Skip to main content

EO is a Surreal, Darkly Absurd Odyssey of Ignorance and Inhumanity


Of the admittedly select few movies I’ve seen by Robert Bresson, Au Hasard Balthazar is the one that I like. As in I get it and its tragic themes in a way that Bresson’s other films don’t typically gel with me -even if it is a very tough movie to get through. It might shock those who’ve only seen EO, essentially a modern Polish remake of Balthazar written and directed by Jerzy Skolimowski, that it is by a stretch the less miserable film. And this is a film that features a donkey being carted off to be sold for meat and is later beaten up by football hooligans. But EO at least has moments of humour and joy to counter-balance that, it is more subjective and by proxy more empathetic than the largely empirical Bresson film. That film taught of the despair of the world -this one shows its dark absurdity.
There’s a kind of joke at the centre of the premise, as much like in Balthazar, EO is sometimes the main character of his journeys, other times just an observer, trotting along or being taken along from one story to the next. He begins life as a circus donkey and the beloved pet of trainer Kasandra (Sandra Drzymalska). But protests (ironically) against animal cruelty result in the circus being shut down and all the animals being sold off. He ends up on a farm/petting zoo which he eventually walks away from, he comes upon a seemingly abandoned village, he is transported on a truck with an otherwise friendly man to be made into salami -he briefly becomes a football mascot. At each turn he experiences a new face of humanity, perhaps learning some lessons along the way -harsh though they may be; but mostly just being a donkey, a donkey on a strange and surreal odyssey.
The movie is hypnotizing in this way -EO is introduced in an indistinct haze of blaring red light and frightful sounds: a glimpse of his life in the circus perhaps, a world that seems overwhelming and hostile but hard to make sense of. In spite of Skolimowski seeming to use animal welfare protests as a catalyst for the plot and much of the harm that would befall EO, he clearly has little affection for the circus environment -viewing it in perhaps similar definitions. And like a trauma flash he returns to its horrifying tones at points through the movie to indicate EO’s fear or confusion. But he also uses these mystifying devices to abbreviate space and time, and perhaps audience comfort, crafting a movie that is additionally haunting and disorienting for its more direct tragicomic virtues. Not only is EO’s mood astutely reflected, and a foreboding air of violence felt in the harsh colours and thumping sounds, but it gives the movie a sharper character, visually and psychologically as it adapts Bresson realism into rich formalism -and subtly gives us an entryway (abstract perhaps) into EO’s point of view, or else that of some other non-human entity. One scene after EO is hurt focuses bizarrely on a robot dog walking through the streets nearby, seemingly disconnected from EO’s plight, there as some kind of symbol. It’s nebulous, but Skolimowski demands your attention on it as he tracks its movement from ground level with an intensity befitting its suddenness -is it some comment on machinery versus natural animal life?
EO’s adventures occasionally frame him in relation to other animals. As the first truck conveys him to the farm he watches out the side as free horses gallop in the adjacent pastures -the easiest bit of symbolism Skolimowski chooses to indulge. A specific white horse becomes the focus of his attention at that farm, represented seemingly as an ideal for EO, though brought down in dignity. A German Shepherd is combative to him and potently by the end EO is more appropriate in the company of cows. Just about all the wildlife he encounters is put to use to some capacity by people, as labour, as livestock, as game. One scene sees him wander through a moonlit forest by a creek at night that hearkens in both visuals and atmosphere to the tranquil river sequence from Night of the Hunter, complete with close-ups on a frog and spider in their habitats. The name to this allusion is pretty literally echoed when green laser beams light up all around the forest and the next thing you know a howling wolf has been shot dead. For a moment it looks like EO is the unfortunate target, but he makes it through. Yet there’s a clear perversion to this, not just in the killing of the wolf but the disturbance of the wilderness to make it happen.
The cruelty of humans or else their mere hopeless misunderstanding of animals is a major theme of the film. Indeed though he cannot talk, EO’s anthropomorphized perspective speaks volumes. No person that he comes across does not in some way seek to exploit him or his fellow creatures, whether in aggressive or relatively harmless ways. He is meat, he is a pest, he is labour, he is a mascot, he is a prop. Even to Kasandra, whom he meets again on his journey, he is just an animal, to whom she drunkenly wishes a happy birthday before wandering off, mistaking his aimlessness for freedom. She has apparently gotten over their connection. A couple people are spotlighted beyond their relationship to EO, most notably Mateo (Mateusz Kościukiewicz), who kidnaps him for salami, and who shares a solitary scene towards the end with none other than Isabelle Huppert as his wealthy mother. There’s a kind of absurdism to them and their drama, really to all sign of human drama in the film -Skolimowski’s message clearly that it doesn’t matter. There’s a fundamental satire to the movie: its football hooligans are such cartoons, EO brays at a TV in a shop window as animal control officers close in on him. It presents its humans and their preoccupations as inherently silly and EO as a sardonic interloper -until it comes to the matter of their power over him. EO manages to casually walk that line right up to the cynical, sombre end.
Skolimowski gleans plenty of character out of EO in the same way Bresson did back in the day. But unlike Bresson’s statement on mankind, his is a statement on a larger ecosystem; subjective where Bresson would be objective, and interrogating with specificity how our actions towards the world and its creatures might be received. EO is an immensely fascinating movie, and a spontaneous one too. I dare anyone to come away from it ignorant to its point …or feeling innocent. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more