1089 Almodovar's The Law of Desire

In contrast to the tranquillity of my mini break in Scotland I viewed the Law of Desire shortly before departure, an Almodovar film which engaged me more than anticipated. Having recently described how my prejudice against all things German had been forged by my childhood experience of rocket bombs, until individual encounters, spread over several decades, led me to understand the universality of human behaviour, it has taken just as many decades to discard the simplistic Freudian view of homosexuality, in part because of difficulties in understanding the development of my own sexual orientation, and need for celibacy. These are subjects for another occasion.

That the Law of Desire is a film about a selfish, creative, promiscuous, homosexual, Eusebio Poncela who juggles relationships, and does not understand until it is too late, the influence his behaviour has on a young man, played by a young Antonio Banderas, is an reflection of Almodovar's preoccupations. The specific sexual orientation is irrelevant because this is a film about the consequences of giving free reign to our instinctive passion to possess other human beings, and the destructive nature of jealousy when the object of that desire does not respond in the way we want of them. In the film the obsession leads to the murder of a rival and to suicide. Being Almodovar there are also stock diversions where the police are portrayed as corrupt incompetent fascists, and with the Catholic Church being predominated by paedophile priests. We also learn that the sister, Carmen Maura, was in fact a brother with the corrupting adults, a Father and a father. He has a sex change operation after their father dumps him for a new lover.
Usually I find Almodovar's wilder excesses, unnecessary to the point of irritating. and his work became for me that of an adolescent given too much fame and fortune for their own good, although most artists cannot resist the temptation to reproduce their successful work in continuous variation. On this occasion I was caught up and held by the performances of the main characters, in much the same way as I had on experiencing Carmen Jones again a few weeks before

1046 Almodovar's what have I done to deserve this?

So I am still working on both pieces and decided to continue to piggy back the work of others which has so far involved alternating between the films of Bergman and Almodovar, other cinema, recent theatre and other cultural events. Today the decision is for something self indulgent, wicked, irreverential and down right silly. You have guessed it an Almodovar film, "What have I done to deserve this? A plea which most of us make at least once in our lives, if not as frequently as once a day?

I found the film funny with delicious moments such as early on when a cleaner uses a mop to imitate an Akendo class, or when she admits to a policeman, she has screwed, that she killed her husband with a chop, he advises her not to tell anyone else. Chop Chop, get it?

The film is a joyous rant against or in favour of the imprisonment of the working class in flat block land, where goodness gracious me, there is a tart next door enjoying herself and making lots of dosh, the youngest school age son is sleeping with an older man, the eldest son is selling drugs, a relative eats fairy cakes as a main course and regards scraps of a chicken as desert while the murdered husband was a fascist nut. Mother, well. she is a works hard as a manual labourer, indulges in indiscriminate sex, enjoys prescription drugs and gets what she wishes for with help from the child of a neighbour who has the power of mind over matter, and moreover the woman appears to have none of the angst of the thinking and sophisticated classes.

I ended the viewing asking what I had done to deserve spending time viewing films about people enjoying themselves in ways which did not involve viewing films. I still cannot make up my mind about Almodovar. Is he being critical of others? Is he trying to change Spanish society in a particular direction? Or is he just having lots of fun and making lots and lots of dosh asking himself over and over again what has he done to deserve this?

1029 Almodovar's Bad Education

This is the briefest of notes on any film experienced and it is a good question to ask why.

The core subjectof Bad Education is the corruption of the young by priests, who are prepared to go to whatever length necessary to protect themselves and the church, including murder.

The film transcends these issues because of the understanding and insights of the Director. There is nothing else I want or need to say except to recommend a judge for yourself experience.

There is some humour but not the scale of Dark Habits which I found hilarious.

There are several layers of reason for my reactions and decisions which I find myself unable to tlak about at present.

I have an appropriate crayoning but I do not know how to upload yet.

1026 Almodovar's Dark Habits

And now, (sung by Frank Sinatra and Ray Quinn, whose CD is on sale tomorrow) for something on a lighter note. My discovery of 2006 was the films of Almodovar. A serious film maker whose films must not be taken too seriously and have to be judged against a blackcloth of a Spain ruled by the generals and the church for decades after which some juvenile lampooning of everything once sacred was only to be expected. We in the UK have less excuse for abandoning all respect for authority and common sense values. In this instance I tried to watch the films without sub titles but my ear is still tuned to Gibraltarian Spanish which makes the accent and flow of the educated Spanish that much more difficult. This is not to be interpreted as saying the Gibraltarians are uneducated because they punch well above their weight but it is the difference between BBC English and Geordie. One exists among teachers, in universities, and the countryside elite, while the rest speak the language of their community and region. I was no less successful with sitting through a play performed in Spanish by a Geordie, a Mexican, a Yank, a Nicaraguan and two Spanish actors, although the reactions of the audience and sitting at the front as part of stage did help to convey the subsistence of what was happening.

If I could visit France, Italy, Spain and Greece again and converse in the native tongues I would truly die a happier man, whereas winning the lottery, or whatever other achievements accomplished are likely to bring as many new problems and it would solve others. So I make do with sub titles and film notes. This experience has a longer prologue than usual because Almodovar is reported not to be happy with what was his first commercial venture on commission. The film Dark Habits is about a group of anarchical nuns which appeals to me having Gibraltarian parents from a parish which once supported a charismatic Sister who founded her own order nut used the women of the parish to help in her schools and community work. The new Bishops is reputed to have declared those immortal words "either she goes" understandably concerned about a one woman crusading Order. The parish suggested a compromise that she should be allowed to continue during her lifetime after which her work could be taken over by a more established Order. The Bishops was not impressed and the relevant parishioners even less. He left and she stayed.

I have no doubt that the film has been secretly viewed by nuns in most convents and enjoyed over a pint or glass of wine by priests in many a parish. Rome will hate it, if it is not already banned. You get the general idea when after a young bolero singer sees her boy friend die from a drug dose, laced with strychnine, that she has supplied i.e. the drugs, she seeks refuge in a convent where the nuns have given themselves names such as Sister Snake, Sister Sewer and go collectively under the name of the Humble Redeemers. The chief organiser of the mischief is the Mother Superior who cared for the daughter of a Noble who provided the Convent with a monthly stipend which enabled their financial independence from the challenged bosses of the Order, but when he dies his wife stops the allowance.

The solution is worked out by one of the nuns who had become an international success by writing trashy novels of the kind which sell well at airports, although rather than make use of the funds these have gone to her sister and family. She bases the writing on the experiences of the drug addicted young prostitutes who are taken into the convent and saved! Fortunately the novellas are regarded critically as sociological phenomenon and make a lot of money for her sister which could more than bailed out the financially desperate convent. Another of sisters does self abusing and humiliating tricks like putting a knitting needle through her face in a stand up contest with a fire fighter at the local market where the nuns sell some of their more legitimate wares.

The mother superior is quite a character having fallen in love with the daughter of the noble who went off to Africa and disappeared. She tries to replace this love with the bolero singer whose addiction she decides to feed in order to win her over. She also tries to blackmail the Marquesa into continuing with the stipend. It is at this point that the film becomes serious and believable as we learn that Church wants to close down the Convent in order to sell the land to a developer so that the decision of the Mother superior to become a drugs courier from Thailand is to no avail, or is it? The convent has reared and kept into maturity a Tiger which is kept on by one of the nuns who stays on, as does another where the parish priest has declared his passionate love. The head of the order takes the rest of the convent with her for a new beginning and authority appears to triumph, or does it?