AdGuzman00

Loved the initial take, I loved Jànos definition of immortality, however I somehow deceived myself into thinking that was the kind of 'ride' Tarr was taking us which he never does, he's true to himself and avoids formula, avoids giving the audience what we think is appropriate and in doing so he manages to create an honest, truthful and refreshing cinema.

I'm not going to say I understood Werckmeister Harmonies, but there were ideas behind it such as how easy is to disrupt the quietness in life or of a culture/community in the presence of 'bright' new notions, views or acts.

However, after watching some interviews from Mr Béla Tarr I have the sense that 'making a statement' out of his stories is never his purpose, perhaps he's just trying to portrait life as he perceives, and being not only factual but also sincere in how narrative tends to display in real life.

I'm sure I will be trying to watch Werckmeister Harmonies for a third time, trying to catch more details, trying to pin things out even when Béla has already said that's not his idea of cinema...

The only "flaw" I could think of is that in catching moments on camera, and getting the audience (me) immerse in the story was a task better achieved in Sátántangó, it was easier for me to enjoy and lose myself in the moments captured in Sátántangó than in Werkmeister.

Stumbled upon this on Wikipedia:

quote: The British Board of Film Censors famously reported that the film was "so cryptic as to be almost meaningless. If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable"

I wonder if the fact that this was the work of a female director influenced people of that time to dismiss the importance of this particular piece.

Just with a little research we can find Dulac's political views about gender, thus for me is quite clear the intention behind this film, and perhaps we can have second guesses about the symbols used in it, but her questioning the church, the state and male sexuality and the positioning of women at that time was groundbreaking. Which is sad, because if not but that huge dismissal, this could be catalogued easily as the very first surrealist film of all times, BEFORE Buñuel-Dalí's 'A Chien Andalou' and don't get me wrong I enjoyed it, but even Buñuel stated that he didn't put any meaning behind it, it was just a dream put into film so why the double standard?

Loved the ideas behind The Seashell and the Clergyman, it was great to bump into this film, for it was an amusing discovery!

Politics at the core of this intense and emotional depiction of fraternal love, support and the search for 'the' truth...

And sometimes dismantling the intricate apparatus of power is of not use, perhaps a depressing view but an accurate one, as Marianne's dubious dead hints.

Apart from the dark glimpse on systems of power in modern society that the film shows, it was such a delight to enjoy the astonishing performances of these two women, the casting of their younger selves (as teenagers and little girls) was spot on. I could relate better with Juliane's approach to women's right conviction, but something tells me that perhaps to achieve greater advances Marianne's fire for the cause is what is needed at times. For me, Marianne's conviction as an adult, and cheeky behavior as a young woman was enticing and contagious, but Juliane's gentle soul was lovely and engaging, the cause for her is built from woman to woman, with sorority at the center, supporting each other, establishing strong bonds, and for that same reason I think her role is even a little more hopeful.