Moses and Aaron (1975)

Directors: Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub

Based on the opera by Arnold Schoenberg

Cast: Günter Reich as Moses; Louis Devos as Aron; Eva Csapo as Junges Mädchen; Roger Lucas as Junger Mann; Richard Salter as Anderer Mann; Werner Mann as Priester; Ladislav Illavsky as Ephraîmit; Elfriede Obrowsky as Kranke

[Full Spoiler Warnings]

In the cerebral, structuralist mood I have sat through with Straub-Huillet, Moses and Aaron for them is a sudden shock for a viewer like myself after very intelligent but dry work. They still shoot the story of Moses, the chosen prophet of God, and Aaron, his mouthpiece who argues with him about the representation of God, in their extremely formally rigid style, lengthy minimally edited work which ends segments of the three act film with long scenery tableaus. The sudden jolt of emotion comes from the fact the directors are directing an adaptation of an opera by Arnold Schoenberg, an experimental work which deals with Jewish mysticism, the central issue a transcendental invisible God versus one symbolised in form, an argument which descends, during Moses' forty days plus exile to talk to God, leading to the Israelites worshipping a Golden Calf and all manner of content from there you'd never expect from these directors - nudity, gore and animal sacrifice, even a synchronised dance sequence of all things.

Even before then, the issue I have encountered in a couple of their films, the monotone acting in some of the productions, is disregarded in favour of opera performances, which even if its two patriarchs bellowing at the top of their voices religious views is still thunderous and striking. Inherently the musician or the opera is abstract, whether a work is willing to push their format or content into the artifice of the material, but as most human civilisations didn't base communication on singing, it's a striking effect when you see a film which does. Arguably, the rigid style of the directors emphasises this as much, even if there's a sense you couldn't get monotone singing like the directors might've experimented with if they tried. Inherently as well, Schoenberg's music even to a novice's ear like mine is very unconventional, nearing atonality at times, also having choices like depicting the voice of God, unseen, as multiple unisex performances off-screen singing at once, almost hallucinatory even in context of this very naturalistic looking. There's also the concept of "Sprechtstimme", which is a concept created by Schoenberg's that has lead to the original Moses and Aaron opera being a challenge to perform, in that performers must sing and speak interchangeably - its compelling, and actually with a great nuisance that I have to admire especially as, merely presuming this would be a regular opera singing style, learning this details means I also know it would've been a challenge to the performers as well.

The result, even in light that Schoenberg's is already dense and esoteric before Straub-Huillet adapted it, has a sense of passion alongside the intellectualism. The film follows three acts - the attempts to convince the Israelites to rebel against Egypt, their growing despair in the desert and the third act resolution that I will get to later. It also has content you'd never expect from these directors, sudden stabs of mondo shock closer to a psychotropic genre film. Particularly Moses and Aaron's attempts to convince the enslaved Jews in the first act shows this, Aaron realising they have to show their side in greater power by having Moses' staff turn into a snake or Moses turning his spare hand into a leper's diseased one which even brings in a practical effects artists, again something I'd never expect from these filmmakers. That its underscored with the power of the music is a reminder how the more profound art and the more lurid/populist can sometimes embrace each other in surprising ways, easily intermingling with ease.

From https://assets.mubi.com/images/notebook/post_
images/28326/images-w1400.jpg?1560784477

And eventually, when we get to the existential despair of the second half, the unpredictable happens, that dance sequence for animal sacrifice between four male waving swords takes place. Animals are brought in on mass in a herd, and whilst we don't see any animal death onscreen, very real animal body parts are seen. A man strips a woman in lieu of sensual congress as a lyric literally sings "Holy is genital power!" with complete earnestness. It is somewhat ridiculous but it however with a meaningful purpose - the entire film, and the opera, stems from a hugely fascinating and profound centre to the text being adapted. Arnold Schoenberg, Jewish by birth and hence dealing with this material with great weight for him, is working with the idea Moses has of God being “unique, eternal, omnipresent, invisible, unrepresentable" and the obvious issues of how, trying to depict this figure in human language and our senses, this poses a problem. Aaron, as Moses has literally vanished into the mountains on what is revealed to be when the Ten Commandants, placates the fearful Israelites, who fall into crimes against each and lack of organisation, with a God they can see, a Golden Calf merely a representation, but unfortunately leads to a further slippery slope. You can argue in context Aaron is the one to have made a terrible mistake, his act even leading to human sacrifice, with the most coldly unnerving fade to the black with its implication you can get, but it isn't without the issue that Moses himself isn't perfect. He cannot convey his words well, hence why Aaron was assigned to him as the public speaker of his ideas, and hence we also have a populist in Aaron against the internal, rational Moses. Moses in his forcefulness and inability to help others understand God is as stuck with some of the blame.

The third act has a complication as Schoenberg himself never completed one himself, the final of the second half effectively the ending as, appearing to see all that has transpired, Moses in rage throws his stone commandants to the floor and is left effectively defeated. Pointedly, surprisingly, Aaron's comments back to his actions even includes the idea of a land for the Israelites, something which has been referenced through the film, something which has greater wontedness in lieu to future history. Straub-Huillet however include between them a segment that Schoenberg never finally, a non-sing final scene with their traditional minimalist acting which is however emotionally engaging due to what we have witnessed. This scene has Aaron on the floor, hands bound, ready to be made the guilty party for his decisions to placate people by Moses. Alongside the segments of long tracking shots of the desert locations found throughout, what the directors themselves add to the opera do help considerably without detracting from it, none of the issues an Othon (1970) had for me in any creative decision being flawed.

The result is a personal stand-out of Straub-Huillet's, an acquired taste for sure, but one I would sincerely love to revisit. It's certainly the one film of theirs I'd beg to see on a cinema screen, because it is just a complete one-off, a unique creation whose content due to the source material is rewarding, as the difficulties of worshipping an intangible God is a subject I find compelling, but is also in presentation unique to the film also rewarding. An avant-garde minimalist opera in general, when it's as successfully pulled off as here, is enough but one about spiritual existentialism which you can engage with on an emotional level is incredibly idiosyncratic to have created.

Abstract Spectrum: Avant-Garde/Existential/Grandiose/Minimalist/Religious

Abstract Rating (High/Medium/Low/None): Medium

Fromhttps://worldscinema.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Dani%C3%A8le-
Huillet-Jean-Marie-Straub-%E2%80%93-Moses-und-Aron-19757.png