Film Review: Wanda

  "Wanda" 

  **** (out of ****)

Barbara Loden's "Wanda" (1971) is a sadly forgotten but fascinating portrait of  America, capturing a country at a crossroads by embodying the spirit of the counterculture movement; while also subtly suggesting elements of second-wave feminism.

"Wanda" addresses themes of alienation, class conflict and feminism in such a way that the themes weave together effortlessly. 

The film was Loden's first and only feature-length film, following in the tradition of poetic realism (stylized portrayals of working class life) and Italian neorealism (authentic representations of everyday life). While those movements may seem contradictory their emphasis was to depict real life, stripped of the superficiality of American Hollywood cinema. Some have even compared it to the documentary style movement known as cinema verite.

Released at the beginning of the 1970s, which saw the emergence of a new generation of filmmakers, "Wanda" could be seen as an extension of films like "Easy Rider" (1969), which was emblematic of  "New Hollywood". While both films express the disillusionment of the younger generation, "Wanda" is the more devastating film. Even though "Easy Rider" was an indie film, it was a slick, well produced product with "loud" and iconic moments - the Born to Be Wild sequence - "Wanda" by comparison isn't as flashy. It's quiet. And that quietness gives it more of a punch.  

In modern times however I believe many retroactively interpret the film solely as "feminist", minimalizing the class consciousness by doing so. They also narrow the scope of the alienation and define it as the result of a patriarchal society which undervalues women. This was the opinion of several critics, for example Molly Haskell, who wrote in her seminal book on feminist film theory, From Reverence to Rape, describing female characters in movies like "Wanda" as women "torn between the negative and positive of the feminist consciousness - rage at the old order, hope for the new - have arrived, anesthetized, at an emotional and cultural "stasis", a death."

These interpretations prioritize the fact that the film was directed by a woman and that within itself  was enough for them to claim it as feminist. In this analysis  "Wanda" belongs in a tradition of other female directors such as Chantal Akerman and Agnes Varda. It's not necessarily wrong but limiting and omits too much in order to confine it to a specific political or social agenda - i.e. feminism. I believe its reach is broader in its appeal. "Wanda" doesn't belong in one camp or another, it overlaps. It should be situated alongside the work of Akerman and "Easy Rider". For me "Wanda" isn't exclusively feminist, it is an indictment on the decline of the  American way of life.

The first image in "Wanda"  is of a construction site with a bulldozer shoveling dirt. Then we see a beat up old house. There's an unattended baby crying, while an elderly woman (presumably the child's grandmother) prays and stares out of a window. Seeing these images I thought to myself, this is a movie about people or one particular person "under construction". Someone in need of repair. To be rebuilt from their foundation.

That person is revealed to us as Wanda (Barbara Loden), a young attractive woman who goes through life in a comatose state. She accepts whatever is thrown at her without the slightest protest. Nothing seems to phase her. When she is late for a court hearing, where her husband (Jerome Thier) not only wants a divorce but custody of their children, Wanda hardly says a word. In fact she tells the judge he should grant the divorce and to give her husband the children. They will be better off with him she claims. When she's let go from her job at a sewing factory, she can barely find the strength to deny her boss' claim that she's too slow. 

Within these scenes Loden is making a commentary on two fronts - gender and economy. Wanda's identity is as much tied to her economic status as it is her gender. The landscape is of  Pennsylvania coal country and to put it nicely, it's not flattering. These people are in economic despair. You can feel it in every interaction and conversation Wanda has. This is a reflection of the United States at the time, which was going through a recession in 1970 and high unemployment by 1971. President Nixon even took the U.S. off of the gold standard and this was seen as a contributing factor to a rise in inflation. Retroactive viewers, in my estimation, don't highlight the economic conditions of the 1970s enough in their reviews. For example, "Wanda" is part of the Criterion Collection and comes with an essay written by the critic Amy Taubin - who is a fine critic and I don't mean to criticize - but all Taubin does in her essay is provide biographical information on Loden, production details and firmly situates the film as an example of feminist filmmaking. This kind of thinking not only flattens the discussion and limits the nuance of the relationship between gender and economics, it also diminishes and ignores the historical context of the film.

And if we look at the economy from a women's perspective there were additional hurdles. In the early 70s women faced a lot of discrimination. Before 1974 it was difficult for a single woman to open a bank account or get credit without a male co-signer. In some cases even a married woman might not be able to open an account without her husband's permission. So not only are economic times hard but as a woman you lack further individuality and financial independence. This is why historical context is needed. Art often responds to its political and social conditions. If you are retroactively reviewing a film or any piece of art, helping an audience understand the social conditions in which it was made, helps us see deeper into the work and what it was a reaction to. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. 

But even for a 1970s audience, for whom all of of this social climate was a daily reality, it is easy to imagine them scratching their heads and sit in indifference while watching the opening moments of "Wanda". The majority of the actors are not professionals. Their dialogue isn't polished. The characters speak slowly. And most off-putting for a mainstream audience, is that it doesn't appear to have a strong narrative plot. Nothing seems to be pushing this movie forward. Perhaps understanding an audience demands some kind of narrative, Loden switches gears from the mood and flavor of the town to a crime story. Wanda, unknowingly, becomes involved with a burglar, Dennis (Michael Higgins). He was robbing a bar when Wanda walked in to use the restroom. Oblivious to her surroundings, Wanda leaves the bar with Dennis, spends the night with him, and drives out of state with him. Eventually she discovers who Dennis is and what he has done but makes the decision to stick with him.

When "Wanda" was initially released in 1971, the critic for the New York Times described the film as a "crime melodrama" and not a character study. "Wanda" defies genre expectations. This isn't a crime picture in the same sense "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) was a couple of years earlier. And even in that film's case, we can make the argument that it is more than a film about bank robbers. It is when Wanda meets Dennis that feminism becomes more prominent within the story. Wanda has no identity and latches on to the men in her life, allowing them to define her. Dennis is a textbook chauvinist. He slaps Wanda around and wants her to dress a certain way. In one scene Dennis confronts Wanda and informs her that she is not to wear slacks only dresses. Wanda adheres to these requirements and conforms. Why? Because in Wanda's mind, there is no path forward for her. She wouldn't know where to begin. Most people, upon hearing they are with a thief, would want to escape. Not Wanda. She's even given an opportunity to do so and in that crucial moment, declines the chance. What Wanda seeks is a man's validation. Which is clearly a concept society has ingrained in her. It makes for a "touching" moment later in the film between Dennis and Wanda when finally a kind word is spoken by him.

And despite the despicable behavior of Dennis, Loden and "Wanda" take the time to create a dual characterization. There is a contrast between how Dennis treats Wanda and how he treats his father. While a viewer's instinct may not grant any generosity towards the character, Dennis is also a victim of society. Why is he robbing bars and banks? Those aren't the actions of a person who believes he has a lot of options before him. A very generous and sympathetic reading of Dennis could assume the reason he wants Wanda by his side is for sincere companionship but he doesn't know how to express himself or allow himself to be emotionally vulnerable. If you accept that interpretation it then creates a contrast between Dennis and Wanda. She is nothing but vulnerable yet doesn't express her true feelings.

To be emotionally closed off and vulnerable is what gives "Wanda" its powerful ending. Just as there is a dichotomy presented in Dennis, Wanda exhibits her own duality in the film's final scene. We must question, is Wanda back to where she started? Is she mourning? Has she grown and finds that frightening? Just before the film's final image, Wanda finds herself with another man and for the first time, she resists his actions. She will not allow him to take advantage of her. Will she continue to drift? Is it any coincidence the name Wanda sounds close to wander? It is this ambiguity that I personally like. 

Prior to directing "Wanda", Loden was an actress, appearing on television with the great Ernie Kovacs. On the Kovacs show she was part of the famed Nairobi Trio - a trio of gorillas playing the tune Solfeggio - as the group's pianist. Additionally she appeared in feature films - "Wild River" (1960) and "Splendor in the Grass" (1961) - both directed by the man she would eventually marry, Elia Kazan. It has been well documented, in Kazan's own autobiography as an example, that there was an uncomfortable power dynamic at play between the two, with Kazan wanting to dominate Loden. It would explain a lot of what we see in "Wanda" and Loden's presentation of the character. 

In an interview with talk show host Dick Cavett, Loden appeared as a guest to promote "Wanda" and confessed she was very much like the lead character, a woman who was aimless in life and needed to be told what to do. It reminded me of an image in the film that perfectly symbolizes the character's dilemma - Wanda looking at her reflection in a broken mirror. Like the mirror itself, Wanda is shattered. 

Cavett, in the same interview, was almost trying to coax Loden into making a feminist statement about the difficulties of filmmaking and raising money. Loden wouldn't take the bait and said her difficulties were no different than what anyone else goes through to raise funds. But she did say something I find interesting that historically ties her into a certain film lineage. Loden said her small three person film crew approach to "Wanda" was like going back to the early days of cinema and just pointing a camera at people. The idea of that invokes the Lumiere Brothers and their actualities but it also speaks to a different lineage, which feminist would whole heartedly approve. Loden is like Alice Guy-Blache or Lois Weber, female filmmakers using the female experience to show the world what their lives are like and how they interpret the world. The best of their films also show us how their experience connects to the larger issues in society.

When "Wanda" was released it was at best a modest success in the United States. It gained greater acclaim overseas, even winning an award at the Venice Film Festival. It never found a real footing in the U.S. as part of the cultural temperament in film at the time. Maybe it was too low key. Too subtle in its commentary. Or simply not deemed significant enough by critics to bother analyzing it. New Yorker critic Pauline Kael called the film "drab". Judith Crist, maybe the most powerful critic at the time, wasn't too kind to the film either. It was only after many years that the film would begin to be spoken about with true admiration.

Whatever the reason was after "Wanda" Loden never directed a feature-length film again but did direct an educational short called "The Frontier Experience" (1975) which is included as a bonus feature on Criterion's DVD. Loden should have been a respected filmmaker and social critic. Cinema and art can only thrive when artists like Loden are given a voice and an opportunity. Could Kazan have shortened her career, as some have suggested over the years? Kazan even tried to take credit for "Wanda".

Unfortunately Loden, a North Carolina native, died at the age of 48 in 1980 after a two year battle with breast cancer. It is said Loden had several unproduced completed scripts and had plans to work on a play and direct a film adaptation of the novel "The Awakening". 

"Wanda" belongs on a short list among the best films of the 1970s. It captures the anxiety and alienation of a decade and serves as a time capsule representing a very important period in modern  American history. It is a remarkable film.

Film Review: Taste of Cherry

 "Taste of Cherry"

 *** 1\2 (out of ****)

"The hour  of our  departure has arrived, and we go our separate ways, I  to die, and you to live. Which of these two is better only God knows."
                                                         Socrates

Soil. From it comes life and to it we return in death. You'll see a lot of soil and dirt in "Taste of Cherry" (1998), the Iranian Palme d' Or winner from Abbas Kiarostami. It's a constant reminder that life and death are always around us.

The film has a simple plot, a man, Mr. Badii (Homayoun Ershadi, who sadly passed away last November) drives around Tehran looking for someone to assist in his potential suicide. He will pay a large sum of money to someone if they will arrive at a designated location and either rescue him from a hole in the ground or bury him.

Most critics that have reviewed this film took everything literal. For example, critic Peter Bradshaw reviewed the film in 2012 for The Guardian and spent an inordinate amount of time writing about suicide and its implications in Iran. Despite its subject matter "Taste of Cherry" is not solely about death or suicide. The film is also about life. It is not a sad or depressing film with a character agonizing about the difficulties of being alive. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert famously disliked Kiarostami's films - referring to "Taste of Cherry" as "excruciatingly boring" in his review - and would often only describe the surface level actions taking place, ignoring any possible symbolic meaning. "Taste of Cherry" is a film meant to be interpreted and not watched indifferently.

From its description, "Taste of Cherry" is the kind of movie that many will say is one where nothing happens. All we do is see a man in his car, driving around town. That is true, in a sense, but Kiarostami brings an entire world to us inside of that car. We view a clash of different economic statuses, religious beliefs, and age. And each person that Mr. Badii encounters represents a diverse opinion on life and death.

Because cinema abides by the rule of three, the film is comprised of three long conversations / arguments that Mr. Badii has after he asks the individuals to carry out his request. The first man we see is a young Kurdish solider (Safar Ali Moradi) who is looking for a ride back to his barracks. Mr. Badii agrees to give the man a lift and quickly determines he could be a potential candidate. This is primarily based on the fact that the young solider is Kurdish and comes from a working class family. Mr. Badii has assessed it will take a poor person to perform his task. The opening sequence of the film has him driving passed unemployed laborers. 

This touches on another important theme in the film; class distinction. Mr. Badii is incredibly forceful when trying to persuade the young solider to take the job. When the solider asks what exactly the job is, Mr. Badii tells him not to worry about it but to instead concern himself with the money he will make. This is the condescending nature of those with money and how they view those that don't have any. It implies the poor have loose morals and should be willing to do anything for money.  After all, what other choice do they have? It is also a defense mechanism on Mr. Badii's part since he knows he is asking the young man to do something highly questionable.

It is interesting how Kiarostami visualizes this tension between the two men. Kiarostami filmed the men separately, meaning they were never together for their scenes. All of the shots in the car are medium close-ups. This creates a claustrophobic feeling and the illusion of both men being trapped together. We can sense the soldier's uneasiness while also hearing the desperation in Mr. Badii's voice.

In addition to the lure of money, Mr. Badii changes tactics and tries to make an emotional plea to the boy by referencing the hardships he and his family must have endured as Kurds in Iraq, who have now migrated to Iran. It is meant to invoke a time in the early 1990s when millions of Kurds did leave Iraq after the Gulf War and a failed uprising against Saddam Hussein. This becomes something we hear again and again throughout the film - the hardships others have endured and yet those people continued to go on living, contrasting their desire to live against Mr. Badii.

We see a similar situation occur with the second passenger in the vehicle, an Afghani migrant (Mir Hossein Noori) studying at a seminary. As with Iraq, Afghanistan also dealt with war in the 1990s, following the departure of the Soviets. By 1996 the Taliban was on the rise and had seized control of Kabul. It is said millions of Afghanis had headed for Iran during this period. Again, even though they had faced such enormous calimity, they continued to embrace life.

Please note this information regarding wars is not needed to follow the film's plot or to appreciate it. I only provide it for historical context, to properly situate the time period in which the film was made. 

What becomes interesting about the conversation with the seminarist is the same visual techniques used previously now make a different impression. No longer do we feel a sense of friction and claustrophobia because Mr. Badii has changed his approach somewhat and is only occasionally passive aggressive this time. With the solider, Mr. Badii tried to leverage him with money but that won't work this time around. To solicit the help of the seminarist Mr. Badii will make an emotional plea by seemingly having a heart-to-heart discussion. This time around we are having a religious debate that almost feels like a confessional. The switching between the medium shots of the characters serves as a confession partition. But when the seminarist objects, mentioning that the Koran says suicide is a sin, Mr. Badii tries to undermine his authority. He doesn't need a lecture. He could have spoken to someone that has finished their studies for that. 

To counter these two conversations, Kiarostami creates a nice contrast when Mr. Badii gets his vehicle stuck while driving along a dirt road. There are workers nearby who immediately come to Mr. Badii's rescue and help lift his vehicle out of a ditch. In this situation Mr. Badii doesn't need to ask anyone for help, the people instinctively come to assist. When a person feels they are doing something positive, they will help. As opposed to the favor Mr. Badii is asking, where he is being refused. 

A desire to help brings us to the third and final passenger, a Turkish migrant, Mr. Bagheri (Abdolhosein Bagheri). For the first time, Mr. Badii is silent and it is the passenger that does all of the talking. Mr. Bagheri morally disagrees with Mr. Badii's decision to commit suicide. Although Mr. Bagheri says he will agree to help, he does try to talk Mr. Badii out of it. Kiarostami makes the contradiction between Mr. Bagheri and Mr. Badii unmistakable. When Mr. Badii spoke to the seminarist it was a performative empathy, with Mr. Bagheri we see true sincerity. 

There is a brief line of dialogue that for me reflects the film's stance on the matter of life and death. Mr. Bagheri tells Mr. Badii to make a turn, taking him off of his usual path. Mr. Badii says he doesn't know this road but Mr. Bagheri reassures him that he is familiar with it. It will however result in a longer ride but it is a better and more beautiful road. That is what life is. A series a roads or paths we chose to take. Some are more beautiful than others. It all comes down to perspective. The Kurds and the Afghanis, for example, chose a different path. They left their countries. As Mr. Bagheri says, if every person reacted to every tiny problem the way Mr. Badii is, there would be no one left on earth.

I won't deny you the pleasures of hearing Mr. Bagheri's ode to life but will say the tone of the conversation is radically different than the previous two. If the Kurdish solider represented a fear of death and the seminarist was moral / religious responsibility then Mr. Bagheri appeals to our senses. This is not a philosophical debate. The simple joys of life are the thrust of Mr. Bagheri's argument. This is how the film gets its title. And it is from this discussion we notice a possible change in Mr. Badii's behavior. While he is preoccupied with death and driving around, he is ignoring all of the life around him - the trees, the sun, and yes the soil.

You may wonder about all of those shots of dirt roads, barren landscapes and construction sites but Kiarostami finds the beauty of life in them. While you can interpret all of it as a reflection of Mr. Badii's loneliness also notice the contrast between the dirt roads and construction equipment with the images of the city. The city equals life whereas the barren land signifies death but from that land emerges a city where homes and stores will be built. It all represents a circle of life.

Since some critics interpreted the film as a commentary on suicide, and given that the Iranian government forbids this act, they therefore thought this was a political film. Back in 1997, when the film was released in Iran, Mohammad Khatami had become president. He wanted better relations with the West. I personally don't see much of an emphasis in the film on this topic but should point out, it did not go unnoticed by me that the vehicle Mr. Badii drives is a Land Rover and in one scene there is a man wearing a shirt with U.C.L.A  written on it. When Mr. Badii comments on it and asks the man if he knows what the shirt means, he nods in the negative. Finally, the film closes with a piece of jazz music, the song St. James Infirmary. Which is of course a song about death and the remembrance of a loved one.

Another thing that did not go unnoticed by me was the absence of women in the film. Kiarostami doesn't treat this as one of the themes of the film nor has this topic been brought up in the majority of film criticism written on the film. While there is no commentary in the film on role women play in Iran, their absence is within itself a commentary on how they are treated in Iranian culture. This then becomes more of a political / social issue rather than a thematic component of "Taste of Cherry", which explains why other critics avoided mentioning the issue at all. The only woman who appears in this film is at the end. She asks Mr. Badii to take her photo with someone who is possibly her husband. Kiarostami would make a more explicit commentary on this subject in his later film, "Ten" (2002). 

Many critics expressed dissatisfaction with not knowing why Mr. Badii wants to commit suicide. It doesn't actually matter. It is all a pretext to engage in the grander discussion on life and death. Mr. Badii's quest for assistance is plot mechanics and not the emphasis of the story. To worry about his ailment is to distract yourself from the charms of the film and its philosophy.

The other major criticism thrown at the film had to do with its epilogue, which I will not go into much detail over. It is meant to serve as a reminder on the relationship between life and art. Roger Ebert called it a "distancing strategy" that was not needed. Another critic, Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader, called it a "joyful finale" in his review, commenting on how this ending liberates us from "the oppressive solitude and darkness of Badii" with familiar images we have seen throughout the film. I am in the Rosenbaum camp - unusual for me - on this issue.

If I had to pick out one thing about the film I disliked, it has to do with the editing. When Mr. Badii and Mr. Bagheri are having their conversation, based on the dialogue it appears as if it is a continuation of a previous discussion. Mr. Badii is asking for assurances from Mr. Bagheri but we never see them meet. It's hard to believe Kiarostami edited down their meeting. It is the only flaw with the film that I have.

The minimalist, documentary style Kiarostami used in this film became something he was identified with and criticized for. It blurred the lines between fact and fiction but allowed him to explore the humanity that can be found after tragedy. Great examples of this can be found in "And Life Goes On", (1992) and "The Wind Will Carry Us" (2000). "Taste of Cherry" is a natural extension of it.

"Taste of Cherry" was not typical of modern Iranian cinema from other filmmakers - Majid Majidi and Jafar Panahi among them. It was made in a style of filmmaking closer to Italian Neorealism - using non professional actors (with the exception of Homayoun Ershadi), real locations and natural lighting - and is why the Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Wilmington once referred to Kiarostami as the "natural heir" of the movement.

Although the cinema of  Abbas Kiarostami had divided critics and audiences alike, "Taste of Cherry" did receive much acclaim. In addition to the Palme d'Or prize it shared at Cannes - it tied with Shohei Imamura's wonderful "The Eel" (1998) - it was also considered one of the best films of the year by critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum, Godfrey Cheshire (New York Press) and Michael  Wilmington. Stephen Holden praised it in his New York Times review, writing, "Kiarostami, like no other filmmaker, has a vision of human scale that is simultaneously epic and precisely minuscule." Dave Kehr, in his New York Daily News review called it  "stunning" and "powerfully affirmative", awarding it four stars.

For my own part I will never forget the first time I saw "Taste of Cherry" and "The Wind Will Carry Us". Decades later my mind goes back to them and I recall the mood they put me in and although some my consider the visuals dull, certain images have always stayed in my mind. Mr. Badii's face has never left me as well as those winding roads and I even hear Mr. Bagheri's voice now and then. A few years ago I had a year long theme on the blog called Was I Right?, where I looked at past top ten choices to decide if I was right to chose them. I didn't select "Taste of Cherry" on my top ten list in 1998, that was a mistake which I will rectify.

"Taste of Cherry" is one of Kiarostami's masterpieces. A philosophical film that celebrates life. It is a reminder that sadness and joy and life and death are always around us. Our lives are comprised of which roads we choose to travel on. Sometimes that road may be longer than expected but it will be more beautiful and from there we can stop to taste the cherries.