reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/23/85)
(This will take a while to get around to the movie itself. If
you don't want to bear with my ramblings, in brief, I liked
"Maria's Lovers" a lot.)
How does a director learn to direct films? Some go to film
schools, some serve apprenticeships in the film industry, some
make cheap films in their backyard. But I think that none of
these is really how most directors learn how to make films, even
the ones who do follow these courses. Unlike most other arts,
film does not offer good opportunities to learn by doing. It's
just too expensive. The cheap forms of film (such as super 8)
are so primitive that what one learns by making them is only a
small part of what must be known to direct a major feature film.
A full blown film costs, at minimum, tens of thousands of dollars
(assuming no sets are built, no one gets paid, one take per
scene, etc.), so few can afford to experiment. Think how this
compares with painters. Imagine that drawing implements were
horrendously expensive, so that aspiring painters could not af-
ford to make sketches. Every canvas would require major support
from a patron, and every stroke of the brush would cost a for-
tune. Even if the inspiration was available, a given painter
might only be able to finance one painting every year or so.
This is situation that aspiring directors face.
How, then, _d_o directors learn their art? Well, some, obvi-
ously, don't. I would venture a guess that four or five times as
many directors make first features as ever make second features.
But what about those who do?
The answer is that they learn by watching. They look at
other people's films. They study how to tell a story, how to
convey emotion, how to build suspense, how to get a laugh, by
watching how other directors have done it. Ever since the end of
the primitive era of film, this is the way it's really been done.
D.W. Griffith learned by experimenting. Almost everyone since
has learned most of what they know by watching films.
What, you may ask, has this got to do with "Maria's Lovers"?
It is the heart of what is most interesting about this film.
Think for a minute about what directors watch to learn. In Amer-
ica, and through most of the Western world, most of what they
watch is American movies. European directors have seen more or
less of their own countries films, depending on the strength of
its film traditions, but the foundation of most of their viewing
is in American films. They, too, grew up with Hollywood. Thus,
it shouldn't surprise us much that, when a European director
comes out to Hollywood, his films bear a certain resemblance to
everything else that comes out of Hollywood. There are usually a
few sophisticated or personal touches, but otherwise it fits into
the mold pretty well. (The fact that the director is usually the
only non-American on the film also has its influence.)
The Russians, though, are a special case, for two reasons.
First, almost no American films play in Russia. Many of them get
private screenings for the elite, including film directors, but
by the time a director is influential enough to be included, he
has probably already seen a couple of thousand Russian movies.
(Russia has an extremely prolific film industry. Very little of
its product ever gets to the US.) He grows up with Russian
films, not American ones. Second, Russia has an extremely strong
tradition in film. Starting in the early 1920s, the Russians
were great innovators in film techniques. They have, from a very
early period, developed their own way of doing things. Thus, not
only do Russians not see American films, but they draw upon a
great stylistic tradition of their own that owes little to Ameri-
can cinema, or at least to any developments of American cinema
after 1920.
Which leads me to, finally, the point. "Maria's Lovers"
isn't an American movie. Oh, it's in English, all right, and al-
most all of the actors (except Nastassja Kinski) are of American
origin, and it's set in the US, but it isn't in any way, shape,
or form a Hollywood film. Even my fairly superficial background
in modern Russian films (I've seen less than half a dozen of
them) makes it clear that Andrei Konchalovsky may have defected
from the USSR, but he brought their filmmaking techniques with
him. From the evidence of this film, and the reputation of "Si-
beriade", his best known Russian film, his may have been the most
artistically valuable defection since Baryshnikov. (Does anyone
know if Tarkovsky actually defected, or is he just putzing around
Western Europe? There's another Russian filmmaker I'd like to
see working in the ever-so-slightly-more sympathetic West.)
"Maria's Lovers" is a splendid film. It looks beautiful, it
is well made in every aspect, it is well acted, it has a strong
theme (which is a bit slow to develop, admittedly), and all of
the film's elements support that theme. This wonderful kind of
fusion is, of course, also possible in American films, but the
style of "Maria's Lovers" is totally different from such films.
Konchalovsky does things that no American director I know of
would try, or likely even think of. Thus, in addition to being
well made, "Maria's Lovers" is refreshingly different.
The story is set just after World War II. John Savage re-
turns to his home town to find Maria (Nastassja Kinski), who was
always his friend if not quite his girlfriend, going out with
Vincent Spano, an Army captain soon to return home to Detroit.
Savage kept himself going in a Japanese prison camp by fantasiz-
ing about Maria, and now wants her very, very badly. It doesn't
take Maria long to realize that she is really in love with him.
So they marry, despite the fact that Savage's father (Robert
Mitchum) doesn't think that Savage is good enough for Maria.
But Savage loves Maria too much, and the trauma of the pris-
on camp, particularly an experience involving a rat, spilled over
into his fantasy life with Maria. The intensity of his love and
the problems caused by his nightmares and fears begin to destroy
their life. Savage's increasingly erratic actions, plus the
presence of Spano (who still wants Maria to come home with him)
and Keith Carradine (as a charming rover whose eye is caught by
Maria), act to spoil the couple's lives. I hesitate to get into
too many specifics, not because the plot goes through very
surprising twists, but because telling too much could cause
further impatience with the film's fairly slow pace. Events hap-
pen quickly, but themes and resolutions develop slowly.
John Savage has the centerpiece role in the film, despite
the title, and it's the best role he has ever had, offering him
many opportunities to portray his character's passions and frus-
trations. His performance overshadows solid work from the rest
of the cast. Nastassja Kinski, for me at least, always seems to
carry around an slight aura of both perversion and perversity.
She tones this down, but doesn't completely eliminate it, in her
role as Maria. While she is very strong in the part, it might
have been better served by a more classically All-American girl.
On the other hand, when Mitchum or Carradine talk about the beau-
ty and mystery of her eyes, you know what they mean.
Mitchum really has a supporting role, but has some very fine
moments in it. Carradine's part is in many ways an expansion of
his role in "Nashville". Again he is a womanizing singer, but
this character has a touch more self-knowledge and a lot more
charm. He didn't quite convince me that women would be falling
at his feet, unfortunately. Otherwise, he played the part ex-
tremely well. Bud Cort has a supporting role which gives him
little of importance to do, but none the less he manages to
create an interesting character from what is given him. One of
the major axioms of performances is to always leave them wanting
more, and Cort makes me wish I found out more about his charac-
ter.
The script went through many hands, including Konchalovsky's
and those of Paul Zindel, a fairly well-known novelist. The
Screenwriter's Guild is loath to allow four authors to share
credit for a script (they don't want to dilute the importance of
the writer to the film by implying that the script was patched
together by a lot of people), but they allowed it in this case.
Unlike most collaborations of this sort, the seams don't show. A
few touchs I feel were likely Konchalovsky's. For instance, Kin-
ski and Savage have a "secret" spot where they used to go as
children, where, for an unexplained reason, they have left a
chair. Throughout the film, we return to shots of that chair.
Konchalovsky masterfully uses these to express the state of the
lovers' relationship, and I feel sure that this was his idea, as
likely was the frequent use of trains in the film.
The photography, by Juan Ruiz-Anchia, is lovely, in the lush
European style. Ruiz-Anchia and Konchalovsky have come up with
some excellent shots, which again are not the type of shots one
is likely to see in an American film. Konchalovsky is willing to
let his camera rest on a face rather than dart about, which gives
his film a serenity uncommon in most of Hollywood's output.
Konchalovsky's use of indirection and symbolism is also very re-
freshing, and well abetted by Ruiz-Anchia.
In addition to directing and collaborating on the screen-
play, Andrei Konchalovsky wrote the music to a lovely song sung
by Carradine, who wrote the words. Carradine doesn't have a par-
ticularly good voice, but the song is strong enough to overcome
that. Though played on a guitar, it has the rhythms and tones
suggesting a balalaika. Unlike so many film songs, it plays an
integral role in the movie. It should be a strong candidate for
an Acadamy Award for Best Song, provided the voters don't forget
the film by the time nominations for 1985's Oscars roll around.
"Maria's Lovers" is perhaps one of the best films I've seen
in the past year, and one of the few that instantly left me with
the desire to see it again. It is not for all tastes, particu-
larly not for those who demand either slam-bang violence or lurid
sex in their movies. Quiet, contemplative, "Maria's Lovers"
leaves a strong afterglow of pleasure with a film well made.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher