Ida
http://www.hollywoodrevealed.com/wp-...ida-poster.jpg
i believe this was a cork soaker reference, back in the day after The Lobster blew my top off.
this is kind of a strange film to review because it's just so sparse and barren. that is not to say it doesn't have merit, because it does. and most of what makes it good is so idiosyncratic and atypical, as far as modern western filmmaking goes.
it was kind of a film of contrasts, for me. it's both lush and sparse, both somewhat historically epic and yet very intimate, pleasing and non-gratifying at the same time.
it seems like every choice it makes is the unpopular one. the cinematography, the editing, the storytelling. one of the things that drew my attention the most, is just the way it's shot. i don't believe i'd ever seen a movie filmed quite like this before; it is apparent that the director knows a thing or two about creating a traditionally beautiful shot - but he knowingly chooses to defy it almost every time, and go for shots that, for various reasons, makes the viewer uneasy (or at least it did me).
in a way, it's the complete inversion to a Wes Anderson film, where every shot is singing with pleasing, flawless symmetry. Ida is shot kind of in the same way its protagonist behave; it
can be very beautiful, but it chooses to cast flaws on itself, or rather hide away its beauty. cinematically, it often goes for shots that cut off someone's face, or de-center an important visual element, or just generally pick an unorthodox angle that renders the shot mildly distressing or suffocating. while it's harder to appreciate than real, "objective", symmetrical beauty, i thought that was such a bright filmmaking choice to make, to keep your viewers uneasy the whole way through - as emotionally unbalanced as the characters it tells the story of.
same thing with the editing - there are often cuts that halt a scene a moment too soon, in a way that is not in line with modern "trends". just to give the smallest example, in the opening of the film, as Ida gets up to leave the mother nun's den after having learned she is to seek out her only living relative, her footsteps thunder in the massive concrete chamber as she is drawing closer to the door. i feel like most directors would allow her figure to make the exit and indulge in that moment, of still having the cavernous space echoing Ida's heavy boots hitting the ground, and somehow use that to make a point about the general emptiness and desolate solitude of it all - but nope. not here. the scene is cut short as she is progressing towards the door. those types of decisions abound in the film - they're everywhere.
probably the biggest thing about this film on a more concrete level, is how most of what it deals with is left unsaid. that is also a conceptionally brilliant choice, because even though you
think you have a firm grasp on what the characters are feeling, and perhaps even have some insight into their inner dialogue - ultimately it's all subjective and rooted in bias, and is therefore subject to change, even if it is only you who watches it several months or years apart.
the film is kind of like a psychiatrist in a way, because it makes you open up a channel of inner dialogue with yourself, and then when you question why you drew a particular conclusion from a scene, you're only faced with your own reflection - "wait, but was there any real reason for me to assume that, really?". it made me question my standings on religion without ever explicitly prompting any question at all.
at some points in the film, the atheist/agnostic/what-have-you in me wanted Ida to realize she would be wasting her life on hiding herself away behind a thick nun's veil, wasting her life and her beauty and exuberance. but then you look at the other contrasting character - Ida's aunt, who is the other extreme: chainsmoking, rugged, promiscuous, liberal. and you realize it's all ways of dealing, that even though it doesn't seem like it on a day-to-day basis, there is probably no one "correct" way. all that's left after all those ruminations is simply feeling both of those characters' pain in being completely violated, alone and forgotten in this world. everybody's running away, some via religion and some via drugs and numbness. in that regard, one of the strongest visual elements of this film is the bottomless black depth of Ida's eyes. harsh film, man.
but again, it's just so sparse and leaves so much open to interpretation, that all those anomalies in filmmaking really shine through, and become as big a part in the storytelling almost as much as the actual characters. i think the acting here is some of the most consistently understated i'd ever seen - virtually almost no peaks, just compounding subtleties. it's acted pretty beautifully. very pure acting. very plain and raw. doesn't seek to bask in fame or applause.
most of what i ended up being left with after this film ended, was this or that expression during a particular scene, or the aesthetic of a particular peculiar shot, or the crumbling walls in an unhappy chamber appearing in one of the scenes, or just the general desolation emanating from the barren depictions of Stalin-era Polish winters.
it's also worth noting that unlike many a bleak b&w film dealing with the world wars and their consequences, this picture is efficient and doesn't drag needlessly, and clocking in at around 90 minutes, it certainly does not overstay its welcome. a true rarity among weighty historical pieces.
the one criticism i do have, is that the love story between Ida and that sax player seemed kinda rushed and wrenched into the plot - probably the only recognizable Hollywood touch in the film. thankfully it pays off in a way that makes you understand why it had to be there (like, it wasn't just because some guy wanted to find a way to cast Kristen Stewart). it was worth it if only for that one lyrical shot at the end of the film, of Ida wearing a profoundly shaken and affected expression, walking against traffic - as if to say she's going back to the convent against her heart's true wishes. or is that just my bias?
all in all, kind of a difficult film - not super engaging, makes you work for it, and is very sparse, bleak and stark, but is certainly worth its running time for its original and unique filmmaking, and sense for subtlety.