Witches get Stitches

Witchhammer (1970)

“Kladivo na carodejnice”

I found out about Witchhammer while reading my Czech and Slovak Cinema book. It interested me because first off, I love learning about witch hunts and am really not familiar with any witch hunts in any other place than the US. Secondly, it was directed by Otakar Vávra who was known as one the most historical directors to come out of Czechoslovakia. He used actual transcripts from cases and trials for the 17^th century witch fiasco in Czechoslovakia, which is really interesting to me.

           

However, “despite [Vávra’s] early involvement in the avant-garde, he soon argued that film was an immature art form and consequently evolved a ‘system’ or approach heavily dependent on literature. In a sense, the screenplay or the source material plays a dominant role.” This caught me off guard because even though I completely understand that literature is an important art medium, I don’t understand how film can be considered a lower or more immature art form especially coming from a well known director. All art mediums have different aspects to them to make them stand apart from each other. As far as literature versus film goes, literature plays a heavy part in the filmmaking process with scripts and inspiration; however, you can write literature without film just as you can make film without literature. You don’t necessarily need a formatted script to use film as a tool to convey a feeling or meaning. Also, it’s interesting that nowadays, the roles have started switching by film becoming inspiration for literature. My badass surrealist chick director, Vera Chytilová “moved in quite other directions”.

           

Witchhammer recounts the 17^th century witchhunts of Czechoslovakia while specifically dealing with torture. I love the cover of this film features a quote that states, “…erotic…daring…a black mass of nudity”. If that’s not enough for you to watch it, then there’s something just not right with you. Regardless of if the movie is accurate or “good” in general, that quote is hilarious. That’s just some straight up bold marketing. Witchhammer really explores the issue of torture in interrogation. Just about anyone is going to state they’re guilty when they are put through the right amount of pain. And how can you prove your innocence when by denying it, you’re going against God?

           

One of the main characters is a Deacon, who is completely against the witch trials. The character who is pushing the trials is a foreigner to the Czech town and is getting paid by the profits of the “witches’” property after they are found guilty and burned at the stake. This movie is a great example of how religion can so easily control the masses. Without question or contest, everyone, save the deacon, goes along with the witch craze just trying to fly under the radar enough to not be accused of association with the Devil.

           

I can’t really remember a character in American witch storytelling who thinks in the same way as the Deacon in this film. My favorite quote of his in the film is,

“Do you care nothing about science or law? You are putting us back 100 years!”

Yes, people would say they’re innocent or that torture doesn’t really find truth, but this very logical thought process of “what about science and law? We are way past this…” seems to be missing. Sure, the Deacon states that he is against the trials, but not in a traditional manner. He more of just rolls his eyes and dismisses the notion of them. His character really sums up the feeling the audience gets while watching, “really…? Are you serious? Really?”.

As far as costuming, dialect (assumingly), and setting goes, this film is definitely 17^th century. However the interaction with the Deacon is extremely modern to me. Even the fact that they use the term “deacon” instead of “priest” seems more progressive. Through the whole movie, the viewers really feel like they’re taking crazy pills. Because of the Deacon basically dismissing the whole notion of witchcraft makes it feel like it could happen in 1970 (actual release date). What would happen in today’s society if another witch hunt happened? Are we having homosexual hunts? We already have ethnicity hunts in the US, right? In a hundred years, will we look back on today’s history and get the same reaction as I got to this film, “What the fuck are you talking about? What the fuck is going on?!”

The First Lady of Cinema and How She's Pushing Feminism to the Next Level.

“Youth, my youth. Where have you gone? Why do tears come to my eyes at the very thought of you?”

         

         Daisies was directed by Vera Chytilova in 1966. After winning the Grand Prix at the Bergamo Film Festival in Italy in 1967, it was immediately banned. The story follows two girls who are trying to figure out love and the world around them. Daisies is one the most known surrealist films that has come out of Czechoslovakia.

            Vera Chytilova was born on February 2, 1929 in Ostrava, Czechoslovakia. Ironically, she just died on March 12^th of this year. An avant-garde filmmaker, she was considered the “first lady of Czech cinema”. Her films were acclaimed for visual experimentation and for bold unmasking of the moral problems of contemporary society. Her art belongs to what Sergei M. Eisenstein described as "intellectual cinema", that embraces the mix of "avant-garde", "cinema verite", "formalism", "feminism and, with a good deal of humor.

            The film starts out with the main two characters talking to each other about how “the world is just spoiled”, and since the world is spoiled, they should be spoiled too. After this decision has been made, the two young girls run around Prague living frivolously and destructively towards themselves and the world around them. I decided to do research on the difference between feminism in the US and in Czech. I came to find that our views are basically opposite. For us, being a strong woman means a career, able to stand with guys, and going away from the traditional housewife. However, in Czechoslovakia, women view working nonstop as an old way of life seeing as how they were forced to work during the communist era. That being said, this film embraces women being carefree and asking questions about life, love, and existence.

            As the young girls trash the city, get drunk, seduce older men, and eat everything in sight, they begin to ask questions that I feel like all women should ask. In one scene, Julie asks why do we have to say, “I love you” why can’t you say something as simple as “egg” and have it mean the same thing? She wants to understand why and how those words mean so much when it’s obviously not about the words at all. Another theme is the questioning of existence. They start to ask each other if they’re real at all and if so, how do they know? One actually states that they might not exist because they don’t really have any strings attached to them. They don’t have families, jobs, or anything holding them back. So what makes them exist? I love this concept. It makes complete sense to me. If you’re not changing or affecting the world around you, do you exist? Does it matter if you do or not?

            This film is all about indulging and feeding into your urges. Not all of your desires or urges will be necessarily bettering for you or the world, but there’s something just beautifully sublime in just giving in to everything you want, to forget the social pressures and obligations that weigh down on you and to run free exploring your surroundings and your own self. I would love to not exist for a day.


A link to "10 things to learn from Czech women"

http://www.expats.cz/prague/article/czech-culture/10-lessons-we-can-learn-from-czech-women/

Milos Forman

         Milos Forman was born Jan Tomas Forman in Caslav, Czechoslovakia on February 18, 1932. His parents died in the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwtiz leaving him orphaned at a young age. He studied screenwriting at FAMU and is a foreign director that has gained major success in the US. His film adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was the second film to win all four major categories at the Academy Awards. He is definitely one of the most popular and well-known Czech directors. During this semester, I’m watching his two of his films: Loves of a Blonde and Firemen’s Ball. Both of which are satires.

Loves of a Blonde

         Directed by Academy Award Winner Milos Forman in 1965, Loves of a Blonde is a film about the past, present, and future of love. It is comprised of three separate acts that can each stand on their own. That being said, I've watched this movie at least three times, all of which I was definitely rewinding and double watching certain parts. The acts are supposed to be in order in past, present, and future; however, there's definitely some plot changes that suggest otherwise. I think that's the point Forman was going for. It's a very subtle satire with a naive outlook on love. It's very interesting to see the differences in how Americans view love versus how Europeans do.  In this film, it's almost like the blonde is striving to have that American type of "fairy tale love story" but everyone around her is still on a very logical wavelength.

         The first act is supposed to be the past of love or more of the way that the blonde SHOULD look at love. The second act goes into the present of love, where she is an adolescent at a ball and falls for the young traveling pianist. The last act is the future. She travels to Prague from Zruc in search for her “lover”. When she reaches his parents’ home, they are not only unhappy but also very rude. They ridicule both of the young lovers for not knowing much about life. Also, the parents bicker constantly, giving the blonde insight of her inevitable future with love. On top of the parents, the pianist she “loves” basically kicks her out. The ending is insane and very realistic. The juxtaposition between the blonde’s surreal lovey-dovey outlook and the bleak realistic idea of love is showcased perfectly throughout this entire film.

         The film is bookended with two girls singing a pop song about love. One line that was repeated often was, “Oh this great love of mine has turned me into a hooligan.” This is definitely the path that this film takes, but it’s not a romantic comedy where everything works out in the end. It’s more of the blonde’s hopes and dreams being crushed, which goes into the refreshing realistic view I mentioned when talking about The White Dove. The bookending also sets up the film to seem lighthearted and whimsical; however, I just didn’t get that out of the film. I like that I didn’t get it as lighthearted. I mean I totally see how this is more comical and definitely satirical, but I’m very glad it didn’t end up as a traditional love story.

         One thing that should be pointed out is how everyone is so blunt. There’s one scene at the ball where these old, reservist, married guys are shamelessly trying to just bang out these three young chicks. The girls end up walking out, leaving these creepers to have an in depth conversation about who’s cheated on his wife, and whether these girls are coming back. They are only concerned with sex. It’s actually quite shocking to hear the way it’s just completely shameless. One of my favorite scenes is where one of the reservists drops his wedding ring. The camera follows the ring as it rolls around the dance floor through a lot of girl’s dancing feet and skirts. The entire time, the reservist is following it on the floor. The scene is way longer than expected to put emphasis on marriage and how the idea is basically a wash.

         I am definitely going to keep watching this film. There are so many little details that tell a lot about Forman’s vision, and they’re very easy to miss. Unlike The White Dove, this film is much more dialogue driven; however, I really enjoyed it. It’s quirky and fun yet realistic.