Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

61/100

How would you behave if you strongly suspected—worked on the assumption, more or less—that your home is bugged and corrupt government officials are eavesdropping on everything you say and do? What's fascinating about The Ear is how bizarrely cynical its answer to that question turns out to be, in a way that I never remotely anticipated. Felt a bit restless for much of its first half, despite Kachyňa's expert control of light and shadow and the paranoid atmosphere thereby generated; Anna and Ludvík's combative sniping plays like Albee's George and Martha minus the caustic wit (or the younger couple as threatening mirror image; the film's mostly a duet), quickly becoming repetitive. And I never quite got a secure hold on the flashbacks to whatever function it was that they'd attended earlier in the evening, though I suspect that's mostly due to my own ignorance of the political context. Certainly it seems clear that Kachyňa didn't deliberately fashion a Kafka-esque parable in which our protagonists' ostensible crimes against the state are unknown and fundamentally unknowable—there are specific connections to be made between what was said at the party and what worries them in its aftermath, and I'd probably appreciate The Ear significantly more had I at least a vague understanding of what said connections are. As is, I'm left clinging to those bits and pieces that transcend Communist ideology, e.g. Ludvík gamely attempting to comfort himself by reasoning that So-And-So wouldn't have referred to Anna by her first name were things potentially grim for them. Had that been the entire movie, I'd have found relatively little to admire.

Everything changes, however, around the midpoint, when a bunch of party officials (some of whom seem to have been lurking outside for a while, though it's unclear whose house they're surveilling) suddenly drop by for a visit. The scene itself is fairly brief, though magnificently ominous—loved the utter lack of convincing pretense with which their apparent leader, who'd leaned on the gate's buzzer for several minutes until they finally opened up, claimed that he'd pressed it just once and it had somehow gotten stuck. "I will now tell an obvious lie and you have no choice but to accept it" being a hallmark of totalitarianism. But a truly remarkable shift occurs shortly after the officials leave, when Anna stumbles upon a listening device hidden between kitchen appliances. In theory, this should come as no surprise: Not only have both Anna and Ludvík repeatedly referred to "the ear" that they assume constantly monitors them, but Anna keeps directly addressing it—sometimes to goad Ludvík (by saying aloud things that might potentially get him into trouble), sometimes to allay possible suspicions. At one point, when Ludvík becomes violent, she actually screams for whoever's listening to help her, like Laura Linney's "wife" in The Truman Show. And yet the discovery of a bona fide bug, instantly transforming the surveillance state from hypothetical to actual, causes both of them to snap, tearing their house apart in an effort to find all of the other bugs that have been planted. (Bear in mind, this film predates The Conversation by four years. Though it can't have influenced Coppola, since the Czech government suppressed it until 1990.) So strongly does The Ear finish, even if the final scene itself feels a tad abrupt, that I feel guilty for holding its earlier tedium and impenetrability against it, especially since the latter rates to be more my own issue than the film's. If nothing else, it's a thought-provoking exploration of the epistemological chasm separating what we believe to probably be true from what we know to be true. 

Files

Comments

Orrin Konheim

So, two general questions: 1. How exactly did you get to this point where you published to write about film for good pay and with such frequency and with such eyeballs? How intent were you on all those goals? 2. How do you gain the vocabulary for writing about cinematography. Did you have camera experience? I find that's the hardest part to write in my own reviewing. I even have taken music theory courses, and in a past life was musical, so I'm qulaified to write on scores.

gemko

1. I started in 1995 when almost nobody else was writing movie reviews on the web. Made it easy to get noticed; <i>Entertainment Weekly</i> glowingly reviewed my site in January ’97 and I started freelancing for them four months later. So when people ask how they can do what I did, my answer is always the same: First, build a time machine. 2. I worked on an indie film 30 years ago but otherwise have no camera experience. Just terminology I’ve picked up from reading.

Orrin Konheim

Yeah, I don't think it's a complete meritocracy and when you started and who you know (I noticed Scott Tobias in your comments section, and he's well-known for being the editor of the AV Club or whatever, so I imagine him knowing you s a humongous boost). Would you ever look at the stuff of patreons of yours (AKA me)? I've suggested avenues of collaboration before. Yes, the truth is you give me a bigger boost eyeballs wise than I would give to you, but then again, there's always patreonage

gemko

Scott and I have been friends since before either of us really had a career, going back to probably 1996. Not sure exactly what you want me to look at (I checked out your YT game show, wasn’t my thing I’m afraid), but feel free to try me via Twitter DM again.

Orrin Konheim

Wow, I heard Noel Murray say something like that about writing for a college paper with one of the AV C editors. I totally agree that the game show might not be your thing, and I appreciate you even looking at it. Let me try to figure out what I want you to look at, or what collaborations I might be able to propose. For looking at my stuff: Do you prefer video or writing?

gemko

Writing. (And don’t get your hopes up re: collaborating. I’m not really interested in that. I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.)

Orrin Konheim

I might want to sell this piece (if you have any recommendations?) but I'll just go with the latest. If you haven't seen the new Night Court and might want something else (I'm kind of also tempted to give you something different) let me know: I recently read an article that consulted psychiatrists about why people would rather rewatch the Office a 4th or 5th time than try something new. According to science, (although we probably already knew this), people have a need to turn their brains off sometimes with what they call “comfort viewing.” The psychological benefits to this can be enough to get people out of suicidal-level despair. I postulate that every time we plop down in front of a TV after a hard day, we’re all confronted with a choice of whether we want comfort or whether we want to be challenged and moved at a more rewarding level. Most shows fall along that spectrum. But with Night Court—pure vanilla comfort food as there’s ever been – there’s an art to doing mindless popcorn comedy. At a dialogue level, this show will never be great comedy, because the jokes are too rapid-fire. One would think that is a good thing, Night Court’s jokes feel like they are overeager teacher’s pets that rocket their hands up in the air to answer a question because they want the attention of getting a right answer in front of the whole class. I have almost no experience in screenwriting and I could probably write a Night Court spec script because the formulas are so easy. For example, establish one thing in the dialogue and then have a character contradict that through action. Example: Character A says he’s not afraid of mice as he walks out a door. Cut to a screech in the distance. If you really don’t trust your audience to connect the dots, have them go “Oh, no, a mouse!” A recent episode featured a joke so screechingly wrong that I had to rewind and capture this in text. Judge Abby Stone (Melissa Rauch) asks her coworkers if she recognizes a podcaster, and the security officer Gergs (Lacretta), says “I’m not a fan of podcasts. I’m more of an audiobook gal. I’m in the middle of Matthew McConaughey’s ‘Tomorrow I’m Gonna Hit You with an All Rise All Rise All Rise”” You know those jokes from elementary school with a question-and-answer format like “What do you get when you ____?” In this case, the elementary school version would be “What would Matthew McConaughey say if he were a judge?” But that line doesn’t even make sense because Lacretta is discussing a book that McConaughey supposedly authored unaware that it would be referenced in a courtroom. Was there a writer in that room sitting on that joke (possibly for 9 years, when that catchphrase first entered into pop culture) through the first eight episodes and just decided he HAD to get it in, even if it made no sense? Poor Lacretta suffers the second worst line of dialogue in the episode: “I’ve never seen anyone so thirsty to get on a podcast and I have several friends whose families went missing after their families joined a cult.” In comedy writer’s rooms (particularly on late-night shows), a writer’s elementary assignment will typically be assigned to “punch up a joke”, where they write several different versions of the punch line (the underlined part). Oftentimes, the late-night writers bank up these punch lines in a pinch, because they can be interchangeable (Conan O'Brien's writers do this often with the same dozen punch-worthy celebrities). The punch line is so unrelated to the setup here that it feels like a placeholder for an actual joke. At the same time, the show is filled with actual winners in the joke department. When Gerges suggests that Olivia (India de Beaufort) and Neil (Kapil Talwakar) get the podcaster’s attention through a spicy romance, Olivia responds, “Neil, we’re in a relationship, Pretty Woman rules, there’ll be no kissing and it will mostly be about me hanging out with Hector Elizondo.” This is a highly specific reference that dates back further than Matthew McConaughey's press circuit tour of the 2013 Academy Awards but specific can be gold when it's employed with thought for the context (see John Oliver). The show’s style of comedy could best be described as anarchic. Best exemplified by the Marx Brothers, this is a style where there isn’t really an established thru-line, and the humor comes frequently and from unpredictable sources. So far, we’ve had Tara Lapinski and Johnny Weir as guest stars, a giant horse, the court staff playing Bingo, and a dispute between two vampires. It’s perhaps in this spirit that the surprises and jokes come so fast that one can easily take the good and bad jokes as a pair. The show’s not structurally great, but somehow it works. The hypnotic power of comfort TV is when all the actors get the show’s silliness and match each other on the same wavelength. The cast, particularly India de Beaufort, goes all out on whatever mediocre material they're given.