Can Dialectics Break Bricks? (Dirs. Kwang-Chi Tu* and Rene Vienet, 1973)

From  http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/candialectics.jpg 

The follow film is an addition to my list ‘Cinema of the Abstract’. All films that have this piece at the top with have an ‘Abstract’ Rating and a personal score at the end. For more information on this peculiar scoring system, and what the ‘Cinema of the Abstract’ list is, follow this link – http://mubi.com/lists/cinema-of-the-abstract

---------------------------

Taking a martial arts film called The Crush (1972) and redubbing it into comedic take on Socialist/Communist ideology, this depicts its struggle against corruption of its ideas and capitalism through the fight sequences of East Asian cinema while playing it up for humour. A Korean martial arts dojo, represented as a utilitarian dream of left wing socialists, is threatened by Japanese gangsters, representing bureaucrats, who threaten to stomp down their subversive activities to liberate the proletariat. Entering in the middle of this is the lone stranger skilled in his technique of martial arts, who finds himself between protecting his comrades and the offers of corrupt ideology.

The idea is on paper inspired and hilarious – evoking images of a proletariat crane kicking a capitalist while quoting Karl Marx at the same time – all the while using a genre which, while full of art, is full of work merely churned for capitalist gain, to project alternative ideas in an entertaining and more vivid way. Under an American view, despite the French dubbing and left wing European target audience, this is even more subversive, a Grindhouse staple, grounded through cheap cinemas in places like 42^nd Street in New York for profit, being used to fight such an idea while fitting the ideologies common in East Asian martial arts cinema of the bond and unity in martial arts schools and fighting for the downtrodden. The trope of good versus evil almost always existing in this genre is used to its least expected. (That this original film, from my small research, concerns Korean characters does misses a chance on the creator’s part considering the spreading of Maoism, the communist ideology of China, was significant in left wing politics not a lot of years before this film’s making, and likely** still as preached in 1972, but the idea still works as it is). I will openly admit that I did not get a lot of the references, and many won’t, including references to books of socialist ideas and the Structralist movement director Rene Vienet was part of which almost becomes a list the viewer must go and read after the film, but the idea could still work. The fact that the words ‘Castro’ and ‘comrade’ heard in the least expected places of cinema could illicit an amused grin from almost anyone, especially fans of the genre, helps the idea, and if done properly it would be a subversive and original experience. Using a technique (detorument) which is mostly used now for only comedic purposes, redubbing pre-existing cinematic material to create new messages, Vienet and his cast of voice actors had the ability to both project a left wing message and also play with cinematic form. A genre where dubbing is synonymous with its history and helped by it to its popularity, whether we purists who prefer original language soundtracks to our DVD copies will admit it or not, this concept the creators took doesn’t jar with the genre, but the material they decide to add to it (and admittedly for me, hearing actors of the genre dubbed in French with subtitles in a rare viewing experience) distorts the concept of layering dialogue on real individual’s mouths. As with any object, film can be manipulated into any different shape from what it was originally if someone else has an idea for its new form and the desire to do so; hell, this idea could be done if one mutes a martial arts film and ad-libs new dialogue for it, far from a flippant remark on my part but how it is possible for anyone to subvert something from what it was.

Sadly the actual results on this viewing do not live up to the premise. One of the biggest issues with works which re-use existing film material is the quality of said material for the purpose of the subject and how it is used, especially when the visual images are the original film with the changes completely vocal. The original film The Crush, if the material seen without the original script is enough, is okay for being manipulated for this idea but is frankly a generic piece of churned out material. This might not have been a problem, especially considering its redundant nature is played up to, if the contribution of the French creators the project fully relies on were on ball...which is not the case with a subpar contribution by Vienet into this melting pot. There are moments of interest and humour – the use of Socialist phrases for the first few times, the references to the film’s own artificiality – but a lot of it is both unfunny and insightful for a film trying to communicate very important politics through laughter. I will not comment on the ideological references I did not get, which is not the fault of the film but viewing a work catered to a very specific audience originally, but the rest of its script is deeply lazy and pointless crass with its constant use of swear words in the subtitles. It is important to say that there are multiple versions of the film available, including dubbed, and the translating of dialogue from one language to another is full of complexities that could be problematic, but it feels clear that most of the script is characters talking about destroying capitalism and swearing at bureaucrats’ ad-nauseum until it becomes incredibly tedious. Occasional use of crassness, including jokes about child sexuality that wouldn’t fly now but add to the subversive nature of the film, would make sense as crudity, and a well time use of words like ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’, can be incredibly powerful tools to undermine and provoke ideas, as well as generate belly laughs, but like a lot of bad and cringeworthy examples of this humour in cinema, it is not very well used in the first place, and that’s not taking into account of it being over relied upon throughout the whole running time.

The result is disappointing, especially with an idea this inspired. It’s worse when, as a work provoking socialist ideas of the time, and facing right wing attacks back throughout the globe, this French work would be a miserable failure in my mind to try and convert people to fight for their fellow working man against corrupt businessmen. As a botched attempt on such a funny idea, it also commits the crime of wasting great comedic material. All there is left a peculiar experiment that could have been something special in another existence.

Abstract Rating (High/Medium/Low) – Low

Personal Rating – 4 out of 10

* There is a discrepancy with original director of the film The Crush. This is the person listed on IMDB, but a site known as the Hong Kong Movie Database lists the director as Tu Guang-Qi (http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/view.mhtml?id=5325&display_set=eng). This complication found with information gives someone like me an immense headache, so I will warn you about this in case the information is wrong.

** My knowledge of Maoism’s history is equivalent to a goldfish’s knowledge of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, which I am just as terrible with, so forgive this uneducated minnow if this is completely wrong.

If you still want to see this film despite this review, it can be legally streamed (and downloaded) from the site UBU.com – http://www.ubu.com/film/vienet_dialectics.html. The quality of the material is terrible, but it is still watchable, and considering the obscurity of the film, it is always better to be able to actually see it than not see it. Also note that the version you see is supposed to be black and white. The original version may be in colour but this does not affect the central idea of the film at all.

I advise anyone to look on UBU, as for any film fan it contains countless experiment and avant garde works available legally to see. Again, the visual quality of many of them is adequate, but it is a trove as rare works and ones you likely have never heard of but will fascinate and delight after their viewing.

Addition - The follow review by Jonathan Rosenbaum adds a lot but also suggests that the version I watched was a recreation of the original work, adding to its improvised nature - http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=6675