If I asked you the question: What is George Melford’s film telling us? What would be your response? Perhaps something like, “Uuhhh… not sure?” Me too! “East of Borneo” was definitely a match made in heaven for the fan of cinematic modernism. In my opinion though, it seemed to venture a little further than East of Borneo – Try the middle of nowhere! From the minute the short black and white film began to the second it (eventually) ended, I could not help but think – “thank god for 3D animation, special effects and that sparkling ‘movie magic’ that we take for granted today!
The film seemed reliant on the use of repetition as it replayed (I suppose) ‘turning point’ scenes that alluded to some plot or potential meaning, such as the women de-trenching, her being fast asleep in her tent, or walking out onto a balcony several times. The repetitive scenes in the film go hand in hand with the reoccurring motif of time. I felt the film played recklessly with the theme of time and the manipulation of time. I couldn’t understand the setting of the film, or when events had or were taking place - whether we were watching the film back to front? Was this technique supposed to confuse audiences or keep them on their toes? Was it to enlighten or explain the heroine’s own disorientation of identity? Replaying these scenes became unsettling. They raised concern about the nature of the woman’s actions, her (possible) regret, indecision and her own wonder on this exotic isle. The non-dialogic soundtrack playing in a monotonous tone in the background deafened any kind of hint towards the films narrative melodrama. Sounding like a bad remix of circus and reggae beats, the music playfully kept us (the audience) distracted from the theme of time and reoccurring motifs of fear, separation, seduction and abandonment. That or perhaps the music was generally played to keep us awake! The music I would argue was probably the only constant prop used in the film though not necessarily the most revealing. The music acted almost like a kind of censorship of the films content and narrative. That amidst this tropical sanctuary the air reeked of dystopia; the close-up shots of the bewildered women’s face as she swaggers hopelessly and even regretfully onto the balcony, swaying aimlessly with despair, the violent shots of the white man being attacked by the natives on the shore, and the volcanic eruption in the distance. In this scenario, music was used as the founding prop to disguise the melodrama happening on screen. Music did not feed our emotions but manipulated them. Imagine the film without the prop of music? Do you think the music gave the film colour?
The film’s ‘big brother-like’ watchful eye intensified audience’s ever-growing suspicion and consciousness towards the woman’s actions and her whereabouts. In the first scene, the technique of a hand-held camera creeps towards the woman sleeping in a peaceful slumber, which stumbles on the issue of whether or not we’re meant to be interpreting this film as a dream? It certainly has dream-like qualities like the abrupt cutting between scenes, fading in and out without scenes finishing or beginning from the beginning, flashbacks of the past (or perhaps visions of the future), the ‘mirage-like’ location and random prop imagery that created dynamics altering (if any) the narrative sequence and mood. Repetitive Imagery of the woman’s drinking glass or the confronting close-up shot of a single candle flickering is symbolic of the woman’s (and even audiences) conscience of time; the length of time between the past and the present and how long in which the candle might take to eventually burn out -the hope and light being no more. The candle, like other surrealist props, distracts us (the audience) and the woman from reality. Sounds like the way our dreams work though - right? Random events and scenes that we imagine distracting us from reality? Entering a world that is completely our own…
My experience of watching this film was loneliness and vulnerability. Though I might ask, was I alone in my disinterest and hostile perception? I felt vulnerable as I wrestled with why couldn’t I understand it? Were we even supposed to understand it? I kept wondering if everyone was thinking what I was. The film was silent so there was a lot of room for one’s mind to wander! My opinion of this film may seem a little harsh, and perhaps quite raw, though if you strip the film down to its bare essentials, you’re looking at something that probably could have done with a little more help from the prop department.
No comments:
Post a Comment