Screening Memory: Homage to Sergei Paradjanov by Gariné Torossian

I first discovered Sergei Parajanov's Color of Pomegranates in 1989 as a high school student who had just started to work with super 8 film. I had this sense that its evocative imagery represented me and what Armenia embodied. Parajanov's film was like tapestry stitched with symbolism, legend, and metaphor. It captured everything that drew me to Armenia: the mythical, the folkloric, the grace and beauty, the faith and mysticism of the land. The images, color, and sound are brocaded into this wondrous and powerful narrative. It was entirely immersive and made complete sense to me. It became this bedrock and defined my cinematic sensibility. Like an author who articulates what you feel, this film affirmed my feelings and identity at that point in my life. I made Girl from Moush as an homage to Parajanov who opened the way for me. 

When I visit Parajanov's museum, it affirms my vision of reality. Every time I enter the museum, I feel like I'm entering the real world. The museum is in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, but it is less Armenia to me than Parajanov's world. I'm drawn more to the imaginary and beautiful world inside the museum than to the city outside, a city that has destroyed a significant part of its architectural heritage in the last quarter of a century.

Gariné Torossian, Yerevan, February 28^th, 2017

The Space in Between - Marina Abramovic in Brazil: The Problem of Performing Spirituality

Critical Report by  Andrea Pestana 

            Screening Memory was a five week event put on by the Centre for Memory and Testimony Studies in unison with the Department of Politics and Public Administration. It explored the idea of memory paired with other themes and their depiction together on film. It was screened in a small, intimate full theatre on the third floor of the School of Image Arts building on Ryerson campus. 

             Dr. Hudson Moura began the event and introduced his colleague, and informed us of the regrettable fact that Dr. Dot Tuer, the discussant, would not able to attend due to sickness. Nevertheless, she had passed along some questions to keep in mind while watching the film: 1) Does the film assist the viewer in entering in and reflecting upon the cultural specificity of Brazilian spiritual practices through tracing Marina's performative journey, or inhibit our understanding? 2) Is Marina's journey about performance or healing? And 3) By focusing on Marina's experience, does the filmmaker evade the Othering of the ethnographic gaze? I found these thoughts to be extremely provoking both for this film and any film about spirituality. After this, the lights dimmed and the film began.

The Film

            The film entitled The Space in Between: Marina Abramovic in Brazil directed by Marco del Fiol starts out with a beautiful still shot of a cave. The colours and natural shapes are incredibly captivating, and the fact that the camera is entirely still really instills an emphasis on observation as the role of the audience, and arguably the intention of the filmmaker. From here the idea of performance and healing/ritual are introduced, a big theme throughout the film and something the director touched on later in the Q&A.

            The first chapter after the introduction focuses on John of God, a healer, and his practice which seemed to be based upon Catholic Christianity (I say this because there were many holy images, including many of Mary and Catholic prayers such as the Hail Mary), though it did not tie back to the Catholic Church in many other traditional ways. From there Marina and her crew visit a healer who uses alternative medicines made of vegetation and other things found in Brazilian forests, a woman who views her cooking as a spiritual experience, another healer who is over 100 years old, a clan who is very ritualistic in their healing process and uses hallucinogens to reach a higher state, and finally a site filled with large, natural crystals. In each of these places Marina tries to immerse herself as much as possible in the rituals and practices, though the film is often split up with very contrasting scenes of her and the crew doing things like grocery shopping and getting drunk, to editing film and photography, to a little travel tip about onions and garlic.

            The film closes with the same still shot of the cave and Marina going into it. Overall, the film was very beautiful, and though it might be a terribly strange thing to say, that is why I did not like it.

The Discussion

            The discussion with the director afterward was facilitated by a skype video call and was mediated by Dr. Hudson Moura and Dr. Colman Hogan.

            There were some questions about some filmmaking choices, but a lot of it centered around the capturing of the spirituality and its effectiveness. I was fortunate to be able to ask the director myself how much time was spent in each location, for I assumed it must not have been a lot due to budget and logistics (I assumed correctly), because I was skeptical of the idea that enough time was spent discussing and philosophising about each spiritual group. His response was that many people dedicate their lives to these, what he called, schools of mystery and never fully understand them fully. I understand his point, but I believe that it actually weakens the idea that due diligence was taken in understanding each group. How can one pretend that spending a few days with each spirituality even remotely equates to the knowledge and understanding one would have after spending years, or at least a month, immersed in it, regardless of how “open Marina was”. Another girl questioned the authenticity of the film if so much of it was based in performance. I did not think the mediator translated this question well, and so Del Fiol did not answer it. Nevertheless, I share in her skepticism. I felt that because all the shots were so beautiful and highly constructed, and that Marina was (especially at some points) so aware of the camera, that I did not believe her, her intentions, or the intentions of the filmmaker.

           

Professor Colman Hogan conducting the interview with director Marco Del Fiol

           Del Fiol did leave us with one thought that I thought was very provoking when he said “I think documentaries are about life, not reality.” It’s a very interesting statement, but I do not quite understand what that means practically, as nice as it sounds.

            And with that the event ended and the audience filed out.

Fish Out of Water: The Suffering and Survival of Armenia

Critical Report by Janoosha Kugananthan

On March 24, 2017, Iranian film critic Dr. Shahram Tabe came to Ryerson University to discuss two films that were being screened during the Screening Memory Film Series. The two films that were screened that day were Girl from Moush (Gariné Torossian, 1993) and The Color of Pomegranates (Sergei Paradjanov, 1969). This report will discuss how the two films were used to show the suffering of Armenian culture after the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Before screening the two films, Dr. Tabe gave some background information on Armenia and the two films. Girl from Moush is about the director trying to find her identity as an Armenian who lives in a different country. The Color of Pomegranates is supposed to represent the life of Sayat Nova, an Armenian poet, and musician who was born in Georgia. Nova’s life is shown through various tableaus and symbolism related to Armenia. The film starts off with Nova as a child and progresses to show him as a young man who is in love with the Georgian king’s sister. Afterward, Nova gets married, and his wife dies, so he becomes a faithful priest. In the end, Nova is shown going with angels to his death and is presented as a martyr. In reality, Dr. Tabe mentioned before the film was screened that Iranians killed Nova because of his resistance to Iran’s invasion of Armenia. He became the national symbol of Armenia for martyrdom after this. Dr. Tabe also told the audience that the director of this film, Sergei Paradjanov, paid close attention to the mise-en-scene and that the audience might not understand the film without knowing Armenian history.  

After the film had been screened, one member of the audience talked about how the film had a lot of symbolism, which he did not know so he could not understand the film. Dr. Tabe then went into a scene-by-scene analysis of the symbols in the film and what each symbol meant. For example, he talked about how the whole film was about suffering, which is shown in the first three scenes where the pomegranates are bleeding, and the fish are dying. This represented how Armenia and its culture are struggling to survive while other people try to destroy it. In the film, Nova is learning how to read from a priest, who tells him to teach others how to read. Dr. Tabe compares this to the apple in the Garden of Eve. Knowing how to read and the apple both represent knowledge and power, and there is the responsibility that comes with that knowledge. He also mentions that Armenia is strongly tied to Christianity. Another audience member asked if the director was influenced by Shakespeare’s Macbeth, to which Dr. Tabe replied maybe. I disagree with this because there was only one scene that was similar to Macbeth, which was the scene where Nova holds up a skull. Other than this scene, the film was different because I felt that Nova’s life and death represented the attempted murder of a cultural group, not about the hero’s suffering and death as in Macbeth. Dr. Tabe ended off by saying that Sergei Paradjanov was the biggest filmmaker in Armenia.

Although Dr. Tabe stated that the scenes that were repeated in this film were a beautiful cinematic point, I disagree with him. In my opinion, the repeated scenes in the film interrupted the flow of the storyline. Since I did not understand most of the symbolism in this film, the repeated scenes decreased my understanding of the events in this film. Also, Dr. Tabe only discussed The Color of Pomegranates during the discussion, but he should have also considered Girl from Moush. While the latter film was a short film, I did not understand what it was supposed to be about and discussing that film afterward would have given me more information. On the other hand, I am glad that he explained Nova’s life story before screening The Color of Pomegranates because it helped me understand what some of the symbols in the film were supposed to represent. I am also glad that he went over the scenes in the film after it was screened; this allowed me to comprehend the film and better appreciate it.

The main theme of the two films that were screened was culture and identity. Through the use of symbolism and Nova’s life story, the director of The Color of Pomegranates was able to show the suffering and identity of the Armenian people. This film was beautifully shot and, Dr. Tabe’s analysis made me realize what this film was truly about and allowed me to appreciate the art. In Girl from Moush, we were able to see how culture can shape a person’s identity, even if they are no longer in that country. Through the use of film and the moderator’s analysis, we were able to see how Armenian culture suffered and survived after other countries tried to destroy them.

Nostalghia: Manifesting Memory through Film

Critical Report by Justin DiGregorio

On March 17^th, 2017, a screening of Nostalghia (Tarkovsky, 1983) was held by the Centre for Memory and Testimony Studies at Ryerson's School of Image Arts as an installment in the Screening Memory film series coordinated by Professor Hudson Moura. James Macgillivray, a guest speaker from the Department of Architecture at the University of Toronto, led discussions after the screening to explore the film’s underlying messages about memory. This report will provide a review of Nostalghia and discuss the experience of the screening event.

Nostalghia was released in 1983 by director Andrei Tarkovsky. The film is centered on the state of mind which assails Russians far from their homeland. This concept is realized through the character of Andrei Gorchakov, a weary Russian poet who has traveled to Italy to research Russian composer Sosnovsky. Sosnovsky studied in Bologna before returning to Russia and hanging himself in the late 1700s (Tarkovsky, 1983). This general synopsis of the film mirrors the experiences of its director. Tarkovsky shot Nostalghia in Italy to escape Russian censorship and pursue artistic freedom. Being in Italy provided Tarkovsky with a whole new environment from which he could have been inspired. Instead, Tarkovsky’s creative expression was dampened by the memories of his homeland. The affliction of mind experienced by Tarkovsky is projected onto Gorchakov. In the film’s opening scene, Gorchakov turns down an offer by his translator Eugenia to view Piero Della Francesca’s painting Madonna del Parto (Tarkovsky, 1983). This is one of many scenes in the film where Gorchakov’s inaction is meant to represent his nostalgia for Russia. To reflect his own mental state, Tarkovsky created a moody and introspective film that rarely explores the characteristics of its setting. At times, the slow pace of the film is challenging, and its personal nature may make audiences feel estranged. However, it can be argued that the intent of the film was to create an artistic manifestation of memory rather than develop a conventional plotline. In this regard, Nostalghia succeeds spectacularly. Viewers are put into the mind of Gorchakov and gather a firsthand account of his nostalgia for Russia. Tarkovsky accomplished this through memory sequences that are slowed down, filmed in black-and-white/sepia tones, and composed of long, continuous shots. Nostalghia is a vivid account of Tarkovsky’s experiences that can be thoroughly enjoyable for viewers in the correct frame of mind.

The experience of the screening provided the proper viewing environment for Nostalghia. Due to the artistic composition of the film, it can feel longer than its two-hour run time. For instance, Gorchakov learns from the madman Domenico that walking with a lit candle across an emptied mineral pool is a spiritually fulfilling task (Tarkovsky, 1983). The final scene in the film features Gorchakov attempting this feat in what is a nearly ten minute, real-time shot. Without being fully invested, it is quite possible that audiences will not be entertained by this style of filmmaking. Ryerson’s School of Image Arts offered a quiet and intimate setting where viewers could devote themselves to the film. The theatre’s dark ambiance aligned with the film’s themes about memory. The experience was further enhanced by picture and sound quality that’s not typically available in a more casual setting. Additionally, the discussions led by James Macgillivray provided analysis on the film that made its artistic composition more accessible. Macgillivray’s background in architecture provided for a unique perspective on Nostalghia that coincided with the films focus on visual elements. One of Macgillivray’s central discussion points was Tarkovsky’s allegorical use of water. While visiting Domenico’s home, Gorchakov notices a space on the ceiling that lets rain in and the equation “1+1=1” scratched into a wall. Domenico eludes to the fact that when two drops of rain come into contact, it is just one big drop (Tarkovsky, 1983). Macgillivray helped unravel one possible interpretation of this scene by suggesting it means that Gorchakov the artist and Domenico the madman are two sides of the same coin. Nostalghia has many moments where the underlying meaning 's hard to decipher. The analysis provided by Macgillivray added a crucial dimension of meaning and pleasure to the film. In hindsight, a film like Nostalghia is probably best enjoyed at a screening event where audiences are fully engaged and able to participate in discussion.

Overall, viewing Nostalghia at the Screening Memory film series made was a comprehensive and pleasant experience. The film challenges audiences with its slow pace and unconventional structure. However, the atmosphere provided by the School of Image Arts and discussion helmed by James Macgillivray made it possible to appreciate Nostalghia’s artistic and thematic connections to the concept of memory.

The Tree of Life: Memory Through the Grace of God

Critical Report by Kiersten Depina

On March 10^th, 2017 the Centre for Memory and Testimony held a screening of the film The Tree of Life (2011) by Terrence Malick at Ryerson's School of Image Arts.  This screening was a part of the film series entitled: Screening Memory and was followed by a guest lecture by Professor Colman Hogan ‑ co-director of the Centre and professor at the department of English at Ryerson University.  The lecture given by Hogan alluded to the many different underlying messages and themes of The Tree of Life.

The film surrounds the life of a family living in the suburbs in the 1950’s.   Following the initial death of one of the sons, the majority of The Tree of Life flashes back to scenes of the family, with the focus on Jack ‑ a brother to the boy that dies.  The film has a lack of underlying plotline.  It begins with the death of Jack’s brother, followed by scenes of Jack’s adult life, leading into a sequence of the creation of the universe.  Memories of Jack’s childhood are presented in fragments and intertwined with different scenes of nature, composing the remainder of the film. 

After the screening, lecturer Professor Coleman Hogan deconstructed different aspects of the film.  The first was a sequence presenting the creation of the universe through abstract images and nature scenes.  The film begins with a quote from the book of Job in the bible that reads, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”  Professor Hogan argued that this question is the premise of the entire film, as the film itself serves as a response to Job questioning God’s role in the world.  I disagree with Hogan as I feel the film lacks all premise and presents a collage of different images of life that the audience interprets and finds meaning in, for themselves.  I feel Malik is also attempting to emphasize the smallness of God’s role beyond that of our initial creation, due to the grandiosity of the creation sequence in comparison to the images of human life.

Professor Hogan then explained the importance of death in the film. The film begins with the death of one of the sons.  In their grief, the parents question God’s allowance of death, mirroring the question Job poses.  Hogan argued that it is after the moment of death that the rest of the movie develops in response.  He explained that through Malik’s presentation of death, it is portrayed that death is directly correlated to life and that through death stories can develop.   I agree that the concept of death is a prominent theme, as there are many instances of death that occur throughout the fragments of memories. In addition, I find the characters’ reactions to death also bring to light important characteristics of their individual personalities, necessary for their character growth.

The latter half of Professor Hogan’s lecture deconstructed the final scene of the film.  In this scene, adult Jack wanders aimlessly through a beach-like environment, interacting with younger versions of himself and people in his memories.  Professor Hogan explained that this scene presents Jack’s fantasy of heaven.  Jack is able to physically interact with his memories, and appears to be outside of time.  Hogan also implied that the film itself never answers any of Jack’s questions involving God, and that the ending is representative of Jack finally receiving answers.  Throughout the film Jack physically expresses sadness and feelings of alienation, but in the final scene, he appears happy and at peace.  Hogan noted that this scene does not compare to the magnificence and sublimity of the creation sequence earlier in the film, and that the contrast emphasizes the smallness or insignificance of the human experience in relation to everything as a whole.  I agree with Hogan’s concept of the scene presenting Jack’s idea of heaven and that human life is a small aspect of all creation.  I also feel that the absence of God in the final scene further portrays the idea that God plays a very miniscule role in the lives of people outside of creation.  Even in the moment where Jack transcends his human life, God is physically not present.

Overall, the screening event for The Tree of Life presented the film in a very introspective and thought provoking way.  Although brief, the discussion following the screening allowed for the audience to question the role of each image and form a better understanding of director Terrence Malik’s cinematic intentions.  Professor Colman Hogan’s lecture provided interesting theories behind the imagery within the film.  Moving forward, an ongoing question that remains is the relationship of God to humanity.

No Home Movie: Mundane Memories

Critical Report by Caitlin Candella

On March 3^rd, 2017 the Centre for Memory and Testimony Studies held a screening of No Home Movie by Chantal Akerman at theIMA 307 School of Image Arts as a part of the Memory Screening Film Series hosted by Professor Hudson Moura. Following the screening, Marta Marín-Dòmine, a Catalan writer and scholar who specializes in Memory Studies and director of the Centre, lead a debate regarding the film. Attendees were encouraged to participate in a lively discussion and explore various cinematic memory-scapes, which reveal modes of recollection. Akerman, who passed away at age 65, was involved in numerous projects including fiction, documentary and essay films, as well as video and installation art. She is remembered as a “cinematic radical, a formal innovator and a pioneer of modern feminist cinema” (Romney). No Home Movie is Chantal Akerman's final film that follows the last days of her mother Natalia, a Holocaust survivor. Akerman’s film is a deconstruction of the home-movie tradition. It focuses on memories and the sentimental aspects of mundane moments. This report will outline how Akerman’s No Home Movie traces and reveals memories and how her personal story influences memory and its path.

            

No Home Movie is a documentary still-life study that pays homage to Chantal Akerman’s mother. With the use of a consumer-grade digital camera, Akerman captures raw footage that enhances the feeling of a home-movie, presenting the film in a very intimate way. Akerman observes the quiet routine of her mother, with very simple and unedited shots. The film takes place in very ordinary locations, including Natalia’s home, the apartment building’s back garden, a local park, and a desert (Bradshaw, 2016). There are numerous static shots of Natalia moving from room to room and her having mother-daughter conversations with Akerman, in person or on Skype. This form of aesthetic emphasizes the importance of subliminal connotations that film produces in people’s minds. For the average viewer, these shots may appear insignificant. However, they allow viewers to interpret the images for themselves. For example, when Akerman cuts to a succession of traveling shots of a desert there is no voice-over commentary nor any traditional aspects of a documentary such as time, date and location markers (Dargis, 2016). When watching the film, the stillness and aspect of mystery opens the dialogue up to various interpretations. To me, the stillness reflected Akerman’s loss of connection to Brussels. The quiet, lonely atmosphere depicts the sense of loss of her home and loss of her mother. The title of the film also contributes to this idea, as it itself is ambiguous. It is not a conventional home-movie, even though it incorporates elements of one. It is a movie about a saddened estrangement from home that Akerman experiences having lost her mother.

When the screening came to an end, Professor Hudson Moura opened the film up for discussion. Those who attended were given the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions about the different themes and elements presented in the film. It appeared that there were mixed reviews, with a few people explaining that it was a very taxing experience. I too felt the same way. This film required a significant amount of patience to breakdown and understand the deeper meaning behind Akerman’s imagery and aesthetic, notions that I was not able to grasp very easily. However, Marta Marín-Dòmine clarified important concepts that may have been overlooked in the film. For example, the calm control and the deep core of pain that is presented so subtly in the film, as shown through Akerman’s relationship with her mother. One individual also addressed the almost obsession that Akerman had with her mother. Numerous times throughout the course of the film, Chantal Akerman struggles to part ways with her mother. For example, when she must travel or say goodbye over skype. Other attendees of the screening discussed themes of exile, memory, identity, and even feminism. 

No Home Movie is unique in the sense that it incorporates long takes and silences to emphasize the everyday moments that most movies tend to ignore. It is not the typical blockbuster film that is packed with action, but rather an intimate glimpse into the relationship between a daughter and her mother. For two hours, viewers follow Natalia Akerman and Chantal Akerman as they eat, chat and share memories. This film demonstrates the value of time, for without time, memory does not exist (Tarkovsky’s Nostalghia). Akerman preserves her mother’s memory through an unconventional home-movie, allowing the memory of Natalia Akerman to live on.

References

Bradshaw, P. (2016, June 23). No Home Movie review ‑ infinitely careful, painfully poignant documentary. Retrieved April 1, 2017, from   https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jun/23/no-home-movie-review-chantal-akerman

Dargis, M. (2016, March 31). Review: 'No Home Movie,' of Love and Melancholy. Retrieved April 1, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/movies/review-no-home-movie-of-love-and-melancholy.html