It's not a movie review, but the content is a bit too much to write in one broadcast.
I don’t know where I saw it. It is said that Hou Hsiao-hsien once watched a lot of Italian films to study the perspective and viewpoint of the film, and then developed his own purely objective perspective mode of the camera. (In the Hou Hsiao-hsien documentary filmed by Assayas, he also mentioned this point, saying that his film has no POV, and listed Pasolini's "Oedipus King", saying that it is different from his film, There is an alternation of POV and objective cameras.)
The alternation of Hitchcock (especially Vertigo) and Lynch's films (also inherited from Hitchcock) character POV (subjective point of view) and the camera's objective lens brings a sleepwalking vertigo; Solini's POV and the blurring of the camera's objective lens (the so-called free indirect discourse lens of film) are poetic. However, the "chaos" of this shot only occurs in one main character, so the whole film itself is still unified in perspective and has a strong sense of rhythm.
One of the problems with Happy Lazzaro is the serious confusion of perspectives caused by the abuse of POV.
The POV in the first 20 minutes of the whole movie is still mostly based on Lazaro's POV, and the director brings out the whole village through his perspective. But after the arrival of the Marchioness and her son, the whole thing collapsed.
I can understand what the director wants to say is this kind of mutual peeping between the bottom peasants and the nobles, but the rhythm is chaotic.
Then comes the turning point of the movie, after Lazaro falls off the cliff
Then Lazaro enters the town, and the entire second half of the story where he meets the previous villagers is almost all objective footage of the camera, without a single POV. What is this for?
Is Lazaro a stare, a stare, or a narrative symbol? I can't find a foothold for perspective in this movie. In addition, I don't seem to have seen a movie with such a confusing perspective before, and the whole rhythm of the movie is out of tune. The second time I watched it, it was still the beginning of impatience after the Marchioness appeared, and no desire to continue watching.
I once sent a broadcast saying: Pasolini completed the cycle of mythifying the characters and humanizing the myth (the flesh). All the secondary characters in "Happy Lazaro" can and should be symbolized, but Lazaro should be fuller and deeper. One replies to me: Lazaro's mythology is not conferred by dramatic twists, and the character (if it can be called a character) exhibits the same perfection as a "holy fool" from the very beginning. The saint doesn't care about depth, so he is the only symbol in this movie, and the rest of the people around him are real and very three-dimensional living people. The point of the film is how they, we concrete living human beings, faced this supremely good saint. And the movie is doing very well here (I have very different opinions here). The image of each supporting role is very three-dimensional, and it is definitely not set by the theme first, but it shows the reality of life itself. Therefore, this film is ultimately "magic realism", and its foothold is still on the word "reality", and the myth is just a condiment .
I think part of the reason for this divergence comes down to this confusion of perspectives, which neither side did in the end.
Probably talking nonsense...
View more about Happy as Lazzaro reviews
