PDA

View Full Version : Andrucha Waddington: House of Sand (2005)



Chris Knipp
01-06-2007, 04:50 PM
Andrucha Waddington: House of Sand (2005)


News from afar, some details lacking

In Brazilian director Andrucha Waddington’s House of Sand/Casa de Areia a mother and her grown daughter, Áurea, are brought into the desert in 1910 by Áurea's husband, an old man named Vasco de Sá (Ruy Guerra) leading a group of pioneers seeking a property and are forced to settle in a place where there’s a little water but nothing save sand in every other direction. The opening sequence of the people and their animals seen from a distance struggling along in a dark line in the white landscape, with the clanging sounds of the troupe’s carts and beasts disproportionately loud in our ears, is a starkly beautiful, if self-conscious one.

The daughter immediately discovers she’s pregnant and wants to go home. She never does, though, and the film moves along depicting her wilderness existence in brief sequences, skipping forward by decades between them. A pair of Brazilian actresses who are in fact mother and daughter play the two women. They’re Fernanda Montenegro and Fernanda Torres, respectively – and they’re a powerhouse team: Montenegro received an Oscar nomination for her starring role in Walter Salles’ Central Station and Torres won the Best Actress Award at Cannes in 1986. House of Sand is a movie in which women play the heroic roles and men are, alternately, obstacles, temporary lovers, or recessive helpers. (Despite the feminine sound of his first name, the director is a man, but his screenplay was written by a woman, Elena Soárez. The film may also be seen as a reverent homage to Waddington's wife, Torres, and his mother-in-law, Montenegro.)

If it’s studiously lacking in such conventional palliatives as a David Lean soundtrack, House of Sand was nonetheless shot in a wide aspect ratio that emphatically sets off the harsh beauty of the landscape of a nature preserve in the Brazilian state of Maranhao where all the shooting was done. The print is so monochromatic you may forget it’s in color but its special tonalities and ultra-sharp look make it eye-candy. The sound track of remixer Mark Berger is also striking and unusual, and in it music plays a tiny but enormously significant role for one of the main characters.

Soundtrack and image take leading roles also because Waddington emerges as more interested in setting and in his film’s formal elements, than in story. He’s relatively careless with his characters, and with his audience’s ability to follow his sudden time shifts – these decade-long leaps forward that come on us unawares, without any titles or other guidelines by way of warning. This offhand approach to narrative becomes downright jarring when Waddington "ages" Torres’ character by having her suddenly begin to be played by Montenegro. Mother and daughter the two actresses may be, but their faces are distinctive and dissimilar. You may feel the projectionist has gotten the reels switched around. It’s a very telling piece of information that Waddington’s starting point wasn’t a story, but a photograph of a house buried in the sand somewhere. He didn’t even see the shot himself, but the minute he heard about it the idea grabbed him. He decided he want to make a movie to explain how it came about. And there is a moment when a character returns from a trip and indeed finds a scene like that snapshot. Waddington is one of those visionary directors whose pleasure is to weave fantasies out of nothing, and he luxuriates in atmosphere to the detriment of other elements.

Situations are established visually rather than fully explored. It’s hard to believe the two women are really even living in this place. Unlike the people of Zacharias Kunuk’s Atanarjuat, for example – to name another movie shot in a stark, remote place – these women don’t have an ancient culture that includes survival skills for the landscape they occupy. In a story not so unlike Robinson Crusoe, almost all the specific details of daily vicissitude and survival that enliven Defoe’s famous narrative are omitted. We see one of the women rinse out a shirt; we see them listlessly bring pieces of fish up to their mouths and drink greedily from glasses of water. We see many close-ups of their faces – and both women have interesting, gnarly visages that they know how to turn them into expressive masks of suffering and stoicism – but that’s not enough to establish that they’ve acquired survival skills. Does Massu (Seu Jorge; later Luiz Melodia), the son of an escaped slave who adopts them, provide for their every need? The sudden jumps forward of a decade at a time turn out to be a neat way of avoiding any exploration of daily life. Maria, the young daughter, says she has nothing to do. How so? How do you live in a wilderness and have nothing to do? It doesn’t seem as though this was very well thought out. According to TimeOut New York, this is "a movie that’s been referred to as 'a perpetual bleach job for the art-house mind.'"

Mexican director Ricardo Benet’s 2005 News from Afar /Noticias lejanas has the same nowhere starting point as House of Sand but it provides a more evocative experience because it’s grounded in a wealth of character and incident. News’s settlement becomes believable, and its main character’s grounding in reality is further strengthened by a long second sequence in which he goes off to live in Mexico City. Compared to Benet’s film, Waddington’s chooses more to remain in the art-house realm of poetry or meditation rather than ground itself in recognizable experience. Lisandro Alonso's Los Muertos and the films of Carlos Reygada are other examples of Latin American filmmaking that is edgy and outside the mainstream but has a strong punch of gritty reality.

The successive jumps from WWI to WWII to 1969 do, however, have some of the sweep of the awesome sandy landscape. And with its bursts of sudden passion, stark conflict, and terrible longing, the movie has some touching and powerful moments, particularly in the final scene in which the young daughter, the one of the three generations who’s escaped to the city, returns, grown old now (Montenegro plays both roles this time) in 1969 to see her aged mother and tells her that man has walked on the moon.

(Seen at a special showing at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens on January 5, 2007. Released by Sony Classics August 2006, available on DVD.)

oscar jubis
01-06-2007, 06:52 PM
The setting is so striking and the formal aspects handled with such mastery I was willing to forgive the awkward time shifts. But having Torres and Montenegro play the same role is a major flaw that can't be overlooked. One of your best reviews, with very appropriate references to other films.

Chris Knipp
01-07-2007, 10:29 AM
Thanks, man. I'm rather relieved. I was expecting stronger objections from you since this was one I believe you highly recommended prior to the SFIFF last year. Glad I'm not alone in seeing the mother-daughter switch as a serious problem. Though apparently in an interview (in an information sheet distributed by the Museum) Waddington avoided even mentioning that Torres is his wife and Montenegro his mother-in-law, the film appears to have been conceived as a vehicle for the two ladies to such an extent that things were twisted to give them more opportunities to play--with unfortunate results.

I try to keep it balanced in this review, though in the course of writing it, I found the negative aspects of my view becoming more dominant. I might also say, Waddington is obviously one to watch. The art house appeal was indicated by the fact that there was applause after the Museum of the Moving Image screening.

oscar jubis
01-08-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Thanks, man. I'm rather relieved. I was expecting stronger objections from you since this was one I believe you highly recommended prior to the SFIFF last year.

I recommended the film based on my appreciation of Waddington's previous feature Me, You, Them, the previous work of both actresses, and Variety's glowing review. I still think this is a film worth seeing in a theatre (I watched it during its theatrical release). I'm afraid the film's virtues won't be fully appreciated on home video, unless one is blessed with a large-screen tv and a top-of-the-line sound system.

I try to keep it balanced in this review, though in the course of writing it, I found the negative aspects of my view becoming more dominant.

Do you think the negative aspects became overly dominant? Again, I like your review and I agree with the positive aspects you mentioned and your explanation of the film's flaws. But, when I found out you rated House of Sand 8 out of 10 at IMDb, I thought perhaps you invested too little space on what's right with a film you obviously liked.

Chris Knipp
01-11-2007, 11:38 AM
True, the film is stunning visually and aurally, and the Museum of the Moving Image has a really nice screening room with no distracting lights, nice seats, and good tech setups. But maybe a great movie is one that comes through strong in any format?

I am often unsure of my numerical ratings. Maybe it should be a 7 rather than an 8. I used to give almost everything an 8. It's hard for me to be tough on filmmakers who have sweated blood to produced something. When I said the negative aspects came out when I wrote, I would just explain that by saying, it's by writing that I discover what I think. When the actresses were switched on us, that killed the movie for me. And it is significant to me, damning to me, that I can't believe in the women living there all that time. It just seems like a movie. Almost like a down-market fashion shoot. So, maybe I ought to change it to a 7. You are more keen on arty movies than I am. This strays over into the arty category to the max. I think there was a certain amount of self-delusion here.

oscar jubis
01-11-2007, 11:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
True, the film is stunning visually and aurally, and the Museum of the Moving Image has a really nice screening room with no distracting lights, nice seats, and good tech setups.

Never been there although I'm well aware of its existence. Whenever I'm in NYC, there's so much to watch in Manhattan I don't go to other borroughs.

But maybe a great movie is one that comes through strong in any format?

Yes, and House of Sand is not a great movie. Obviously, most movies are best appreciated when projected onto a big screen in a theatre with a pro sound system. CinemaScope epics, and widescreen films with stunning vistas like Waddington's can be said to require such set up. Most docs and play adaptations work quite well at home.

t's hard for me to be tough on filmmakers who have sweated blood to produced something.

I like that sentiment. I think it's important not to disregard what's right about a film, what might make it worth seeing for some viewers despite acknowledged flaws and limitations.

You more keen on arty movies than I am. This strays over into the arty category to the max.

I don't like the term "arty" because it means different things to different people. The films I call "arty" are called "avant garde" by others. Films by directors such a Bill Morrison, Matthew Barney,etc that often play at museums and libraries and seldom aim to tell a story.

Chris Knipp
01-12-2007, 02:35 PM
The Astoria, Queens location is a very short subway ride, as are parts of Brooklyn. Dare to cross the Manhattan burrough divide sometimes--you will be glad you did. Try it next time. You don't come here very often anyway, do you?

Of course 'you have to be nice to filmmakers and recognize good points in films that aren't a real success, but as a critic one must strive not to be too much of a pussy cat.

I wouldn't use "arty" in a formal review probably, but there are times for colloquialisms and this is more of a dialogue than an exchange of reviews. I think you know what I mean. If I call it arty, you know I don't like it and you know why, and that is my point.