《国际电影影片词典》（英文版）UDJU AZUL DI YONTA

UDJU AZUL DI YONTA economic liberalization in the late 1980s created new hardships. The film graphically conveys the run-down poverty of Bissau, the nations CThe Blue Eyes of Yonta) capital: it may not look it, but all the action but one short scene takes place in the city. The contrast with an extravagant wedding reception at the local Sheraton Hotel illustrates the deep inequality that charac- Guinea-Bissau. 1992 terizes Guinea-Bissau less than a generation after independence was Director: Flora gomes achieved at the cost of great sacrifices. The blue Eyes of Yonta takes a critical look at the infatuation with things Western. Ze copies his letter to Yonta out of a Europear Production: Vermedia(Lisbon), Cooperativa Arco-iris(Bissau), brochure of love letters meant to be addressed to beauties with blue Eurocreation Production(Paris). and radiotelevisao Portuguesa(lis eyes, to be written while the snow falls. The poet wallows in his bon): color, 35mm: running time: 90 minutes. Released 1992. longing for the Swedish girl with the blue eyes. And a war hero returns with presents from Portugal that follow European fashion and Producer: Paulo de Sousa; screenplay: Flora Gomes, Ina Cesair, taste rather than African needs. At the same time we see acomfortable David Lang, and Manuel Rambout Barcelos; assistant directors: amalgamation of tradition and Western import. We hear a few references to God but we also see tradition observed with a libation of phy: Dominique Gentil: editor: Dominique Paris: sound: Pierre wine at a wedding ceremony that strikingly combines traditiona Donnadieu; sound mixer: Anita Fernandez; costumes: Seco Faye marriage transactions between the spouses's families and a civil and Teresa Campos; music: Adriano G. Ferreira-Atchutchi; set marriage. The bride's white gown and her African hairdo beautifully demonstrate the felicitous integration of old and new The various characters present different responses to the state of Cast: Maysa Marta(Yonta): Pedro Dias(Ze): Antonio Sima Mendes Guinea-I Guinea-Bissau nearly two decades after independence. Yonta stands (Vicente); Mohamed Lamine Seidi(Amilcar): Bia Gomes(Belante); at the center of this comedy of misplaced affections. Yonta's frivolity Dina Vaz(Mana). reflects the city and its superficiality. She admires Vicente but does not share his dreams: "If your ideals have been spoiled, it's not my Awards: Audience Award, wurzburg International Filmwe fault. We respect the past, but we cant live in it. In the end Yonta is end,1994 rejected by both Vicente and Ze, but she remains secure in the affection of her parents and her younger brother, however much he tease her Publications Vicente is a war hero. But he has not been able to stick to the ideals he fought for. MOney is the weapon now, he tells Amilcar, " The Articles. war is over. He drives a Volvo and brings the gifts from Europe, however inappropriate, that people will enjoy. When he is finally Deffontaines, Therese- Marie, Les Yeux bleus de Yonta, in Ecrans reunited with Nando, his comrade-in-arms, he observes resignedly: d'afrique, vol 1, 1992 In the jungle we thought it would be for everyone. But its not. What Libiot, Eric, review in Premiere(Paris), June 1993 can I do?" The fruits of independence have come to some, here in the D'Yvoire, Christophe, review in Studio(Paris), June 1993 capital, and Vicente asks Nando to join him to get his share. But Ukadike, N. Frank, "" In Guinea-Bissau, Cinema Trickles Down: An Nando has been marked even more profoundly by the struggle. He Interview with Flora Gomes, " in Research in African Literatures, wants no part of Bissau and returns to Catio, once at the center of the vol.26,no.3,1995 war for liberation. His quiet departure confronts Vicente with the failure of their struggle. As he talks to the sculpture he cradles and dances to circling vultures, we wonder whether he has gone out of The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde ze is moonstruck by Yonta but comes to realize that they live in (PAIGC)that liberated Guinea-Bissau was more successful than any different worlds. Though her radiance bewitches him, he eventually other guerrilla movement in Africa. In Those Whom Death Refused rejects the conspicuous, Western-oriented consumption of Bissau she Flora Gomes had contrasted guerrilla warfare and nonchalant bureau- represents. He does not share the dream of the young who want to rats. Four years later he created a beautiful film that reminds us of the emigrate to Europe; he affirms that the place he came from-Bolama, acrifices made during the war but focuses on the present in Bissau. the war-time capital, symbol of the struggle for independence-is as The Blue Eyes of Yonta shows that the socialist transformation good as Bissau, and he is prepared to return there. If Yonta's glamor promised at independence failed to materialize and that the shift to recalls the glittering promises that came with independence nearly

1253 UDJU AZUL DI YONTA U (The Blue Eyes of Yonta) Guinea-Bissau, 1992 Director: Flora Gomes Production: Vermedia (Lisbon), Cooperativa Arco-Íris (Bissau), Eurocréation Production (Paris), and Rádiotelevisão Portuguesa (Lis￾bon); color, 35mm; running time: 90 minutes. Released 1992. Producer: Paulo de Sousa; screenplay: Flora Gomes, Ina Césair, David Lang, and Manuel Rambout Barcelos; assistant directors: Manuel João Ěcuas, Odete Somedo, and Gildo Mendes; photogra￾phy: Dominique Gentil; editor: Dominique Páris; sound: Pierre Donnadieu; sound mixer: Anita Fernandez; costumes: Seco Faye and Teresa Campos; music: Adriano G. Ferreira-Atchutchi; set design: Miguel Mendes. Cast: Maysa Marta (Yonta); Pedro Dias (Zé); António Simã Mendes (Vicente); Mohamed Lamine Seidi (Amílcar); Bia Gomes (Belante); Dina Vaz (Mana). Awards: Audience Award, Würzburg International Filmweek￾end, 1994. Publications Articles: Deffontaines, Thérèse-Marie, ‘‘Les Yeux bleus de Yonta,’’ in Ecrans d’Afrique, vol. 1, 1992. Libiot, Eric, review in Première (Paris), June 1993. D’Yvoire, Christophe, review in Studio (Paris), June 1993. Ukadike, N. Frank, ‘‘In Guinea-Bissau, Cinema Trickles Down: An Interview with Flora Gomes,’’ in Research in African Literatures, vol. 26, no. 3, 1995. *** The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) that liberated Guinea-Bissau was more successful than any other guerrilla movement in Africa. In Those Whom Death Refused Flora Gomes had contrasted guerrilla warfare and nonchalant bureau￾crats. Four years later he created a beautiful film that reminds us of the sacrifices made during the war but focuses on the present in Bissau. The Blue Eyes of Yonta shows that the socialist transformation promised at independence failed to materialize and that the shift to economic liberalization in the late 1980s created new hardships. The film graphically conveys the run-down poverty of Bissau, the nation’s capital: it may not look it, but all the action but one short scene takes place in the city. The contrast with an extravagant wedding reception at the local Sheraton Hotel illustrates the deep inequality that charac￾terizes Guinea-Bissau less than a generation after independence was achieved at the cost of great sacrifices. The Blue Eyes of Yonta takes a critical look at the infatuation with things Western. Zé copies his letter to Yonta out of a European brochure of love letters meant to be addressed to beauties with blue eyes, to be written while the snow falls. The poet wallows in his longing for the Swedish girl with the blue eyes. And a war hero returns with presents from Portugal that follow European fashion and taste rather than African needs. At the same time we see a comfortable amalgamation of tradition and Western import. We hear a few references to God, but we also see tradition observed with a libation of wine at a wedding ceremony that strikingly combines traditional marriage transactions between the spouses’s families and a civil marriage. The bride’s white gown and her African hairdo beautifully demonstrate the felicitous integration of old and new. The various characters present different responses to the state of Guinea-Bissau nearly two decades after independence. Yonta stands at the center of this comedy of misplaced affections. Yonta’s frivolity reflects the city and its superficiality. She admires Vicente but does not share his dreams: ‘‘If your ideals have been spoiled, it’s not my fault. We respect the past, but we can’t live in it.’’ In the end Yonta is rejected by both Vicente and Zé, but she remains secure in the affection of her parents and her younger brother, however much he may tease her. Vicente is a war hero. But he has not been able to stick to the ideals he fought for. ‘‘[M]oney is the weapon now,’’ he tells Amilcar, ‘‘The war is over.’’ He drives a Volvo and brings the gifts from Europe, however inappropriate, that people will enjoy. When he is finally reunited with Nando, his comrade-in-arms, he observes resignedly: ‘‘In the jungle we thought it would be for everyone. But it’s not. What can I do?’’ The fruits of independence have come to some, here in the capital, and Vicente asks Nando to join him to get his share. But Nando has been marked even more profoundly by the struggle. He wants no part of Bissau and returns to Catio, once at the center of the war for liberation. His quiet departure confronts Vicente with the failure of their struggle. As he talks to the sculpture he cradles and dances to circling vultures, we wonder whether he has gone out of his mind. Zé is moonstruck by Yonta but comes to realize that they live in different worlds. Though her radiance bewitches him, he eventually rejects the conspicuous, Western-oriented consumption of Bissau she represents. He does not share the dream of the young who want to emigrate to Europe; he affirms that the place he came from—Bolama, the war-time capital, symbol of the struggle for independence—is as good as Bissau, and he is prepared to return there. If Yonta’s glamor recalls the glittering promises that came with independence nearly

UGETSU MONOGATARI FILMS. 4 EDITIoN two decades before, then his disappointment stands for all those whose aspirations have been frustrated. Flora Gomes named his youngest protagonist for Amilcar Cabral, the distinguished guerrilla leader and intellectual. Young Amilcar is quick and witty, boisterous and ingenious, full of initiative, mischief and energy. And he shows signs of following in the steps of his famous namesake. He is afraid of no one. his older sister. a truck driver, government authority. He leads the children in putting an evicted widow back into her house. If this rebellion against the callous disregard of people's needs suggests the prospect of a better future, Gomes does not tell us what it might look like:"'I do not suggest observations and remarks on issues. But with Nando and Ze he has firmly established that the country at large rejects the compromises that mark the capital Gomes created a beautiful and funny film. We follow the entan- discover Bissau. Through most of the film we revel in the caring among the adults and the prospect of romance among the young. Then, in the last fifteen minutes, the idyll unravels: Nando confronts Vincente with the betrayal of the ideals for which they fought, Vicente denounces Yonta and the consumer culture she represents and Ze rejects Yonta in turn. Only at the very end do the children reassure us that all is not lost The actors Gomes chose and trained are key to the success of his film. Bia Gomes, who appears in the role of Yonta's mother Belante had played a lead role in Those Whom Death Refused, but most of the actors in The Blue Eyes of Yonta were amateurs. Soon after he had ompleted Those Whom Death Refused, Gomes set out to search for actors amongst his friends, in the women associations, at the exit of Ugetsu monogatari schools, in poor neighborhoods, and also in some government minis- tries. He then spent nine months with the actors in regular work sessions. In the film they use the local Portuguese creole they are Sugisaku Aoyama(Old priest): Kikue Nori (Ukon): Mitsu comfortable with. Gomes complimented the beauty of his actors by Ramon( Commander of the clan NIWA): Ryosuke Kagawa using soft colors to good advantage chief); Kichijiro Tsuchida (Silk merchant): Syozo Nanbu priest): Ichiisaburo Sawamura( Genichi -Josef gugler Awards: Venice Film Festival. Silver Prize Winner and Italian Critics Award, 1953: Edinburgh Film Festival, Gold Medal wir UGETSU MONOGATARI ner,1955 Japan, 1953 Publications Director: Kenji Mizoguchi Production: Daiei studios; black and white, 35mm; running time: 96 minutes; length: 8622 feet. Released Filmed 26 January-13 Kawaguchi, Matsutaro, Les Contes de la lune vague apres la pluie, in March 1953 Avant-Scene du Cinema(Paris), 1 January 1977. Producer: Masaichi Nagata: screenplay: Matsutaro Kawaguchi, Books from Yoshikata Yodas adaptation of two stories, Asaji ga yado ("The Inn at Asaji")and"Jasei-no in("Serpent of Desire"), from the collection of stories Ugetsu monogatari by Akinari Ueda(1768); Tsumura, Hideo, A Certain Mizoguchi Kenji(in Japanese), Japan, 1958 photography: Kazuo Miyagawa; editor: Mitsuji Miyata; sound Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Iwao Otani; production designer: Kisaku Ito; music: Fumio Hayasaka Industry, Rutland, Vermont, 1960; revised edition, Princeton, 1982 and Ichiro saito Ve-Ho, Mizoguchi, Paris, 1964. Mesnil, Michel, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1965; revised edition, 1971 Cast: Machiko Kyo(Wakasa); Kinuyo Tanaka(Miyagi): Mitsuki Yoda, Yoshikata, Mizoguchi Kenji no hito to geijutsu(Kenji Mizoguchi Mito(Ohama): Masayuki Mori(Genjuro): Sakae Ozawa(Tobei); The Man and His art), Tokyo, 1970 1254

UGETSU MONOGATARI FILMS, 4th EDITION 1254 two decades before, then his disappointment stands for all those whose aspirations have been frustrated. Flora Gomes named his youngest protagonist for Amilcar Cabral, the distinguished guerrilla leader and intellectual. Young Amilcar is quick and witty, boisterous and ingenious, full of initiative, mischief, and energy. And he shows signs of following in the steps of his famous namesake. He is afraid of no one: his older sister, a truck driver, government authority. He leads the children in putting an evicted widow back into her house. If this rebellion against the callous disregard of people’s needs suggests the prospect of a better future, Gomes does not tell us what it might look like: ‘‘I do not suggest alternatives. As a ‘contester,’ I am someone who, above all, makes observations and remarks on issues.’’ But with Nando and Zé he has firmly established that the country at large rejects the compromises that mark the capital. Gomes created a beautiful and funny film. We follow the entan￾glements of our protagonists, relish their grace, enjoy the music, and discover Bissau. Through most of the film we revel in the caring among the adults and the prospect of romance among the young. Then, in the last fifteen minutes, the idyll unravels: Nando confronts Vincente with the betrayal of the ideals for which they fought, Vicente denounces Yonta and the consumer culture she represents, and Zé rejects Yonta in turn. Only at the very end do the children reassure us that all is not lost. The actors Gomes chose and trained are key to the success of his film. Bia Gomes, who appears in the role of Yonta’s mother Belante, had played a lead role in Those Whom Death Refused, but most of the actors in The Blue Eyes of Yonta were amateurs. Soon after he had completed Those Whom Death Refused, Gomes set out to search for actors amongst his friends, in the women associations, at the exit of schools, in poor neighborhoods, and also in some government minis￾tries. He then spent nine months with the actors in regular work sessions. In the film they use the local Portuguese creole they are comfortable with. Gomes complimented the beauty of his actors by using soft colors to good advantage. —Josef Gugler UGETSU MONOGATARI Japan, 1953 Director: Kenji Mizoguchi Production: Daiei studios; black and white, 35mm; running time: 96 minutes; length: 8622 feet. Released 1953. Filmed 26 January-13 March 1953. Producer: Masaichi Nagata; screenplay: Matsutaro Kawaguchi, from Yoshikata Yoda’s adaptation of two stories, ‘‘Asaji ga yado’’ (‘‘The Inn at Asaji’’) and ‘‘Jasei-no in’’ (‘‘Serpent of Desire’’), from the collection of stories Ugetsu monogatari by Akinari Ueda (1768); photography: Kazuo Miyagawa; editor: Mitsuji Miyata; sound: Iwao Otani; production designer: Kisaku Ito; music: Fumio Hayasaka and Ichiro Saito. Cast: Machiko Kyo (Wakasa); Kinuyo Tanaka (Miyagi); Mitsuki Mito (Ohama); Masayuki Mori (Genjuro); Sakae Ozawa (Tobei); Ugetsu monogatari Sugisaku Aoyama (Old priest); Kikue Nori (Ukon); Mitsusaburo Ramon (Commander of the clan NIWA); Ryosuke Kagawa (Village chief); Kichijiro Tsuchida (Silk merchant); Syozo Nanbu (Shinto priest); Ichiisaburo Sawamura (Genichi). Awards: Venice Film Festival, Silver Prize Winner and Italian Critics Award, 1953; Edinburgh Film Festival, Gold Medal Win￾ner, 1955. Publications Script: Kawaguchi, Matsutaro, Les Contes de la lune vague après la pluie, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 January 1977. Books: Tsumura, Hideo, A Certain Mizoguchi Kenji (in Japanese), Japan, 1958. Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, Rutland, Vermont, 1960; revised edition, Princeton, 1982. Ve-Ho, Mizoguchi, Paris, 1964. Mesnil, Michel, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1965; revised edition, 1971. Yoda, Yoshikata, Mizoguchi Kenji no hito to geijutsu (Kenji Mizoguchi: The Man and His Art), Tokyo, 1970

FILMS. 4th EDItION UGETSU MONOGATARI Tessier, Max, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1971 Gaelen, H in Film en Televisie(Brussels ), March 1985 Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975 Alion,Y,""Les contes de la lune vague apres la pluie, in Revue du Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Kenji's Door: Japan Through Its Cinema Cinema(Paris), no 459, April 1990 New York, 1976. Burdeau, Emmanuel, and others, Mizoguchi Encore, in Cahiers Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985 Lopate, Philip, "A Master Who Could Create Poems for the Eye, in Burch, Noel, To the Distant Observer: Form and Meaning in the The New York Times, 15 September 1996 Japanese Cinema, Berkeley, 1979 MacNab, Geoffrey, in Sight Sound(London), vol. 8, no. 12, Garbicz. Adam and Jacek Klinowski editors December 1998 Vehicle: A Guide to Its Achievements: Journey Two, Metuchen New Jersey, 1979 Freiberg, Freda, Women in Mizoguchi Films, Melbourne, 1981 Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982 Serceau, Daniel, Mizoguchi: De la revolte aux songes, Paris, 1983 Ugetsu monogatari was not the first Kenji Mizoguchi film to be Andrew, Dudley, Film in the Aura of Art, Princeton, 1984 shown in the West, but it was the first to reveal him to the west as McDonald, Keiko, Mizoguchi, Boston, 1984 a major artist. Swiftly establishing itself(especially in France)on McDonald, Keiko, editor, Ugetsu: Kenji Mizoguchi, Director, New many critics'Ten Best'lists, the film opened the way for the Brunswick, New Jersey, 1993 acclamation of the work of Mizoguchi's final period. For some, he O Grady, Gerald, editor, Mizoguchi the Master, Ontario, 1996. became the supreme filmmaker, the cinematic Shakespeare, realizin Tomasi, Dario, Kenji Mizoguchi, Milano, 1998 to the fullest the potential of film as an art form. That was at the time when the potential of film'was generally felt to have been Articles identified and adequately expounded by Andre Bazin; and assessment which can still be accepted if we add the proviso that Bazin accounted Richie, Donald, and Joseph I. Anderson, ""Kenji Mizoguchi, in for only one of films many potentials Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1955 However, the supremacy of his""late"period and the kind of Godard, Jean-Luc, in Arts(Paris), February 1958 achievement that it represents, has been increasingly challenged since the 1960s. Two factors help account for this: one is the discovery of Sadoul, Georges, "Diableries et miseres de la guerre. " in Lettres Mlizoguchi's earlier films, previ lously almost unknown; the other is francaises(Paris), 26 April 1959 the politicization of film criticism and the growth, within it, of an Mizoguchi Issue of Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), May 1959 deological awareness. In recent years, Noel Burch's To the Distant Gilson, Rene, in Cinema(Paris), May 1959. Observer, Joan Mellen's The Waves at Genji's Door, and Frieda Astruc, Alexandre, in Films and Filming(London), Summer 1961 Frieberg's useful pamphlet Women in Mizoguchi's Films-three Rotha, Paul, in Films and Filming(London), May 1962 books written from quite distinct critical positions, with quite distinct Mizoguchi Issue"of Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), August-Septem- estimates of Mizoguchi's work--have agreed on one point, the ber 1964 application(in a derogatory sense) of the termaestheticism'to Yoda, Yoshikata, Souvenirs sur Mizoguchi, in Cahiers du cinema Mizoguchi's late work. Films previously hailed as the greatest ever (Pais),no.174,1966 made-Ugetsul, Sansho dayu, The Life of Harare suddenly Iwasaki, Akira, ""Kenji Mizoguchi, "in Anthologie du Cinema(Paris), perceived as evidence of Mizoguchi's withdrawal from the radicalism November 196 of his work in the 1930s and 1940s, and a retreat from a social/ Yoda, Yoshikata, " The Density of Mizoguchi,s Scripts, in Cinema political viewpoint into the realm of aesthetic contemplation (Los Angeles), Spring 1971 The relationship between aesthetics and politics is incredibly Wood, Robin, Mizoguchi: The Ghost Princess and the seaweed complex: the critical problems it generates have never been success- Gatherer, in Film Comment(New York), March-April 1973. fully resolved. It is true that Ugetsu monogatari is ideologically more lism,"in Sight and Sound (Lon- conservative than, say, Sisters of Gion or My Love Has Been Burning don), Spring 1978 From the radical femini Godefroy, J C, in Cinematographe(Paris), November 1978. protest of his earlier films to the celebration of woman as self- Masson,A,""Revers de la quietude, "in Positif(Paris), Novem- sacrificer, redeemer, and mother in Ugetsu is certainly a large and ber 1978 disconcerting jump. (Mizoguchi's conversion to Buddhism in the Richie, Donald, " Kenji Mizoguchi, in Cinema, A Critical Diction- early 1950s is doubtlessly a related factor. )Further, Ugetsu can be ary, edited by Richard Roud, London, 1980 read as advocating the resignation to and the acceptance of one's lot. Sato, Tadao, and Dudley Andrew, ""On Kenji Mizoguchi, " in Film This withdrawal from the active struggle in favor of a spiritual Criticism(Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Spring 1980 transcendence makes the hardships of the material world not so much iogret, H, "Mizoguchi: Un art sans artifice, in Positif(Paris), endurable as irrelevant. The film encourages such a reading, ye December 1980 cannot be reduced to it Martin, Marcel, ""Rencontre avec Yoshikata Yoda, in image et Son Ugetsu contains within itself an answer to the charge of aestheti- Paris), October 1982. cism. The story of Genjuro the potter can be taken as Mizoguchi's Millar, Gavin,"The Climate of Beauty, in Listener (London), artistic testament. At the beginning of the film Genjuro is a materialis- 5May1983 tic artisan, mass-producing pots as a commodity. His encounter with

FILMS, 4 UGETSU MONOGATARI th EDITION 1255 Tessier, Max, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1971. Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Kenji’s Door: Japan Through Its Cinema, New York, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Burch, Noël, To the Distant Observer: Form and Meaning in the Japanese Cinema, Berkeley, 1979. Garbicz, Adam, and Jacek Klinowski, editors, Cinema, The Magic Vehicle: A Guide to Its Achievements: Journey Two, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1979. Freiberg, Freda, Women in Mizoguchi Films, Melbourne, 1981. Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982. Serceau, Daniel, Mizoguchi: De la revolte aux songes, Paris, 1983. Andrew, Dudley, Film in the Aura of Art, Princeton, 1984. McDonald, Keiko, Mizoguchi, Boston, 1984. McDonald, Keiko, editor, Ugetsu: Kenji Mizoguchi, Director, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1993. O’Grady, Gerald, editor, Mizoguchi the Master, Ontario, 1996. Tomasi, Dario, Kenji Mizoguchi, Milano, 1998. Articles: Richie, Donald, and Joseph I. Anderson, ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1955. Godard, Jean-Luc, in Arts (Paris), February 1958. Rohmer, Eric, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1958. Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘Diableries et miseres de la guerre,’’ in Lettres Françaises (Paris), 26 April 1959. ‘‘Mizoguchi Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1959. Gilson, René, in Cinéma (Paris), May 1959. Astruc, Alexandre, in Films and Filming (London), Summer 1961. Rotha, Paul, in Films and Filming (London), May 1962. ‘‘Mizoguchi Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August-Septem￾ber 1964. Yoda, Yoshikata, ‘‘Souvenirs sur Mizoguchi,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 174, 1966. Iwasaki, Akira, ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma (Paris), November 1967. Yoda, Yoshikata, ‘‘The Density of Mizoguchi’s Scripts,’’ in Cinema (Los Angeles), Spring 1971. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Mizoguchi: The Ghost Princess and the Seaweed Gatherer,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March-April 1973. Cohen, R., ‘‘Mizoguchi and Modernism,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon￾don), Spring 1978. Godefroy, J. C., in Cinématographe (Paris), November 1978. Masson, A., ‘‘Revers de la quietude,’’ in Positif (Paris), Novem￾ber 1978. Richie, Donald, ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Cinema, A Critical Diction￾ary, edited by Richard Roud, London, 1980. Sato, Tadao, and Dudley Andrew, ‘‘On Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Spring 1980. Niogret, H., ‘‘Mizoguchi: Un art sans artifice,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1980. Martin, Marcel, ‘‘Rencontre avec Yoshikata Yoda,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), October 1982. Millar, Gavin, ‘‘The Climate of Beauty,’’ in Listener (London), 5 May 1983. Gaelen, H., in Film en Televisie (Brussels), March 1985. Alion, Y., ‘‘Les contes de la lune vague apres la pluie,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 459, April 1990. Burdeau, Emmanuel, and others, ‘‘Mizoguchi Encore,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 504, July-August 1996. Lopate, Philip, ‘‘A Master Who Could Create Poems for the Eye,’’ in The New York Times, 15 September 1996. MacNab, Geoffrey, in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 8, no. 12, December 1998. *** Ugetsu monogatari was not the first Kenji Mizoguchi film to be shown in the West, but it was the first to reveal him to the West as a major artist. Swiftly establishing itself (especially in France) on many critics’ ‘‘Ten Best’’ lists, the film opened the way for the acclamation of the work of Mizoguchi’s final period. For some, he became the supreme filmmaker, the cinematic Shakespeare, realizing to the fullest the potential of film as an art form. That was at the time when the ‘‘potential of film’’ was generally felt to have been identified and adequately expounded by André Bazin; and assessment which can still be accepted if we add the proviso that Bazin accounted for only one of film’s many potentials. However, the supremacy of his ‘‘late’’ period and the kind of achievement that it represents, has been increasingly challenged since the 1960s. Two factors help account for this: one is the discovery of Mizoguchi’s earlier films, previously almost unknown; the other is the politicization of film criticism and the growth, within it, of an ideological awareness. In recent years, Noël Burch’s To the Distant Observer, Joan Mellen’s The Waves at Genji’s Door, and Frieda Frieberg’s useful pamphlet Women in Mizoguchi’s Films—three books written from quite distinct critical positions, with quite distinct estimates of Mizoguchi’s work—have agreed on one point, the application (in a derogatory sense) of the term ‘‘aestheticism’’ to Mizoguchi’s late work. Films previously hailed as the greatest ever made—Ugetsu, Sansho dayu, The Life of Oharu—are suddenly perceived as evidence of Mizoguchi’s withdrawal from the radicalism of his work in the 1930s and 1940s, and a retreat from a social/ political viewpoint into the realm of aesthetic contemplation. The relationship between aesthetics and politics is incredibly complex: the critical problems it generates have never been success￾fully resolved. It is true that Ugetsu monogatari is ideologically more conservative than, say, Sisters of Gion or My Love Has Been Burning. The crux lies in the treatment of women. From the radical feminist protest of his earlier films to the celebration of woman as self￾sacrificer, redeemer, and mother in Ugetsu is certainly a large and disconcerting jump. (Mizoguchi’s conversion to Buddhism in the early 1950s is doubtlessly a related factor.) Further, Ugetsu can be read as advocating the resignation to and the acceptance of one’s lot. This withdrawal from the active struggle in favor of a spiritual transcendence makes the hardships of the material world not so much endurable as irrelevant. The film encourages such a reading, yet cannot be reduced to it. Ugetsu contains within itself an answer to the charge of aestheti￾cism. The story of Genjuro the potter can be taken as Mizoguchi’s artistic testament. At the beginning of the film Genjuro is a materialis￾tic artisan, mass-producing pots as a commodity. His encounter with

UMBERTO D FILMS. 4 EDITIoN the Lady Wakasa introduces him to the world of the aesthetic. She L'ULTIMO TANGO A PARIGI shows him fragile and exquisite vessels that she presents, and he accepts, as his creations, but that are totally unlike the crude, See THE LAST TANGo IN Paris functional wares we have seen him almost brutally shape earlier. The complexity of response that this whole central segment evokes sufficient in itself to call into question the reduction of the film to a single clear-cut statement. The Lady Wakasa is both evil spirit and ULYSSES GAZE pathetic, victimized woman; the world of the aesthetic(which is also See TO VLEMMA TOU ODYSSEA the world of the erotic)has a fascination and authentic beauty that nake it far from easily dismissible. That alluring world, however, has three negative connotations. First, it is presented as a possible option only if one turns one's back on reality. It is a world of fantasy and UMBERTO D illusion where the suffering of human beings in a material world of oppression, cruelty, greed, and human exploitation cannot be permit- ted to intrude. ( One of the most expressive cuts in the history of the Italy, 1952 cinema is that from the exquisite scene of love-making on the cultivated lawn beside the lake to Miyagi, fearfully peering out from Director: Vittorio De Sica a society created by men. ) Second, Wakasa herself is not presented as production: Rizzoli -De Sica-Amato and Dear films. black and an autonomous character, even in her appreciation of beauty. Every- white. 35mm: running time. 90 minutes. some sources state 80 ing she knows, her father had taught her. Her father (long since minutes. Filmed 1951 in Cinecitta studios, and in and around Rom dead) appears in the film as a hideous, emaciated skull-like mask Cost: about 140 million lire. Released 1952 peaking in a disturbingly strange subterranean voice. The aestheti be is cl taste"is what women are taught by men. Finally, the father is linked Director of production: Nino Misiano: screenplay: Cesare Zavattini to war, damnation, and imperialism. Wakasa's father had the misfor- tune to lose, and have his clan exterminated but the film makes clear Aldo): editor: Eraldo di roma: sound engineer: Ennio Sensi that he would have inflicted precisely the same fate on his enemies, production designer: Virgilio Marchi; music: Alessandro Cigognini had the outcome been reversed The overall effect of the film is to suggest, not that the aesthetic is Cast: Carlo Battisti (Umberto); Maria-Pia Casilio(Maria): Lina invalid in itself, but that it cannot validly exist in this world. (The Inari(Landlord); Alberto Albani Ba films contemporary relevance is by no means compromised by its (Sister at the hospital); Memo Carotenuto(Voice of light for Umberto setting in the sixteenth century. ) The pot Genjuro is making at the end in the hospital); Ileana Simova( Surprised woman in the bedroom f the film, under Miyagi's spiritual supervision, is significantly plus many non-professional actors different from the two previous kinds of work: it is made with loving care, but also the product of experience; work of art yet made to Awards: New York Film Critics Award, Best Foreign Film(shared be used by Genjuro's peers rather than admired by a cultivated elite. with Diabolique), 1955 The great beauty of the film is of an order altogether different from the aestheticism of the Wakasa world. Mizoguchi never aestheticizes pain and suffering (in the manner of, say, David Lean in Dr. Zhivago). The extraordinary sequence-shot showing the mortal wounding of Publications Miyagi is a case in point: the aesthetic strategies(long take, distance, complex camera movement, depth of field showing simultaneous Script actions in foreground and background) serve to sustain the character stic Mizoguchian tension between involvement and contemplation, Zavattini. Cesare, and Vittorio De Sica. Umberto D Milan. 1953 but do not in any way mitigate the horror of the scene. published in"Umberto D Issue of Avant-Scene du Cinema If on one level Ugetsu tends to reinforce traditional myths of (Paris), 15 April 1980. yoman, on another it remains true to the radical spirit of Mizoguchi's earlier Marxist-feminist principles. The actions of both Genjuro and Tobei are motivated by the values forced upon them by patriarchal Books. capitalism. They both seek success( Genjuro through the acquisition of wealth, Tobei through the prestige of becoming a Samurai)in order Castello,G. C, l Cinema Neorealistico italiano, Turin, 1956 to impress their wives, neither of whom shows the smallest interest in Rondi, Brunello, II Neorealismo italiano, Parma, 1956. such ambitions. The film is a systematic critique of the kind of male Hawald, Patrice, Le Neo-realisme italien et ses createurs, Paris, 1959 egoism(expressing itself in greed and violence and the destruction of Agel, Henri. Vittorio De Sica, 2nd edition, Paris, 1964. human relationships, always at the expense of women) that a patriar- Leprohon, Pierre, Vittorio De Sica, Paris, 1966 chal capitalist civilization promotes Bazin, Andre, What Is Cinema? I and 2, Berkeley, 1967 Armes, Roy, Patterns of Realism, New York, 1972. -Robin wood Samuels, Charles Thomas, Encountering Directors, New York, 1972. 1256

UMBERTO D FILMS, 4th EDITION 1256 the Lady Wakasa introduces him to the world of the aesthetic. She shows him fragile and exquisite vessels that she presents, and he accepts, as his creations, but that are totally unlike the crude, functional wares we have seen him almost brutally shape earlier. The complexity of response that this whole central segment evokes is sufficient in itself to call into question the reduction of the film to a single clear-cut statement. The Lady Wakasa is both evil spirit and a pathetic, victimized woman; the world of the aesthetic (which is also the world of the erotic) has a fascination and authentic beauty that make it far from easily dismissible. That alluring world, however, has three negative connotations. First, it is presented as a possible option only if one turns one’s back on reality. It is a world of fantasy and illusion where the suffering of human beings in a material world of oppression, cruelty, greed, and human exploitation cannot be permit￾ted to intrude. (One of the most expressive cuts in the history of the cinema is that from the exquisite scene of love-making on the cultivated lawn beside the lake to Miyagi, fearfully peering out from her hiding-place, a woman vulnerable to attack from all sides of a society created by men.) Second, Wakasa herself is not presented as an autonomous character, even in her appreciation of beauty. Every￾thing she knows, her father had taught her. Her father (long since dead) appears in the film as a hideous, emaciated skull-like mask speaking in a disturbingly strange subterranean voice. The aesthetic, whatever else it may be, is clearly defined as a patriarchal imposition: ‘‘taste’’ is what women are taught by men. Finally, the father is linked to war, domnation, and imperialism. Wakasa’s father had the misfor￾tune to lose, and have his clan exterminated, but the film makes clear that he would have inflicted precisely the same fate on his enemies, had the outcome been reversed. The overall effect of the film is to suggest, not that the aesthetic is invalid in itself, but that it cannot validly exist in this world. (The film’s contemporary relevance is by no means compromised by its setting in the sixteenth century.) The pot Genjuro is making at the end of the film, under Miyagi’s spiritual supervision, is significantly different from the two previous kinds of work: it is made with loving care, but also the product of experience; it is a work of art yet made to be used by Genjuro’s peers rather than admired by a cultivated elite. The great beauty of the film is of an order altogether different from the aestheticism of the Wakasa world. Mizoguchi never aestheticizes pain and suffering (in the manner of, say, David Lean in Dr. Zhivago). The extraordinary sequence-shot showing the mortal wounding of Miyagi is a case in point: the aesthetic strategies (long take, distance, complex camera movement, depth of field showing simultaneous actions in foreground and background) serve to sustain the character￾istic Mizoguchian tension between involvement and contemplation, but do not in any way mitigate the horror of the scene. If on one level Ugetsu tends to reinforce traditional myths of woman, on another it remains true to the radical spirit of Mizoguchi’s earlier Marxist-feminist principles. The actions of both Genjuro and Tobei are motivated by the values forced upon them by patriarchal capitalism. They both seek success (Genjuro through the acquisition of wealth, Tobei through the prestige of becoming a Samurai) in order to impress their wives, neither of whom shows the smallest interest in such ambitions. The film is a systematic critique of the kind of male egoism (expressing itself in greed and violence and the destruction of human relationships, always at the expense of women) that a patriar￾chal capitalist civilization promotes. —Robin Wood L’ULTIMO TANGO A PARIGI See THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS ULYSSES’ GAZE See TO VLEMMA TOU ODYSSEA UMBERTO D Italy, 1952 Director: Vittorio De Sica Production: Rizzoli-De Sica-Amato and Dear Films; black and white, 35mm; running time: 90 minutes, some sources state 80 minutes. Filmed 1951 in Cinecittà studios, and in and around Rome. Cost: about 140 million lire. Released 1952. Director of production: Nino Misiano; screenplay: Cesare Zavattini with Vittorio De Sica; photography: Aldo Graziati (a.k.a. G. R. Aldo); editor: Eraldo di Roma; sound engineer: Ennio Sensi; production designer: Virgilio Marchi; music: Alessandro Cigognini. Cast: Carlo Battisti (Umberto); Maria-Pia Casilio (Maria); Lina Gennari (Landlord); Alberto Albani Barbieri (The Fiancé); Elena Rea (Sister at the hospital); Memo Carotenuto (Voice of light for Umberto in the hospital); Ileana Simova (Surprised woman in the bedroom); plus many non-professional actors. Awards: New York Film Critics Award, Best Foreign Film (shared with Diabolique), 1955. Publications Script: Zavattini, Cesare, and Vittorio De Sica, Umberto D, Milan, 1953; published in ‘‘Umberto D Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 April 1980. Books: Castello, G. C., Il Cinema Neorealistico Italiano, Turin, 1956. Rondi, Brunello, Il Neorealismo Italiano, Parma, 1956. Hawald, Patrice, Le Neo-realisme Italien et ses createurs, Paris, 1959. Agel, Henri, Vittorio De Sica, 2nd edition, Paris, 1964. Leprohon, Pierre, Vittorio De Sica, Paris, 1966. Bazin, André, What Is Cinema? 1 and 2, Berkeley, 1967. Armes, Roy, Patterns of Realism, New York, 1972. Samuels, Charles Thomas, Encountering Directors, New York, 1972

FILMS. 4th EDItION UMBERTO D 系 Umberto d Mercader, Maria, La mia vita con Vittorio De Sica, Milan, 1978. De Sica, Vittorio, ""Money, the Public, and Umberto D, in Films Darreta, John, Vittorio De Sica: A Guide to References and Resources, and Filming(London), January 1956 Boston. 1983 Village Voice(New York ), 8 February 1956 Bolzoni, Francesco, Quando De Sica era Mister Brown, Turin, 1984. Sargeant, W,"Bread. Love, and Neo-Realism, "in New Yorker, 29 Darreta, John, Vittorio De Sica: A Guide to References and Resources June and 6 July 1957. oston 1988 Rhode, Eric, Why Neo-Realism Failed, in Sight and Sound ficciche. Lino. Sciuscia di vittorio De Sica: letture. documen London ), winter 1960-61 testimonianze, Turin, Italy, 1994 Mc Vay, D," Poet of Poverty, in Films and Filming (London). Nuzzi. Paolo, and Ottavio lemma, editors, De Sica and zavattini. October - November 1964 Entire Issue of Articles by De Sica'in Bianco e Nero(Rome), Fall 1975 articles. La polla, F, La citta e lo spazio, 'in Bianco e Nero(rome), September-December 1976. Sadoul, Georges, in Lettres francaises(Paris), October 1952 Passalacqua, J, Vittorio De Sica, in Films in Review(New York), ilms in Review(New York). November 1952. Reisz, Karel, in Sight and Sound ( London), October-November 1953 Agel, Henri, "Vittorio De Sica 1902-1974. special issue of Avant- De la Roche, Catherine, in Films and Filming (London), Decem- Scene du Cinema(Paris ), 15 October 1978 ber 1954 Agel, Henri, "Vittorio De Sica, in Anthologie du cinema 10 Lambert, Gavin, *" Italian Notes, ' in Sight and Sound (London). Goodman, Walter, in The New York Times, vol. 136, section 2. H22. Fenin, George in Film Culture(New York), winter 1955

FILMS, 4 UMBERTO D th EDITION 1257 Umberto D Mercader, Maria, La mia vita con Vittorio De Sica, Milan, 1978. Darreta, John, Vittorio De Sica: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1983. Bolzoni, Francesco, Quando De Sica era Mister Brown, Turin, 1984. Darreta, John, Vittorio De Sica: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1988. Micciche, Lino, Sciuscia di Vittorio De Sica: letture, documenti, testimonianze, Turin, Italy, 1994. Nuzzi, Paolo, and Ottavio Iemma, editors, De Sica and Zavattini: parliamo tanto di noi, Rome, 1997. Articles: Sadoul, Georges, in Lettres Françaises (Paris), October 1952. Films in Review (New York), November 1952. Reisz, Karel, in Sight and Sound (London), October-November 1953. De la Roche, Catherine, in Films and Filming (London), Decem￾ber 1954. Lambert, Gavin, ‘‘Italian Notes,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), 1 January 1955. Fenin, George, in Film Culture (New York), Winter 1955. De Sica, Vittorio, ‘‘Money, the Public, and Umberto D,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1956. Village Voice (New York), 8 February 1956. Sargeant, W., ‘‘Bread, Love, and Neo-Realism,’’ in New Yorker, 29 June and 6 July 1957. Rhode, Eric, ‘‘Why Neo-Realism Failed,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1960–61. McVay, D., ‘‘Poet of Poverty,’’ in Films and Filming (London), October-November 1964. ‘‘Entire Issue of Articles by De Sica’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), Fall 1975. La Polla, F., ‘‘La citta e lo spazio,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), September-December 1976. Passalacqua, J., ‘‘Vittorio De Sica,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1978. Agel, Henri, ‘‘Vittorio De Sica 1902–1974,’’ special issue of Avant￾Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 October 1978. Agel, Henri, ‘‘Vittorio De Sica,’’ in Anthologie du cinéma 10, Paris, 1979. Goodman, Walter, in The New York Times, vol. 136, section 2, H22, 30 August 1987

UNDERGROUND FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Kinder, M, The Subversive Potential of the Pseudo-lterative, in scrupulously performed under De Sica's direction and photographed Film Quarterly(Berkeley), no. 2, 1989-90. by g.R. Aldo, exhibit, for Bazin. Langkjoer, B, Det indre melodrama, in Kosmorama( Copenha fidelity to the aesthetic of neo-realism. A conflicting position is Bailey, Paul."Looking Up For Rain, "in Sight Sound (London), taken some years later by Jean Mitry whose objection is not to the vol.139,no.205,Fall993. ol. 3. no. 12. December 1993. significance. Duration in Umberto D, according to Mitry, ""is nothing Bonadella, Peter, Three Neorealist Classics by Vittorio De Sica, in more than banality and is charged very simply with prolonging, Cineaste(New York), vol 23. no. 1, 1997. beyond the tolerable, events whose sense is clear from the very first Inages. These events are as follows: Umberto D. a retired civil servant among the aging demonstrators at a rally in support of increased Umberto D is often considered Vittorio De Sica's masterpiece, the pensions (Umberto is played by a Carlo Battisti, a university profes- purest example of Cesare Zavattini's aesthetic, and most highly De Sica pressed into service ce after a chance meeting on the streets developed expression of this historic collaboration of director and of Rome. )Impoverished but genteel, about to be dispossessed. screenwriter. It may also be the most relentlessly bleak of the great completely alone except for the company of his dog, Flike, and the works of neo-realism occasional companionship of a young servant girl, Umberto deter- De Sica was aware from the start that Umberto D might be mines to take his own life. His only concern is for Flike, for whom he susceptible to the same charge of subversion that had greeted Miracle attempts to find a home before doing away with himself. Failing in the in Milan. On the other hand, he had hoped, as he pointed out in a later first attempt, Umberto determines to kill himself and Flike, and comment, that"the story of that old retired office worker, his tragic failing again, has no recourse but to take up once more an entirely solitude, his boundless sadness and his pathetic, awkward attempts at hopeless existence. Were it not for his indifference to hostility, warming his heart(would have)a kind of universality that would be Umberto's confrontation with cold, often hostile persons and instit understood by everyone. This was not to be the case. De Sica tions would earn him the sympathy of the viewers, and the viewers the accused by many, including the then junior minister Giulio Andreotti. pleasure of the well-earned sentimental response. But De Sica, of washing Italys dirty laundry in public, of irresponsibility in Zavattini, and Aldo take the necessary measures of script, direction, and camera that distance the viewer and deny easy sympathy. The mobilized forces strongly opposed to exporting images of an Italy cruelty of society's neglect of Umberto (which so offended the depressed and without justice; following Umberto D, the foreign authorities), and lack of compassion of peers and institutions(whic distribution of films that were declared unflattering to Italian society no doubt offended the charitable), and Umberto's grievou was banned. The authorities feared, and with good reason, what the centeredness finally elicit, through the manipulations of style, the critic Georges Sadoul and a few others most admired. At the time of detachment of the viewer (and his or her attendant dissatisfaction) its first showing, Sadoul noted that Umberto d(along with Sciuscia. from Umberto's despair. The rigor of Umberto D explains both its Bicycle Thief, and Miracle in Milan) constituted an extraordinary initial failure and its subsequent reputation. Bazin's prediction was act of accusationagainst contemporary Italy. Official hostility was borne out: Umberto D would prove"a masterpiece to which film followed by critical indifference, and to complete the disastrous history is certainly going to grant a place of honor reception, Umberto D failed miserably at the box office. The story of old age, loneliness, and spiritual and material poverty was not likely Mirella Jona affront to appeal to audiences who, in 1952, were eager to forget the past and to embrace the economic miracle that they thought--correctly as it urned out-was just around the corner Critical debate since the release of the film has focused on what is UMUD'A YOLCULUK generally understood to be its central aesthetic question, the question See JOURNEY OF HOPE f duration. Jean Collet mong the first to underscore that through the restitution to film of real time De Sica had succeeded in giving the most banal of situations remarkable depth. But it is Andre Bazins essay, "De Sica: Metteur en Scene, "that most completely UNDERGROUND delimits and defines the issue. Bazin is specifically interested in those privileged moments in Umberto d that afford a glimpse of what"a truly realist cinema of the time could be, a cinema of'duration" France-Germany-Hungary-Yugoslavia, 1995 Two scenes particularly-Umberto going to bed and the awakening those perfect instances Director: Emir Kusturica duration determined by character creates a mise-en-scene that re- places drama with gesture, narrative with act. For Bazin, in these Production: CiBY 2000(France), Pandora Film(Germany), Nov Film(Hungary ), with the participation of Radio-TV-Serbia,Komuna- a person to whom nothing in particular happens(that)takes on the Belgrade and Chaplain Films(Bulgaria); color; 35 mm; running time quality of spectacle. Zavattini's lengthy descriptions of the most 167 minutes(some prints are 192 minutes). Released 19 June 1995 in minute though absolutely necessary movements and expressions, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and 20 June 1997 in the United State 1258

UNDERGROUND FILMS, 4th EDITION 1258 Kinder, M., ‘‘The Subversive Potential of the Pseudo-Iterative,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 2, 1989–90. Langkjoer, B., ‘‘Det indre melodrama,’’ in Kosmorama (Copenha￾gen), vol. 139, no. 205, Fall 1993. Bailey, Paul, ‘‘Looking Up For Rain,’’ in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 3, no. 12, December 1993. Bonadella, Peter, ‘‘Three Neorealist Classics by Vittorio De Sica,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 23, no. 1, 1997. *** Umberto D is often considered Vittorio De Sica’s masterpiece, the purest example of Cesare Zavattini’s aesthetic, and most highly developed expression of this historic collaboration of director and screenwriter. It may also be the most relentlessly bleak of the great works of neo-realism. De Sica was aware from the start that Umberto D might be susceptible to the same charge of subversion that had greeted Miracle in Milan. On the other hand, he had hoped, as he pointed out in a later comment, that ‘‘the story of that old retired office worker, his tragic solitude, his boundless sadness and his pathetic, awkward attempts at warming his heart (would have) a kind of universality that would be understood by everyone.’’ This was not to be the case. De Sica was accused by many, including the then junior minister Giulio Andreotti, of washing Italy’s dirty laundry in public, of irresponsibility in projecting a negative view of the country. Against Umberto D were mobilized forces strongly opposed to exporting images of an Italy depressed and without justice; following Umberto D, the foreign distribution of films that were declared unflattering to Italian society was banned. The authorities feared, and with good reason, what the critic Georges Sadoul and a few others most admired. At the time of its first showing, Sadoul noted that Umberto D (along with Sciuscia, Bicycle Thief, and Miracle in Milan) constituted an extraordinary ‘‘act of accusation’’ against contemporary Italy. Official hostility was followed by critical indifference, and to complete the disastrous reception, Umberto D failed miserably at the box office. The story of old age, loneliness, and spiritual and material poverty was not likely to appeal to audiences who, in 1952, were eager to forget the past and to embrace the economic miracle that they thought—correctly as it turned out—was just around the corner. Critical debate since the release of the film has focused on what is generally understood to be its central aesthetic question, the question of duration. Jean Collet was among the first to underscore that through the restitution to film of real time, De Sica had succeeded in giving the most banal of situations remarkable depth. But it is André Bazin’s essay, ‘‘De Sica: Metteur en Scène,’’ that most completely delimits and defines the issue. Bazin is specifically interested in those privileged moments in Umberto D that afford a glimpse of what ‘‘a truly realist cinema of the time could be, a cinema of ‘duration.’’’ Two scenes particularly—Umberto going to bed and the awakening of the servant girl—exemplify those perfect instances in which duration determined by character creates a mise-en-scène that re￾places drama with gesture, narrative with act. For Bazin, in these sequences ‘‘it is a matter of making ‘life time’—the continuing to be a person to whom nothing in particular happens—(that) takes on the quality of spectacle.’’ Zavattini’s lengthy descriptions of the most minute though absolutely necessary movements and expressions, scrupulously performed under De Sica’s direction and photographed in revealing long takes by G.R. Aldo, exhibit, for Bazin, ‘‘complete fidelity to the aesthetic of neo-realism.’’ A conflicting position is taken some years later by Jean Mitry whose objection is not to the concept of duration, but to what is, in his view, a duration without significance. Duration in Umberto D, according to Mitry, ‘‘is nothing more than banality and is charged very simply with prolonging, beyond the tolerable, events whose sense is clear from the very first images.’’ These events are as follows: Umberto D., a retired civil servant is among the aging demonstrators at a rally in support of increased pensions. (Umberto is played by a Carlo Battisti, a university profes￾sor De Sica pressed into service after a chance meeting on the streets of Rome.) Impoverished but genteel, about to be dispossessed, completely alone except for the company of his dog, Flike, and the occasional companionship of a young servant girl, Umberto deter￾mines to take his own life. His only concern is for Flike, for whom he attempts to find a home before doing away with himself. Failing in the first attempt, Umberto determines to kill himself and Flike, and failing again, has no recourse but to take up once more an entirely hopeless existence. Were it not for his indifference to hostility, Umberto’s confrontation with cold, often hostile persons and institu￾tions would earn him the sympathy of the viewers, and the viewers the pleasure of the well-earned sentimental response. But De Sica, Zavattini, and Aldo take the necessary measures of script, direction, and camera that distance the viewer and deny easy sympathy. The cruelty of society’s neglect of Umberto (which so offended the authorities), and lack of compassion of peers and institutions (which no doubt offended the charitable), and Umberto’s grievous self￾centeredness finally elicit, through the manipulations of style, the detachment of the viewer (and his or her attendant dissatisfaction) from Umberto’s despair. The rigor of Umberto D explains both its initial failure and its subsequent reputation. Bazin’s prediction was borne out; Umberto D would prove ‘‘a masterpiece to which film history is certainly going to grant a place of honor .’’ —Mirella Jona Affron UMUD’A YOLCULUK See JOURNEY OF HOPE UNDERGROUND France-Germany-Hungary-Yugoslavia, 1995 Director: Emir Kusturica Production: CiBY 2000 (France), Pandora Film (Germany), Novo Film (Hungary), with the participation of Radio-TV-Serbia, Komuna￾Belgrade and Chaplain Films (Bulgaria); color; 35 mm; running time: 167 minutes (some prints are 192 minutes). Released 19 June 1995 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and 20 June 1997 in the United States;

FILMS. 4th EDItION UNDERGROUND N慧到 distributed in the U.S. by New Yorker Films; filmed 1994 on location Publications in Belgrade and Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and at the barrandov studios in Prague, Czech Republic Books. Producers: Pierre Spengler (executive), Maksa Catovic, Karl Handke, Peter, A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia, New Baumgartner; screenplay: Dusan Kovacevic with Emir Kusturica York. 1997. photography: Vilko Filac; editor: Branka Ceperac: production Norris. David, In the Wake of the Balkan Myth, London, 1999 design: Miljen Kreka Kljakovic: art directors: Branimir Babic, Vladislav Lasic: set design: Aleksandar Denic; costumes: Nebojsa BFl Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema, Lon- Lipanovic; original music: Goran Bregovic don,2000 Cast: Miki( Predrag) Manojlovic(Marko ) Lazar Ristovski(Petar Articles Popara Crni-Blacky); Mirjana Jokovic(Natalija): Slavko Stimac (Ivan): Emst Stotzner(Franz): Srdjan Todorovic (Jovan); Mirjana Levy, Emmanuel, ""Underground, "in Variety(New York ), 29 May aranovic(Vera): Milena Pavlovic (elena); Danilo""Bata"Stojkovic 4 June 1995 (Deda): Davor Dujmovic- Perhan(Bata): Dr Nele Karajlic (falling Finkielkraut, Alain, "" L'imposture Kusturica, in Le Monde(Paris), Gypsy): Dragan Nikolic (Film Director): Emir Kusturica (Arm 2June1995. Dealer); and others Malcolm, Derek, "The Surreal Sarajevan Dreamer, in Guardian (London), 29 June 1995 Awards: Palme d'Or, Cannes International Film Festival, 1995: Best Propos de emir Kustur Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), no 492 Foreign Language Film, Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, 1997. June 1995 1259

FILMS, 4 UNDERGROUND th EDITION 1259 Underground distributed in the U.S. by New Yorker Films; filmed 1994 on location in Belgrade and Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and at the Barrandov studios in Prague, Czech Republic. Producers: Pierre Spengler (executive), Maksa Catovic, Karl Baumgartner; screenplay: Dusan Kovacevic with Emir Kusturica; photography: Vilko Filac; editor: Branka Ceperac; production design: Miljen Kreka Kljakovic; art directors: Branimir Babic, Vladislav Lasic; set design: Aleksandar Denic; costumes: Nebojsa Lipanovic; original music: Goran Bregovic. Cast: Miki (Predrag) Manojlovic (Marko); Lazar Ristovski (Petar Popara Crni — Blacky); Mirjana Jokovic (Natalija); Slavko Stimac (Ivan); Ernst Stötzner (Franz); Srdjan Todorovic (Jovan); Mirjana Karanovic (Vera); Milena Pavlovic (Jelena); Danilo ‘‘Bata’’ Stojkovic (Deda); Davor Dujmovic-Perhan (Bata); Dr. Nele Karajlic (Falling Gypsy); Dragan Nikolic (Film Director); Emir Kusturica (Arms Dealer); and others. Awards: Palme d’Or, Cannes International Film Festival, 1995; Best Foreign Language Film, Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, 1997. Publications Books: Handke, Peter, A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia, New York, 1997. Norris, David, In the Wake of the Balkan Myth, London, 1999. BFI Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema, Lon￾don, 2000. Articles: Levy, Emmanuel, ‘‘Underground,’’ in Variety (New York), 29 May- 4 June 1995. Finkielkraut, Alain, ‘‘L’imposture Kusturica,’’ in Le Monde (Paris), 2 June 1995. Malcolm, Derek, ‘‘The Surreal Sarajevan Dreamer,’’ in Guardian (London), 29 June 1995. ‘‘Propos de Emir Kusturica,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 492, June 1995

UNDERGROUND FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Zizek, Slavoj, Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multina- The events of the second part, " The Cold War, take place in tional Capitalism, " in New Left Review, no. 225, September- 1961 In postwar communist Yugoslavia, Marko has become a cele- October 1995 brated poet, close to president Tito. He has married Natalia, and Kusturica, Emir, "Mon imposture, "in Le Monde(Paris), 26 Octo- together they have created a mythology of themselves as brave anti ber 1995 Fascists. A film is to be shot about their heroic experiences in the Gopnik, Adam, ""Cinema Dispute, in The New Yorker, 5 Febru truggle. Simultaneously, Marko and Natalia still keep a large number ary 1996 of people, Blacky included, in the cellar. They trick them into Hedges, Chris. "Belgrade Journal: Scathing 'Conscience' of Balkans thinking that the war goes on by playing soundtracks of Nazi Spares no One. An interview with Dusan Kovacevic, in The Ner bombings and Hitlers speeches. They use them as slave labor to York Times, 8 February 1996 manufacture arms that Marko trades internationally. One day Marko Robinson, David, "A Tunnel Vision of War: An Interview with Emir and Natalia descend to the cellar to attend the wedding of Blacky's Kusturica, in The Times(London), 5 March 1996 n Sweaty drunkenness reigns over this claustrophobic celebration Yates, Robert. " Gone Underground. 'in The Guardian(London), and the wedding guests, all intoxicated, end up fighting over unsettled 7 March 1996 accounts. In the turmoil the walls of the cellar crumble. The members Maslin, Janet, ""From Former Yugoslavia, Revelry with Allegory, of the wedding disperse in disarray and most of the enslaved inhabi- in New York Times. 12 October 1996 tants of the underground run away. Blacky and his son climb above Dieckmann, Katherine, When Kusturica Was Away on Business ground and end up at the shooting site of a film which is supposed to in Film Comment(New York), vol 33, no 5, 19 September 199 glorify the heroic past. Mistaking the set for reality and believing that Turan, Kenneth, "Sarajevans Journey from Cinema Hero to Trai- World War Il is still going on, they kill all the extras wearing German Los Angeles Times, 6 October 1997. uniforms. The son drowns in the Danube, and Blacky is captured by the police. Marko and Natalia escape the coming trouble, blowing up Jordanova, Dina, ""Kusturica's Underground (1995): Historical Alle- the house and the cellar gory or Propaganda, in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV The third part, again called"War, is set in the 1990s at an Hants), vol. 19. no. 1, 1999 unidentified battlefield, presumably Bosnia, where the protage cross paths one last time. Marko and Natalia have continued in international arms sales, and are wanted by Interpol. Blacky, still mourning the loss of his son thirty-five years earlier, is now in Underground is a historical film exploring the violent state of command of the paramilitary forces shelling a nearby city. In a final affairs in Yugoslavia. The films narrative spans over five decades, showdown Marko is killed by his own brother, Ivan, one of the people highlighting episodes taking place in 1941, 1961, and 1993. Real formerly confined in the underground. The paratroopers shoot Natalia events are combined with fictional historical encounters and od Blacky passes by without recognizing his former friends nces. Documentary footage of selected moments of Yugoslav The films epilogue offers a sharp contrast to this apocalyptic istory is used as a background against which the fictional protago. ending. In a utopian wedding scene all the protagonists come back to nists mingle with real historical personalities a la Forrest Gump. The life and gather together for a wedding feast on the Danube's sunny film is characterized by elaborate scenes, ornate props, and a haunting shores. As they cheerfully celebrate, the piece of land on which they musical score. Visually, the film is very dark, shot mostly in variou stand breaks apart from the mainland and quietly floats away. The shades of brown. There is even a shot taken from an unborn baby's wedding guests are too busy dancing and singing to notice that they point of view, watching out of the darkness of the womb. The film are being carried away into an unknown destination This final scene is the defining image that screenwriter Kovacevic Underground is screenwriter Dusan Kovacevic's and director and director Kusturica had in mind for this project. They were Emir Kusturica's personal take on Yugoslav history. In the film they Kusturica explained in a 1996 interview with David Robinson: " go follow closely the lives of three protagonists-Marko, a cunning cynic: Blacky, an artless dunce; and Natalia, an opportunistic blonde- away never really knowing what has happened to them. That is the who are shown at various stages of their lives that largely coincide way of the Balkan people. They never rationalize their past. Somehow the highlighted moments of Yugoslav history the passion that leads them forward is not changed. I hope some day Blacky both have a crush on Natalia, and many of their actions are people may find better ways to use the passion they have so far persistently used to kill one another determined by this romantic rivalry. The somber backdrop to these sensual affairs. however is a war with no end. Underground was awarded the golden Palm at the 1995 Cannes In the first part, called *War, which opens with the nazi International Film Festival, adding to the previous Golden Palm fo Kusturica's When Father Was Away on Business(1985)and his Best bombing of Belgrade in 1941, Marko, an energetic black marketeer, Director award for Time of the Gypsies(1989), and enhancing the takes a group of friends and relatives to a cellar which he has equipped director's reputation as a"Balkan Fellini. "The award carried weight as an air-raid shelter. It soon turns out that he has planned the whole with international critics. most of whom saw the film as an esoteric rescue operation with the intention of enslaving the people in the piece of elitist cinema preoccupied with the messy state of Balkan cellar. Above ground, Marko and Blacky complete a series of reckless affairs but nonetheless endorsed it. Underground, however,came urglaries that they present as motivated by anti-Fascist zeal. After under critical fire for the historical and political propositions upon performing a daring anti-Nazi stunt which is nothing else but another which the story was built. The main accusation was that the film was manifestation of a philanderer's showmanship, Marko gets rid of a well-masked version of Serbian propaganda, presented at a time Blacky by sending him to"" in the cellar. He can finally claim when Serbia was largely believed to be the aggressive force in the atalia exclusively for himself. Yugoslav break-up war. Others charged that by making a film in 1260

UNDERGROUND FILMS, 4th EDITION 1260 Zizek, Slavoj, ‘‘Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multina￾tional Capitalism,’’ in New Left Review, no. 225, September￾October 1995. Kusturica, Emir, ‘‘Mon imposture,’’ in Le Monde (Paris), 26 Octo￾ber 1995. Gopnik, Adam, ‘‘Cinéma Disputé,’’ in The New Yorker, 5 Febru￾ary 1996. Hedges, Chris, ‘‘Belgrade Journal: Scathing ‘Conscience’ of Balkans Spares no One. An interview with Dusan Kovacevic,’’ in The New York Times, 8 February 1996. Robinson, David, ‘‘A Tunnel Vision of War: An Interview with Emir Kusturica,’’ in The Times (London), 5 March 1996. Yates, Robert, ‘‘Gone Underground,’’ in The Guardian (London), 7 March 1996. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘From Former Yugoslavia, Revelry with Allegory,’’ in New York Times, 12 October 1996. Dieckmann, Katherine, ‘‘When Kusturica Was Away on Business,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 33, no. 5, 19 September 1997. Turan, Kenneth, ‘‘Sarajevan’s Journey from Cinema Hero to ‘Trai￾tor,’’’ in Los Angeles Times, 6 October 1997. Iordanova, Dina, ‘‘Kusturica’s Underground (1995): Historical Alle￾gory or Propaganda,’’ in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV (Hants), vol. 19, no. 1, 1999. *** Underground is a historical film exploring the violent state of affairs in Yugoslavia. The film’s narrative spans over five decades, highlighting episodes taking place in 1941, 1961, and 1993. Real events are combined with fictional historical encounters and occur￾rences. Documentary footage of selected moments of Yugoslav history is used as a background against which the fictional protago￾nists mingle with real historical personalities à la Forrest Gump. The film is characterized by elaborate scenes, ornate props, and a haunting musical score. Visually, the film is very dark, shot mostly in various shades of brown. There is even a shot taken from an unborn baby’s point of view, watching out of the darkness of the womb. The film leaves a lasting and unsettling impression. Underground is screenwriter Dusan Kovacevic’s and director Emir Kusturica’s personal take on Yugoslav history. In the film they follow closely the lives of three protagonists—Marko, a cunning cynic; Blacky, an artless dunce; and Natalia, an opportunistic blonde— who are shown at various stages of their lives that largely coincide with the highlighted moments of Yugoslav history. Marko and Blacky both have a crush on Natalia, and many of their actions are determined by this romantic rivalry. The somber backdrop to these sensual affairs, however, is a war with no end. In the first part, called ‘‘War,’’ which opens with the Nazi bombing of Belgrade in 1941, Marko, an energetic black marketeer, takes a group of friends and relatives to a cellar which he has equipped as an air-raid shelter. It soon turns out that he has planned the whole rescue operation with the intention of enslaving the people in the cellar. Above ground, Marko and Blacky complete a series of reckless burglaries that they present as motivated by anti-Fascist zeal. After performing a daring anti-Nazi stunt which is nothing else but another manifestation of a philanderer’s showmanship, Marko gets rid of Blacky by sending him to ‘‘hide’’ in the cellar. He can finally claim Natalia exclusively for himself. The events of the second part, ‘‘The Cold War,’’ take place in 1961. In postwar communist Yugoslavia, Marko has become a cele￾brated poet, close to president Tito. He has married Natalia, and together they have created a mythology of themselves as brave anti￾Fascists. A film is to be shot about their heroic experiences in the struggle. Simultaneously, Marko and Natalia still keep a large number of people, Blacky included, in the cellar. They trick them into thinking that the war goes on by playing soundtracks of Nazi bombings and Hitler’s speeches. They use them as slave labor to manufacture arms that Marko trades internationally. One day Marko and Natalia descend to the cellar to attend the wedding of Blacky’s son. Sweaty drunkenness reigns over this claustrophobic celebration and the wedding guests, all intoxicated, end up fighting over unsettled accounts. In the turmoil, the walls of the cellar crumble. The members of the wedding disperse in disarray and most of the enslaved inhabi￾tants of the underground run away. Blacky and his son climb above ground and end up at the shooting site of a film which is supposed to glorify the heroic past. Mistaking the set for reality and believing that World War II is still going on, they kill all the extras wearing German uniforms. The son drowns in the Danube, and Blacky is captured by the police. Marko and Natalia escape the coming trouble, blowing up the house and the cellar. The third part, again called ‘‘War,’’ is set in the 1990s at an unidentified battlefield, presumably Bosnia, where the protagonists cross paths one last time. Marko and Natalia have continued in international arms sales, and are wanted by Interpol. Blacky, still mourning the loss of his son thirty-five years earlier, is now in command of the paramilitary forces shelling a nearby city. In a final showdown Marko is killed by his own brother, Ivan, one of the people formerly confined in the underground. The paratroopers shoot Natalia. Blacky passes by without recognizing his former friends. The film’s epilogue offers a sharp contrast to this apocalyptic ending. In a utopian wedding scene all the protagonists come back to life and gather together for a wedding feast on the Danube’s sunny shores. As they cheerfully celebrate, the piece of land on which they stand breaks apart from the mainland and quietly floats away. The wedding guests are too busy dancing and singing to notice that they are being carried away into an unknown destination. This final scene is the defining image that screenwriter Kovacevic and director Kusturica had in mind for this project. They were determined to use it as a metaphor for the Yugoslav people, who, as Kusturica explained in a 1996 interview with David Robinson: ‘‘go away never really knowing what has happened to them. That is the way of the Balkan people. They never rationalize their past. Somehow the passion that leads them forward is not changed. I hope some day people may find better ways to use the passion they have so far persistently used to kill one another.’’ Underground was awarded the Golden Palm at the 1995 Cannes International Film Festival, adding to the previous Golden Palm for Kusturica’s When Father Was Away on Business (1985) and his Best Director award for Time of the Gypsies (1989), and enhancing the director’s reputation as a ‘‘Balkan Fellini.’’ The award carried weight with international critics, most of whom saw the film as an esoteric piece of elitist cinema preoccupied with the messy state of Balkan affairs but nonetheless endorsed it. Underground, however, came under critical fire for the historical and political propositions upon which the story was built. The main accusation was that the film was a well-masked version of Serbian propaganda, presented at a time when Serbia was largely believed to be the aggressive force in the Yugoslav break-up war. Others charged that by making a film in

FILMS. 4th EDItION UNFORGIVEN Belgrade at the time when Serbia was at war with his own Bingham, Dennis, Acting Male: Masculinities in the Films of James Sarajevan director like Kusturica was committing an act of betrayal. Stuart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood, Piscataway, 1994 Many in his native Bosnia denounced him as an intellectual traitor Gallafent, Edward, Clint Eastwood: Filmmaker and Star, New who had taken the side of the aggressor. The media noise was York. 1994 significant, but the debate remained quite cryptic for larger audiences. Knapp, Laurence F, Directed by Clint Eastwood: Eighteen Films The director was so upset by the controversy that he declared Analyzed. Jefferson. 1996 a withdrawal from filmmaking-a promise which he did not keep. He Munn, Michael, Gene Hackman, London, 1997. returned to cinema soon thereafter and continued shooting in Serbia O' Brien. Daniel, Clint Eastwood: Film-Maker, North Pomfret. 1997 Articles: -Dina yordanova McCarthy, Todd, Variety(New York), 3 August 1992 Merrick, H, and P Ortoli, ''Le survivant d un monde englouti, in THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE Revue du Cinema(Paris), September 1992 Jameson, R. T, and H Sheehan, ""Deserves got nothin'to do with See LA FEMmE InFidele it, in Film Comment(New York), September-October 1992. Combs, R, and others, "Shadowing the hero, in Sight and Sound (London ), October 1992 UNFORGIVEN Coursodon, J P, and M. Henry, Positif(Paris), October 1992. Jousse, T, and C. Nevers, Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), October 1992. Boutroy, P, Sequences(Montreal), November 1992. USA,1992 Pawelczak, A, Films in Review(New York). November-Decem- ber1992. Director: clint eastwood Tesson, C,"Laventure interieure in Cahiers du Cinema(Paris) December 1992 Production: Warner Bros. Technicolour, Panavision; running time: Dowell, P, Cineaste(New York),1992 31 minutes. Filmed on location in Alberta, Canada. Horguelin, T, ""L'eternel retour, ' in 24 Images(Montreal),Decem- ber-January 1993 Producer: Clint Eastwood; executive producer: David Valdes Tibbets, J. C, "" Clint Eastwood and the Machinery of Violence, in screenplay: David Webb Peoples: photography: Jack N. Green Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury, Maryland), January 1993 editor: Joel Cox. assistant directors: Scott Maitland. Bill Bannerman Wilson, M. H, "The Perfect Subject for the Final Western, Grant Lucibello, and Tom Rooker: production design: Henry Cinema Papers(Melbourne), January 1993 Bumstead: art director: Rick Roberts and Adrian Gorton: music: Greenberg, H.R., Film Quarterly(Berkeley), Spring 1993 Lennie Niehaus; sound editors: Neil Burrow, Gordon Davidson, Witteman, Paul,"Go Ahead, Make My Career, in Time(New Marshall Winn, Butch Wolf, Cindy marty, James Isaacs, and Karen York), 5 August 1993 G. Wilson; sound recording: Rob Young, Michael Evje, and Bobby Grenier, Richard, Clint Eastwood Goes PC, in Commentary, vol Fernandez: costumes: Valerie o'Brien 97. no. 3. March 1994 Beard, William, "Unforgiven and the Uncertainties of the heroic, Cast: Clint Eastwood (William Munny); Gene Hackman(Little Bill): Canadian Journal of Film Studies(Ottawa), vol. 3, no. 2 Morgan Freeman(Ned Logan); Richard Harris(English Bob); Jaimz Autumn 1994 Woolvett(Schofield Kid): Saul Rubinek(Ww. Beauchamp); Frances Engel, L, Rewriting Western Myths in Clint Eastwood,'s New Old Fisher(Strawberry Alice); Anna Thompson(Delilah Fitzgerald) Western. in Western American Literature. vol 29, no 3, 1994 David Mucci(Quick Mike). Kelley, Susan M, and Armando J Prats, Giggles and Guns: The Phallic Myth in Unforgiven/Back from the Sunset: The Western Awards: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supportin Eastwood Hero, and Unforgiven, in Journal of Film and Actor(Hackman), Best Cinematography, and Best Editing, 1992 Video(Atlanta), vol. 47, no. 1-3, Spring- Fall 1995 Deloria P J. "Title: America. in American Historical Review, vol l1,no.5,1995 Premiere(Boulder), vol 9, July 1996 Publications Ingrassia, Catherine "Im Not Kicking, I'm Talking: Discursive Economies in the Western, in Film Criticism(Meadville), vol Books 20, no. 3, Spring 1996. McCarthy, T, in Premiere(Boulder), vol. Il, October 1997 Smith. Gus Richard Harris: Actor by accident. 1990. 1999. grassia. Catherine "Writing the West Iconic and literal Truth in Zmijewsky, Boris, and Lee Pfeiffer, The Films of Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury ) voL. 26, New York. 1993 no. 1, January 1998 1261

FILMS, 4 UNFORGIVEN th EDITION 1261 Belgrade at the time when Serbia was at war with his own native land, a Sarajevan director like Kusturica was committing an act of betrayal. Many in his native Bosnia denounced him as an intellectual traitor who had taken the side of the aggressor. The media noise was significant, but the debate remained quite cryptic for larger audiences. The director was so upset by the controversy that he declared a withdrawal from filmmaking—a promise which he did not keep. He returned to cinema soon thereafter and continued shooting in Serbia and internationally. —Dina Iordanova THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE See LA FEMME INFIDELE UNFORGIVEN USA, 1992 Director: Clint Eastwood Production: Warner Bros.; Technicolour, Panavision; running time: 131 minutes. Filmed on location in Alberta, Canada. Producer: Clint Eastwood; executive producer: David Valdes; screenplay: David Webb Peoples; photography: Jack N. Green; editor: Joel Cox; assistant directors: Scott Maitland, Bill Bannerman, Grant Lucibello, and Tom Rooker; production design: Henry Bumstead; art director: Rick Roberts and Adrian Gorton; music: Lennie Niehaus; sound editors: Neil Burrow, Gordon Davidson, Marshall Winn, Butch Wolf, Cindy Marty, James Isaacs, and Karen G. Wilson; sound recording: Rob Young, Michael Evje, and Bobby Fernandez; costumes: Valerie O’Brien. Cast: Clint Eastwood (William Munny); Gene Hackman (Little Bill); Morgan Freeman (Ned Logan); Richard Harris (English Bob); Jaimz Woolvett (Schofield Kid); Saul Rubinek (W. W. Beauchamp); Frances Fisher (Strawberry Alice); Anna Thompson (Delilah Fitzgerald); David Mucci (Quick Mike). Awards: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Hackman), Best Cinematography, and Best Editing, 1992. Publications Books: Smith, Gus, Richard Harris: Actor by Accident, 1990, 1999. Zmijewsky, Boris, and Lee Pfeiffer, The Films of Clint Eastwood, New York, 1993. Bingham, Dennis, Acting Male: Masculinities in the Films of James Stuart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood, Piscataway, 1994. Gallafent, Edward, Clint Eastwood: Filmmaker and Star, New York, 1994. Knapp, Laurence F., Directed by Clint Eastwood: Eighteen Films Analyzed, Jefferson, 1996. Munn, Michael, Gene Hackman, London, 1997. O’Brien, Daniel, Clint Eastwood: Film-Maker, North Pomfret, 1997. Articles: McCarthy, Todd, Variety (New York), 3 August 1992. Merrick, H., and P. Ortoli, ‘‘Le survivant d’un monde englouti,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), September 1992. Jameson, R. T., and H. Sheehan, ‘‘Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September-October 1992. Combs, R., and others, ‘‘Shadowing the Hero,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October 1992. Coursodon, J. P., and M. Henry, Positif (Paris), October 1992. Jousse, T., and C. Nevers, Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1992. Boutroy, P., Séquences (Montreal), November 1992. Pawelczak, A., Films in Review (New York), November-Decem￾ber 1992. Tesson, C., ‘‘L’aventure intérieure,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1992. Dowell, P., Cineaste (New York), 1992. Horguelin, T., ‘‘L’étérnel retour,’’ in 24 Images (Montreal), Decem￾ber-January 1993. Tibbets, J. C., ‘‘Clint Eastwood and the Machinery of Violence,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), January 1993. Wilson, M. H., ‘‘The Perfect Subject for the Final Western,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), January 1993. Greenberg, H. R., Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1993. Witteman, Paul, ‘‘Go Ahead, Make My Career,’’ in Time (New York), 5 August 1993. Grenier, Richard, ‘‘Clint Eastwood Goes PC,’’ in Commentary, vol. 97, no. 3, March 1994. Beard, William, ‘‘Unforgiven and the Uncertainties of the Heroic,’’ in Canadian Journal of Film Studies (Ottawa), vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1994. Engel, L., ‘‘Rewriting Western Myths in Clint Eastwood’s New ‘Old Western,’’’ in Western American Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 1994. Kelley, Susan M., and Armando J. Prats, ‘‘Giggles and Guns: The Phallic Myth in Unforgiven/Back from the Sunset: The Western, the Eastwood Hero, and Unforgiven,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Atlanta), vol. 47, no. 1–3, Spring-Fall 1995. Deloria, P. J., ‘‘Title: America,’’ in American Historical Review, vol. 11, no. 5, 1995. Premiere (Boulder), vol. 9, July 1996. Ingrassia, Catherine, ‘‘‘I’m Not Kicking, I’m Talking’: Discursive Economies in the Western,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville), vol. 20, no. 3, Spring 1996. McCarthy, T., in Premiere (Boulder), vol. 11, October 1997. Ingrassia, Catherine, ‘‘Writing the West: Iconic and Literal Truth in Unforgiven,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 26, no. 1, January 1998

UNFORGIVEN FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Unforgiven McReynolds, Douglas J, ""Alive and Well: Western Myth in Western moral roots, especially in the precise calculation of the effects of Movies, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury), vol 26, no 1, violence, its running commentary on honourable behaviour, and its consciousness of the power of falsity of reputation. Plantinga, Carl, ""Spectacles of Death: Clint Eastwood and Violence At a time of increasing violence in society, a return to a classic in Unforgiven, in Cinema Journal(Austin), vol. 37, no. 2, genre permits a distanced examination of issues of revenge, guns, and inter 1998 respect. The story stems from an incident wherein a drunken cowboy slices up the face of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, in 1880 Gene Hackman, as Little Bill Doggett, in a wonderfully written and performed part that reveals unexpected depths in the hackneyed role Like its predecessor Tightrope, Unforgiven-a film critic Pat for the cowboy, choosing economic stability for the whoremaster Dowell calls"droll, dry and deadpan-marks a turning point in the over a harsher justice, and thereby enraging Strawberry Alice, whe career of Clint Eastwood. Just as the almost cartoonish, ultra-violent leads the other prostitutes to put up a S1,000 reward for the lives of the Dirty Harry image changes in Tightrope to a single father nearly two cowboys involved. This incentive draws a collection of misfit vercome by his human frailty and seeking redemption througl bounty hunters, including English Bob(Richard Harris), a British family values, so Unforgiven challenges earlier film stereotypes, not dandy, accompanied by his own dime-novel journalist/flack; the just of Eastwood,'s own spaghetti-western type but also of what has be Billy-the-Kid, whose become of the Western genre itself. The classic American morality extreme myopia makes him potentially lethal to his comrades; and story has fallen on sad days, exhausted by overexposure and made Eastwood himself, as Bill Munny, a long-retired gunfighter turned decadent by the gimmickry of special effects exaggerating form over marginal pig farmer, who is a widower with two children and substance. producer and director eastwood returns the form to its riendless, except for an old colleague-Ned Logan(Morgan Freeman) 1262

UNFORGIVEN FILMS, 4th EDITION 1262 Unforgiven McReynolds, Douglas J., ‘‘Alive and Well: Western Myth in Western Movies,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 26, no. 1, January 1998. Plantinga, Carl, ‘‘Spectacles of Death: Clint Eastwood and Violence in Unforgiven,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin), vol. 37, no. 2, Winter 1998. *** Like its predecessor Tightrope, Unforgiven—a film critic Pat Dowell calls ‘‘droll, dry and deadpan’’—marks a turning point in the career of Clint Eastwood. Just as the almost cartoonish, ultra-violent Dirty Harry image changes in Tightrope to a single father nearly overcome by his human frailty and seeking redemption through family values, so Unforgiven challenges earlier film stereotypes, not just of Eastwood’s own spaghetti-western type but also of what has become of the Western genre itself. The classic American morality story has fallen on sad days, exhausted by overexposure and made decadent by the gimmickry of special effects exaggerating form over substance. Producer and director Eastwood returns the form to its moral roots, especially in the precise calculation of the effects of violence, its running commentary on honourable behaviour, and its consciousness of the power of falsity of reputation. At a time of increasing violence in society, a return to a classic genre permits a distanced examination of issues of revenge, guns, and respect. The story stems from an incident wherein a drunken cowboy slices up the face of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, in 1880. Gene Hackman, as Little Bill Doggett, in a wonderfully written and performed part that reveals unexpected depths in the hackneyed role of small town sheriff, decrees financial reimbursement as punishment for the cowboy, choosing economic stability for the whoremaster over a harsher justice, and thereby enraging Strawberry Alice, who leads the other prostitutes to put up a $1,000 reward for the lives of the two cowboys involved. This incentive draws a collection of misfit bounty hunters, including English Bob (Richard Harris), a British dandy, accompanied by his own dime-novel journalist/flack; the ‘‘Schofield Kid,’’ a self-promoting would-be Billy-the-Kid, whose extreme myopia makes him potentially lethal to his comrades; and Eastwood himself, as Bill Munny, a long-retired gunfighter turned marginal pig farmer, who is a widower with two children and friendless, except for an old colleague—Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman)