The Basics

In the early 20th century there were three mayor flanks to cinema; those were the works of D.W. Griffith in United Status, the German Expressionism, and the Soviet Realism. These three sides were highly political in their content and the developments of the techniques during this period are the basis for today cinema.
D.W. Griffith gift to cinema was to break the “theatrical scene into the cinematic unit of the shot”; by this Griffith developed a new narrative. With techniques such as the cross-cut, the American director managed to bring very distant spaces together in the mind of the spectator. “Griffith discovered that the narrative content of the scene, not the location of the scene, determined the correct placement of the camera and the correct moment to cut from one perspective or setup to another. This discovery is frequently called “grammar and rhetoric” of the film” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 72). This same type of logic in the grammar and rhetoric of the film is still used by filmmakers, even tough there are variations this is the basis. In addition, it is important to note that Griffith’s works had a political touch, generally concerning the theme of racial segregation, such as “The Birth of a Nation” which was propaganda in favor of the Ku Klux Klan.
In the same way, but on the other side of the world, a movement called the Socialist Realism raised in the Soviet Union. The Socialist Realism was a really powerful propaganda that defended the Communist doctrine, as a form of art this was aloud because, “while the flickering images held their audiences captive, the events on the screen emphasized the virtues of the new government and encouraged the people to develop those traits that would best further it. Whereas the American film began as an amusing novelty, the Soviet film was created explicitly as a teacher, not as a clown” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 198). Nevertheless, this Soviet Realism developed the foundations of film editing, because they concentrated on the effects of joining the shots together; this is know as the Soviet Montage. The Soviet Montage is the contribution of this movement to the film industry. “Sergei Eisenstein regarded montage as a dialectical means of creating meaning. By contrasting unrelated shots he tried to provoke associations in the viewer, which were induced by shocks. Eisenstein was a theorist in addition to being a filmmaker. He established five "methods of montage": 1) Metric: based solely on the length of a shot, 2) Rhythmic: based on the length of a shot, plus the visual composition of the image, 3) Tonal: based on the dominant visual style of an image, 4) Overtonal: based on the interaction of dominant visual styles and 5) Intellectual: based on the symbolic content generated by two (or more) juxtaposed images; a film metaphor” (www.wikipedia.org).
On the other hand, the German Expressionism’s gift to the film industry is in terms of the image and the shot. This is so clear that the term Expressionism refers to the understanding that “the look or style of the visible, the external universe can take its shape, color, and texture from the artist’s intuition of its essential inner being of from internal human sensations.” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 175). German Expressionism gave the film industry a critical eye to be smart enough to know the importance of mise-en-scéne elements, symbolism and the psychological perceptive that the camera could work as a “window to the mind; that is that the camera could itself mirror the perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of a character experiencing an event.” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 174,175). One of the two types in which the German films of this era consisted was on the intellectual paradigms of Freud and Weber, which were very political more because of Weber than Freud. On the one hand we have Freud that was born in a Jew family and went to study in Vienna under an intense anti-Semitism, on the other hand is Max Weber which was a German, and his most important works concerned the rationalization of sociology of religion and government. Even tough the movement of cinema were very politically charged and sometimes used as propaganda, today films are not that much because of the invention of TV, but more important than the content is that during these years, the techniques concerning camera movement, subject matter, and even more editing, narrative and rhetoric developed were polished so much that they became what we know today as the basis of filmmaking.

An Expression of Art

Hollywood’s today power and global monopoly of the film industry and the screens is due to the perspective in which this new art was seen by its pivotal developers, unfortunate events and the love of humans to look and be amused by new ways.
Mostly, films were about capturing reality itself and showing it to the delighted masses that dashed a train in a movie theater. Movies by this time lasted around 10 to 15 minutes, just one-reel, because of the attention span of the audience; in time, the films were longer and longer.
Eventually, in the beginning of films, this new art or way to express reality was rapidly absorbed by people, because it affirmed ideas that where conventional and already held by society. People just loved to see the portrayal of their most deep feelings and to be excited about stories that seemed real, such as: Georges Méliès’ “A trip to the Moon” or Edwin Porter’s “Life of an American Fireman”; nevertheless, there were technical limitations, these were more sophisticated films, still, the acting was very theatrical and the camera did not had a lot of movement because the focus was more on the set than in the shot. But films were becoming more and more popular each day, with France and Italy as the most globally popular and powerful.
Europe was at the top of the scale until World War I stroke the continent, causing a devastating interruption in the European Film Industries, which as an unintended consequence, putted the American Film Industry A.K.A. Hollywood in the position it has held ever since. Even though in the silent era of film, movements such as the German Expressionism or The Soviet Realism were struggling to get up, it was no match for the monstrous film industry of America, which jumped even higher after World War II.
The other important fact that launched Hollywood to its present stand was the perspective in which film was seen by its pivotal developers, the difference is really simple and is easy to see even today. In The American Film Industry, Thomas Edison, who was a businessman who developed many devices which greatly influenced life in the 20th century and one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production; led to the creation of the motion Pictures Patent Company. On the other hand, in Europe was Pathé Frères. The main difference resides in the history of each country and how this shaped the way of thinking; on the one side we have United States, a country with practically no artistic history, a country of immigrants and highly interested in its growth as a nation; on the other side we have Europe, a country full of artistic history and with a deep devotion to the high arts. These particular backgrounds made that Edison on the one hand thought of film in terms of paid entertainment, in capital terms, he was a businessman, so his interest was to make money. And in Europe films were and are still seen as an art, and expression of the feelings.
Since the very beginnings of the film industry, the road on which films were to walk, were delineated by the perspective of its precursors and developers, by people love to look and watch and by events that were uncontrollable by the industries it selves, all these things joined to such a point that it almost seemed as it had to be by destiny that Hollywood monopolized the film industry with its entertaining films, and Europe and other industries such as Latin American or Asian cinema were left in the shadow, with their films that represent a message and an expression of art.

Comedy's First Steps

While Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton devoted their lives to the construction of an insightful and intelligent critic to the society through comedy, the Marx Brothers were faithful to the comedy as an entertainment through their cartoon like ways.
The Marx Brothers comedy even tough it was performed for film; it had the mark of their earlier work in vaudeville, which is a style of multi-act theater where the characters could run from music to comedy, to athleticism, to magic, to animal acts, to opera, to Shakespeare, to banjo, to acrobatics and gymnastics. Their comedy was fast and explosive, it consisted in short jokes to make people go from laugh to laugh; it also consisted in very cartoon like recourses such as the movie “Horse Feathers” in which Harpo pulls out of his coat: a wooden mallet, a fish, a coiled rope, a tie, a poster of a woman in her underwear, a cup of hot coffee, a sword, and a candle burning at both ends, or the fake mirror scene wearing pajamas in “Duck Soup”; also to bring out this quick laugh, Marx Brothers comedy relied in acrobatics, such as the film “A Night at the Opera” in which the famous Opera “Il Trovatore” is deflated. The Marx Brothers comedy was in deed very ingenious and brilliant, which in comparison with today’s comedy which is based on stupidity, which is not fun at all; Marx Brothers comedy was mastermind. Nevertheless, it did not reach the superb insightful comedy of other authors.

Very few people have been able to take master the art of comedy in an intelligent way, that critiques fundamental things of humanity and society; the best examples of these genius are Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Buster Keaton was the only one that “could rival Chaplin in his insight into human relationships, into the conflict between the individual and the society. The character that Keaton fashioned compensated its apparent lack of emotion with the terrific range of his resourcefulness and imagination.” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 158). Even tough Keaton was brilliant, the only and true genius of all time comedy was Charlie Chaplin who thought of the comic world as an opportunity that “provided the means to examine the serious world of human needs and societal structures. Chaplin was mature enough as an artist to show the ambivalence of power and wealth, its attractiveness and its emptiness. The comedies treat controversial themes such as drug addiction, poverty, hunger, crime on the streets, homosexuality, religious hypocrisy; but most importantly, the enduring qualities of the heart and the cruelty and complacency of institutions.” (A Short History of the Film, 2006, 110, 111, 112).
It is easy to figure out then, that while Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton devoted their lives to the construction of an insightful and intelligent critic to the society through comedy, the Marx Brothers were faithful to the comedy as an entertainment through their cartoon like ways. And that if someone compares the actual comedy in films to these conceptions, that person should know that with all the respect, the only critical comedy about society that is left, is seen in the world of TV animation in programs such as Family Guy, The Simpsons, American Dad, The Boondocks and/or Futurama; Its shameful, but true. Even worse film comedy nowadays is doomed and is sinking into nonsense stupidity.

Hot Chocolate for Bitch Loves

The main development of the film Like Water for Chocolate takes place during the Mexican revolution (1910-1917).The social and political climate were really tough; nevertheless:
“the historical setting of the film could have provided a radical backdrop to the story. However, the political and social causes and effects of the conflict are ignored. The revolutionaries themselves are reduced to folkloric caricatures and are seeing drinking, dancing, and singing, rarely fighting. In addition, only one side is ever seen, that of the Villistas, so it is not clear whom they are fighting. There is one violent attack in the film, resulting in the rape of family’s servant Chencha and the murder of Mamá Elena. However, the audience is not told who is responsible for this, as the ranch hand asks the attackers in English, “What do you want?” While audiences might assume they are revolutionaries, the ranch hand would not speak to them in English if this were the case. The novel clears up the confusion, referring to the attackers as bandits, which contributes to the soft representation of the revolutionaries. Nuala Finnegan has argued that the film follows the Hollywood tradition of representing the Mexican Revolution, particularly in the emphasis of Pancho Villa as the principal revolutionary and in the invasion of political and social issues. (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 41).
In other words, the political climate of that time is really unseen in order to make emphasis on the social issue of women’s place in society; but, despite this, other social aspects of the time are overseen too.
On the other hand, “despite the focus on the personal over the political, Amores Perros, makes a connection between the absent father and an ineffective state. Iñárritu has said that “it is not a political film, but it has a lot to do with the consequences of a political system. […] There is corruption, sleaze, and dishonesty at all levels.” And socially it is “a world where violence denotes masculinity, as do the material gains that come through the robberies and the dogfights. El Chivo’s violence has different motives; his job as a hired assassin has deep psychological and political roots. It is a manifestation of his anger against a society that has incarcerated him.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 59, 60). In other words, even though the film does not talk about politics itself, it talks about the consequences of political and social failure; the film portrays a world of resentful characters that are deviant from what the society is supposed to be, always in a struggle for power and ignorant of many of the moral and ethical values or at least these are not important enough to them so that they stop. Briefly, Amores Perros treats not only a social problem, that is the “doing wrong” of people in society; but also a sociological problem, that is the wrong way in which politics and law work in society.
The main idea of Like Water for Chocolate is:
To provide “an image of a country that fit the notion of the ideal tourist location for the Western filmgoer. Mexico is represented as a country unlike the metropolises in which the film was not successful. It is represented as a rural land, which has maintained its culinary and social traditions. By naturalizing and idealizing the ideology of femininity through Tita and by demonizing the masculine Mamá Elena, Like Water for Chocolate suggests that women can reach fulfillment only within patriarchal codes. This seemingly harmless romance thus conceals and antifeminist subtext. Not only does Tita seduce Pedro through her cooking, beauty, and submissiveness, as well as her brand of magical femininity, she is also used to seduce the public. She is constructed to act as a role model for implied female audiences and an ideal fantasy wife/mother for implied male audiences.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 51).
The latter brings us to the purpose of the film, “Esquivel has argued that women’s natural place is in the home, and suggests that it is time for them to return to that rightful place. She claimed in one interview that women trough their entry into workplace have abandoned the home, a “marvelous and sacred centre”.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 44). That is, that woman in an attempt to be equal to man, have led to a side their femininity, so they should come back to the place were they belong, the housework. This paper personally disagrees with this point of view; I consider that is not that they leave the workplace, but that they keep their women essence, their womanly tasks, values and attitudes; but still, this movie has Machismo and Patriarchal basis.
On the other hand, the main idea and purpose of Amores Perros is to represent “a Mexico that stands for difference. It is a film that offers an escape for city dwellers to a more “authentic,” traditional world symbolized by the natural products used in the time-consuming recipes. Amores Perros presents another model, one that shows images of modern Mexicans that are not “other” to European and U.S. audiences, but images of people who are apparently like us or at least, are images with which we are familiar;
[…] Iñárritu has spoken of his intentions to challenge stereotypes of Mexicans, seen in such Hollywood films as The Mexican (2001) and Traffic (2000): I am not a Mexican with a moustache and a sombrero and a bottle of tequila… Nor I am a corrupt cop or a drug trafficker. There are millions like me. And this is the world I live in and the one I want to show. The world he and Arriaga Jordán create shows characters divided by class and socioeconomic circumstances, but linked to each other through such universal concerns as love, desire, hate, power and loneliness. […] Amores Perros emphasizes the theme of ‘the interconnectedness of human beings,’ despite the separate spaces that social groups inhabit; […] is an exposé of ‘a world where we are losing our social values, our sense of fraternity, and focus only on individual values.’” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 54, 55).
Yet, it is a machista and patriarchal dominant movie, in which the roles of men are preponderant over those of women. To explain the latter, this paper will discuss the significance of the titles of each movie.
In Like Water for Chocolate, the title serves as a metaphor that refers to the magical culinary arts and the idea of a man and a woman that are meant for each other. The film makes its case through emotional appeal, since it “relies on romantic ideals and conservative values for its success.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 36). In other words, it is version of romantic version of old school love, which is a love that gives the man the active role and the woman, just follows and falls for her man. In Amores Perros; in reference to the title, “the dogs that feature in each “chapter” link the characters while signaling their distinct characters. Octavio and Ramiro’s mastiff, Cofi, demonstrates the violence of the streets that condition the brothers’ behavior; Richie, Valeria’s pretty pet, symbolizes the spoiled life she has lived before her accident, then shares a similar fate to her in its fall; while El Chivo’s love for his strays reflects his initial rejection of people.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 57). Obviously an allegory to Jean-Paul Sartre’s words: “The more I know men, the more I love my dog.” But then “Cofi, the dog who kills dogs, finds his natural owner in the man who kills men. It is Cofi who teaches El Chivo the implications of his own actions; El Chivo’s horror when Cofi kills all of his dogs leads to his redemption” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 58). The title then is a metaphor that establishes the connections of the situations by incarnating them in the different dogs, but beyond that, it is a metaphor to describe the complexity of the different love stories that take place in the movie; even though these loves are complex, cruel and realistic, they portray that the patriarchal male role is in crisis. “The male characters in the film are inked by the need to redefine their masculinity, whereas the women are seen as victims of a patriarchal society and are often in marginal positions. […] The film does critique machismo and patriarchy and succeeds in examining the complexities of heterosexual gender relations, unlike Like Water for Chocolate, which is a celebration of the traditional femininity, with men only of interests as objects of desire.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 66, 67). Still, is more than obvious that the base on which this various loves rely are the same as the loves in Like Water for Chocolate; that is the Alpha male and the submissive female in disposition the male needs whenever he pleases.
The main themes on which both movies converge are Love, Betrayal and Death. We have to be aware that every one of these topics is structured over the latter explained parameters. Being said that I will start by the theme of love. Love in Like Water for Chocolate is an allusion to the old school romantic love, a love which is mutual and gets thru no matter the obstacles that get in the middle is love per se, the novelistic ideal love with which people like to get in touch or better get to feel in flesh. On the other hand in Amores Perros, and its established in the title, the existent love is one that yet profound is not corresponded, but even worse is a love that is used as a strategic way to climb up in the scale of power; nevertheless, it is a more realistic love. It is a love that can be disturbed and that not always gets thru. It is a love that is not inherent but constructed; but even more it is a love that does not inhabit in the mind in a perfect wonder world as it does in Like Water for Chocolate were it does not mix with other feelings or interacts, but a love which is more in touch with our deepest humanity and greed, it can almost become a tool to fit or to get to an ulterior purpose. Then is the topic of betrayal, which holds hands tightly with the theme of love. Betrayal in Like Water for Chocolate is seen more in terms of going against oneself and others, it is a dual-betrayal, like the marriage of Tita’s beloved one with her sister in which he betrays Tita and himself at the same time; Tita’s sister betrays Mama Elena’s values and principles which were their own; and Tita betrays the doctor in the most tasteless way after having accepted to marry him. But according to the movie, it is a betrayal which is justified by love, I consider is not. On the other hand, in Amores Perros, the betrayal is entirely pushed by love. Octavio betrays his brother and gets him knocked by his friends while he fucks his brother’s wife; Daniel betrays his family for a new Barbie, leaving them on their own and El Chivo betrays his family to for the love he has for his ideals. None of these betrayals can be realy justified, but they are certainly more accurate to human nature and behavior, to the struggle for power, for the greedy desire of love. Finally, there is death; in Like Water for Chocolate death is treated as a relief for those in this world from the annoying individuals, death in this film is treated as a supernatural religious thing, those who were good go to heaven and those who have unfinished businesses in earth will try to stay and solve them. Conversely, in Amores Perros, death is seen as a punishment, a biblical reference of envy, as they bring Cain and Abel story portraying it in the Octavio and Ramiro, but even more on the Garfias brothers. Also and even more important is that death in this film is seen in an abstract sense; that is the death of ideals that are obsolete then we purify ourselves and reborn as new men.
All in all, death and betrayal are caused by love, being it pure or played for whim. It is a resemblance to the oldest story in the book of life: Man always desires the most that which he can not have. This impossible love is the duel in which men knows that he also is that which he has lost and is unable to acquire so tries to get it thru force or deceive. This love is the ultimate sorrow that needs to be calmed down, is the fact that reminds us to drink a hot chocolate for these bitch loves.

Mike Leigh’s auteur Characteristics

Some of Mike Leigh’s “auteur characteristics” are: Silent Close-Ups; which are used to express what the character is thinking, his psychology, these are close ups to express insight and deep feelings and/or emotions. The Class and Race Theme; in Mike Leigh’s Films the differentiation of the classes is always present, and most of the time, the lower classes identify with Marxist, Hippie and/or Asocial ideologies as opposed to the upper classes that identify with capitalism. Therefore, there always is a confrontation when these two classes bump into each other. Familiar Conflict; in the films of Mike Leigh, the conflict or the problems on which the movie is based always happen within the nuclear family, perhaps because in this sphere is where people are supposed to be the most accurate to what they really are. Reunions; generally in Leigh’s films there are reunions in which another motif appears, that is the appearance of food and eating, in this reunions is where usually the conflict of the film breaks drown, is the most intense moment of the film. Plus, these reunions are most of the time within the family or really close friends. Absent Love; in the every film of Mike Leigh there is always a character that receives no love, or at least very few, that is why this character is claiming for love throughout the film. Caricature vs. Naturalism; Mike Leigh’s films most of the time have two different type of characters that shine over the others, those are the caricature character which is annoying and exaggerated in its ways, and the naturalistic character, that portrays a person as close to reality as it could, according to the characters’ reality.
In the next lines this paper will identify these signature features in Mike Leigh’s films High Hopes, Abigail’s Party and Life is Sweet.

Silent Close-Ups:
High Hopes. In this film there is a sequence in which Cyril is fighting with his sister Valerie about how Valerie treats Mrs. Bender and the way the carry on with their lives. While the discussion is being heard as a background we see a slow close up to Mrs. Bender’s face while everything he could hear diffuses. Mrs. Bender face shows her frustration with her children, she probably is thinking in what she did wrong, so that their children got that point, Cyril is a lower class Marxist with almost none life expectations and Valerie is a hyperactive frustrated woman, with an inferiority complex.
Abigail’s Party. In this film, there is a scene in which Laurence is talking about life and saying something about how unfair things are, but how we should keep trying and suddenly he stops talking as a slow close ups of him is shown, he is totally outside that room he is thinking probably in the fact that he considers himself as a looser that keeps trying, but life won’t let him go on. It is a moment of meditation and insight.

The Class and Race Theme:
High Hopes. In this film Cyril represents the lower class with a hippie-Marxist ideology and Rupert and Letitia represent the upper classes that portray the ideology of capitalism with words like Rupert’s “What made this country great is that there is a place for everyone and everyone is in its place.”
Abigail’s Party. In this film the differentiation of the classes is made through the clothing. Beverly, even tough she is totally bogus, with her fancy dress and hair do, represents the upper class as does Laurence with his good taste for Classical music. On the other hand, Angela with her ugly looks, awful dress and make up as really unattractive glasses is totally hideous, but what is more important she has no taste fro nothing and agrees to everything. She represents the lower classes.
Life is Sweet. In this film even though Nicola and Natalie belong to the same class, as they are sisters. Natalie represents the ideology of capitalism and the upper classes, she works and has aspirations in life, and she is and active member of consumism. On the other hand, Nicola is represents the Marxist-hippie-asocial ideologies, she represents the lower classes, she has no work, no friends, no social life, she is deviant and has no aspirations.

Familiar Conflict:
High Hopes. The conflict in this film is familiar and political, and it takes place within the Berder’s nuclear family. Cyril is a hippie a communist and a drug addict. Valerie as a said before is a hyperactive frustrated woman, with an inferiority complex that tries to make everyone do what she considers is right, and Mrs. Bender who is a poor old lady whose children are always fighting. The whole problem is in the internal family.
Abigail’s Party. The conflict in this film is between Laurence and Beverly. Even tough they have no children, they are a familiar couple. Laurence is classy man with good taste for literature and music, concerned with his friends needs. And Beverly is an empty woman that compulsively tries to fit in or construct a self. And the conflict is extrapolated to the other invited people as they are caught in the middle of their personal fights.
Life is Sweet. In this film the conflict appears between Nicola and the rest of the family, because Nicola feels that no one loves her she is always in self defensive position criticizing everything that the other members of her family do at first chance. Another problem is that Natalie is a “Tom Boy” and probably will become a lesbian further on her life, and the other problem is that Andy’s dream to work for his own might never become real, no matter how badly he wants it; the destroyed caravan proves it, this caravan represents his dream.

Reunions:
High Hopes. In this film, the whole conflict explodes in the reunion that is being held at Valerie’s place, we see the presence of much food. Cyril fights with Valerie while Mrs. Bender is sitting there in a silent close-up. And the whole conflict as a said before is about the really divergent ways in which each sibling lives its life.
Abigail’s Party. There is no doubt that in this film the conflict explodes within a reunion in which its participants are really close to each other. The whole film is about a reunion. The conflict, once more, explodes because of the differences between the main characters and the insistent pushing of each to one another, until they can’t resist anymore.


Absent Love:
High Hopes. The character that is claiming for love or attention throughout this whole film is Valerie, she claims for love from her husband, but she receives loves neither from him, nor from anyone else. Because she is so annoying that everyone just tries to avoid her.
Abigail’s Party. In this film, the character that claims for love is Beverly, she claims for Tony’s love or something like that. As a matter of fact, this paper believes that the whole point of the reunion in Beverly’s house was for her to flirt with Tony and get him to bed.
Life is Sweet. In this film the characters is Nicola, but the effect is a more psychological one, because it is not that their parents and sister, even more her lover, don’t give her love. The real problem is that she rejects it because she thinks they are being condescendant and pity with her. Therefore, she rejects them with her attitude and they retire from her. But deep inside, all that rejection and verbal violence she is just eager for love and caring.

Caricature vs. Naturalism:
High Hopes. In this film the caricature character which is annoying and exaggerated in its ways is Valerie, and the naturalistic character, that portrays a person as close to reality as it could its her brother Cyril.
Abigail’s Party. In this film, the caricature character which is annoying and exaggerated in its ways is Beverly. Beverly’s problem is what she is –everything she feels, knows, and believes –not something that does or does not happen to her. (The Films of Mike Leigh: Embracing the World, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 99). Beverly, being less a hostess than something much more unsettling: something playing at being a hostess. In a sense there is no Beverly. (The Films of Mike Leigh: Embracing the World, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 100). She has given up her identity, such as it is, to play a role, which she acts out not only in public but, more disturbingly, even in private. She is performing not for an audience but something much spookier: performing for herself, validating herself to herself. (The Films of Mike Leigh: Embracing the World, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 100). Beverly is completely and utterly sincere; she means what she says; she is not being deceitful. Which is the true problem. There is no reality lurking in the depths; everything is fake. Beverly’s ideas and emotions are no different from her jewelry: Both are equally cheap knockoffs. Her most private, inner experiences are as clichéd as her expressions. (The Films of Mike Leigh: Embracing the World, Cambridge University Press, 2000, 101). And the naturalistic character that portrays a person as close to reality as it could is Susan. Life is Sweet. In this film, the caricature character which is annoying and exaggerated in its ways is Nicola and Aubrey. As opposed to these two, the naturalistic character that portrays a person as close to reality as it could is depicted by Wendy.

Comprehending Wong Kar-wai’s Films through the Perspectives of Time

Everlasting love is purely defined and only capable of existence through the absence of the loved one. Film director Wong Kar-wai’s movies are always delineated by love and time; yet, this never mutual or impossible love is always marked by the presence of its “painful contradictions, the persistence of longing, memory, and regret; the hopelessness of ever recapturing, modifying or getting rid of the past,” ephemerality and history. But what it’s important for this paper is that all these themes are the children of time. (Contemporary Film Directors: Wong Kar-wai, 2005, 105).

Time has always been an important theme to poets, philosophers and artists; there are many different interpretations about what time means, which is why it is important to make a framework of the various interpretations of time that can be related to the movies of Wong Kar-wai. For example: The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future, regarded as a whole.” In Existentialism, “time is considered fundamental to the question of being”. Immanuel Kant thought of time as “an a priori notion that together with other a priori notions allows us to comprehend sense experience”. In the philosophy of time, “Presentism is the belief that neither the future nor the past exists; the view carries an ontological commitment to more than just the present instant or moment. The opposite of Presentism is 'Eternalism', which is a belief that things that are past and things that are yet to come to existence; the past, present and future are all equally real.” And finally, as this writer sees there is the socio-economical meaning of time; which is that every second of our lives is worth money, or as Americans love to say “time is money.”

In the social sphere China is a really interesting country, since it is the most populous country in the world, people have really short space to live in. It is like if Chinese people were supposed to be together, close and tight to each other. Also it is a country that is in constant movement, always fast; always awake, at all times running against the clock. Yet, with so many people the characters of Kar-wai’s films are always placed in situations were their love is not mutual; because the person they fall in love with is blocked with past memories of someone else, is somehow censored to love a new individual, because of the power of memory.

This is where the interpretation of time according to Eternalism and Existentialism comes in handy, because the past of these characters is always there to remind them who they are and why they are there, and to forge the future by remembering the past and acting in behalf of it in the present. A perfect example is the film 2046 which “is continuously presented not so much as a date but rather as a place that people seek to arrive by means of an ultrafast bullet train, in order to preserve or relocate their memories.” (Contemporary Film Directors: Wong Kar-wai, 2005, 103).

“This film is about a man who is trying to get rid of his past; it is also about promises and the many chances all of us miss in life. About how do you deal with your past? This is the question of the film. […] This movie is about that there is a need in all of us to have a place to hide or store certain memories, thoughts, impulses, hopes, and dreams. These are parts of our lives that we can’t resolve or best not act upon but at the same time we are afraid to jettison them. For some, this is a physical place; for others is a mental space, and for a few it is neither. […] It is a film that tries to portray someone trying to get away, but the more you try to get away, the closer you come. But if you just let it go, one day the past memories may leave you.” (Contemporary Film Directors: Wong Kar-wai, 2005, 102, 103, 105, 106).

In simpler and brief words, this is a film about how cowardly it is to try to run away from problems because they hurt, and how the power of our memories keep punishing us for it, until we confront them and realize that the best way is not to run away, but to confront them; because sooner or later time will make us face them. Another example of the Existentialism is in In the Mood for Love, when the frustrated pseudo lovers play to be having the affair their spouses are, and they play it by pretending to be each other’s spouses. They might do it in order to feel better, and to feel that they are being unfaithful too; as a mean of catharsis. Maybe they don’t sexually consummate their relationship because they are afraid to accept that their spouse’s are, and they are playing to have their spouses affair; they are playing the game of “being” them in that specific time.

As opposed to the Eternalism vision, there is the Presentism which only believes in the existence of the very moment. This writer believes that the example for this perspective is a little bit more metaphorical and figurative; the best example for Presentism is the visit of Mo-wan to the temple of Angkor Wat, were he whispers his secret to the wall and covers it with mud. This particular scene represents the destruction of the past and with it the possible repercussions of the forming future by acting in behalf of the past. In other words, he leaves his tormented past behind and destines himself to live day by day, second by second, to live just for the moment as the past is know gone.

In Fallen Angels, because of the fact that “loneliness is ultimately the film’s centrifugal force;” the characters have to look for “all about the ways to keep themselves happy.” (Contemporary Film Directors: Wong Kar-wai, 2005, 64-70). The theme of feeling love through its absence and feeding from it; in other more allegorical words, experiencing love as a vampire’s empty existence, destined to the undying search for life in sucking blood and bringing death; knowing that this undying search is love and the blood and death are the remains with which they satisfy themselves, rather than with the actual love per se. Because of this matter of non mutual love the characters are forced to go around getting what they want. What I mean with this is: the ways in which they feel love. Here Immanuel Kant’s theory of time appears really helpful, because if time is “an a priori notion that together with other a priori notions allows us to comprehend sense experience.” Then, the relationship between the Hitman and the female dispatcher is totally seen through this perspective. More clearly, these two characters, comprehend love by each others’ experience; which is that the female dispatcher masturbates in the assassin’s bed, because in other time of the day he was there, and her a priori notion of knowing that he is there satisfies her, makes her happy. It goes the same for the bar, where they sit in the same seat in different days and different hours of the day, and listen to the same song. They are experiencing each other or sensing each others’ love because of the a priori knowledge both have, which conducts them to act in a certain time, in a certain way. In other words, what they consider real is real in its consequences, which means that, in time, their love becomes real, because they believe it real through their a priori notions of themselves which makes them act in behalf on each other and the a priori notions themselves.

Now, taking a new direction, when it comes to the socio-economical meaning of time, the best example is Mo-wan’s relationships in 2046, because of the fact that he sleeps with prostitutes and with Bai-Ling. He is always paying for their time because he does not like to be in debt to anyone; and with Bai-Ling’s case, sometimes she pays for his time. There is a scene which portrays this perspective really well, that is when, after having sex Ling tells Mo-wan that she wants him for life, to which he responds that “Retail is fine, but wholesale is out of question.” This is obviously a depiction of the expression “time is money.”

In all Wong Kar-wai’s films there always is the theme of the frustrated love which is characterized by the absence of the loved one, and always accompanied by a music that is slow paced and talks about bad loves or has a touch of sadness. In all the movies there is always an evidently strong presence and importance of time in relation with love; the past, present and future take a meaning as a whole giving each character a personality according to his or her experience in love life; which all the time is melancholic and exasperating. All these factors, remind me of an old saying people have in my country of origin which pronounces that “No matter how hard you think it is, no matter how bad you think it is, no matter how much you suffer for it; it will all go away, it will vanish like dust in the wind, because time heals all wound, and this time, time is on your side.” To reflect about this and Wong Kar-wai’s films, made me link a connection which took me to the very conclusion, that in these movies and in life, is as simple as the fact that it seems to be that “Love is a matter of timing; it is no use to meet a person sooner or later, but in the right moment, in the precise time.”

LIKE WATER FOR CHOCOLATE

Like Water for Chocolate was shown on theaters in the year of 1992; its screening location was Mexico, origin country of its director. The Mexican Alfonso “Arau has had a long and fruitful career both in front and behind the camera and is one of the most prominent filmmakers of the Latino community in Hollywood. Arau was a drama disciple of Seki Sano - a Japanese teacher, classmate of Lee Strassberg with Stanislavski in Russia - and traveled the world from 1964 to 1968 with his one-man show of Pantomime Happy Madness after studying with Etienne Dacroux and Jacques Lecoq in Paris.” (www.imdb.com, 2006). The film’s adaptation and screenplay is the work of “Laura Esquivel a Mexican author. Her novels include Like Water for Chocolate and Swift as Desire. Especially in Like Water for Chocolate (published in 1989), she uses magical realism to combine the ordinary and the supernatural. For the publication of her book Laura Esquivel won international acclaim. The movie, which was based on the book, awarded her with the Mexican Academy of Motion Pictures award; she received eleven in all, from Ariel awards. The novel shows the importance of the kitchen in Laura's life, which was introduced to her from her grandmother. In fact, Laura feels that the kitchen is the most important part of the house as it is a source of knowledge and understanding that generates like and pleasure. (www.wikipedia.com, 2006).
The title serves as a metaphor that refers to the magical culinary arts and the idea of a man and a woman that are meant for each other. The film makes its case through emotional appeal, since it “relies on romantic ideals and conservative values for its success.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 36).
The main development of the film takes place during the Mexican revolution (1910-1917).The social and political climate were really tough; nevertheless, “the historical setting of the film could have provided a radical backdrop to the story. However, the political and social causes and effects of the conflict are ignored. The revolutionaries themselves are reduced to folkloric caricatures and are seeing drinking, dancing, and singing, rarely fighting. In addition, only one side is ever seen, that of the Villistas, so it is not clear whom they are fighting. There is one violent attack in the film, resulting in the rape of family’s servant Chencha and the murder of Mamá Elena. However, the audience is not told who is responsible for this, as the ranch hand asks the attackers in English, “What do you want?” While audiences might assume they are revolutionaries, the ranch hand would not speak to them in English if this were the case. The novel clears up the confusion, referring to the attackers as bandits, which contributes to the soft representation of the revolutionaries. Nuala Finnegan has argued that the film follows the Hollywood tradition of representing the Mexican Revolution, particularly in the emphasis of Pancho Villa as the principal revolutionary and in the invasion of political and social issues. (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 41). In other words, the political climate of that time is really overseen in order to make emphasis on the social issue of women’s place in society; but, despite this, other social aspects of the time are overseen too.The main idea of this film is to provide “an image of a country that fit the notion of the ideal tourist location for the Western filmgoer. Mexico is represented as a country unlike the metropolises in which the film was not successful. It is represented as a rural land, which has maintained its culinary and social traditions. By naturalizing and idealizing the ideology of femininity through Tita and by demonizing the masculine Mamá Elena, Like Water for Chocolate suggests that women can reach fulfillment only within patriarchal codes. This seemingly harmless romance thus conceals and antifeminist subtext. Not only does Tita seduce Pedro through her cooking, beauty, and submissiveness, as well as her brand of magical femininity, she is also used to seduce the public. She is constructed to act as a role model for implied female audiences and an ideal fantasy wife/mother for implied male audiences. (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 51). The latter brings us to the purpose of the film, “Esquivel has argued that women’s natural place is in the home, and suggests that it is time for them to return to that rightful place. She claimed in one interview that women trough their entry into workplace have abandoned the home, a “marvelous and sacred centre”.” (Contemporary Cinema of Latin America, 2003, 44). That is, that woman in an attempt to be equal to man, have led to a side their femininity, so they should come back to the place were they belong, the housework. I personally disagree with this point of view, I consider that is not that they leave the workplace, but that they keep their women essence, their womanly tasks, values and attitudes.