place and every place; you might hear it anywhere, at any time.

Opening title card

 

“One would hesitate to call any film the finest of its era, though as a climax to the silent film, one could certainly defend the statement if it were applied to Sunrise.”

William K. Everson1

 

“Murnau’s cinema, is so much ... about mediated desire, desire of an image for an image: the open secret of film-making itself, intensely eroticising the very act of looking, but also every object looked at by a camera.”

Thomas Elsaesser2

 

“[Sunrise], generally agreed to be a summation, a point of perfection in the silent cinema and in Murnau’s achievement ... but the conquest of narrative (novelistic) fluidity is achieved at the expense of abandoning the attainments specific to the silent period. [...] All Murnau’s films should be read primarily as voyages into the imaginary. Each time a point of transit is featured in the story, denoting the symbolic space where the fiction divides into two. The bridge in Nosferatu, the revolving door in The Last Laugh, the blank screen in Tartuffe, the circles of fire in Faust, the lake in Sunrise.

To retrace these journeys, examining their various stages and interconnecting their landmarks, is to consider the cinema in the course which turned it into a classical art – master of its means and its aims – and to consider also what remains seminal for the cinema of the future in the hazardous campaigns of an imagination cut short by death in 1931 and forever bearing a name that also belongs to the imagination: Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau.”

Jean-Andre Fieschi3

 

“People have made too much of ‘depth of focus’ in the work of Gregg Toland with Orson Welles. Like Stroheim in Foolish Wives, Murnau juggles with such effects; the light seems to weave long spaces. When the depths become blurred or imprecise it is intentional and not because of technical inability. Charles Rosher, chief cameraman for Sunrise, told me:

I worked with a wide-focus lens of 35 to 55 mm for the scenes in the big cafe. All the sets had floors that sloped slightly upwards as they receded, and the ceilings had artificial perspectives: the bulbs hanging from them were bigger in the foreground than in the background. We even had dwarfs, men and women, on the terrace. Of course all this produced an amazing sense of depth.4

Murnau never tired of varied and multiple backgrounds. When the lovers are sitting in the restaurant with the couples beyond them dancing on the other side of the glass, they toast their happiness with wine. Then suddenly, though they do not turn round, the background starts to spin over their heads like an enormous disc. Then shining mists billow up behind them and grow opaque. The dancers have turned into shapes that fly on invisible trapezes, their silhouettes darting through space, already prefiguring The Four Devils. The lovers, drunk with happiness, feel as light and weightless as the airy acrobats.

Murnau limited himself to an incompletely defined maelstrom of out-of- focus shots. Mayer had suggested in his script:

By a trick-shot the violins in the orchestra seem to have grown blissfully vague.
Shot of the couple:

They are sitting down. Close, in front of the camera. Their eyes blissfully half-closed.
While the whole background grows blissfully gently blurred.
And then!
Are these ladders from heaven descending over it? Yes!
And angels glide down them.
With violins, and more violins.
Hovering over the garden.
Circling round over the couple
Gently playing their violins.
As behind them a meadow
Seems to be superimposed on the background. With flowers nodding in a blissful breeze.
Happy seconds thus.
And more.

Murnau avoided the picture-postcard bands of angels and replaced them with dark, indistinct figures.”

Lotte H. Eisner5

  • 1William K. Everson, American Silent Film (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 324.
  • 2Thomas EIsaesser, “Secret Affinities: F.W. Murnau,” Sight and Sound, Winter (1988-9), 33-9.
  • 3Jean-Andre Fieschi, “F. W. MURNAU,” in Cinema. A Critical Dictionary. The Major Film-Makers, edited by Richard Roud (New York: Viking Press, 1980).
  • 4Footnote from Lotte H. Eisner’s Murnau: “In the same way, as Gliese informs me in a letter, in the scene of the switchback, the compartments in the foreground were life-size and occupied by adults, while those in the middle-ground were smaller, with children as passengers; in the very background were model compartments occupied by dolls.”
  • 5Lotte H. Eisner, Murnau (London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Limited, 1973).

FR

« [Sunrise] nous entraîne un degré plus loin au cœur de ce monde intime où les sentiments, amour et haine, joie et tristesse, désir et renoncement, se nourrissent d’eux­ mêmes et meurent de leur propre excès. Et pourtant, nulle concession aux facilités de l’ellipse et du symbole, une sorte d’harmonie préétablie semble assigner à leurs vicissitudes le rythme des modifications du ciel. A l’ultime détour de notre quête intérieure, nous nous trouvons de nouveau face au monde. Le décor participe au jeu ; s’il ne consent que rarement à s’animer, il n’en règle pas moins toujours de quelque manière les déplacements des personnages. A la tyrannie des limites du « cadre », il substitue ses lois. Ne cédons que prudemment aux séductions du nombre d’or et de la belle image. Quelle photographie égalera jamais la moindre phrase? Mais, en revanche, quel plus beau vers de nos poètes se flatte-t-il d’épuiser la magnificence de ce monde sensible que le cinéma seul a le privilège d’offrir intact à nos yeux? »

Eric Rohmer1

  • 1Eric Rohmer, “Vanité que la peinture,” Cahiers du Cinéma, 3 (1951). [Cet article était signé Maurice Scherer]
screening
With live music by Nykolaes & Daniel Paul
This Week
-