Στρες είναι τρεις, τρεις

Quiller3.0

Although Spanish director Carlos Saura was an exact contemporary of other New Wave filmmakers (he was just a month older than François Truffaut), his best films seem to be in conversation with older directors, such as Ingmar Bergman, the Italian Neorealists, and of course his unofficial mentor Luis Buñuel. The films he made in the manner of his New Wave peers — and Stress-Es Tres-Tres is by far the most New Wave of his films I’ve seen to date — paradoxically come across as more derivative. The “road trip” narrative, the use of pop music on the soundtrack, the trendy but psychologically troubled characters, even the bilingual pun in the title — all have been treated to better effect by other filmmakers. What Saura is doing here isn’t bad by any means; it’s just not what inspired his best work.Wealthy businessman Fernando Cebrián, his wife Geraldine Chaplin, and their friend Juan Luis Galiardo are driving from Madrid to a coastal property Cebrián wants to develop and hopes Galiardo will oversee. Along the way, they stop several times: to help out at an accident, to visit Cebrián’s aunt (Porfiria Sanchíz), and to swim and fish. Instead of enjoying their time together, however, the trip brings to the surface festering resentments among all three. Despite his professional success, Cebrián isn’t happy, and he envies the unmarried Galiardo’s freedom. His grumpiness and growing suspicion of Chaplin’s feelings for Galiardo are annoying Chaplin. For his part, Galiardo may not be quite as happy-go-lucky as he seems. If Chaplin wants to use him to make Cebrián jealous, he wants something out of it, too.Saura initiated this project in order to play around with free-form techniques of filmmaking then in vogue. Apparently, his goal was to juxtapose the modernization many young Spanish men like Cebrián were ostensibly embracing against the socially conservative values they still held. The results are interesting but not as compelling as Saura’s treatment of the same tensions elsewhere, such as in Peppermint Frappé. Cebrián is ultimately just kind of an @sshole, which may have spoken more directly to the lived experiences of married couples negotiating the transition to consumer capitalism in Spain but which doesn’t offer much insight or drama beyond that.Spoilers in this final paragraph: The most notable exception is the climax, where Cebrián fantasizes about killing Galiardo with a speargun. As a protégé of Buñuel, Saura certainly knew his Freud. When Cebrián imagines shooting Galiardo, memories of an image of Saint Sebastian alternate with two different fantasies of killing Galiardo. Are Cebrián‘s fantasies a safety valve for his jealousy, or is this a moment where Cebrián‘s own repressions irrupt into his consciousness? (Images of Saint Sebastian pierced by arrows have a long history of usage within the LGBTQ community.) The unsettling lack of resolution at the end — has Cebrián processed and let go of his anger and anxiety, or has he simply repressed their sources even further? — is the best part of the film.

Stephen M3.5

Carlos Saura’s portrait of fragile masculinity and the fallacy of machismo in a modern society. An experimental and sometimes cerebral film influenced by Godard, it took me awhile to adjust to his approach. A husband and wife, Fernando and Teresa - each dissatisfied with the other - embark on a day trip from Madrid to the coast. Fernando’s co-worker Antonio accompanies them. The journey reveals Fernando’s internal crisis in masculinity, as he becomes obsessively jealous and his efforts to reassert control fail.The story unfolds in three section - a stop in the middle of the desert, midway at Fernando’s aunt’s home, and their arrival at the ocean. In the final segment, Fernando’s paranoia explodes and raises questions as to whether his perceptions are real or projections of his panicked mind. There are surreal elements and much symbolism, especially a daredevil motorcycle ride that Fernando impulsively takes to prove his male dominance and results in an injury and a destroyed bike. The film likely reflects the inner conflicts of bourgeois men in the last decade of Franco’s reign and a changing, modernizing world.The three principals are all good, especially Geraldine Chaplin as Teresa, which is fortunate as it’s basically a chamber drama (Note: Chaplin seemed to work as often in Europe as in the US, often choosing controversial films). Fernando Cebriàn is Fernando, desperate at losing control of his wife and seeing other males, especially his virile colleague Antonio (Jean Luis Galiardo) as competition. Overall, it’s a slow burn and hard to make sense of at first. But the premise becomes crystal clear over time and the ending is both devastating and ambiguous.It was my first Carlos Saura - and perhaps not the best introduction - but it intrigued me enough to want to see more of his works.

𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚4.0

summer roadtrip slowly gone awry. through fumes of jealousy, molehills look like mountains & the innocuous becomes paranoia fodder. not even tragedy puts suspicions to rest. despite his surveillance, she embraces the moment. moving through life as karina would - dancing, laughing and breaking down walls. what's the harm in a little game? women don't exist to follow man's whim.