Often when I enter a gallery or am confronted by a piece of visual art I am confronted by a feeling of intriguing incomprehension, but as I stand staring it becomes clearer and slowly reveals itself to me—or at least a personalised interpretation comes out from the darkness. Often the only way to get to that point is to stand still, eyes and/or ears fully focused and brain whirring. But when we are confronted by this phenomenon in cinema, music or any time-based medium we hit a blockade. There are only few ways to achieve the same amount of thought; 1) if the creator gives us the time/space within the work 2) if we re-view it or 3) if we rewind parts that confound us. The third option inherently ‘editing’ and changing the work, and the second consuming much more time than simply standing and scanning a static piece of visual art. My experience of Maheavily felt this complication due to what felt like an extreme density which I simply couldn’t manage to embed myself into.
I feel that one of the facets of the density may stem from the fact the film is created by a choreographer, lending it’s form to dance, physicality and performance art—none of which I have much experience in viewing or interpreting. But there’s a complication here, as if art is only readable by the ‘in’ group it’s not achieving the universality or readability that any great piece offers to a willing and invested onlooker. If this then isn’t the problem is it possibly the blend of the modes; translating the philosophies and practices from one medium into another? Again I don’t think this is the case, as most of the alienation came outside of the explicitly dance/performance sections of the film. Maybe, then, it is the fact that the narrative follows that of “The Annunciation” (the telling of the Virgin Mary that she would carry God’s child) and the removal of a very explicitly religious narrative from it’s original context and surrounding imagery; placing it into a contemporary US landscape where the embodiment of Mary journey’s towards Las Vegas through barren deserts and seemingly abandoned motels. Yet I don’t think this alone either explains the confusion.
Ultimately, as would be expected, I feel the combination of these elements leads a first-time viewer to confusion—creating a text that feels dense and incomprehensible. But then even here we have complication, as maybe I am just searching for the wrong things. Maybe I am searching for a narrative to attach myself to, explicit character information to get me invested and a traditional use of visual imagery and symbolism. Sheila O’Malley for Rogerebert.com brings towards some light suggesting “[y]ou might not get any answers to that question [of symbolic meaning] from “Ma,” but “Ma” is more about its visuals than anything else.” In this way maybe I should have rejected, or at least sidelined, my analytic eye to favour a sensuously visual experience delivering emotional meaning.
But this rolls around to another complication of expectation. Although I knew nothing of the film, MUBI’s brief description had to sell it to me—a description foregrounding Celia Rowlson Hall as a ‘dancer’/’choreographer’ taking the role of the Virgin Mary in a dialogue-free film. The latter two, I feel, were probably quite detrimental to my viewing as knowledge of the Virgin Mary prepares me for heavy religious symbolism, thus opening my analytic eye, and the second prepares me for a huge stylistic device for anticipation turning my waiting/wanting for the first piece of dialogue into an affirmation that there will never be any. It feels like this problem of anticipation has come up extremely frequently for me recently, and I am yet to find any solutions to it due to the paradox that I’ll rarely commit 2 hours to something without knowing anything about it, but obtaining that knowledge fundamentally alters my experience of the film. Revolving this back to our initial discussion of the gallery; one rarely knows what they will see if they plan to visit a gallery (bar special-exhibitions), and thus face the works without so much of this detrimental expectation. But I think the key difficulty here is time. As we live in a society where time is precious and often almost fully-scheduled, we aren’t willing to throw away 2+ hours without any knowledge, or at least suggestion, of what there is to gain. In a gallery you can simply spend less time on something that doesn’t speak to you, but with a film it is all or nothing otherwise you cannot say you have truly experienced it.
To come back to Ma, maybe it isn’t a problem with the film itself but a problem with our willingness to expend time. I feel a second or third viewing would now reward me, allowing for a truer understanding and thus a more enjoyable viewing experience—but we shall see if I have (and want to commit) that time over the next few weeks. But then doubt strikes, maybe it is just the film itself that doesn’t speak to me. Maybe it is a piece of dense, incomprehensible self-indulgence—but I think that is too harsh. I can’t figure it out, maybe you can.
~Leo
Ma (2017)
0/2/1
3/13
Ma is available on MUBI until 29/05 (on their Asian servers).
Sheila O'Malley's article: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ma-2017