Alicia Van Couvering, “What I Meant to Say.”
2. Broadly speaking, what characteristics define mumblecore?
The generalization of mumblecore films tends to be "slacker" films, focusing on the lives and situations of everyday people. Although these 'people' tend to be middle-class, educated white folk (probably much like the filmmakers themselves). But thats the whole point, these are slice-of-life films that are direct interpretations of the writers and directors about how life currently is for them. There seems to be improvised performances and naturalistic dialogue, often performed by non-actors. Plots hinge on everyday events, often times obviously as a direct reflection of it's creators. There are handheld camera shots and long takes, and tiny budgets as with most independent films. And as Van Couvering points out: there is an abundance of road trips.
S.T. VanAirsdale “Mumblecore Inc.”
5. What have been some of the negative consequences of the mumblecore label?
The major negative consequence to the mumblecore label (as with any genre labeling) lies in the fact that once it becomes grouped together with other so-called "movies of its kind," it is held up to a set of regulations and expectations that other movies aren't. So by being considered a "mumblecore" film, there are certain things that people may expect your film to contain or not contain, and may therefore garner less understanding or appreciation than it would if it were to be taken out of context of a genre and classified as it's own film.
6. IFC Films picked up Hannah Takes the Stairs for “day-and-date” distribution. What does this mean?
Day-and-date distribution means that IFC Films picks a film and a day to release it on, and come that date, it opens the IFC Center series, and then subsequently becomes available for download on IFC on Demand.
Amy Taubin, “All Talk?”
9. What are Taubin’s main objections to the work of Joe Swanberg.
Taubin's main objections to Swanberg and his work are that he's a self-indulgent asshole, hellbent on sex and self-involvement, and his films mirror that. His comment that he had nothing to say about the war in Iraq, and the only movies he can currently make are those focused he and his friends lives makes Taubin feel like he is just as "smug and blatantly lazy" as his films are. In addition, theres too much sexual exploitation, and self-obsession with the young, white male (the filmmaker).
10. Which two mumblecore directors does Taubin characterize as “breakout talents,” and why?
Taubin calls Andrew Bujalski and Aaron Katz "breakout talents," citing that Bujalski has an uncanny ability to direct performers and stage a scene so that "actions speak louder than words," as well as being a great writer; and she says that Katz's lyrically poetic use of DV far surpasses that cinematography of what's normally created digitally.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
week fifteen - gummo
Murphy, Me and You…: 220-237.
1. Despite its use of improvisation, how is Gummo different from “execution dependent” screenplays such as Stranger than Paradise?
Gummo is different than "execution dependent" screenplays such as Stranger than Paradise because it "succeeds on the page as well as the screen." A movie such as Stranger than Paradise is a financiers nightmare, because upon looking at the script, it looks like a disaster. There are scenes with no dialogue, non-sense ramblings, sometimes only imagery and action, etc... and it takes a filmmaker as talented as Jarmusch to "execute" it properly, to make the script into a good, solid movie. An independent like Gummo, on the other hand, reads well off the page, which, among other things, increases the ability to get financed.
2. According to Murphy, what function does the “nonsense” included in the dialogue serve in the film as a whole?
Murphy proposes that the nonsensical dialogue in this film functions in a few ways, the main one being to capture the "slice of life" feel that Korine so perfers in his films. Life is weird, and people say and do weird things. So to translate that onto the page, and thusly onto the screen, is an idea of "realism" almost too advanced for some. Other inclusions of dialogue that seem nonsensical are, in actuality, references to other times and places. For instance, Korine's enthusiasm for vaudeville led him to include a voice over for Solomon that was actually a vaudeville joke. Again, Korine's unique style of filmmaking leads him to include "inside jokes" of his own.
3. What specific connections does Murphy make between Gummo and New American Cinema (including Beat films)? How did Korine respond to associations made between his work and underground film?
The specific connections that Murphy makes between Gummo and some New American Cinema/Beat films are "improvisational aspects...the tension between spontaneity and scripted action...nonlinear story...mixture of documentary and fiction...plotless cinema..." Concerning all of this, Korine says that he has no idea. He cannot and does not distinguish between "underground," "avant-garde," and "commercial," or rather, "studio cinema," but instead only considers himself a commercial filmmaker, financed by studios, with the freedom to make his movies how he pleases. Although, as Murphy points out, his films are still a bit too 'avant-garde' for the mainstream public.
4. Besides as a filmmaker, how has Korine participated in alternative urban youth culture?
Outside of being a filmmaker, Korine has been involved in other alternative urban youth culture activities, most notably art installments in Aaron Roses' Alleged Gallery which is on the Lower East Side of New York City. This houses many different types of artistic mediums, most involving the urban youth subculture. He has also written a novel, and produced fanzines.
Lance Weiler, “Navigating the Digital Divide”
6. What are the current platforms and delivery systems for digital distribution?
Current platforms and delivery systems for digital distribution include a range of things, including downloading files (under DRM or DRM-free files), and streaming files (like Netflix's Watch Now, Amazon's Unbox, and Joost's P2P), as well as distributing ports such as Video on Demand and gaming consoles, that connect to the internet to access the selected movie to be watched.
Michael Goldman, “Digitally Independent Cinema”
12. What is the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI), and why is it important for both the studios and independent filmmakers?
The Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) is a consortium of seven major Hollywood studio systems, essentially creating spec standards to propel and navigate the upcoming transition to fully digital cinema. This includes installing digital screens in new large multiplexes, and replacing older outdated methods with newer, digitized ones, such as projection methods. It is important to both studios and independent filmmakers because it will allow for both sides of the coin to be as efficient as possible. The major studios must have it because they must be concurrent with the industry standard. Even independent filmmakers and production companies are leaning towards the switch now because they recognize the convenience of time and trouble saving technology such as the new digital technology.
1. Despite its use of improvisation, how is Gummo different from “execution dependent” screenplays such as Stranger than Paradise?
Gummo is different than "execution dependent" screenplays such as Stranger than Paradise because it "succeeds on the page as well as the screen." A movie such as Stranger than Paradise is a financiers nightmare, because upon looking at the script, it looks like a disaster. There are scenes with no dialogue, non-sense ramblings, sometimes only imagery and action, etc... and it takes a filmmaker as talented as Jarmusch to "execute" it properly, to make the script into a good, solid movie. An independent like Gummo, on the other hand, reads well off the page, which, among other things, increases the ability to get financed.
2. According to Murphy, what function does the “nonsense” included in the dialogue serve in the film as a whole?
Murphy proposes that the nonsensical dialogue in this film functions in a few ways, the main one being to capture the "slice of life" feel that Korine so perfers in his films. Life is weird, and people say and do weird things. So to translate that onto the page, and thusly onto the screen, is an idea of "realism" almost too advanced for some. Other inclusions of dialogue that seem nonsensical are, in actuality, references to other times and places. For instance, Korine's enthusiasm for vaudeville led him to include a voice over for Solomon that was actually a vaudeville joke. Again, Korine's unique style of filmmaking leads him to include "inside jokes" of his own.
3. What specific connections does Murphy make between Gummo and New American Cinema (including Beat films)? How did Korine respond to associations made between his work and underground film?
The specific connections that Murphy makes between Gummo and some New American Cinema/Beat films are "improvisational aspects...the tension between spontaneity and scripted action...nonlinear story...mixture of documentary and fiction...plotless cinema..." Concerning all of this, Korine says that he has no idea. He cannot and does not distinguish between "underground," "avant-garde," and "commercial," or rather, "studio cinema," but instead only considers himself a commercial filmmaker, financed by studios, with the freedom to make his movies how he pleases. Although, as Murphy points out, his films are still a bit too 'avant-garde' for the mainstream public.
4. Besides as a filmmaker, how has Korine participated in alternative urban youth culture?
Outside of being a filmmaker, Korine has been involved in other alternative urban youth culture activities, most notably art installments in Aaron Roses' Alleged Gallery which is on the Lower East Side of New York City. This houses many different types of artistic mediums, most involving the urban youth subculture. He has also written a novel, and produced fanzines.
Lance Weiler, “Navigating the Digital Divide”
6. What are the current platforms and delivery systems for digital distribution?
Current platforms and delivery systems for digital distribution include a range of things, including downloading files (under DRM or DRM-free files), and streaming files (like Netflix's Watch Now, Amazon's Unbox, and Joost's P2P), as well as distributing ports such as Video on Demand and gaming consoles, that connect to the internet to access the selected movie to be watched.
Michael Goldman, “Digitally Independent Cinema”
12. What is the Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI), and why is it important for both the studios and independent filmmakers?
The Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) is a consortium of seven major Hollywood studio systems, essentially creating spec standards to propel and navigate the upcoming transition to fully digital cinema. This includes installing digital screens in new large multiplexes, and replacing older outdated methods with newer, digitized ones, such as projection methods. It is important to both studios and independent filmmakers because it will allow for both sides of the coin to be as efficient as possible. The major studios must have it because they must be concurrent with the industry standard. Even independent filmmakers and production companies are leaning towards the switch now because they recognize the convenience of time and trouble saving technology such as the new digital technology.
Monday, November 17, 2008
week fourteen -
CHC, Schamus
3. What are some of the expenses associated with the Cannes Film Festival (or any festival, for that matter)?
When attending Cannes Film Festival, or really any renowned festival, there are many hidden expenses that add up quickly, just by being a filmmaker. These might include (but are certainly not limited to): making extra prints of the film subtitled in French (includes paying for the translator, the subtitling service, the extra prints, and shipping to France), air fare for everyone except the director, hotel for all of you, typical travel costs (food, drink, tips, etc.), press packets and stills and slides for tons of people, a publicist, and of course, and after-screening party. Moderately this can be done on budget of $150,000.
4. What costs are associated with the “delivery” of the film to a distributor?
Here are some major costs included in "delivering" an independent film to the distributor: converting the original film negative to the check-print stage: $45,000; blowing it up from 16mm to 35mm: $35,000; paying for 'music and effects' re-mixing and master tapes: $40,000; transferring the film to a master video: $25,000; plus, b&w and colour publicity stills and slides, a final script, hires to take care of all the legal work, and errors & omissions insurance. All of this can run you easily between $300,000 - $500,000, before sales and festival costs.
MAYAMAF, pg, 25-45
1. What does Flo Liebowitz mean by “dialogue as behavior”?
When speaking of "dialogue as behavior" in the movie Stranger Than Paradise, Flo Liebowitz is talking about the fact that since [pro]action is lacking within the characters, their dialogue becomes a type of action to propel the story forward. Unlike many other characters that can be determined by their words and their actions (thusly creating "character"), the characters in Stranger Than Paradise are contextualized much more by what they are saying (or not saying), how they are saying it (speed, tone), and when they are saying it (choice to speak, or not). I believe this gets to a much deeper level of psychologically driven writing and directing that is much more rare.
2. What are some of the connections between Stranger than Paradise with the New American Cinema, including Shadows?
One major connection between Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise and other New American Cinema films, including Shadows, and Elephant, Gummo, Slacker and Mulholland Drive are they are much more narratively concerned with character-centered psychosocial processes rather than typical narrative plot structures. This actually coincides much closer with the regular drama and situations of everyday life, yet cinematically, the general public has become so used to seeing a "story" laid out in front of them (often times used to "whisk them away" from their personal drama), that independents like the ones listed above are too "jarring" and "confusing" for the general audience.
3. In what specific ways does Jarmusch’s script deviate from standard scriptwriting structure and format?
Unspecifically, Jarmusch's script deviates from standard form in every way possible. Specifically, it was considerably shorter than most conventional screenplays, only running about 55 pages; was called by Jarmusch himself a "film proposal," and viewed potentially as a blueprint; and a number of scenes contained no dialogue and/or were simply short descriptions of actions. And these are only the ways in which the script deviated, much less the production, exhibition, and delivery of the film, which was shot and shown sectionalized, in order to raise money for the financing; as well as being comprised of only 67 single-take shots, interspersed with black leader; he uses a static camera, mainly wide-angles keeping the viewer a good distance from the action, and has no real discernible structure. All in all, this film is uniquely unconventional and successful in its own right.
3. What are some of the expenses associated with the Cannes Film Festival (or any festival, for that matter)?
When attending Cannes Film Festival, or really any renowned festival, there are many hidden expenses that add up quickly, just by being a filmmaker. These might include (but are certainly not limited to): making extra prints of the film subtitled in French (includes paying for the translator, the subtitling service, the extra prints, and shipping to France), air fare for everyone except the director, hotel for all of you, typical travel costs (food, drink, tips, etc.), press packets and stills and slides for tons of people, a publicist, and of course, and after-screening party. Moderately this can be done on budget of $150,000.
4. What costs are associated with the “delivery” of the film to a distributor?
Here are some major costs included in "delivering" an independent film to the distributor: converting the original film negative to the check-print stage: $45,000; blowing it up from 16mm to 35mm: $35,000; paying for 'music and effects' re-mixing and master tapes: $40,000; transferring the film to a master video: $25,000; plus, b&w and colour publicity stills and slides, a final script, hires to take care of all the legal work, and errors & omissions insurance. All of this can run you easily between $300,000 - $500,000, before sales and festival costs.
MAYAMAF, pg, 25-45
1. What does Flo Liebowitz mean by “dialogue as behavior”?
When speaking of "dialogue as behavior" in the movie Stranger Than Paradise, Flo Liebowitz is talking about the fact that since [pro]action is lacking within the characters, their dialogue becomes a type of action to propel the story forward. Unlike many other characters that can be determined by their words and their actions (thusly creating "character"), the characters in Stranger Than Paradise are contextualized much more by what they are saying (or not saying), how they are saying it (speed, tone), and when they are saying it (choice to speak, or not). I believe this gets to a much deeper level of psychologically driven writing and directing that is much more rare.
2. What are some of the connections between Stranger than Paradise with the New American Cinema, including Shadows?
One major connection between Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise and other New American Cinema films, including Shadows, and Elephant, Gummo, Slacker and Mulholland Drive are they are much more narratively concerned with character-centered psychosocial processes rather than typical narrative plot structures. This actually coincides much closer with the regular drama and situations of everyday life, yet cinematically, the general public has become so used to seeing a "story" laid out in front of them (often times used to "whisk them away" from their personal drama), that independents like the ones listed above are too "jarring" and "confusing" for the general audience.
3. In what specific ways does Jarmusch’s script deviate from standard scriptwriting structure and format?
Unspecifically, Jarmusch's script deviates from standard form in every way possible. Specifically, it was considerably shorter than most conventional screenplays, only running about 55 pages; was called by Jarmusch himself a "film proposal," and viewed potentially as a blueprint; and a number of scenes contained no dialogue and/or were simply short descriptions of actions. And these are only the ways in which the script deviated, much less the production, exhibition, and delivery of the film, which was shot and shown sectionalized, in order to raise money for the financing; as well as being comprised of only 67 single-take shots, interspersed with black leader; he uses a static camera, mainly wide-angles keeping the viewer a good distance from the action, and has no real discernible structure. All in all, this film is uniquely unconventional and successful in its own right.
Monday, November 10, 2008
week thirteen - independent cinema
1. According to Murphy, what are the two major faults of the traditional screenwriting manuals in their treatment of independent cinema?
According to Murphy, the two major faults of the traditional screenwriting manuals in their treament of independent cinema are their reliance on formulaic principles to produce a "good" Hollywood script, and their non-understanding (and thusly, unappreciation) of this type of film. Murphy says that the "three-act paradigm" proposed by many of the screenwriting manuals is both too rigid and too traditional to work for many independent, "art cinema" influenced films, and by trying to fit these movies into that structure, it is thereby negating their purpose. He also says that since many of these authors were not "well-versed in the historical tradition of independent cinema" there is a confusion that comes along with trying to write about them, and their "explanations" are often times inept, misguided, or simply wrong.
2. How are Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films different than McKee's model or Thompson's model?
McKee sticks to the three-act structure, but when it comes to independent films, uses phrases such as "miniplot," and "antiplot" (as opposed to "archplot" in classical design) to describe their non-linear, non-causal, and coincedental style. Although he does concede that certain films (namely Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover ) may have up to eight acts and be successful, he doesn't spend much time giving them credit. Thompson's model is, of course, the four-act structure, in which each of the four acts lasts approximately 20-30 minutes. Only one of Murphy's noted independent films, Mulholland Drive, seems to fit that model. Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films are different than both of these models, claiming that acts need not necessarily be defined, and although many independent films have a definable number of acts (often times fitting into either a three- or four-act structure), they are often time causally opposite and/or flexible and asymmetric.
3. According to Murphy, how are independent films different than classical Hollywood in the following areas? Protagonists / Antagonists; Dual plotlines (romance); Character Motivation (goals); Dialogue; Closure
According to Murphy, independent films are different than classical Hollywood films in most ways. In classical Hollywood cinema, protagonists are often times individuals, with clearly defined goals who undergo some sort of character arc. In independent films, however, protagonists are often times passive and ambivalent, undergoing little to no change, and many times there are more than one. Antagonists in classical Hollywood oppose the protagonist to create tension and conflict. In independent cinema, the antagonist may be something as broad as an idea ("fate" for instance), or may be non-existent, adhering to the non-cause/effect relationship of these films. The romance plotline is typically one of the two in most classical Hollywood movies, and typically have a happy ending. Independent cinema, on the other hand, holds no causal connections for romance, and doesn't often times end up being "upbeat." Whereas in most movies, characters have clearly-defined goals, and their behavior is motivated for any number of reasons, the art-cinema model (which independent films draw largely from) often times have aimless characters simply meandering through life, and much of the drama is spurned through psychological complexity. Dialogue in classical Hollywood cinema is taught to be purposeful and propelling, whereas independent cinema will include "everyday chitchat" meandering and sometimes even non-sensical lines. Closure is perhaps one of the biggest distinctions, with classical movies always tying up loose ends, and often times in an upbeat fashion. Independent cinema prides itself on open-ended ambiguity as a cornerstone of it's style, with its meaning being left up to the viewer.
4. According to Ed Guerrero, what were the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films?
According to Ed Guerrero, the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films are: a pre-blaxploitation era (in which a mainstream image of black submissiveness prevailed), followed by a blaxploitation era of resistance and co-optation (largely dominated by black action films employing strategic reversals of mainstream ideology), and then finally the new black cinema (which was more of a cooperation between the Hollywood studio systems and black filmmakers).
According to Murphy, the two major faults of the traditional screenwriting manuals in their treament of independent cinema are their reliance on formulaic principles to produce a "good" Hollywood script, and their non-understanding (and thusly, unappreciation) of this type of film. Murphy says that the "three-act paradigm" proposed by many of the screenwriting manuals is both too rigid and too traditional to work for many independent, "art cinema" influenced films, and by trying to fit these movies into that structure, it is thereby negating their purpose. He also says that since many of these authors were not "well-versed in the historical tradition of independent cinema" there is a confusion that comes along with trying to write about them, and their "explanations" are often times inept, misguided, or simply wrong.
2. How are Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films different than McKee's model or Thompson's model?
McKee sticks to the three-act structure, but when it comes to independent films, uses phrases such as "miniplot," and "antiplot" (as opposed to "archplot" in classical design) to describe their non-linear, non-causal, and coincedental style. Although he does concede that certain films (namely Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover ) may have up to eight acts and be successful, he doesn't spend much time giving them credit. Thompson's model is, of course, the four-act structure, in which each of the four acts lasts approximately 20-30 minutes. Only one of Murphy's noted independent films, Mulholland Drive, seems to fit that model. Murphy's claims about act structures in independent films are different than both of these models, claiming that acts need not necessarily be defined, and although many independent films have a definable number of acts (often times fitting into either a three- or four-act structure), they are often time causally opposite and/or flexible and asymmetric.
3. According to Murphy, how are independent films different than classical Hollywood in the following areas? Protagonists / Antagonists; Dual plotlines (romance); Character Motivation (goals); Dialogue; Closure
According to Murphy, independent films are different than classical Hollywood films in most ways. In classical Hollywood cinema, protagonists are often times individuals, with clearly defined goals who undergo some sort of character arc. In independent films, however, protagonists are often times passive and ambivalent, undergoing little to no change, and many times there are more than one. Antagonists in classical Hollywood oppose the protagonist to create tension and conflict. In independent cinema, the antagonist may be something as broad as an idea ("fate" for instance), or may be non-existent, adhering to the non-cause/effect relationship of these films. The romance plotline is typically one of the two in most classical Hollywood movies, and typically have a happy ending. Independent cinema, on the other hand, holds no causal connections for romance, and doesn't often times end up being "upbeat." Whereas in most movies, characters have clearly-defined goals, and their behavior is motivated for any number of reasons, the art-cinema model (which independent films draw largely from) often times have aimless characters simply meandering through life, and much of the drama is spurned through psychological complexity. Dialogue in classical Hollywood cinema is taught to be purposeful and propelling, whereas independent cinema will include "everyday chitchat" meandering and sometimes even non-sensical lines. Closure is perhaps one of the biggest distinctions, with classical movies always tying up loose ends, and often times in an upbeat fashion. Independent cinema prides itself on open-ended ambiguity as a cornerstone of it's style, with its meaning being left up to the viewer.
4. According to Ed Guerrero, what were the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films?
According to Ed Guerrero, the three phases of the black image in Hollywood films are: a pre-blaxploitation era (in which a mainstream image of black submissiveness prevailed), followed by a blaxploitation era of resistance and co-optation (largely dominated by black action films employing strategic reversals of mainstream ideology), and then finally the new black cinema (which was more of a cooperation between the Hollywood studio systems and black filmmakers).
Monday, November 3, 2008
week twelve - intensified continuity
Average shot lengths (ASLs) throughout American cinema:
In the 1920's, the average shot length was about 4 to 6 seconds per shot. From 1930-1960, that average lengthened to about 8 to 11 seconds per shot. In the mid 1960's, a new trend took place that significantly cut that length, to about 6 to 8 seconds, although certain movies ASLs were considerably shorter: 4 seconds, 3.8 seconds, and even 2.7 seconds. The pace accelerated over time, hitting 5 to 8 seconds in the 1970's, and continued to quicken, with double-digit ASLs all but vanishing in the 1980's, and averaging about 5 to 7 seconds, although many films averaged only 3 to 4. Keeping with the trend, this pace quickened over time, and by the end of the century, 3 to 4 seconds was common, although many still reached to 6.
Here, only Woody Allen and M. Night Shyamalan are credited with not jumping on that bandwagon, and sticking with their long-shot editing styles.
Why did filmmakers start mixing long and short lenses within scenes?
According to Bordwell, some filmmakers started mixing long and short lenses within scenes because they "appreciated the advantages of long lenses but also wanted to maintain the 1940s tradition of deep-space shooting." To force perspectivism and gain the advantage of free-range style, there was no other way.
Why have filmmakers moved away from plan americain staging and lengthy two-shots?
More recently (1960s and beyond) filmmakers have moved away from the plan americain
style staging in accordance with quicker editing styles. With 'singles' shots, and plenty of close-ups, editing was more heavily relied on, as scenes tend to rely more on over-the-shoulder shots and more medium shots. This allows the director to more greatly vary the pace during editing, as well as pick the best bits of each actor's performance, as opposed to relying on a longer two-shot with less variation.
Describe three moving camera techniques that have become common in intensified continuity.
The prolonged following shot: where the camera tracks a character[s] moving along a lengthy path. Often times accomplished with technology such as the Steadicam and lighter cameras, these shots are impressive and often lend itself to filmmaker envy, and the attempt to out do each other.
Inching track forward or sideways: often used as an orienting shot, this creates a "moving master."
The crane shot: previously used as a stylish addition, this is now a "casual embellishment," made possible by a new generation of aerial cameras mounted on mini remote-controlled helicopters.
also, the "creeping-zoom" and the "push-in"
How is the prowling camera related to other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity?
The prowling camera is seen to "boost the energy" of the scene, much like other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity, including rapid editing, bipolar extremes of lens lengths, and a reliance on tight singles shots. Each of these techniques serves the other: "Tighter framings permit faster cutting. Long lenses pick out figures for one-on-one editing," etc...
In the 1920's, the average shot length was about 4 to 6 seconds per shot. From 1930-1960, that average lengthened to about 8 to 11 seconds per shot. In the mid 1960's, a new trend took place that significantly cut that length, to about 6 to 8 seconds, although certain movies ASLs were considerably shorter: 4 seconds, 3.8 seconds, and even 2.7 seconds. The pace accelerated over time, hitting 5 to 8 seconds in the 1970's, and continued to quicken, with double-digit ASLs all but vanishing in the 1980's, and averaging about 5 to 7 seconds, although many films averaged only 3 to 4. Keeping with the trend, this pace quickened over time, and by the end of the century, 3 to 4 seconds was common, although many still reached to 6.
Here, only Woody Allen and M. Night Shyamalan are credited with not jumping on that bandwagon, and sticking with their long-shot editing styles.
Why did filmmakers start mixing long and short lenses within scenes?
According to Bordwell, some filmmakers started mixing long and short lenses within scenes because they "appreciated the advantages of long lenses but also wanted to maintain the 1940s tradition of deep-space shooting." To force perspectivism and gain the advantage of free-range style, there was no other way.
Why have filmmakers moved away from plan americain staging and lengthy two-shots?
More recently (1960s and beyond) filmmakers have moved away from the plan americain
style staging in accordance with quicker editing styles. With 'singles' shots, and plenty of close-ups, editing was more heavily relied on, as scenes tend to rely more on over-the-shoulder shots and more medium shots. This allows the director to more greatly vary the pace during editing, as well as pick the best bits of each actor's performance, as opposed to relying on a longer two-shot with less variation.
Describe three moving camera techniques that have become common in intensified continuity.
The prolonged following shot: where the camera tracks a character[s] moving along a lengthy path. Often times accomplished with technology such as the Steadicam and lighter cameras, these shots are impressive and often lend itself to filmmaker envy, and the attempt to out do each other.
Inching track forward or sideways: often used as an orienting shot, this creates a "moving master."
The crane shot: previously used as a stylish addition, this is now a "casual embellishment," made possible by a new generation of aerial cameras mounted on mini remote-controlled helicopters.
also, the "creeping-zoom" and the "push-in"
How is the prowling camera related to other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity?
The prowling camera is seen to "boost the energy" of the scene, much like other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity, including rapid editing, bipolar extremes of lens lengths, and a reliance on tight singles shots. Each of these techniques serves the other: "Tighter framings permit faster cutting. Long lenses pick out figures for one-on-one editing," etc...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
research question and annotated bibliography
On Todd Haynes' "I'm Not There":
question I pose: seeing as how (according to Variety) there are so many Foreign Theatrical Distribution companies versus Domestic Distributors, I wonder how I'm Not There did overseas as compared to domestically (concerning Box Office Gross), and which factors led to this difference.
annotated bibliography: I've been having a hard time finding sources based around the distinction of foreign distribution versus domestic distribution. no bites from either EBSCOhost or JSTOR, and little to no articles elsewhere concerning the subject. the best i can find is strictly numbers concerning box office grosses:
Box Office MoJo. I'm Not There. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=imnotthere.htm. 29 October 2008.
domestic and foreign lifetime grosses.
The Internet Movie Database. I'm Not There. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/business. 29 October 2008.
box office business, domestic and foreign.
Day, Wendy. RapCoIntelPro. "Foreign Distribution Deals." http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Foreign%20Distribution%20Deals.htm. 29 October 2008.
has nothing to do with the film, but just discusses dealing with international distribution.
question I pose: seeing as how (according to Variety) there are so many Foreign Theatrical Distribution companies versus Domestic Distributors, I wonder how I'm Not There did overseas as compared to domestically (concerning Box Office Gross), and which factors led to this difference.
annotated bibliography: I've been having a hard time finding sources based around the distinction of foreign distribution versus domestic distribution. no bites from either EBSCOhost or JSTOR, and little to no articles elsewhere concerning the subject. the best i can find is strictly numbers concerning box office grosses:
Box Office MoJo. I'm Not There. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=imnotthere.htm. 29 October 2008.
domestic and foreign lifetime grosses.
The Internet Movie Database. I'm Not There. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/business. 29 October 2008.
box office business, domestic and foreign.
Day, Wendy. RapCoIntelPro. "Foreign Distribution Deals." http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Foreign%20Distribution%20Deals.htm. 29 October 2008.
has nothing to do with the film, but just discusses dealing with international distribution.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
week eleven - plot and premises
(from pages 104-114)
Summarize the answers Bordwell gives to the question, “Why do filmmakers bother with classical construction if ardent viewers consider it dispensable, even distracting?”
The first reason is that when "plot sinks to a level of minimal awareness" it becomes quietly unnoticeable and viewers are able to concentrate on different things (unlike a twisted, convoluted plot, wherein it takes almost all of your energy to even begin to understand it.) Classical construction also allows you to hit all audiences with one film (like a movie like Shrek) that has plenty of elements that will suit all of the audience, children and adults alike. To further this (the action) the components of the story can be blended up with other ingredients to create an interesting and appealing story. And since "spectacle" is very expensive, and would actually get a bit boring after a while on its own, goals, obstacles, conflicts, resolutions, deadlines, motifs, and closure are all necessary to keep attention. Finally, as with any craft, there is an expected level of "professionalism" that should be respected, so by acting within these parameters, in addition to a personalized and unique flair, filmmakers will garner more respect from their colleagues.
(from pages 51-72)
What does Bordwell mean by “genre ecology,” and how does he characterize the current range of genres in Hollywood.
By "genre ecology" Bordwell means the waxing and waning of lesser-popular (often times, popularly thought of as B-movie) genres of film, including crime films, horror films, science-fiction, fantasy, and comic-book movies. He characterizes the current range of genres as becoming almost all equals, sharing in success over the past years due to the "younger" generations of Hollywood filmmakers (i.e. the film brats).
What does Bordwell mean by “worldmaking,” and how does it affect the narrative design of individual films?
"Worldmaking" means the making of universality throughout the film, by controlling the mise-en-scene to a degree that it is realistic by all audiences. For example, in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, even real astronauts should look at that movie and agree that from top to bottom, the film portrays world-view realism. This kind of attention to detail affects every aspect of the narrative design, including but not limited to: lighting, set dressing/props, costumes, locations, etc...
What do Bordwell and Thompson mean by the claim that some films are “maximally classical”? What films do they have in mind?
By calling some films "maximally classical," Bordwell and Thompson mean that it is possible for a film to be so classically constructed, that it lacks in flair, and becomes internally damaging to itself (although they didn't explain it quite to that degree, as some of the films they consider "maximally classical" are superb films) Some of these films are: Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Back to the Future, and The Hunt for Red October.
Summarize the answers Bordwell gives to the question, “Why do filmmakers bother with classical construction if ardent viewers consider it dispensable, even distracting?”
The first reason is that when "plot sinks to a level of minimal awareness" it becomes quietly unnoticeable and viewers are able to concentrate on different things (unlike a twisted, convoluted plot, wherein it takes almost all of your energy to even begin to understand it.) Classical construction also allows you to hit all audiences with one film (like a movie like Shrek) that has plenty of elements that will suit all of the audience, children and adults alike. To further this (the action) the components of the story can be blended up with other ingredients to create an interesting and appealing story. And since "spectacle" is very expensive, and would actually get a bit boring after a while on its own, goals, obstacles, conflicts, resolutions, deadlines, motifs, and closure are all necessary to keep attention. Finally, as with any craft, there is an expected level of "professionalism" that should be respected, so by acting within these parameters, in addition to a personalized and unique flair, filmmakers will garner more respect from their colleagues.
(from pages 51-72)
What does Bordwell mean by “genre ecology,” and how does he characterize the current range of genres in Hollywood.
By "genre ecology" Bordwell means the waxing and waning of lesser-popular (often times, popularly thought of as B-movie) genres of film, including crime films, horror films, science-fiction, fantasy, and comic-book movies. He characterizes the current range of genres as becoming almost all equals, sharing in success over the past years due to the "younger" generations of Hollywood filmmakers (i.e. the film brats).
What does Bordwell mean by “worldmaking,” and how does it affect the narrative design of individual films?
"Worldmaking" means the making of universality throughout the film, by controlling the mise-en-scene to a degree that it is realistic by all audiences. For example, in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, even real astronauts should look at that movie and agree that from top to bottom, the film portrays world-view realism. This kind of attention to detail affects every aspect of the narrative design, including but not limited to: lighting, set dressing/props, costumes, locations, etc...
What do Bordwell and Thompson mean by the claim that some films are “maximally classical”? What films do they have in mind?
By calling some films "maximally classical," Bordwell and Thompson mean that it is possible for a film to be so classically constructed, that it lacks in flair, and becomes internally damaging to itself (although they didn't explain it quite to that degree, as some of the films they consider "maximally classical" are superb films) Some of these films are: Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Back to the Future, and The Hunt for Red October.
Monday, October 20, 2008
week ten - coppola's vampire
#1: What are the five conditions that gave rise to the New Hollywood (here defined as post-1975)?
Elsaesser says that the five conditions that gave rise to the "New Hollywood" were: 1) a new generation of directors - the Movie Brats, as they are frequently called, being those who studied film in college, among other things; 2) new marketing strategies - High Concept films, which Elsaesser dubs as the most crucial, using the blockbuster film to market, distribute, exhibit, etc,; 3) new media ownership and management - which i'm assuming means corporate conglomerations; 4) new technologies of sound and image - special effects, digitization, dolby sound, etc.; 5) new delivery systems - how the films are marketed?
#2: What does Elsaesser mean by New Hollywood being defined either as “the different as same” or “the same as different.”
Here, Elsaesser is asking about Hollywood's films in relation to itself, as opposed to the European films that either model it or rival it. Within the [Hollywood] system, is it being considered new in opposition to the old (the different as same) meaning using Hollywood classicism (old) to further the evolution of it's movies (new), or is it "assimilating its own opposite (the same as different)" by modeling and borrowing and being influenced by European art cinema and elsewhere, therefore breaking out of it's own internal self-reliance.
#3: Elsaesser argues that unlike in Europe, where ruptures in realism were found in art-cinema, in Hollywood ruptures in realism were found in “minor genres and debased modes.” What genre in particular is he talking about? In what ways do you find ruptures in realism in this genre?
He is talking about the horror film. You find ruptures in realism through all aspects of the film, majorly the plot, the camerawork, and the editing. Since the 'monster' is the "causal agent," all of these aspects work to hide it until the last second, in order to build suspense. the audience is not afforded as much knowledge as with many typical (non-horror?) films, because again, there is an aspect of suspense building. for the same reason, the direction (in an action sense) of the camera is used covertly, as well as being edited to create a heightened sense of mystery.
#4: How is the sound/image relationship in horror films fundamentally different than other classical genres?
in most other classical genres, the image tends to precede (or at least, determine) the sound. in horror films, on the other hand, the sound is often times used as a precursor to the action, and to build up the suspense of what might be about to happen. Elsaesser says that haunting music paired with vacant space can be like a fastasm of the mind, where the individual viewer is responsible for imagining the fate of the poor protagonist.
#8: Elsaesser argues that post-classical cinema introduced two major changes to classical narration (p. 200). Identify and define those two changes, and give examples.
The two major changes: narrative progression and character consistency. Narrative progression means 1) the way in which the the plot is presented, and 2) the complexity with which it is presented, and Elsaesser says that concerning post-classical cinema, they have both become much more complex over time, often dealing with major time shifts and/or non-conventional linear structure. For instance, Back to the Future follows a fairly linear model (i.e. plot-how it's portrayed in the film- and story-the events- match up) but includes a thirty year time jump, both forwards and backwards, whereas in Pulp Fiction the plot and the story do not match, because the plot is portrayed in a non-linear fashion. The second major change is character consistency, and Elsaesser says that before post-classical cinema, characters more or less remained static, and "themselves," whereas afterwards, many characters change or morph to become dual figures, or something entirely new. For example, Blade Runner, and the ambiguity of who is a replicant and who is a human, or, as we will see, Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the phantom takes on multiple personas throughout the film (which probably both hurt and helped its critical reviews).
Elsaesser says that the five conditions that gave rise to the "New Hollywood" were: 1) a new generation of directors - the Movie Brats, as they are frequently called, being those who studied film in college, among other things; 2) new marketing strategies - High Concept films, which Elsaesser dubs as the most crucial, using the blockbuster film to market, distribute, exhibit, etc,; 3) new media ownership and management - which i'm assuming means corporate conglomerations; 4) new technologies of sound and image - special effects, digitization, dolby sound, etc.; 5) new delivery systems - how the films are marketed?
#2: What does Elsaesser mean by New Hollywood being defined either as “the different as same” or “the same as different.”
Here, Elsaesser is asking about Hollywood's films in relation to itself, as opposed to the European films that either model it or rival it. Within the [Hollywood] system, is it being considered new in opposition to the old (the different as same) meaning using Hollywood classicism (old) to further the evolution of it's movies (new), or is it "assimilating its own opposite (the same as different)" by modeling and borrowing and being influenced by European art cinema and elsewhere, therefore breaking out of it's own internal self-reliance.
#3: Elsaesser argues that unlike in Europe, where ruptures in realism were found in art-cinema, in Hollywood ruptures in realism were found in “minor genres and debased modes.” What genre in particular is he talking about? In what ways do you find ruptures in realism in this genre?
He is talking about the horror film. You find ruptures in realism through all aspects of the film, majorly the plot, the camerawork, and the editing. Since the 'monster' is the "causal agent," all of these aspects work to hide it until the last second, in order to build suspense. the audience is not afforded as much knowledge as with many typical (non-horror?) films, because again, there is an aspect of suspense building. for the same reason, the direction (in an action sense) of the camera is used covertly, as well as being edited to create a heightened sense of mystery.
#4: How is the sound/image relationship in horror films fundamentally different than other classical genres?
in most other classical genres, the image tends to precede (or at least, determine) the sound. in horror films, on the other hand, the sound is often times used as a precursor to the action, and to build up the suspense of what might be about to happen. Elsaesser says that haunting music paired with vacant space can be like a fastasm of the mind, where the individual viewer is responsible for imagining the fate of the poor protagonist.
#8: Elsaesser argues that post-classical cinema introduced two major changes to classical narration (p. 200). Identify and define those two changes, and give examples.
The two major changes: narrative progression and character consistency. Narrative progression means 1) the way in which the the plot is presented, and 2) the complexity with which it is presented, and Elsaesser says that concerning post-classical cinema, they have both become much more complex over time, often dealing with major time shifts and/or non-conventional linear structure. For instance, Back to the Future follows a fairly linear model (i.e. plot-how it's portrayed in the film- and story-the events- match up) but includes a thirty year time jump, both forwards and backwards, whereas in Pulp Fiction the plot and the story do not match, because the plot is portrayed in a non-linear fashion. The second major change is character consistency, and Elsaesser says that before post-classical cinema, characters more or less remained static, and "themselves," whereas afterwards, many characters change or morph to become dual figures, or something entirely new. For example, Blade Runner, and the ambiguity of who is a replicant and who is a human, or, as we will see, Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the phantom takes on multiple personas throughout the film (which probably both hurt and helped its critical reviews).
Sunday, October 19, 2008
brazil
whoa... that film just blew my mind... unfortunately, my notes were scribbled so fast, and in such darkness, that i can barely read them to re-cap... but what i do know is that i thought that movie was freakin' awesome. and actually, if i ever end up doing narratives, i hope that this is sort of thing i will capable of producing (essentially, my vision of documentary, turned into narrative with a dashes of humor and bits of (overloaded) sarcasm). so essentially, i didn't know what i was in for. i watched the preview on the blog, and could tell that it was going to be fantastic, but i didn't know just how closely it resided to my opinions. for instance, this orwellian world overtly (yet somehow, amazingly subtle) exploits the day when have relinquished but all of our freedoms, and live in a much "safer" (read: police state) society. yay, can't wait. kidding. i found myself laughing at parts that no one else seemed to think was funny, and vice versa. perhaps because these issues affect me so deeply, and i spend a majority of my time, money and energy invested in their opposition (conferences, rallies, protests, research, passing out of literature, etc...) that i was actually a bit unnerved at the truth of the situation, and was laughing instead of being scared witless. but still, that one part where they've got that woman's face stretched out so far... so hilarious. and jill, in the ministry of information, with the little robot machine thing poking around her face... it makes me so uncomfortable and scared and excited that someone is showing the truth (of what COULD eventually happen if WE continue to let it) that i didn't know what to do. "mind that parcel. it could save lives!" (or, it could be a gross annihiliation of human freedom). consumers for christ! (probably my favorite fleeting and small background detail of the film). and also, of course, the overwhelming idea that we were "afforded" all of this luxury and convenience, and yet none of it works... your toast is still burnt (and/or covered in coffee) in the morning. poor sam lowry. my new favorite protagonist. i can only hope that he and winston can just reside forever in the glories of the golden places in their minds, instead of the bleak, harsh, and desperate reality that is ascending upon us silently and invisibly, faster that we can even speak out change against it. the revolution is now!
Monday, October 13, 2008
week nine - the way hollywood tells it, 19-50
How do films with multiple protagonists work within the model?
films with multiple protagonists can work within the guidelines of thompson's four stage model, although typically, one or two protagonists end up being favored. the most simple method is to have all of the protagonists sharing the same goal. other times, their plot lines are similar, but less influenced by each other, as in the movie where the boys are, the example chosen by bordwell to explain. the four stages still existing: the setup, the complicating action, the development and the climax, it just tends to exist in four different realms and with four different feelings and/or morals.
List and briefly describe the narrational tactics discussed in the section “Tightening the Plot” (starting on p. 43).
-two plot lines, one almost always being the development of a heterosexual romance: more than classic, almost all movies center around a hero, facing some personal crisis, and falling in love at the same, and in many cases, the two stories are highly intertwined.
-the "ticking clock" time deadlines: a time crunch leads to a more desperate need for the conflict to be solved, as well as heightening suspense to keep the audience involved. (why care if they have forever?)
-foreshadowing and clue planting: again, necessary to add suspense, and keep the audience guessing whats next and clued into whats going on, if not subtlely.
-repetition of dialogue and motifs: to reiterate important points, keep a feeling of comfortable familiarity, and to make "the point" well known.
-touchstones and twitches: "recurring objects that remind us of the story world before it was plunged into disorder... and objects that symbolize the character's internal conflict," respectively.
-crosscutting and parallel action: multiple plot lines, keep the audience on their toes, add suspense to any story. can limit or increase the knowledge of the audience.
-written titles and credits: can be used to set the stage, start it off with the intended feeling, and create and set the tone of the film.
-montage sequences: use to span large amounts of time and portray long periods, including lots of character expose.
"appointments, deadlines, causally dense scene construction, a balance of narrow and wider ranges of knowledge, passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones - these narrational techniques work together to create the distinctive texture of the Hollywood film."
What does Bordwell mean by his claim that Hollywood narratives have “passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones” (p. 50)?
by this, bordwell means that in many cases, filmmakers follow a more or less strict set of guidelines that creates the bankable and solid "classical hollywood film," but in many cases, alot of underlying and unconscious techniques and decisions come into play, that add the flare and uniqueness that make a movie really, truly good.
films with multiple protagonists can work within the guidelines of thompson's four stage model, although typically, one or two protagonists end up being favored. the most simple method is to have all of the protagonists sharing the same goal. other times, their plot lines are similar, but less influenced by each other, as in the movie where the boys are, the example chosen by bordwell to explain. the four stages still existing: the setup, the complicating action, the development and the climax, it just tends to exist in four different realms and with four different feelings and/or morals.
List and briefly describe the narrational tactics discussed in the section “Tightening the Plot” (starting on p. 43).
-two plot lines, one almost always being the development of a heterosexual romance: more than classic, almost all movies center around a hero, facing some personal crisis, and falling in love at the same, and in many cases, the two stories are highly intertwined.
-the "ticking clock" time deadlines: a time crunch leads to a more desperate need for the conflict to be solved, as well as heightening suspense to keep the audience involved. (why care if they have forever?)
-foreshadowing and clue planting: again, necessary to add suspense, and keep the audience guessing whats next and clued into whats going on, if not subtlely.
-repetition of dialogue and motifs: to reiterate important points, keep a feeling of comfortable familiarity, and to make "the point" well known.
-touchstones and twitches: "recurring objects that remind us of the story world before it was plunged into disorder... and objects that symbolize the character's internal conflict," respectively.
-crosscutting and parallel action: multiple plot lines, keep the audience on their toes, add suspense to any story. can limit or increase the knowledge of the audience.
-written titles and credits: can be used to set the stage, start it off with the intended feeling, and create and set the tone of the film.
-montage sequences: use to span large amounts of time and portray long periods, including lots of character expose.
"appointments, deadlines, causally dense scene construction, a balance of narrow and wider ranges of knowledge, passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones - these narrational techniques work together to create the distinctive texture of the Hollywood film."
What does Bordwell mean by his claim that Hollywood narratives have “passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones” (p. 50)?
by this, bordwell means that in many cases, filmmakers follow a more or less strict set of guidelines that creates the bankable and solid "classical hollywood film," but in many cases, alot of underlying and unconscious techniques and decisions come into play, that add the flare and uniqueness that make a movie really, truly good.
week eight - questions
it was not until just now, when i got on to post week nine, did i realize that the blog i (thought i had) posted from week eight was not there.
presumably having to do with the fact that throughout the wedding weekend, my mom's wireless internet service was in and out (therefore unable to save my drafts), and her computer kept recognizing me as spam, regardless of the fact that i was signed in....
oh well.
anyhow, the first time around, my questions centered on bordwell's "the way hollywood tells it" pages 1-18. but now, since our most recent post has to do with the same book, later pages, i'm going to re-do week eight, focusing instead on peter kramers article "post-classical hollywood."
question 1: despite all of these readings, i'm still a bit confused on the amount of views based around these theories. for instance, how many "accepted" theories are there that define and explain the shifts in cinema eras, namely classicism, modernism, and post-moderism (and, is modernism the same thing as "new american cinema"?)
question 2: what type of role does personal interpretation play in defining these eras, and how much credibility does it lend to the explanation, i.e. who is david bordwell, and why does he know so much about movies, and who gave him the final say? and what about pauline kael, and her ability to determine that bonnie and clyde marked the beginning of the new renaissance of american film?
question 3: how much credit should we lend europe and beyond to shaping and re-defining hollywood as we now know it?
proposed answers:
1 - as far as i can tell, there are approximately three different models that kramer notes: the bazinian model, the bordwell/thompson model, and everything else. the bazinian model has classicism running up thru the early 1940s, modernism from then until 1975, and post-modernism starting with the first huge blockbusters and continuing until today. the "everything else" model is similar, except for the fact that the classics period does not end until much later, around 1965 or so. the bordwell model is the least clear to me, although i think that it defines classicism thru about 1960, modernism from 1960-1975, and then post-modernism from 1975 onward. but honestly, i have no idea, and i wish that i had been able to attend class last thursday. oh, and no, i don't think that modernism is the same thing as "new american cinema," although i would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two.
2 - this is a very broad question, and one that i ponder more philosophically than the others. on one hand, we are dealing with subjectivity, based on the opinions of any given critic or theorist or scholar. therefore, unlike other areas of study, such as mathematics or science, there is no "absolute" answer, but only interpretation. at this point, i'm assuming that david bordwell is just who he appears to be, a very knowledgeable and informed man (albeit on his own time frame) who happens to be a writer very capable of educating his audience on a huge range of topics. but like any media source, all of this information is filtered through a person's brain and therefore is limited to a degree. i'm not discrediting bordwell or saying that he isn't good at what he does, but i am saying that for one man (although it is true, he is among many others) to be able to think, then process, then write a timeline of information, which is then read by critics and either accepted or rejected as the "history" of film, is a huge undertaking and responsibility. much like kael saying that bonnie and clyde marked the new renaissance of american film, and in december of 1967, this was reiterated again when Time magazine "officially announced" it as such. it seems a bit dependent, no? also, just a side note, kael's explanation of "audience expectations" and "a TV span of attention" is incredibly interesting to me, and i agree.
perhaps all of this is subjectivity, that you can read, process, and then either decide to agree or to disagree. but doesn't, more often than not, it lead to many people reading it and accepting it as truth, regardless of what they think? (or don't think, in most cases where this happens)
3 - this one i really don't know the answer to, or even have a proposed answer for... although it does seem like the artistic style, and focus on decentralized events, a "loosening of causal connections between narrative events," per se, etc... are all things that were borrowed, if not stolen from the european cinema.
presumably having to do with the fact that throughout the wedding weekend, my mom's wireless internet service was in and out (therefore unable to save my drafts), and her computer kept recognizing me as spam, regardless of the fact that i was signed in....
oh well.
anyhow, the first time around, my questions centered on bordwell's "the way hollywood tells it" pages 1-18. but now, since our most recent post has to do with the same book, later pages, i'm going to re-do week eight, focusing instead on peter kramers article "post-classical hollywood."
question 1: despite all of these readings, i'm still a bit confused on the amount of views based around these theories. for instance, how many "accepted" theories are there that define and explain the shifts in cinema eras, namely classicism, modernism, and post-moderism (and, is modernism the same thing as "new american cinema"?)
question 2: what type of role does personal interpretation play in defining these eras, and how much credibility does it lend to the explanation, i.e. who is david bordwell, and why does he know so much about movies, and who gave him the final say? and what about pauline kael, and her ability to determine that bonnie and clyde marked the beginning of the new renaissance of american film?
question 3: how much credit should we lend europe and beyond to shaping and re-defining hollywood as we now know it?
proposed answers:
1 - as far as i can tell, there are approximately three different models that kramer notes: the bazinian model, the bordwell/thompson model, and everything else. the bazinian model has classicism running up thru the early 1940s, modernism from then until 1975, and post-modernism starting with the first huge blockbusters and continuing until today. the "everything else" model is similar, except for the fact that the classics period does not end until much later, around 1965 or so. the bordwell model is the least clear to me, although i think that it defines classicism thru about 1960, modernism from 1960-1975, and then post-modernism from 1975 onward. but honestly, i have no idea, and i wish that i had been able to attend class last thursday. oh, and no, i don't think that modernism is the same thing as "new american cinema," although i would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two.
2 - this is a very broad question, and one that i ponder more philosophically than the others. on one hand, we are dealing with subjectivity, based on the opinions of any given critic or theorist or scholar. therefore, unlike other areas of study, such as mathematics or science, there is no "absolute" answer, but only interpretation. at this point, i'm assuming that david bordwell is just who he appears to be, a very knowledgeable and informed man (albeit on his own time frame) who happens to be a writer very capable of educating his audience on a huge range of topics. but like any media source, all of this information is filtered through a person's brain and therefore is limited to a degree. i'm not discrediting bordwell or saying that he isn't good at what he does, but i am saying that for one man (although it is true, he is among many others) to be able to think, then process, then write a timeline of information, which is then read by critics and either accepted or rejected as the "history" of film, is a huge undertaking and responsibility. much like kael saying that bonnie and clyde marked the new renaissance of american film, and in december of 1967, this was reiterated again when Time magazine "officially announced" it as such. it seems a bit dependent, no? also, just a side note, kael's explanation of "audience expectations" and "a TV span of attention" is incredibly interesting to me, and i agree.
perhaps all of this is subjectivity, that you can read, process, and then either decide to agree or to disagree. but doesn't, more often than not, it lead to many people reading it and accepting it as truth, regardless of what they think? (or don't think, in most cases where this happens)
3 - this one i really don't know the answer to, or even have a proposed answer for... although it does seem like the artistic style, and focus on decentralized events, a "loosening of causal connections between narrative events," per se, etc... are all things that were borrowed, if not stolen from the european cinema.
Monday, September 29, 2008
week seven - jaws
Name three ways in which the publishers of the book and the producers of the film worked together to promote Jaws. How did they know that their logo for Jaws was successful? [Include names/companies in your answer.]
The publishers of the book (Doubleday as hardcover, Bantam Books winning the bid for softcover) and the producers of the movie (Universal Pictures, headed at the time by Richard Zanuck and David Brown) worked in conjunction to heavily promote the movie Jaws, knowing that it would help both angles of the media. The book had already been worked up by the press, and was receiving a lot of attention and publicity. So when they decided to make a film about it (Universal Pictures only winning the bid after successfully convincing the author, and first-draft screenwriter Peter Benchley that they could make the best film in the least amount of time) Zanuck and Brown knew that hyping the book was the fore-runner to a successful movie. First off, they intended to be able to release the movie shortly after the book (and during the beach season), hoping that the books popularity would spark more excitement over the film, and that the film would, in return, keep the books flying off the shelf long after its release. The two companies (Bantam and Universal) worked together to create one promotional image, settling on the underwater picture of the shark headed for a lone female swimmer (with some heavily sexual undertones.) Zanuck and Brown also kept hype up of the idea (as opposed to only the book or the movie form) by sending out thousands of paperback copies of the book for free to people "who talk to people," such as waiters and cabdrivers. Bantam Books also sponsored a nationwide publicity of Zanuck and Brown, in which they promoted the book and the movie. By working together, these companies were able to reach thousands and thousands more people than they ever could have individually. And one reason they knew this logo pitch was so successful was due firstly, to the hype of the book before it was even released, secondly, the popularity and sales of the book once it was on (and quickly flying off) the shelves, and thirdly, the demand for the movie known thru sneak previews and such.
What is “blind bidding”? Why did exhibitors object to the proposed blind bidding for Jaws? Why was the blind bidding for Jaws called off?
Blind bidding is essentially when exhibitors are offered the chance to show the film by the distributor, with specific guidelines and regulations, but not in advance necessarily knowing how their profits will turn out, and with never having seen the film. Exhibitors objected the proposed blind bidding for Jaws because the amount of money being asked (read: demanded) by Universal was so incredibly high. These exhibitors, whom were not hugely wealthy corporations, but rather the opposite, knew little to nothing about the film and were very weary of spending so much money on something that would either break them or make them. According to the Justice Departments regulations (and as mentioned earlier) exhibitors are not allowed to see the picture before blind bidding. In March of 1975, a sneak preview of the film played in Dallas, and due to this "unfair advantage" to gauge the film of those exhibitors over others who had not seen the sneak preview, all previous bids were void, and new bidding began once more. Instead of blind bidding now, and much more confident in their product, Universal provided sneak previews across the country for all exhibitors to see, and then upped the price of their bid. And from what many recall, it was very cut or dry, you take it or you don't, no negotiation.
How was the saturation booking and marketing of Jaws different than other Universal films (or earlier blockbusters such as The Godfather)?
The marketing of Jaws began as early as promotion for the book, and ran heavily all the way thru the three-day run of television spots immediately prior to the films opening. Even these TV spots were incredibly planned, marketing different commercials to different groups and at different times or programs. There were also advertisements put into newspapers and magazines such as TV Guide, the Readers Digest, and Playboy. Obviously, the studio took much care (and spent much money) to make sure that as many people as absolutely possibly saw the ad for Jaws just previous to the opening of the movie. In addition, the exhibitors were required to pay for certain parts of this advertising technique, which was unprecedented.
Concerning saturation, this movie behaved differently than any ever before. Typically, a movie was release in one or two theaters in New York and one or two theaters in Los Angeles, and based on those reactions, the studios let the media reviews do the work and then they went from there, typically hitting approximately 125-150 theatres nationwide (for a blockbuster). The Godfather had such a huge demand for it, that it went nationwide from almost the very beginning, but still with only a typical number of theaters. The hype for Jaws was so big, that Universal decided to open with 464 theaters nationwide, and throughout the summer, that number only grew, amounting to being in almost 700 theaters within six weekends of it running.
The publishers of the book (Doubleday as hardcover, Bantam Books winning the bid for softcover) and the producers of the movie (Universal Pictures, headed at the time by Richard Zanuck and David Brown) worked in conjunction to heavily promote the movie Jaws, knowing that it would help both angles of the media. The book had already been worked up by the press, and was receiving a lot of attention and publicity. So when they decided to make a film about it (Universal Pictures only winning the bid after successfully convincing the author, and first-draft screenwriter Peter Benchley that they could make the best film in the least amount of time) Zanuck and Brown knew that hyping the book was the fore-runner to a successful movie. First off, they intended to be able to release the movie shortly after the book (and during the beach season), hoping that the books popularity would spark more excitement over the film, and that the film would, in return, keep the books flying off the shelf long after its release. The two companies (Bantam and Universal) worked together to create one promotional image, settling on the underwater picture of the shark headed for a lone female swimmer (with some heavily sexual undertones.) Zanuck and Brown also kept hype up of the idea (as opposed to only the book or the movie form) by sending out thousands of paperback copies of the book for free to people "who talk to people," such as waiters and cabdrivers. Bantam Books also sponsored a nationwide publicity of Zanuck and Brown, in which they promoted the book and the movie. By working together, these companies were able to reach thousands and thousands more people than they ever could have individually. And one reason they knew this logo pitch was so successful was due firstly, to the hype of the book before it was even released, secondly, the popularity and sales of the book once it was on (and quickly flying off) the shelves, and thirdly, the demand for the movie known thru sneak previews and such.
What is “blind bidding”? Why did exhibitors object to the proposed blind bidding for Jaws? Why was the blind bidding for Jaws called off?
Blind bidding is essentially when exhibitors are offered the chance to show the film by the distributor, with specific guidelines and regulations, but not in advance necessarily knowing how their profits will turn out, and with never having seen the film. Exhibitors objected the proposed blind bidding for Jaws because the amount of money being asked (read: demanded) by Universal was so incredibly high. These exhibitors, whom were not hugely wealthy corporations, but rather the opposite, knew little to nothing about the film and were very weary of spending so much money on something that would either break them or make them. According to the Justice Departments regulations (and as mentioned earlier) exhibitors are not allowed to see the picture before blind bidding. In March of 1975, a sneak preview of the film played in Dallas, and due to this "unfair advantage" to gauge the film of those exhibitors over others who had not seen the sneak preview, all previous bids were void, and new bidding began once more. Instead of blind bidding now, and much more confident in their product, Universal provided sneak previews across the country for all exhibitors to see, and then upped the price of their bid. And from what many recall, it was very cut or dry, you take it or you don't, no negotiation.
How was the saturation booking and marketing of Jaws different than other Universal films (or earlier blockbusters such as The Godfather)?
The marketing of Jaws began as early as promotion for the book, and ran heavily all the way thru the three-day run of television spots immediately prior to the films opening. Even these TV spots were incredibly planned, marketing different commercials to different groups and at different times or programs. There were also advertisements put into newspapers and magazines such as TV Guide, the Readers Digest, and Playboy. Obviously, the studio took much care (and spent much money) to make sure that as many people as absolutely possibly saw the ad for Jaws just previous to the opening of the movie. In addition, the exhibitors were required to pay for certain parts of this advertising technique, which was unprecedented.
Concerning saturation, this movie behaved differently than any ever before. Typically, a movie was release in one or two theaters in New York and one or two theaters in Los Angeles, and based on those reactions, the studios let the media reviews do the work and then they went from there, typically hitting approximately 125-150 theatres nationwide (for a blockbuster). The Godfather had such a huge demand for it, that it went nationwide from almost the very beginning, but still with only a typical number of theaters. The hype for Jaws was so big, that Universal decided to open with 464 theaters nationwide, and throughout the summer, that number only grew, amounting to being in almost 700 theaters within six weekends of it running.
Monday, September 22, 2008
week six - the allusion of the future of nashville
Which of Altman's stylistic techniques does Sawhill associate with "inclusiveness"?
Altman had a very unique style of directing, which included using multiple camera placements so the actors couldn't "direct" their performance toward one or another (promoting truth), allowing the actors to use instinct and impulse before and during their performance (choosing their own costumes, writing/performing their own songs, writing their own dialogue, etc...). Techniques such as these are consistent with Altman's desire (and capability) to keep the lines between fact and fiction blurry, therefore drawing the audience in and virtually consuming them, and keeping the actors accessible.
What does Sawhill suggest are the functions of the recurring "wires, phones, intercoms, cameras, mikes, speakers" throughout the film?
Sawhill suggests that the functions of these recurring "technological advancements" are to highlight both their purpose, and their parallels to our humanistic society. We live in an age full of an ever-increasing amount of technology, and just like the stardom that "future celebrities" were seeking in Nashville, the abundance of technology is self-serving and caught up in it's own madness. Throughout the movie, the recurring motifs of technology remind us that society is headed in the same direction... commercialism, consumerism, and more technology.
What does Sawhill mean when he suggests that Altman "was making nonlinear multimedia before the form existed," and that Nashville "doesn't suffer from the fragmenting effects of stop-and-start, at-home viewing"?
Altman used certain techniques to imply specific things before they became "mainstream" or "normal." By keeping the cameras moving (often times in random patterns) and using cross cutting and other such things, the audience is brought to a point to where they don't have to watch every single frame to understand the story, but instead they can "rove around" the screen and take in what they choose to. This mimics life. It isn't your conventional experience of "Ok, I'm watching a movie, this is fictitious, [insert movie here], that was good...." Instead, Altman's style makes you think "maybe he just set a camera up and let people wander around the screen..." because the distinctions between fact and fiction are so transcendental.
Monday, September 15, 2008
week five - the godfather part II
How were young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s different from previous generations of filmmakers in terms of the following: how they broke into commercial filmmaking, how their films were financed, and who was in charge of the studios?
young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were different than previous generation of filmmakers mainly due to the fact that they were college graduates who had actually studied film. and, they were young. due to the successes of bonnie and clyde and the graduate, studios began to realize the potential of using the young filmmaker to connect to the younger audience. and, it worked. they also realized that spending tons of money didn't make tons of money. easy rider, for instance, was made on a shoe string budget and was a huge hit, grossing $19 million. so once this formula for success was put together and understood, the studios capitalized and began hiring fresh, young, educated people to come in and make movies cheaply. corporate conglomeration! (thats who was in charge of the studios)
Give two specific examples of how Part II disappoints the viewer (according to Berliner) and how these disappointments “work” for the film.
according to berliner, two specific examples of how part II disappoints the viewer are the murders and the new godfather. marlon brando's absence is looming throughout the whole movie, so the audience, much like the family, is missing his presence, and michael is just not a fulfilling substitute. the murders, berliner says, are also a bit of a disappointment, since they are portrayed so non-chalantly and therefore seem less important.
berliner suggests that these disappointments were calculated and purposeful, using its role as a sequel as an end to the means that no sequel is ever quite as good as the original. instead of giving you more of the same of what you loved in the original, this one leaves you hanging and desperately craving the novelty that is long gone.
maybe it was a plot to get you to appreciate the first one more. who knows?
young filmmakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were different than previous generation of filmmakers mainly due to the fact that they were college graduates who had actually studied film. and, they were young. due to the successes of bonnie and clyde and the graduate, studios began to realize the potential of using the young filmmaker to connect to the younger audience. and, it worked. they also realized that spending tons of money didn't make tons of money. easy rider, for instance, was made on a shoe string budget and was a huge hit, grossing $19 million. so once this formula for success was put together and understood, the studios capitalized and began hiring fresh, young, educated people to come in and make movies cheaply. corporate conglomeration! (thats who was in charge of the studios)
Give two specific examples of how Part II disappoints the viewer (according to Berliner) and how these disappointments “work” for the film.
according to berliner, two specific examples of how part II disappoints the viewer are the murders and the new godfather. marlon brando's absence is looming throughout the whole movie, so the audience, much like the family, is missing his presence, and michael is just not a fulfilling substitute. the murders, berliner says, are also a bit of a disappointment, since they are portrayed so non-chalantly and therefore seem less important.
berliner suggests that these disappointments were calculated and purposeful, using its role as a sequel as an end to the means that no sequel is ever quite as good as the original. instead of giving you more of the same of what you loved in the original, this one leaves you hanging and desperately craving the novelty that is long gone.
maybe it was a plot to get you to appreciate the first one more. who knows?
Sunday, September 7, 2008
week four - bonnie and clyde
Kramer argues that 'newness' was not actually the main characteristic of the bulk of Hollywood-centered film criticism in the 1960s. Instead it was devoted to a "systematic critical re-evaluation and close analysis of the work of a small group of directors." Funnily enough, most of this critical re-evaluation and analysis had to do with the "newness" and "uniqueness" that they could provide come time to bump America back up into the running of countries making things happen in the cinema.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kael’s critique of art cinema and the New American Cinema was that they were using trash, and creating buzz around it to promote it to the status of "true art." Concerning the New American Cineman, Kael says that there was a full rejection of "craftsmanship," (i.e. the writing, directing, acting and producing sucked,) and that their standard was set so low that anything on film could be considered good. She also criticized the art house audience, saying that they accept "lack of clarity as complexity... and confusion as 'ambiguity' and as style."
When Bonnie and Clyde came out, Pauline Kael glorified it, calling it the "most excitingly American American movie" in half a decade. This is because of the connection and spark it had with the audience, electrifying people back into good cinema. She also said that concurrent with the "true art" that America was capable of creating, it fell back into line with the good classical cinema, while remaining true to it's own 'new wave' era (since many people saw Bonnie and Clyde as marking the beginning of the American film renaissance.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
Bosley Crowther, Variety magazine and Page Cook all lamented the movie, saying it was trash. Crowther was by far the most scathing, calling the movie lazy, indulgent, and reckless. His review set the stage, and from then on was essentially the starting point for most other reviews. Page Cook said it was "incompetent" in all areas, and was using a faux idea (sociopathology) and disguising it as art.
On the other side of the fence, William Wolf, Jacob Suskind, Wilfred Sheed, and Andrew Sarris all gave it thumbs up, although the latter mainly used his review to chastise Crowther. Wolf judged it as authentic and a "major artistic achievement." Suskind wrote that he felt as though he was witnessing history through the lens of a documentary camera. Sheed called it a "mural of the thirties," and even the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures gave it a good review, despite the overt violence.
And then there are people like Joseph Morgenstern, who hated it the first time around (influence abroad?) and then changed his opinion after a second viewing.
Why were these people on opposite sides of the fence? I have no idea. I guess because thats how movie reviews tend to go... some people love em', some people hate em'. And hopefully, you write what's true to you ---> hence, opposing outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kael’s critique of art cinema and the New American Cinema was that they were using trash, and creating buzz around it to promote it to the status of "true art." Concerning the New American Cineman, Kael says that there was a full rejection of "craftsmanship," (i.e. the writing, directing, acting and producing sucked,) and that their standard was set so low that anything on film could be considered good. She also criticized the art house audience, saying that they accept "lack of clarity as complexity... and confusion as 'ambiguity' and as style."
When Bonnie and Clyde came out, Pauline Kael glorified it, calling it the "most excitingly American American movie" in half a decade. This is because of the connection and spark it had with the audience, electrifying people back into good cinema. She also said that concurrent with the "true art" that America was capable of creating, it fell back into line with the good classical cinema, while remaining true to it's own 'new wave' era (since many people saw Bonnie and Clyde as marking the beginning of the American film renaissance.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
Bosley Crowther, Variety magazine and Page Cook all lamented the movie, saying it was trash. Crowther was by far the most scathing, calling the movie lazy, indulgent, and reckless. His review set the stage, and from then on was essentially the starting point for most other reviews. Page Cook said it was "incompetent" in all areas, and was using a faux idea (sociopathology) and disguising it as art.
On the other side of the fence, William Wolf, Jacob Suskind, Wilfred Sheed, and Andrew Sarris all gave it thumbs up, although the latter mainly used his review to chastise Crowther. Wolf judged it as authentic and a "major artistic achievement." Suskind wrote that he felt as though he was witnessing history through the lens of a documentary camera. Sheed called it a "mural of the thirties," and even the National Catholic Office for Motion Pictures gave it a good review, despite the overt violence.
And then there are people like Joseph Morgenstern, who hated it the first time around (influence abroad?) and then changed his opinion after a second viewing.
Why were these people on opposite sides of the fence? I have no idea. I guess because thats how movie reviews tend to go... some people love em', some people hate em'. And hopefully, you write what's true to you ---> hence, opposing outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, August 31, 2008
week three - the underground
The Charles Theater was important to the development of "underground film" in New York City because it actually gave it somewhere to spawn and thrive. The Charles staked it's claim as the most eclectic and edgy as it got, and branched out into other forms of art as well. It exhibited works of local (still/painting) artists, had weekly jazz concerts, would show foreign language films, and began running a late night feature screening that often times featured a panel discussion at the end where the filmmaker was present. The Charles was the first step in making the "underground" mainstream, and not necessarily in a bad way, but more so by opening it's doors, and letting all who were interested attend. The audience began to feel rather at home there, too, becoming verbally involved in the films, booing, hissing, and cheering as they felt the need; and with no inhibitions. (It may have hurt many an artists feelings, but hey, at least they got an honest, albeit inebriated opinion.) The Charles was also the first place on record to have "open screenings," where admission was either 95 cents or one film, and artists could come screen their film in front of the audience.
During 1964, a few underground films ran into some trouble, notably Sleep, Flaming Creatures, Un Chant d'Amour, and Scorpio Rising. Sleep, although mild in nature (six hours of a man sleeping), had not been submitted to the NY State Board of Regents for licensing, and therefore it was deemed illegal to charge admission. Due to this, police attendance became a regular feature of the show, and in turn, Mekas began promoting the film more and soliciting contributions. At a film festival in Belgium where Mekas was to be a judge, Flaming Creatures was denied a screening (no doubt due to its overtly sexual content), so Mekas resigned from the jury and organized a special showing in his hotel room, and later commandeered the projection booth of the festival theater. This caused a small riot to break out (and for the Belgian minister of justice to be publicly embarrassed), and got lots of press throughout Europe. At home, Mekas ran into more trouble over Flaming Creatures, after he got arrested when police broke up a screening at the New Bowery Theater in early March. Ten days later, he was arrested again, this time over screening the film Un Chant d'Amour, which was intended to raise money for a Flaming Creatures defense fund. Across the country, Mike Getz was getting in trouble in L.A. for showing Scorpio Rising, labeled "obscene" for it's brief flash of male frontal nudity.
Why these films were significant to Warhol's career:
Vinyl - an adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, this movie was shot in real time and with a single camera set up. It also involved Edie Sedgwick, who would become a major player in Warhol's life and influence many things.
My Hustler - contained two locations, an intended camera pan, and an actual cut (thus unprecedented in his work.) It was Warhol's first commercial success, and it's influence bleed out of just the underground and into the "mainstream," gaining recognition, and often approval, from every angle.
The Chelsea Girls - was "funny, brutal, and transcendent." It was three and a half hours of real life. The popularity of this film gave the underground the resurgence it needed to prove that it could, and would, thrive.
**** - a twenty-five hour long piece that was only ever shown once, but again, was real life in a reel (or ten.) Almost like beatnik journalism, **** reverted back to the ability to capture spontaneous, real life and make it into art. It wasn't a movie made with a point, a story, or to be seen over and over; it was created to get down to the bare bones of life, and, as Jack Kerouac put it, "to go out and see what everybody, all across America, was doing at that very minute."
Blue Movie - originally titled Fuck, was a segment of **** in which two characters, Viva and Louis Waldron talk, eat, clean, live, walk, bathe, and well, fuck. The print was impounded (no matter the hardcore porns being made around it), and may have possibly been a reason for the insurgence of porn into New York some six or eight months later....?
Mussman's review of The Chelsea Girls:
Compares the film to Bunuel's L'Age D'Or, saying the two films resemble each other "in terms of violence which is already manifested in the human psyche."
Compares the film to Jean-Luc Godard's film Married Woman, saying that both films hold the same philosophically impossible question: when is it acting? when is it wholly sincere? "Role playing whether conscious or not is to one degree or another a fact of life." Also compares The Chelsea Girls to Godard's Breathless, saying they both embody improvisatory techniques to accomplish what Godard calls using the "cinema to seize life."
Contrasts the film[maker] to Hitchcock, saying that Hitchcock had a formula for his movies, and a calculated end and conclusion that he was pushing the viewer to arrive at (more or less). Warhol's work, on the other hand, is not metaphorical and encourages an open-ended response from the viewer, mainly because montage films have no answer nor an explanation. "A Warhol film becomes a sounding board for the spectator's own psyche as well as a tool for unlimited investigation of it."
Absolute life.
On drugs:
One thing I found interesting about these two articles is that when speaking of The Chelsea Girls, there is disunity between authors about who was on drugs, and who wasn't. In "El Topo: The Underground," it directly states that Eric Emerson drops acid and "babbles incoherently about his trip," whereas mentions nothing about Pope Ondine being under the influence. Mussman's article speaks of Pope Ondine's "drug-inspired tantrum" (although it was heroin, not LSD - hugely different); and later talks about scenes where "people do not appear to be high," and uses Eric Emerson as an example. Strange. Maybe getting high isn't just for heroin addicts anymore!
During 1964, a few underground films ran into some trouble, notably Sleep, Flaming Creatures, Un Chant d'Amour, and Scorpio Rising. Sleep, although mild in nature (six hours of a man sleeping), had not been submitted to the NY State Board of Regents for licensing, and therefore it was deemed illegal to charge admission. Due to this, police attendance became a regular feature of the show, and in turn, Mekas began promoting the film more and soliciting contributions. At a film festival in Belgium where Mekas was to be a judge, Flaming Creatures was denied a screening (no doubt due to its overtly sexual content), so Mekas resigned from the jury and organized a special showing in his hotel room, and later commandeered the projection booth of the festival theater. This caused a small riot to break out (and for the Belgian minister of justice to be publicly embarrassed), and got lots of press throughout Europe. At home, Mekas ran into more trouble over Flaming Creatures, after he got arrested when police broke up a screening at the New Bowery Theater in early March. Ten days later, he was arrested again, this time over screening the film Un Chant d'Amour, which was intended to raise money for a Flaming Creatures defense fund. Across the country, Mike Getz was getting in trouble in L.A. for showing Scorpio Rising, labeled "obscene" for it's brief flash of male frontal nudity.
Why these films were significant to Warhol's career:
Vinyl - an adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, this movie was shot in real time and with a single camera set up. It also involved Edie Sedgwick, who would become a major player in Warhol's life and influence many things.
My Hustler - contained two locations, an intended camera pan, and an actual cut (thus unprecedented in his work.) It was Warhol's first commercial success, and it's influence bleed out of just the underground and into the "mainstream," gaining recognition, and often approval, from every angle.
The Chelsea Girls - was "funny, brutal, and transcendent." It was three and a half hours of real life. The popularity of this film gave the underground the resurgence it needed to prove that it could, and would, thrive.
**** - a twenty-five hour long piece that was only ever shown once, but again, was real life in a reel (or ten.) Almost like beatnik journalism, **** reverted back to the ability to capture spontaneous, real life and make it into art. It wasn't a movie made with a point, a story, or to be seen over and over; it was created to get down to the bare bones of life, and, as Jack Kerouac put it, "to go out and see what everybody, all across America, was doing at that very minute."
Blue Movie - originally titled Fuck, was a segment of **** in which two characters, Viva and Louis Waldron talk, eat, clean, live, walk, bathe, and well, fuck. The print was impounded (no matter the hardcore porns being made around it), and may have possibly been a reason for the insurgence of porn into New York some six or eight months later....?
Mussman's review of The Chelsea Girls:
Compares the film to Bunuel's L'Age D'Or, saying the two films resemble each other "in terms of violence which is already manifested in the human psyche."
Compares the film to Jean-Luc Godard's film Married Woman, saying that both films hold the same philosophically impossible question: when is it acting? when is it wholly sincere? "Role playing whether conscious or not is to one degree or another a fact of life." Also compares The Chelsea Girls to Godard's Breathless, saying they both embody improvisatory techniques to accomplish what Godard calls using the "cinema to seize life."
Contrasts the film[maker] to Hitchcock, saying that Hitchcock had a formula for his movies, and a calculated end and conclusion that he was pushing the viewer to arrive at (more or less). Warhol's work, on the other hand, is not metaphorical and encourages an open-ended response from the viewer, mainly because montage films have no answer nor an explanation. "A Warhol film becomes a sounding board for the spectator's own psyche as well as a tool for unlimited investigation of it."
Absolute life.
On drugs:
One thing I found interesting about these two articles is that when speaking of The Chelsea Girls, there is disunity between authors about who was on drugs, and who wasn't. In "El Topo: The Underground," it directly states that Eric Emerson drops acid and "babbles incoherently about his trip," whereas mentions nothing about Pope Ondine being under the influence. Mussman's article speaks of Pope Ondine's "drug-inspired tantrum" (although it was heroin, not LSD - hugely different); and later talks about scenes where "people do not appear to be high," and uses Eric Emerson as an example. Strange. Maybe getting high isn't just for heroin addicts anymore!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
weeks one and two
#1
Jonas Mekas believes that a pervasive and powerful spirit is the common thread between the New American Cinema and the French New Wave, British Free, and Young Polish cinema of to[yester]day. Beyond that, he notes three qualities in particular that these four groups of cinema share. The first is an aversion of "authority." Be it the people with the money in their pockets, the demands of the masses, or anything elsewise, there is a recognition that true art cannot be made when confined by the restraints of the formal cinema. The second is being committed to the here and the now. Taking what you know (experience) and using it to CREATE a piece of ART that is RELATABLE to this PRESENT EXISTENCE. The third one is choosing informality and spontaneity (you've got to live on impulses and let things fly!) over choosing to abide by the "norm," (i.e. script, cast, set, block, light, rehearse, shoot, etc...) Mekas proposes that only by exposing yourself and becoming "naked" and vulnerable can you achieve the kind of art that deserves to be created. Because it is free. And real. And truthful. And it can't not be good, because it is what cinema is (was/should be/can be) all about.
"Film experimentation has degenerated into 'making experimental films'."
"It proves that we can make our films now and by ourselves."
#2
What IS wrong with Hollywood? It's dead. And the things that tried to save it were actually the things that eventually killed it.
Ok... that's a bit dramatic. But, John Cassavetes proposes something to that effect in "Whats Wrong With Hollywood" (1959). Cassavetes says that Hollywood has suffered a loss of originality and a lack of individual expression, due to an adherence to the norm, largely driven by money money money (which, as we all know, somehow gained the power to kill almost anything). There is a Hollywood formula for success, which may make you successful in one or two realms ($ and fame), but not in most others that matter (truth, connection, and art).
So, what do you do and how does one fix it? Cassavetes says that only through a return to "individual creative expression" in the truest sense, meaning an awareness of oneself (the artist) in relation to the art can the craft survive. As Mekas says, "[Hollywood films] are make with money, cameras, and splicers, instead of with enthusiasm, passion, and imagination."
"...to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it and to betray it.... And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of basic beliefs."
(*sorry all of my second response wasn't up before class started. I had no internet connection at my house, and an error message on my blogger login page saying this blog had been blocked due to violation of terms of service...??)
Jonas Mekas believes that a pervasive and powerful spirit is the common thread between the New American Cinema and the French New Wave, British Free, and Young Polish cinema of to[yester]day. Beyond that, he notes three qualities in particular that these four groups of cinema share. The first is an aversion of "authority." Be it the people with the money in their pockets, the demands of the masses, or anything elsewise, there is a recognition that true art cannot be made when confined by the restraints of the formal cinema. The second is being committed to the here and the now. Taking what you know (experience) and using it to CREATE a piece of ART that is RELATABLE to this PRESENT EXISTENCE. The third one is choosing informality and spontaneity (you've got to live on impulses and let things fly!) over choosing to abide by the "norm," (i.e. script, cast, set, block, light, rehearse, shoot, etc...) Mekas proposes that only by exposing yourself and becoming "naked" and vulnerable can you achieve the kind of art that deserves to be created. Because it is free. And real. And truthful. And it can't not be good, because it is what cinema is (was/should be/can be) all about.
"Film experimentation has degenerated into 'making experimental films'."
"It proves that we can make our films now and by ourselves."
#2
What IS wrong with Hollywood? It's dead. And the things that tried to save it were actually the things that eventually killed it.
Ok... that's a bit dramatic. But, John Cassavetes proposes something to that effect in "Whats Wrong With Hollywood" (1959). Cassavetes says that Hollywood has suffered a loss of originality and a lack of individual expression, due to an adherence to the norm, largely driven by money money money (which, as we all know, somehow gained the power to kill almost anything). There is a Hollywood formula for success, which may make you successful in one or two realms ($ and fame), but not in most others that matter (truth, connection, and art).
So, what do you do and how does one fix it? Cassavetes says that only through a return to "individual creative expression" in the truest sense, meaning an awareness of oneself (the artist) in relation to the art can the craft survive. As Mekas says, "[Hollywood films] are make with money, cameras, and splicers, instead of with enthusiasm, passion, and imagination."
"...to compromise an idea is to soften it, to make an excuse for it and to betray it.... And the cost of the compromise is the betrayal of basic beliefs."
(*sorry all of my second response wasn't up before class started. I had no internet connection at my house, and an error message on my blogger login page saying this blog had been blocked due to violation of terms of service...??)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
