hectorhtr

Homeland (Aitor Gabilondo, 2020)

It is very difficult to talk about Homeland. In part, because everyone does it with very different and antonymous opinions. More than ever, it is a series to which "put a number" are ridiculous as impossible.

Fernando Aramburu's Homeland arrived to remove waters that not so long ago were very cloudy. La Patria de Aitor Gabilondo has also generated controversy, but that a minimally interesting or risky work does not. The problematic happiness comes from the point of view. The perspective is within the ETA world for which a whitening, an idealization is presupposed. Nothing is further from reality. Because just as there are no demons, there are no angels either. Both countries, that of the book and the series, know how to put themselves in those invaluable gray tones that annoy so much.

As an adaptation, it is reliably developed. Maybe too much. The problem with being so faithful is not to change the resources that work in a novel but not so much in an audiovisual product. It sins of being too literary or theatrical. The tone for some, not for me, can be another problem. It is dramatic by definition and although it tries to get away from melodrama, it gets into it at some point. This is where the Basque character stands out as one of the fundamental pillars of the work. His ways of behavior go against melodramatism so it ends up being suppressed. The setting, the eras and the magnificent performances make it an experience that is breathed and felt at all times.

But we do not stray from the important ones. Homeland is not The anthological history of the Basque Country, it is a more universal history, and ironically much smaller. The concept of motherhood, mourning or, above all, forgiveness applies to any context and that is what Patria is about. The university of the topics that are discussed makes empathy greater. The story focuses on the two families (the ETA and the victim) for the same reason; to bring positions closer. Not separating at any time to talk about something else, in the end, is a brave gesture. Many people (including myself) would have preferred more points of view with a broader view, but the work goes as far as it goes. Here is the confrontation, you can think that the reason for its structure is partisan. I do not agree because the story goes just the opposite, seeking conciliation. There is its end.

I can keep collecting letters a lot more. Because it is the perfect work for me, for personal taste, for theme, for everything. I think that even for people who hate it without having seen it, I recommend it. Because your message is important to all kinds of thoughts; especially in Spain. It is not perfect, far from it, nor does it intend to reinterpret the pages of Aramburu. But it is a necessary work to forgive the past without forgetting it.

Suspiria (Luca Guadagnino, 2018

There is an inherent risk when it comes to tackling any remake. It has happened before and will happen later. We have Psychosis (1998, Gus Van Sant), oldboy (2013, Spike Lee), ber hur (2016, Timur Bekmambetov) or even Rebecca (2020, Ben Wheatley). This list is not intended to state that any attempt to touch a work is considered sacrilege. The Ben hur of 1959, considered one of the great films in the history of cinema, was also a remake- So there is talk of ambition and artistic proposal when reinterpreting them.

Suspiria (2018) by Luca Guadagnino manages to completely move away from the original from 1977, being its best virtue. Dario Argento made an enigmatic film that he confused with his chromatic aesthetics. Its exaggerated form was superior to the background of a story that was read between the lines. The new suspiria is the opposite, its background wants to match the shape that also changes at the same time.

This roll in ambition is noticeable in the duration, from 1h 40 min to 2 hr 30 min. Time is used to develop new subplots within a much more present space-time context. In practice it is noticeable that the rhythm suffers, noting that there is plenty of content because whoever covers a lot does little.

The form changes to a historical realism that works quite well with the broad historical context that they tell of Germany. The change that occurs is also dance, one of the pillars of both films. Now it is modern dance and therefore the choreography takes a leading role. It manages to perfectly transmit the necessary esotericism, eroticism and terror. In one scene the dance in parallel montage shows the terrifying consequences. This will be carried to the last consequences at the end of the movie. At this point, it surpasses the original, giving dance the importance it deserves.

The background is clearer, losing the mystique of the original. On the one hand, I understand that hiding what is happening does not make much sense being a remake of a cult, but on the other there are explanatory conversations and replies that feel forced. The game is then on, knowing how things are, what and how they will happen. For this, the interpretations are essential. Tilda Swinton and Dakota Johnson are the interpretive axes of the film. There are many secondary characters that are irrelevant in the end, but Johnson stands out for being the vehicular protagonist and Swinton for playing two different characters of great relevance. This, added to the aesthetics of Luca Guadagnino, make the gears work until the end. As a separate note to the narrative, there is a subplot that is gaining strength, where more than terror, what leads in a melodramatic romanticism. It is perhaps the most artificial of the film, because it tries at all times to give it a main importance that does not get married despite the effort.

The music directed by Thom Yorke is, like the movie, very different. Without understanding anything about music analytically, it is electric in contrast to the aesthetic and narrative classicism of the proposal. I like to see a contrast with such a good result. As the film as a whole is irregular, in some moments it is brilliant but in others I want and cannot. I applaud the author's proposal, own and non-transferable. It is not on this list of remakes without its own soul and for that reason at least it is worth it.

Charlie Kaufman is an unconventional author, suffice to say that anyone who has seen any of his films, both directed and scripted, does not forget them easily. He is extremely smart creating deep existential scripts. In them, the mental reflections are constant, both for the characters of the play, as well as for the spectators and Kaufman himself.

In his early days as a screenwriter, he collaborated with Spike Jonze on Being John Malkovich (1999) and adaptation: The Orchid Thief (2002), and with Michel Gondry on Eternal Radiance of a Mind Without Memories (2004). Then he would fly free as a director with Synecdoche New York (2008), Anomalisa (2015) and reaching the present day with I'm thinking of quitting. The importance of his career lies in the fact that his first works are accompanied by directors with marked staging. This allows for a general cohesion, which elevates the scripts and lowers, a bit, the overwhelming pessimism.

I'm thinking of letting him play from the first moment with the viewer. The story although it seems conventional; a couple that goes to visit his parents, turns back to the world of dreams. According to Kaufman, it is the best way to delve into the human mind, specifically the subconscious. It is a maxim in all his films, and here, we can see the ins and outs of a person's mind. This approach allows us to observe first-hand, their most hidden fears and desires. In turn, the representation of these concepts tells us about their ability or lack thereof, to relate to others.

Being so impressionistic, it requires a viewer attentive to detail and surely the first time I passed you over. With synecdoche, it happened to me that reaching the end, I understood the base but had the feeling that I had been beaten. I'm thinking of letting it play with fewer elements and reducing its temporal space, allowing it to be, within its terms, more accessible. In the same way, the rhythm is much slower with dead times in the form of dialogues. But far from being boring, trying to link everything, every conversation is essential. Of course, they are dialogues with very pedantic and intellectual references. Each of you will see where your limits are and you may go over more than once or twice. Indistinctly, they are all well integrated into the story, and they work for her and not in spite of her, which is the important thing.

It is his third film as a director, and Kaufman improves, above the rest, his visual semantics. Accompanied by Lukasz Zal, Pawlikowski's chief cinematographer (Ida and Cold War), they achieve a more narratively active photography that does not depend so much on montage. This photograph has hints of terror, without the film ever becoming one, which increases the sense of uncertainty. This dance between genres makes me deduce a feeling of greater confidence in the director Kaufman.