BFI 360
Andy Dimond
apparently they will be showing at a theater on a rotating basis. This sound
like a marvelous idea, anyone in the UK know the exact details? Anyway,
here's their bunuel selection:
L'Age d'Or
Los olvidados
El
viridiana
Belle de Jour
Weird choices, but 5 of 360 is very fair. Anyone know when they'll be
playing?
Michael Brooke
> Just read the British Film Institute's list of 360 classic films which
> apparently they will be showing at a theater on a rotating basis. This sound
> like a marvelous idea, anyone in the UK know the exact details?
That's pretty much the situation: the BFI is going to make 360 "perfect"
prints of those 360 films, each of which will be shown at least once a
year at the Museum of the Moving Image's cinema.
> Anyway,
> here's their bunuel selection:
>
> L'Age d'Or
> Los olvidados
> El
> viridiana
> Belle de Jour
>
> Weird choices,
I don't think so - if I was playing the "Bunuel top five" game, I'd
*definitely* include 'L'Age d'Or', 'Los Olvidados' and 'Viridiana', and
probably 'Belle de Jour', if only because it's his best-known film (I've
never been a particularly big fan of it myself). The only change I'd
make would be either 'The Exterminating Angel' or 'Discreet Charm'
instead of 'El' - though I can understand why 'El' was chosen.
The list only includes features, which is presumably why 'Un chien
andalou' was left out - though obviously it should also be included if
that restriction hadn't been applied.
> but 5 of 360 is very fair. Anyone know when they'll be
> playing?
In most cases, when the BFI get hold of prints. It's a *very* long-term
plan that's going to run well into the next century, so don't hold your
breath!
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
philo...@my-dejanews.com
that I've never much cared for. It's slow and boring and not all that
well-directed, I think. (I'm thinking especially of the scenes at the
beginning where the guys climb up the hill.) "Un Chien Andalou" is superior
in every way.
One thing that is interesting about Bunuel is that the tail end of his career
very much reflected the beginning. He was a surrealist to the end. It's
amazing that an old man could make such fresh movies at the end of his
career.
One question I have. Everyone is familiar with Bunuel's famous statement, "I
have always been an athiest, thank God." There's something else that he said
in a New Yorker interview with Penelope Gilliatt in 1977. He said he was
tired of hearing that comment repeated and that "I'm not a Christian, but I'm
not an atheist either." This stunned me when I read it, since atheism had
been one of the hallmarks of his life. Maybe he was just toying with the
interviewer.
Any thoughts?
One
In article <1dc4k6s.1uq...@everyman.demon.co.uk>,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Steve Shapiro
S. Shapiro
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dc4k6s.1uq...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>Andy Dimond <andrew...@nashville.com> wrote:
>
>> Just read the British Film Institute's list of 360 classic films which
>> apparently they will be showing at a theater on a rotating basis. This
sound
>> like a marvelous idea, anyone in the UK know the exact details?
>The only change I'd make would be either 'The Exterminating Angel' or
'Discreet Charm'
>instead of 'El' - though I can understand why 'El' was chosen.
>
>
Pedro Sena
>Just read the British Film Institute's list of 360 classic films which
>apparently they will be showing at a theater on a rotating basis.
Unlike the American choices, at least these show some respect for other
cultures, and other artists. The American list is a perennial showcase of
second rate films, that only have some popularity on their side....I would
imagine just another attempt at getting more money out of them.
>L'Age d'Or
>Los olvidados
>El
>viridiana
>Belle de Jour
>Weird choices, but 5 of 360 is very fair.
These are not bad choices at all. It's really difficult to "rate" and choose
bunuel's films, although I think "El Angel Exterminador" deserves to be
there, but today this film is too sensitive, since people are so keen on
being stuck on fads, and scenes. Personally, "L'Age d'Or" does not hold much
for me. It really is just a series of images that may or may not have any
connection, and really were created with the idea of shaking people's boots
off, since film up to that time had been nothing but worthless entertainment
crap, that really had little meaning. By coming up with a total opposite, on
those days' definition of film, helped define another era for creativity. As
such, it is an important film, but it was only the first one of many that
were truly off the wall, that appeared, most of which never became known.
anzo...@yuck.net
> One question I have. Everyone is familiar with Bunuel's famous statement, 'I
> have always been an athiest, thank God.' There's something else that he said
> in a New Yorker interview with Penelope Gilliatt in 1977. He said he was
> tired of hearing that comment repeated and that 'I'm not a Christian, but I'm
> not an atheist either.' This stunned me when I read it, since atheism had
> been one of the hallmarks of his life. Maybe he was just toying with the
> interviewer.
that there aren't and needn't be answers to everything,
and that it was people who were certain about what they believed
and their followers that caused so much misery
in an already sufficiently miserable world.
SIMON OF THE DESERT depicts a godless world full of believers,
but it's Simon's overconfidence in his own beliefs
that makes him a buffoon. Simon had to rationalize away
any doubts with an increasingly farcical show of faith.
In THE MILKY WAY Jesus makes an appearance and readily admits
that his mission on Earth is to cause people to fight over religion.
The historical episodes were all conflicts between believers.
Viridiana's strong belief, rooted in inexperience and habit,
proves useless in coping with the nasty real world and withers
in the absence of a supportive, controlling organized church.
Then there's the Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus
doing all the bombing in THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE.
It's the strong believers that cause the most carnage.
Michael Brooke
> Andy Dimond wrote in message <6obrv3$h1n$1...@supernews.com>...
> >Just read the British Film Institute's list of 360 classic films which
> >apparently they will be showing at a theater on a rotating basis.
>
> Unlike the American choices, at least these show some respect for other
> cultures, and other artists. The American list is a perennial showcase of
> second rate films, that only have some popularity on their side....I would
> imagine just another attempt at getting more money out of them.
The absolutely crucial differences between the AFI list and the BFI list
are:
1. that the BFI list covers world cinema, as opposed to American
cinema.
2. that the BFI list has a deliberate cut-off point (early 1980s).
3. that the BFI list was compiled by just one man (National Film
Archive head David Meeker), as opposed to a 1500-strong popularity poll.
> Personally, "L'Age d'Or" does not hold much
> for me. It really is just a series of images that may or may not have any
> connection, and really were created with the idea of shaking people's boots
> off, since film up to that time had been nothing but worthless entertainment
> crap, that really had little meaning.
Congratulations, you've just insulted most of the great cinema pioneers
- including the likes of Fritz Lang, F.W.Murnau, Sergei Eisenstein, Abel
Gance, Victor Sjöström, Benjamin Christensen, Carl Theodor Dreyer and
countless others. I'm sorry to hear that I've been so deluded and that
all the time I thought they were pushing back the frontiers of an art
form they were making "worthless entertainment crap".
And if all you can see in 'L'Age d'Or' (which I still think ranks very
high among Bunuel's achievements, regardless of the original context) is
"a series of images that may or may not have any connection", I can only
suggest that you see it again. That comment certainly applies to 'Un
Chien Andalou' (and is squarely in line with Bunuel's artistic credo on
that film), but 'L'Age d'Or' is a much more coherent piece of work.
Pedro Sena
>> Personally, "L'Age d'Or" does not hold much for me.
( I did say "personally" ... )
>Congratulations, you've just insulted most of the great cinema pioneers
>- including the likes of Fritz Lang, F.W.Murnau, Sergei Eisenstein, Abel
>Gance, Victor Sjöström, Benjamin Christensen, Carl Theodor Dreyer and
>countless others.
I did not insult anyone, unless you choose to defend some ignominious ideal
about people, and these film makers. They all have their good points, and
bad points, but none of them are "gods" that we can not say that we do not
care for their work, or must be chastised for not caring for them.
They created the history of the film form, yes they did. Does not mean that
they were good in the first place. I thought that Griffith was a very poor
director, but he had the resources that others did not.
>And if all you can see in 'L'Age d'Or' (which I still think ranks very
>high among Bunuel's achievements, regardless of the original context)
The two people that have the greatest influence in me, in life and art, are
Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali. Peter Brook is second in the short list.
However, Luis' very own attitude about L'Age D'Or, and man of his films are
actually on par with my comments. They were "one moment in life", and that's
that. It does not make that moment that much more important than others.
However, as a film, it did, since almost everything that was being done was
of such meagher value anyway, specially from a literary/artistic content,
which you forget the surrealistic movement, of which Dali and Bunuel were
very much a part ( read some Bretton ) were already criticizing the bad
state of affairs in film and art, that had become mere public entertainment,
instead of anything else. L'Age D'Or and the other short, were meant to
break that stalemate, and DID so.
Basically, it is a sequence of images, and nothing but. what attracts us to
them is that we can not figure out the connections or the meanings in them,
just like it happens in our minds, and sub conscious. When one does not have
that "emptyness", one does not feel a loss for images or understandings of
whatever imagery one goes through.
An "artist", in the surreallistic manifesto definition, is the one that can
"define" these images in its art, NOT necessarily what they mean, which is
something that the surrealistic movement wanted everyone to forget......
like dreams to one self, they meaning is only valid if you apply it.. if you
don't it isn't. LUIS, understood that better than others around him, and
made use of that all his life in film.
>Chien Andalou' (and is squarely in line with Bunuel's artistic credo on
>that film), but 'L'Age d'Or' is a much more coherent piece of work.
I disagree. It is much more a surrealistic creed, than it is Luis Bunuel's.
His real creed came alive later, and had to do with people defining
themselves, when faced with themselves, and choices, in front of the
proverbial mirror.
Pedro Sena
> > One question I have. Everyone is familiar with Bunuel's famous
statement, 'I
> > have always been an athiest, thank God.'
There was a special on Bravo television, one time, that featured a friend of
his from the young days, a dominican friar, and he said that he walways felt
that Luis actually was much more a man of God, than otherwise. he never
questioned its existence. He just questioned people's amount of faith in
their own abilities and relationships to higher tenets in the face of a
mounting obstacle.
In other words, Luis wold question your faith, not challenge it.
> >' This stunned me when I read it, since atheism had
> > been one of the hallmarks of his life. Maybe he was just toying with the
> > interviewer.
The term, is used in Europe a lot, and is often used to get the church's
attention ( Rome that is ), since it is a well known fact that if you want
to be known as an artist, all you have to do is get those peed off at you,
and everyone will come see what the thing is about.
Toying with an American reviewer on this subject would turn sour, I'm sure,
since America has little faith that can be defined as religion other than
the almighty dollar. It's religious belief systems are as vain as the dollar
that builds them.
Michael Brooke
> Michael Brooke wrote in message
>
> >Congratulations, you've just insulted most of the great cinema pioneers
> >- including the likes of Fritz Lang, F.W.Murnau, Sergei Eisenstein, Abel
> >Gance, Victor Sjöström, Benjamin Christensen, Carl Theodor Dreyer and
> >countless others.
>
> I did not insult anyone, unless you choose to defend some ignominious ideal
> about people, and these film makers. They all have their good points, and
> bad points, but none of them are "gods" that we can not say that we do not
> care for their work, or must be chastised for not caring for them.
Your exact words were: "film up to that time [1930] had been nothing but
worthless entertainment crap, that really had little meaning". In other
words, you're saying that the entire silent era was dedicated to nothing
more than "worthless entertainment crap" (and there's nothing in the
spin you're attempting above that suggests that you think otherwise).
If that isn't insulting both the memory of the great film-makers of the
era, not to mention the sterling work of historians like Kevin Brownlow
and William K.Everson and archivists like David Meeker (compiler of the
BFI list) in drawing this period to the attention of people who would
otherwise have forgotten them, I don't know what is!
> They created the history of the film form, yes they did. Does not mean that
> they were good in the first place.
This is *ludicrous*. I can only assume that you have never seen
'Sunrise', 'La Roue', 'The Last Laugh', 'The Passion of Joan of Arc',
'Strike' and countless other masterpieces that stand the test of time
remarkably well even today. I singled out those titles because I'd
dearly love to see you mount a convincing case for any one of them being
"worthless entertainment crap" or their creators not being particularly
talented - though there are of course countless others I could have
picked.
If you genuinely don't know very much about the period, that's fine - I
appreciate the difficulty of seeing these films as they were meant to be
seen (I'm lucky enough to live in London, where I've seen all of those
titles on the big screen, often with live accompaniment). But if you
continue with these blanket denunciations of a rather substantial chunk
of film history as being "worthless entertainment crap", it's going to
be rather difficult for people who *do* know a lot about pre-1930 cinema
to take you particularly seriously.
> I thought that Griffith was a very poor
> director, but he had the resources that others did not.
As I didn't mention Griffith, and wouldn't have done in this particular
context, I don't see the relevance to the point I'm making. In any
case, even if you think Griffith was a very poor director, can you
honestly say the same of Lang, Eisenstein, Gance, Dreyer et al? I
certainly can't.
Pedro Sena
>Your exact words were: "film up to that time [1930] had been nothing but
>worthless entertainment crap, that really had little meaning".
I better qualify that statement, since it is not what I really wanted to
say. The battle, has always been ( in generic terms of course ) that
Europeans think that Americans can only produce fun stuff, and that
Americans think that Europeans can not do fun stuff.
This was a serious point of contention with the surrealistic manifesto,
which understood that if it was going to suceed, IT HAD to have film, and
the visual arts on its backyard. What ensued, and spearheaded by Bunuel, and
Dali, ( along with the Picasso cubism style that he was already
developing ), was an artistic vision that was TOTALY visual, and really
cound not be easily written -- as can be seen by the lack of writers in this
area.
>This is *ludicrous*. I can only assume that you have never seen
>'Sunrise', 'La Roue', 'The Last Laugh', 'The Passion of Joan of Arc',
>'Strike' and countless other masterpieces that stand the test of time
>remarkably well even today.
Michael, there are a lot of good things. Just as there are bad things.
However, many of these good things, rarely had an audience in America, and
are only now being "discovered" in restoration, and film classes, which few
people take, even in Universities.
Just as an example, of the five listed, I have only been able to see "The
Passion of Joan of Arc" and I was at UC Santa Barbara, and they have courses
on directors going year round, and got to see major Bunuel, Truffaut, and
Antonioni, Malle, Resnais, for example, but I have not seen the others.
In Europe, many of these films are revered and respected as the important
art form that they are, and thus one's ability to find and see these things
are much easier than here. Yes, I have read extensively about all those
films, and can easily mention them in conversations to their style and so
forth, but only from stills and books, not from having seen them...and I
have seen much more than most, historically speaking as well.
Just this past year, the film center here, in their film Festival showed,
for a Portland premier, Richard III .... the first time ( on record ) this
film has even been shown here in this area.
> I singled out those titles because I'd
>dearly love to see you mount a convincing case for any one of them being
>"worthless entertainment crap" or their creators not being particularly
>talented - though there are of course countless others I could have
>picked.
The best remembered stuff, generaly lends itself towards the comdedies and
the fun stuff that Hollywood made, something that American film is rather
good at, and has fun doing it.
>seen (I'm lucky enough to live in London, where I've seen all of those
>titles on the big screen, often with live accompaniment).
I miss a big city..... for the same reason that you like London. I miss
being near LA where I could bop for an hour and a half to see an English
band like Caravan, Camel, Gong, Nektar, Gentle Giant, and the like.... just
to give you an idea of how poor the rural areas are artistically in this
country. Even up here, bext to Portland ( Oregon ), the area is infested and
controlled by radio top ten, and just playing something different always
gets people looking at you like you are weird. But they can intelectualize
Seinfeld and Roseanne all day long.........which, comparatively speaking,
gives you an idea what is going on.
Local theatrical productions have almost no audiences, and the only thing
people will pay to see is the likes of CATS, or PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, and
even the Ashland Shakespeare Festival, that has often done partial seasons
in Portland has stopped, because no one shows up. It's just amazing that we
have been able to get the International Film Festival get through the past
five years with increasing attendances, but you know what? ... they are all
foreign peoples. the increase has not been in the American ( local ) side of
things.... how's that for sad?
>honestly say the same of Lang, Eisenstein, Gance, Dreyer et al? I
>certainly can't.
I like Eisenstein, and his cinematography, although as a director
major/student and writer, I really think that too much is centered on the
camera alone, and the actors look.
Lang, I can not make up my mind on. I kinda think of him as a Beiruth opera
set on the camera. Dreyer is strange, and I can not say at this moment
enough about him, and would like to see his stuff before I say anything
again. I have not been able to find anything of his, even in old videos.
But take away these major directors from Europe, the majority of the stuff
from this side of the country is rather fun stuff, some good, some bad.
There are exceptions. I do think Tod Browning's direction of Bela Lugosi
excellent, but I am a believer that Bela may have had more to do with all
that than otherwise, as Tod's other films are not as clean or as well
thought out. I just about can not remember many other "serious" things this
side of the ocean, with Fairbanks and Flynn are not my idea of serious
film.
Paul Bortolotti
remarks about silent film and its pioneers.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Sena: how many silent films have you seen? Why do
you pick the magical year of 1930 as your cutoff? Take a look--a long
look--at those Masters. At Von Stroheim. At Gance. At Keaton. At Eisenstein.
Or, if those names are foreign to you, at "Sunrise", "Sherlock Jr.", "The
Last Command", "Greed", "The Big Parade", "Potemkin" or any others. THEN let
me see you make a posting calling films and films like them "garbage".
If you think so little of Silent Film and its makers, why on earth are you
on this list?
Paul
Chicago
Michael Brooke
> Excuse me for my tardiness, but I just had to respond to Pedro Sena's assine
> remarks about silent film and its pioneers.
>
> Let me ask you this, Mr. Sena: how many silent films have you seen? Why do
> you pick the magical year of 1930 as your cutoff?
The original post was discussing Bunuel's 'L'Age d'Or', made in 1930.
Mr.Sena seems to think it's the first film that tried to do something
other than entertain. To be fair, he has now admitted that he has seen
hardly any silent films, so I think we can safely discount his rather
excessively sweeping dismissal.
> Take a look--a long
> look--at those Masters. At Von Stroheim. At Gance. At Keaton. At Eisenstein.
> Or, if those names are foreign to you, at "Sunrise", "Sherlock Jr.", "The
> Last Command", "Greed", "The Big Parade", "Potemkin" or any others. THEN let
> me see you make a posting calling films and films like them "garbage".
"Worthless entertainment crap" was the exact phrase - which in itself is
revealing, because it implies that seeking to be entertaining is in
itself reprehensible. I watched Preston Sturges 'Sullivan's Travels' a
few weeks ago, and I think all film snobs who believe that "art" is
invariably superior to "entertainment" should be forced to watch it over
and over again, as it makes its central point - that art has its place,
but there's absolutely nothing wrong with entertainment - beautifully.
> If you think so little of Silent Film and its makers, why on earth are you
> on this list?
Actually, that's my fault - I deliberately crossposted my reply to
alt.movies.silent because I'm an evil, malicious little ratbag. But I
had a very good reason for doing so - as I'm sure you'll agree!
Michael Brooke
> Michael Brooke wrote in message
>
> >Your exact words were: "film up to that time [1930] had been nothing but
> >worthless entertainment crap, that really had little meaning".
>
> I better qualify that statement, since it is not what I really wanted to
> say. The battle, has always been ( in generic terms of course ) that
> Europeans think that Americans can only produce fun stuff, and that
> Americans think that Europeans can not do fun stuff.
Unfortunately, this attitude is still prevalent today - and it's as
ridiculous as it always was.
> This was a serious point of contention with the surrealistic manifesto,
> which understood that if it was going to suceed, IT HAD to have film, and
> the visual arts on its backyard. What ensued, and spearheaded by Bunuel, and
> Dali, ( along with the Picasso cubism style that he was already
> developing ), was an artistic vision that was TOTALY visual, and really
> cound not be easily written -- as can be seen by the lack of writers in this
> area.
Yes, but this wasn't anything particularly new. Serious artists had
been dabbling in film almost since the medium was invented - and by the
time Bunuel and Dali got involved, people like Fernand Leger, Man Ray,
Louis Delluc and various others had made numerous experimental films.
>
> Michael, there are a lot of good things. Just as there are bad things.
> However, many of these good things, rarely had an audience in America, and
> are only now being "discovered" in restoration, and film classes, which few
> people take, even in Universities.
>
This is simply not true. In fact, the silent era saw a far greater
proportion of European films released in the US, for the simple reason
that there wasn't a language barrier. Indeed, Giovanni Pastrone's
'Cabiria' was the single biggest influence on D.W.Griffith's 'The Birth
of a Nation', and his major inspiration.
The only problem is that because few people thought to preserve these
films, many of the prints simply fell apart or spontaneously combusted
(due to the highly unstable nitrate stock in use at the time), which is
why they didn't stay in the US repertory - plus of course the fact that
they lacked a soundtrack, which meant that their value plummetted in the
late 1920s (which provided even less incentive to preserve copies).
>
> The best remembered stuff, generaly lends itself towards the comdedies and
> the fun stuff that Hollywood made, something that American film is rather
> good at, and has fun doing it.
The trouble is, Pedro, you're still fixed in this "art" versus
"entertainment" mindset that I predicted would be a problem when you
first issued your manifesto for rec.arts.movies.international - your use
of the phrase "worthless entertainment crap" is *unbelievably* snobbish
and élitist, because it implies that seeking to entertain is somehow
reprehensible. Speaking as someone who has sat through God knows how
many dire, po-faced "art" movies seeking profundity and finding only
banality (I've seen a lot more than ever made it into distribution!), I
profoundly disagree with this point of view.
>
> I like Eisenstein, and his cinematography, although as a director
> major/student and writer, I really think that too much is centered on the
> camera alone, and the actors look.
This isn't necessarily a problem - it's the Welles-versus-Renoir
argument. Welles goes for flamboyant visuals that often bury the
actors, while with Renoir the technique is almost invisible and you
*only* see the actors. Both have their virtues - and you ignore
Eisenstein's incalculable contribution to the art of editing.
> Lang, I can not make up my mind on. I kinda think of him as a Beiruth opera
> set on the camera.
Watch 'Destiny', 'Dr.Mabuse the Gambler' and 'Metropolis' back to back.
'Destiny', of course, was the film that inspired Bunuel to become a
director in the first place!
> But take away these major directors from Europe, the majority of the stuff
> from this side of the country is rather fun stuff, some good, some bad.
> There are exceptions. I do think Tod Browning's direction of Bela Lugosi
> excellent, but I am a believer that Bela may have had more to do with all
> that than otherwise, as Tod's other films are not as clean or as well
> thought out. I just about can not remember many other "serious" things this
> side of the ocean, with Fairbanks and Flynn are not my idea of serious
> film.
Define "serious film". Buster Keaton's 'Sherlock Junior' plays around
with film form more extensively and experimentally than anything prior
to the French New Wave, yet it's all done within the confines of a
commercial comedy (Keaton was revered by the Surrealists, and with good
reason). 'Our Hospitality' and 'The General' are less formally
inventive, but *amazingly* realised - "art" by any stretch of the
imagination ('The General', indeed, has been featured on three out of
five of the Sight & Sound international critics' polls as one of the ten
best films ever made, and its absence - and indeed the absence of
anything else by Keaton - from the AFI poll is the primary reason why I
can't take it seriously).
What about Erich von Stroheim and Josef von Sternberg? True, they
tended to work within the confines of melodrama - but so do many Bunuel
films (particularly the Mexican ones). But we're hardly talking
"worthless entertainment crap". And of course there's F.W.Murnau's
'Sunrise', which is still for my money one of the most jaw-droppingly
beautiful films ever made (I was lucky enough to see a restored print
with a live orchestra a couple of years ago, and it's one of the
cinematic high points of my life).
Pedro Sena
>Let me ask you this, Mr. Sena: how many silent films have you seen? Why do
>you pick the magical year of 1930 as your cutoff?
Quite a few, considering that I had seen more in Portugal and Brazil than I
ever did here in America.
I did not use a "cutoff" date. Generally, and I am a film student, lover,
and one of the few that can appreciate old stuff as well as new, I NEVER
have thought that anything done 50 or 70 years ago, was, COMPARATIVELY
speaking, any better than we have today. Since I rarely see top ten films,
and mainly only go after the artsy and unusual stuff that many rarely see, I
feel that I am still in touch with the artistic feeling that created those
films in the first place.... however, Michael, does not feel that this is
what I mean, as neither do you.
I would enjoy if you both would read past the first sentence, and take a
good look at the explanations and the ideas that I am bringing across. My
point, still is, and this is studied in many Film 101 classes ( I've tutored
one of those three times ), that many of the films that are better known
were created for entertainment, and peepery, which was one of the first uses
of the Nickelodeon. However, it only took one or two people that thought
that something of "literary" value should/could be extracted from this art
form, and they went out and created something different, that did not have
"comedy", or "shock" written all over it, like a gun pointing at the camera,
a train coming towards the camera, etc, etc, .... and create things that
make stars, or actors look exceptional, like many film makers started doing
to make things look more "emotional" and important than they really are. A
WELL placed light to hide an ugly cheekbone reflects more on the
cinematographer that saw it ( or director ) than it does on the whole film.
>Take a look--a long
>look--at those Masters. At Von Stroheim. At Gance. At Keaton. At
Eisenstein.
I probably have seen more of these, than 99 out of 100 people that you will
ever meet. However, as I said before, just because they were history of
film, does not mean that they were, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, better than
anything done today. I just do not worship the past as some sort of green
pasture where everything was pristine, and today's work is
shit......Stroheim, Gance, Keaton, Eisenstein would be bores today along the
lines of Woody Allen, that nobody would see except film critics ( and I LIKE
Woody. )......in fact, you can see that film that has modern directors work
with a couple of those old cameras to get an idea, of what people might do,
or create. As I said, I don't think those old timers are great... I think
they are fine ....jsut not better than many today.
>If you think so little of Silent Film and its makers, why on earth are you
>on this list?
I did not place my choice in the silent films... but this discussion got
taken over there for some reason. I tend to keep my study, and mentions to
the foreign films ( non American mostly ) in the international newsgroup.
Pedro Sena
>Mr.Sena seems to think it's the first film that tried to do something
>other than entertain.
I have invited you to read the Surrealistic manifesto, so you can have a
better idea of what I said, and meant to say, which is STILL mis-understood
on your part.
One of the reasons that Luis and Dali created sequences of images that
appear to have little relationship, was exactly to create something that
would force film makers ( and theatre people as well ) to take a look at
their craft, which was not experimental at all, and was afraid to do
something totaly different. My learning of film, and its history, and the
thousands of films I have ever seen, are not limited to just film, but also
to the related arts near it. The surrealistic movememt, unlike the major
film movements, had a literary/artistic concept behind it ... they did not
just happen by accident. In fact, many of the premises to the surrealistic
manifesto even go back 20 years prior to the circles around Alice B.
Toklas.....but so many film people rarely read anything else that has little
to do with "film" other than critical studies of a director's good or bad
points.
A quotidian study, often reveals a much richer feeling and inteligence, not
to mention a better clarity as to what the film makers are often doing. The
exception to this rule, has been Hollywood ( generic terms ) where the idea
has been always "sell", and they do not really care much for any artistic
anythings as long as people buy it.
> To be fair, he has now admitted that he has seen
>hardly any silent films, so I think we can safely discount his rather
>excessively sweeping dismissal.
You will find that I have seen more than 99 out of 100 people that you might
meet .... I just don't discuss it much, because i do not really feel that a
lot of that work is indicative of the "growth" of what the art form was.
Most of it happened to be done by other directors whose smaller, and lesser
known work actually pushed things forward.
>"Worthless entertainment crap" was the exact phrase - which in itself is
>revealing, because it implies that seeking to be entertaining is in
>itself reprehensible.
By the way, those words are not mine. They are from a well known French
writer. But since it does not matter where those words came from, we can
forget it all.
> I watched Preston Sturges 'Sullivan's Travels' a
>few weeks ago, and I think all film snobs who believe that "art" is
>invariably superior to "entertainment" should be forced to watch it over
>and over again, as it makes its central point - that art has its place,
>but there's absolutely nothing wrong with entertainment - beautifully.
I enjoy entertainment, as much as anyone else. But not ALL THE TIME.
However, I am less adept at enjoying Walt Disney stuff than most. I was born
in Europe and all the films I had seen, it was after 100 of films, many
dealing with war time ( ww2 ), and its residue, that I finaly saw an
American film that was fun -- -Bonzo goes to College -- of all things. In a
society that was STILL in a fascist dictatorship ( Portugal ), one could not
see much of anything, and perhaps you should look up the many film reviews
of work that was being done, that was considered "subversive" and
"dangerous". Many of these films were not allowed to be seen. On the same
token, I have never really accepted "entertainment" as the "standard" by
which all film "art" should be measured. I do NOT, ever, really
differentiate thse things.
In fact, if you haven't noticed ( I doubt that you will ), I do not do
reviews of films that I do not like, out of politeness and love for the art
form, as I believe every one should have a right to do it anyhow. Thus,
rather than say something bitter, or against the "entertainment" value of a
film, I DO NOT review it. PERIOD. I don't suppose that you noticed this
respect at all. It doesn't mean that I do not like a Star Wars, or a
Godzilla... it just means that I do not care for the whole atmosphere, and
there already are enough reviews on them as it is. Why can you not accept
someone else's point of view of life and opinions? I don't think that your
opinions are gunk ....
Pedro Sena
>Yes, but this wasn't anything particularly new. Serious artists had
>been dabbling in film almost since the medium was invented - and by the
>time Bunuel and Dali got involved, people like Fernand Leger, Man Ray,
>Louis Delluc and various others had made numerous experimental films.
As had Jean Cocteau. many of these films are rarely found in America, and I
have seen a serious number of them. I happened to think that these are
moreimportant than the better known stuff that often shows up in the film
books.
>This is simply not true. In fact, the silent era saw a far greater
>proportion of European films released in the US, for the simple reason
>that there wasn't a language barrier.
And also because the European contingent had a variety and style that was
not happening in this country. It was always so different.
>The only problem is that because few people thought to preserve these
>films, many of the prints simply fell apart or spontaneously combusted
>(due to the highly unstable nitrate stock in use at the time), which is
>why they didn't stay in the US repertory - plus of course the fact that
>they lacked a soundtrack, which meant that their value plummetted in the
>late 1920s (which provided even less incentive to preserve copies).
The fixer that was used in all film then, did not have the lifetime that it
does now. Likewise the handling of it was not as good as it is today.
>of the phrase "worthless entertainment crap" is *unbelievably* snobbish
>and élitist, because it implies that seeking to entertain is somehow
>reprehensible.
I never said that "art" was superior to "entertainment". I just prefer stuff
that has an edge to it, which seems to end up getting label'd "art". Not
many people are going to discuss the socio-political importance of godzilla,
for crying out loud.
>This isn't necessarily a problem - it's the Welles-versus-Renoir
>argument. Welles goes for flamboyant visuals that often bury the
>actors, while with Renoir the technique is almost invisible and you
>*only* see the actors.
Yes, indeed. However, Welles had a knack for line delivery that for the most
part Renoir did not. Once again, it does not mean that one was better than
the other. I would like to have themn switch the material and try again.
Citizen Kane would have been boring in Renoir's hands. And any of Jean's
films would probably have gotten a bombastic treatment from Welles. One was
a theater man that knew the importance of some moments in the script to get
the audience's attention. Renoir's work is rarely about a moment... it's the
WHOLE thing that is important.
> Both have their virtues - and you ignore
>Eisenstein's incalculable contribution to the art of editing.
>Define "serious film". Buster Keaton's 'Sherlock Junior' plays around
>with film form more extensively and experimentally than anything prior
>to the French New Wave, yet it's all done within the confines of a
>commercial comedy (Keaton was revered by the Surrealists, and with good
>reason).
Indeed a well deserved point, in that he was very fond of camera stuff that
even Godard used later.
> - and indeed the absence of
>anything else by Keaton - from the AFI poll is the primary reason why I
>can't take it seriously).
I AGREE wholeheartedly. In fact I think it is an insult. But it tells you
that most people voting never even have seen Keaton like you and I have.
I would prefer that we stick our discussion to specific film ideas and
discussions.... this whole thing is getting out of hand and boring, and we
should respect the newsgroups that they belong in. We do better in those
discussions, anyway.
Michael Brooke
> >Take a look--a long
> >look--at those Masters. At Von Stroheim. At Gance. At Keaton. At
> Eisenstein.
>
>
> I probably have seen more of these, than 99 out of 100 people that you will
> ever meet. However, as I said before, just because they were history of
> film, does not mean that they were, COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, better than
> anything done today. I just do not worship the past as some sort of green
> pasture where everything was pristine, and today's work is
> shit......
Nor does any sane person - but adopting the opposite position (as you
still appear to be doing) is equally illogical.
> Stroheim, Gance, Keaton, Eisenstein would be bores today along the
> lines of Woody Allen, that nobody would see except film critics ( and I LIKE
> Woody. ).
This is nonsense. 'Deconstructing Harry' was number one at the UK box
office a few months ago, and most Woody Allen films do extremely well
over here. And trust me, his audience is not entirely made up of film
critics.
And if you think that Keaton, Gance and Eisenstein would be "bores"
today, you clearly haven't attended the screenings of their work that I
have (which ended in rapturous - and perfectly genuine - applause). In
fact, I was worried that the six-hour 'La Roue' might be an ordeal to
sit through, but nothing could be further from the truth.
True, a major large-scale reissue of their work is highly unlikely to
happen - but that's true of *any* film that's reached a certain age.
But the lack of exposure most definitely does not mean that audiences
don't like it.
Eric
>>films, many of the prints simply fell apart or spontaneously combusted
>>(due to the highly unstable nitrate stock in use at the time), which is
>>why they didn't stay in the US repertory - plus of course the fact that
>>they lacked a soundtrack, which meant that their value plummetted in the
>>late 1920s (which provided even less incentive to preserve copies).
>
>
>The fixer that was used in all film then, did not have the lifetime that
it
>does now. Likewise the handling of it was not as good as it is today.
>
with this. Until about 1950, film prints were considered very precious
materials by the studios. Projectionists were CAREFUL with them and were
trained in a way you might expect a good lab technician to be today.
A print might be expected to last for many years in the old days. It had
to be long-lasting enough to tour the country and be in the hands of many
small-town projectionists. They didn't make 1000 prints then... they made
100 (or less).
Today, a print is considered paid advertisement for the video. It is put
in the hands of a mall projectionist who has had minutes or hours of
training. There is practically NO commercial value for the print after the
first 6 weeks of the film's release.
Therefore,
a) prints are much more battered today (handling is poorer).
b) lab conditions (ESPECIALLY fixer stage) is much poorer, and film often
deteriorates much sooner than it used to.
I can back this up by saying that I have seen and projected 35mm nitrate
material from 1916 that was in perfect, pristine shape and then turned
around to find 35mm material from the 1970s that was so deteriorated that
it would no longer run at all.
I hate to say that this is the rule, not the exception. Sure, there are
plenty of prints from the 1970s that are still OK. However, I'd bet that
(of total surviving prints) the percentage of usable prints from the 1970s
is lower than that from the 1920s. There are CERTAINLY fewer 1920s prints
that have survived (because there were fewer made and there has been a
longer time for them to deteriorate or be thrown out), but among the
survivors, I'd bet that a higher proportion of 1920s prints can still be
projected.
I will also wager that in 100 years, the great period of lost films will be
from the 1950s-1970s. Many of them are not gone NOW, but they're headed
that way.
Eric
Michael Brooke
> >>The only problem is that because few people thought to preserve these
> >>films, many of the prints simply fell apart or spontaneously combusted
> >>(due to the highly unstable nitrate stock in use at the time), which is
> >>why they didn't stay in the US repertory - plus of course the fact that
> >>they lacked a soundtrack, which meant that their value plummetted in the
> >>late 1920s (which provided even less incentive to preserve copies).
> >
> >
> >The fixer that was used in all film then, did not have the lifetime that
> it
> >does now. Likewise the handling of it was not as good as it is today.
> >
> Sorry, I didn't want to get into this discussion, but I HAVE to take issue
> with this. Until about 1950, film prints were considered very precious
> materials by the studios. Projectionists were CAREFUL with them and were
> trained in a way you might expect a good lab technician to be today.
This is absolutely true - my point was more to do with archival
preservation, which only really got off the ground from the 1930s
onwards (which is why the overwhelming majority of silent films - some
claim as much as 90% - have been lost forever).
And of course unless prints from whatever era are properly preserved,
they are more likely to deteriorate - but Pedro's claim about "fixer"
and how it's much better today than it was then is quite simply rubbish:
modern prints are far more likely to deteriorate rapidly.
> A print might be expected to last for many years in the old days. It had
> to be long-lasting enough to tour the country and be in the hands of many
> small-town projectionists. They didn't make 1000 prints then... they made
> 100 (or less).
>
> Today, a print is considered paid advertisement for the video. It is put
> in the hands of a mall projectionist who has had minutes or hours of
> training. There is practically NO commercial value for the print after the
> first 6 weeks of the film's release.
>
> Therefore,
> a) prints are much more battered today (handling is poorer).
> b) lab conditions (ESPECIALLY fixer stage) is much poorer, and film often
> deteriorates much sooner than it used to.
I can back this up from personal experience. I once booked a print of a
totally routine British feature from the early 1960s. The quality of
the print was absolutely stunning, and revealed just how rich
black-and-white photography can be when everyone along the chain from
the cinematographer to the lab knows exactly what they're doing.
Much the same goes for early Technicolor prints, which is why a colour
film from the 1930s and 1940s will usually look far better than one from
the 1950s/60s/70s. The last time I watched 'Barry Lyndon' and 'Days of
Heaven' on the big screen, the UK release prints had developed a
noticeably pinkish tinge - but 'Black Narcissus' still looked wonderful.
Pedro Sena
>Nor does any sane person - but adopting the opposite position (as you
>still appear to be doing) is equally illogical.
I don't look at individual experiences, which create film makers in the
first place, something "illogical" at all .. it's just life. The only logic
to it all, is the one that we create for ourselves to justify our existance.
In film, not all things that have ever been done were done with much more
than just a chance to reimburse their pockets. I tend to go for the film
that really has a lot less of this attitude than otherwise... c'mon, it
shows in the directing and the cut.
I have never felt, even in a psychic way ( I do readings, not that it
matters ), that many of these films were really as important, or valuable as
many speak of them. I think they may appear to have made a dent in the
history of film in so far as their imagery is outstanding, but to me it is
ALMOST all there is to it....it does not mean they are bad, or good, or
whatever. They just are not as valid for me, validating the existance of an
art form.
>This is nonsense. 'Deconstructing Harry' was number one at the UK box
>office a few months ago, and most Woody Allen films do extremely well
>over here. And trust me, his audience is not entirely made up of film
>critics.
Nice to see that he is appreciated somewhere. His next film's budget is
around one and a half million dollars. Maybe you need to tell him that he
can make some money in England.
>And if you think that Keaton, Gance and Eisenstein would be "bores"
>today, you clearly haven't attended the screenings of their work ....
For the most part, I don't attend special screenings. 1. I do not have the
financial resources to walk among the affluent. 2. I really find too many in
those audiences really bad company for the enjoyment of a film. They are
there to cut it up, not enjoy it. 3. I review films that MOVE me, in
emotional, intelectual and other ways that can not be explained. Most of
those films that are old, have little attraction for me as a person, and I
find that they are mostly exercises in "let's try it this way, because it is
far out", and I PERSONALLY do not care for much of this at all -- however, I
do not know that you can understand this that I am saying, since there is a
very wide psychic atmosphere in it for me.
For me, empty, plain, bare, alone, was never a problem on stage, or on film.
And I can see embelishments that to me make it a FILM, which is something
that I do not care for at all....it destroys my "childish: appreciation of
the work. I prefer to "get into it" and live and die with it, not to think
of it as "I have to see it because it is history..."
Please at least apreciate a Spike Milligan point of view of things.....
there not only is room for all of us, but we also have, and can say
something of value.
>have (which ended in rapturous - and perfectly genuine - applause). In
>fact, I was worried that the six-hour 'La Roue' might be an ordeal to
>sit through, but nothing could be further from the truth.
As was Gance's Napoleon. Enjoyable, but it had nice moments.
>True, a major large-scale reissue of their work is highly unlikely to
>happen - but that's true of *any* film that's reached a certain age.
>But the lack of exposure most definitely does not mean that audiences
>don't like it.
In America this is as true a statement as you can make in regards to these
things. The AFI thing is more of an attempt to return more money to their
investments, than otherwise, and they continue to ignore many smaller film
makers that made history and really ignited the development of the art form,
in lieu of favorite popular films. It's a popular vote, really, which is the
American definition of democracy, by way of induction.
Pedro Sena
>Projectionists were CAREFUL with them and were
>trained in a way you might expect a good lab technician to be today.
People are people. There are just as many good ones involved in the business
as there are bad ones.
>A print might be expected to last for many years in the old days. It had
>to be long-lasting enough to tour the country and be in the hands of many
>small-town projectionists. They didn't make 1000 prints then... they made
>100 (or less).
Which required more care. Just like Orson Welles and a couple of films that
found many projectionists intentionally mishandling his film in the west
coast .......
>a) prints are much more battered today (handling is poorer).
Around here, it is a minimal wage job for high school kids now.
>b) lab conditions (ESPECIALLY fixer stage) is much poorer, and film often
>deteriorates much sooner than it used to.
Howefver, the chemical itself is better, and by the time the film reaches
the fixer stage, it can be touched, and is ok. It is rarely touched, since
the machines keep it covered until it is past the stabilizing process, which
was not available 50 years ago.
>I will also wager that in 100 years, the great period of lost films will be
>from the 1950s-1970s. Many of them are not gone NOW, but they're headed
>that way.
Would not surprise me either .... probably the whole century, since there
are way too many films to remember. The art form is so diluted, that it will
be difficult to appreciate and pinpoint much of anything. This makes it hard
to define the art form itself. But then, at the time Mozart's fans were also
drowning their sorrows in drink while laughing at their dates anyway ......
it's the way of the world ....
Pedro Sena
>And of course unless prints from whatever era are properly preserved,
>they are more likely to deteriorate - but Pedro's claim about "fixer"
>and how it's much better today than it was then is quite simply rubbish:
>modern prints are far more likely to deteriorate rapidly.
I guess that fifteen years of photographic experience and still running,
with film in my hands, won't say anything. On a physical level modern prints
will last longer as the celluloid and chemical process that it is set on is
rated now at about 200 years. This is Fuji's and Kodak" pride and joy guys
....... The film can last as long as it does not get wet, or hand oils and
dirt touch it indiscriminately.
By comparison, the fixer of the fifties had a lifetime of 50 years, but we
are finding out that it fades to yellow, meaning that it really had half the
time it was claimed to have. This may be good for film guys ..... half the
age that it is promised is more than our lifetimes.
>The quality of
>the print was absolutely stunning, and revealed just how rich
>black-and-white photography can be when everyone along the chain from
>the cinematographer to the lab knows exactly what they're doing.
Black and White technolofy has fifty years on color. It will always last
better, as long as there is a demand for it. The color process is still,
rather weak at this time. Much of it is because of untried technologies, and
the ability of a film to pay for itself. In still photography, for example,
there are telling signs that also happen in the film industry.... here is an
example .... in the age of color/digital detail and contrast ( of which we
can easily say that movie history has been its forerunner and father ), most
"professional" photographers use a "pro" film that is flat, and cuts down
the color contrasts. Almost NO FILM MAKER/cinematographer wold want to work
with that, although the independents are often left with left over stock
from other films which costs 1/10 the price. You only see the new films in
the movies of the big name directors the world over.
>The last time I watched 'Barry Lyndon' and 'Days of
>Heaven' on the big screen, the UK release prints had developed a
>noticeably pinkish tinge - but 'Black Narcissus' still looked wonderful.
That depends on the conditions upon which the prints were saved. In a cold
environment, the film would have had a darker tone for its thicker
emultions, and a lighter tone for its thinner emultions. Don't forget that
it's all "crystals" and that they are not constant at all, regardless.
Pedro Sena
>ten pounds to see were Gance's 'Napoleon' and Philip Glass's reworking
>of Cocteau's 'Beauty and the Beast'. Otherwise - and this includes
>screenings with live accompaniment - I've rarely paid more than the
>normal going rate.
For me, to be able to get to many of these screenings, means driving into
downtown Portland ( about 20 miles ), and paying $5 dollars for parking.
Plus the movie at about 6 or 7 dollars, it places a rather tough strain on
my meagher pocket. Being solo, means that the costs are not split at all,
and I have to account for the many pennies quite often. I have been buying
film stock to shoot my third film. Hopefully one of my shorts will be
accepted at either Sundance, SlamDance, or any others. I made one weird one
with Slam Dance in mind.... hope it's called, HOPE my friend.
I would like to see many more of these oddities, but I just can not afford
it. I spend the larger amount of time on scavenger hunts all over town in
about 7 or 8 video stores, where one can find the oddest things.
>I simply don't understand what you're saying - I can assure you that the
>audiences *I've* watched silent films with were enjoying it (if constant
>laughter and rapturous applause at the end is anything to go by).
Silent or otherwise, the worst screenings that I have ever been to are the
ones where "reviewers" are present. It's not the comments they make, it is
the attitude during the film , for which I am too damn psychically
sensitive, and can pick up. It's worse than a bar atmosphere for all the
banshee cries for help and companionship instead of sex.
> But if you really can't make the not particularly great
>imaginative leap that's required to appreciate older films (I simply
>cannot believe that any reasonably intelligent human being could fail to
>respond to 'The Last Laugh' or 'Sunrise', which are two of the most
>moving films I've ever seen), then what business have you denouncing
>them in such sweeping terms?
These moved me, but not as much as a Bunuel ever did, or a Kieslowski. I am
just not given to kissing up to the silent era.
>This is utterly meaningless to me. If a film works, it works,
>regardless of context.
Of course it is. You may not have a feel for "stage" that I have been around
all my life, and work with in almost all of my reviews. "Works..." for me,
means that I never lose concentration in the film, and it has kept me inside
of it all the time. Too many films are showcases of bodies, make up, or
machinery, and these hold much lesser attentions for me. Th esilent ear was
really no different, in a similar way.
>Buster Keaton retrospective because it was "history" - I sat through it
>because it was a damn sight more entertaining (without making any
>allowances at all) than virtually anything else that was on.
Michael, stop defining what I like or do not like. I happen to like Keaton,
and almost all of the comedy capers from the very first of our century. They
impress me a lot. It's the rest that doesn't.
Michael Brooke
> >This is nonsense. 'Deconstructing Harry' was number one at the UK box
> >office a few months ago, and most Woody Allen films do extremely well
> >over here. And trust me, his audience is not entirely made up of film
> >critics.
>
>
> Nice to see that he is appreciated somewhere. His next film's budget is
> around one and a half million dollars. Maybe you need to tell him that he
> can make some money in England.
Oh, believe me, he knows! He's said on numerous occasions that if it
wasn't for France and the UK he'd almost certainly have to abandon
film-making - or at least location shooting in New York.
>
> >And if you think that Keaton, Gance and Eisenstein would be "bores"
> >today, you clearly haven't attended the screenings of their work ....
>
> For the most part, I don't attend special screenings. 1. I do not have the
> financial resources to walk among the affluent.
Define "affluent". The *only* films I think I've ever paid more than
ten pounds to see were Gance's 'Napoleon' and Philip Glass's reworking
of Cocteau's 'Beauty and the Beast'. Otherwise - and this includes
screenings with live accompaniment - I've rarely paid more than the
normal going rate.
> 2. I really find too many in
> those audiences really bad company for the enjoyment of a film. They are
> there to cut it up, not enjoy it.
I simply don't understand what you're saying - I can assure you that the
audiences *I've* watched silent films with were enjoying it (if constant
laughter and rapturous applause at the end is anything to go by).
> 3. I review films that MOVE me, in
> emotional, intelectual and other ways that can not be explained. Most of
> those films that are old, have little attraction for me as a person, and I
> find that they are mostly exercises in "let's try it this way, because it is
> far out", and I PERSONALLY do not care for much of this at all.
Well, there's not much I can say to that except that I am genuinely
sorry for you. But if you really can't make the not particularly great
imaginative leap that's required to appreciate older films (I simply
cannot believe that any reasonably intelligent human being could fail to
respond to 'The Last Laugh' or 'Sunrise', which are two of the most
moving films I've ever seen), then what business have you denouncing
them in such sweeping terms?
>
> For me, empty, plain, bare, alone, was never a problem on stage, or on film.
> And I can see embelishments that to me make it a FILM, which is something
> that I do not care for at all....it destroys my "childish: appreciation of
> the work. I prefer to "get into it" and live and die with it, not to think
> of it as "I have to see it because it is history..."
This is utterly meaningless to me. If a film works, it works,
regardless of context. I didn't sit through virtually all of a major
Buster Keaton retrospective because it was "history" - I sat through it
because it was a damn sight more entertaining (without making any
allowances at all) than virtually anything else that was on. If you
*can't* "get into" Keaton, then that's your problem - not a reflection
of anything to do with the films.
> Please at least apreciate a Spike Milligan point of view of things.....
> there not only is room for all of us, but we also have, and can say
> something of value.
Denouncing the first 35 years of film history as "worthless
entertainment crap" is not, to my mind, "saying something of value" -
it's making a sweeping, demonstrably inaccurate and hence largely
meaningless comment.
Michael Brooke
> Silent or otherwise, the worst screenings that I have ever been to are the
> ones where "reviewers" are present. It's not the comments they make, it is
> the attitude during the film , for which I am too damn psychically
> sensitive, and can pick up. It's worse than a bar atmosphere for all the
> banshee cries for help and companionship instead of sex.
I don't know why you're so fixated on "reviewers". Unless the screening
in question is a press show - which is an entirely separate thing, and
usually a private invitation-only screening - why shouldn't the audience
be made up of perfectly normal people?
>
> > But if you really can't make the not particularly great
> >imaginative leap that's required to appreciate older films (I simply
> >cannot believe that any reasonably intelligent human being could fail to
> >respond to 'The Last Laugh' or 'Sunrise', which are two of the most
> >moving films I've ever seen), then what business have you denouncing
> >them in such sweeping terms?
>
> These moved me, but not as much as a Bunuel ever did, or a Kieslowski. I am
> just not given to kissing up to the silent era.
We're not talking about "kissing up to" anything - we're talking about
arriving at a simple, honest, emotional (or intellectual) response to
films that, at best, are astonishingly sophisticated given the lack of a
soundtrack. In fact, I'd argue that few film-makers outside the
avant-garde have pushed cinema's visual vocabulary as far as people like
Abel Gance did.
> Michael, stop defining what I like or do not like. I happen to like Keaton,
> and almost all of the comedy capers from the very first of our century. They
> impress me a lot. It's the rest that doesn't.
This is the problem: you don't like it - indeed, you haven't seen very
much of it *because* you don't like it - so you think this gives you the
right to make sweeping blanket judgements. Which is fair enough -
freedom of speech being what it is - but it sure as hell also gives me
the right to challenge your assertions.
Robert Birchard
fact.
It is debatable whether prints were better treated in the "good old
days." Anyone who has seem a well-run original print from the silent or
early sound era is almost certain to see missing heads and tails of
reels, splices, scratches, torn sprocket holes and often the cruelest of
mutilations--multiple changeover cues. It seems every projectionst felt
compelled to "piss" on a print by carving his own set of oversized cues
in the picture.
It is true there were fewer prints made, but and those prints were
required to last longer--but subsequent run theaters often got little
better than junk prints, and as the release pattern stretched out the
exchanges would canibalize prints to maintain one good one.
In the 1920's it was typical for a studio to make 160 prints for
the entire country--roughly ten percent of the number of prints that
might be made now on a major release. This would amunt to not quite two
prints for each exchange (commonly there were about 60 exchange cities
in those days).
It is very rare that any major studio release prints from the 20's
survived. The major studios were very good at "print control." If we
were forced to rely on surviving release prints for our silent and early
sound heritage then I would hazard the rate of surviving films would be
less than two percent rather than the ten to twenty percent it is today.
It is true that there were 35mm nitrate collectors and i the 1930's
they might pick up silents from the independent exchanges for $.50 to
$3.00 per reel--but these were mostly independent films that were
essentially "orphans." Of the M-G-M silents that survived in privat
collections I can think of only about a half dozen feature titles. For
Fox, even fewer.
After Fox's disastrous 1937 fire the studio did make some effort to
seek out copies of its pre-1935 films. A film like the 1931 Riders of
the Purple Sage was called in from service to become the studio print.
I actually helped patch this print up many years ago to coax it
through a printter and I would be hard-pressed to think of a print that
was in worse physical shape. Hundreds of splices, scratches, and
virtually no frame with all its sprocket holes intact in the 6,000
running feet of the film.
Studios have never considered release prints anything more than
disposable materials--this is why Eastman Color print stocks never had
terribly stable dyes--it was always considered they would be junked
within 18 months to 2 years.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Pedro Sena
>Much of this discussion has been based on speculation rather than
>fact.
I just think that there are two views here that are being discussed. One
that has been written about in many books, WHICH I DO NOT TOTALY AGREE WITH,
but I have mentioned, regarding the Surrealistic Manifesto and a statement
that it makes regarding the arts. This Michael has taken offense to. I am
not the originator of that statement, and I agree to the statement in
principal, not in detail.
> It seems every projectionst felt
>compelled to "piss" on a print by carving his own set of oversized cues
>in the picture.
For every good one, there is a bad one.
> Studios have never considered release prints anything more than
>disposable materials--this is why Eastman Color print stocks never had
>terribly stable dyes--it was always considered they would be junked
>within 18 months to 2 years.
And still are.
I am of the opinion that Michael's stand that all silent film is godly, is
really full of it. While I agree with him, that there are many films that
might have helped the art form develop, specially in the lighting and
cinematography concepts, I am not a believer that film really has changed
much. There are individuals that added theatre related touches, like Orson
Welles, that changed the look of film for years, and I BELIEVE that those
things were much more important to the art form development, than any
Polyanna stories or another Stroheim film. I just don't see the point in
saying that Stroheim, or Eisenstein deserve mention and someone else does
not, silent or otherwise....
BUT I do credit the BFI for a much more talented and well defined number of
films, since it's choices are NOT swayed by money or studio. It includes
many foreign language films that Hollywood ignored as if none had ever
affected American viewers.
The argument was that these should be only AMERICAN made films .... that I
can buy, but it is a gross dis-respect to the art form and many other people
that have added to it, who were not Americans. It also shows very clearly,
how deprived of seeing another type of film, many American audiences really
are. Which is really sad.
Michael Brooke
>
> I am of the opinion that Michael's stand that all silent film is godly, is
> really full of it.
And where on earth did I ever say that?
*You* were the one who was making absurdly sweeping claims along the
lines of pre-1930s cinema being "worthless entertainment crap", but that
hardly means that anyone objecting to your position automatically thinks
that every silent film is automatically a masterpiece. This would be as
patently absurd as saying French films are better than American films -
though, mind you, you do get quite a few people saying things like that!
> While I agree with him, that there are many films that
> might have helped the art form develop, specially in the lighting and
> cinematography concepts, I am not a believer that film really has changed
> much.
Surprisingly enough, I agree with you - which makes your blanket
dismissal of the entire pre-1930 era even more baffling!
> There are individuals that added theatre related touches, like Orson
> Welles, that changed the look of film for years, and I BELIEVE that those
> things were much more important to the art form development, than any
> Polyanna stories or another Stroheim film. I just don't see the point in
> saying that Stroheim, or Eisenstein deserve mention and someone else does
> not, silent or otherwise....
Who on earth has been claiming any such thing? To be honest, I have no
idea what you're arguing here, as it seems to fall back on bizarre
oppositional stances that I have never come across in any other writings
on cinema. Why on earth is Welles "much more important" than
Eisenstein? Why, indeed, is it an either/or situation - that you can
mention one but not the other?
And, more to the point, what is so objectionable about drawing attention
to films like 'La Roue', which includes many of the innovations
subsequently credited to Eisenstein and Welles - but which was made
before their careers began. (Eisenstein almost definitely saw the film
in Moscow, where a print was shipped in order to show Soviet directors
the full potential of the still fledgling medium).
> BUT I do credit the BFI for a much more talented and well defined number of
> films, since it's choices are NOT swayed by money or studio. It includes
> many foreign language films that Hollywood ignored as if none had ever
> affected American viewers.
It's a little unfair to compare the BFI and AFI lists directly, since
they're compilations of different films according to different criteria
made by different people for different reasons. The AFI list is a
popularity poll, no more, no less - while the BFI list is far more
scholarly.
> The argument was that these should be only AMERICAN made films .... that I
> can buy, but it is a gross dis-respect to the art form and many other people
> that have added to it, who were not Americans. It also shows very clearly,
> how deprived of seeing another type of film, many American audiences really
> are. Which is really sad.
The AFI list never made it a secret that it only covered American films
(even though a few British films slipped in through the net!), so I
don't see what the problem is - especially as very few people seem to be
taking it particularly seriously.
FIREZINE
glorification of it. The juxtaposition of unrelated images is also a main
thrust. Many films before Dali & Bunuel contain Surreal scenes and images
going all the way back to Melies and Edison. I've never seen "L'Age
d'Or', unfortunately, but have watched "The Andalusion Dog", however you
spell it, many many times. It's both silly and profound and highly
entertaining. What is entertainment?
FIREZINE
"they went out and created something different, that did not have
"comedy", or "shock" written all over it, like a gun pointing at the
You've got to be kidding. The whole idea was to shock. Slicing an eye
with a razor blade is not shock value. When the Buneul and Dail films
were shown there were riots, the theatre was wrecked, some of Dali's
paintings were slashed and I think the audience tried to destroy both the
films and makers. Now that's entertainment.
J M MacLaren
>
> ....
>
> I am of the opinion that Michael's stand that all silent film is godly, is
> might have helped the art form develop, specially in the lighting and
> cinematography concepts, I am not a believer that film really has changed
> Welles, that changed the look of film for years, and I BELIEVE that those
> things were much more important to the art form development, than any
> Polyanna stories or another Stroheim film. I just don't see the point in
> saying that Stroheim, or Eisenstein deserve mention and someone else does
> not, silent or otherwise....
>
Sorry, I just don't understand this. There will always be luminaries in
any field, who deserve mentioning before others. Of course, a lot of
this is down to personal choice, especailly in the arts. But, there are
certain directors who almost all film fans consider to be great
talents. You mention Welles, and I would agree. But, I also would have
to place Eisenstein among the top directors. If you look at Battleship
Potemkin now (I saw it only this year, at the cinema), you can see the
seeds from which so many techniques have grown. As an example, I'd have
to cite the Odessa steps segment - the shots of the pram falling down
the steps, out of control, are amazing (this will be very familiar to
anyone who's seen The Untouchables). Eisenstein even elongates time
when cutting between two cameras, (deliberately showing images which
overlap in time with images you have just seen), and to great effect.
What a contribution to make to the art of cinema. That was back in
1925!
For more examples, look to D W Griffiths, the first person to cut
between two simulatneously occuring scenes, making the cuts shorter and
shorter, until the two scenes collide in confrontation. As with any
developing field, there will be a lot of radical changes in the first
few years. If you look at how cinema changed up to the 1930s (visually,
of course), and how its changed since then, you can see that most of the
basic techniques were developed very early on. I guess that the main
contributions after this point have been more experimental camera
angles, and then, less importantly, film quality, colour and special
effects. I say less important because of course, you don't need these
to make a good film (e.g. Twenty-Four Seven, plus lots of low-budget
stuff).
How can you deny the inventiveness and importance, and even greatness,
of these people, who invented all these techniques that we all just take
for granted today?
Jon MacLaren.
Sorry, not really into signatures...
Pedro Sena
>One of the main principles of surrealism is the "accidental" and the
>glorification of it. The juxtaposition of unrelated images is also a main
>thrust.
And this was a visible reaction to the literature themes, and arts of the
time that did not have the immediate subtlety that any art form could
possess. In this, it was a very important move to help define creativity
with intuition. But film, unlike literature, painting, or music, can do one
thing immediatly that the other three arts could not. Define the image and
make it move. In music, it is dependent on our imagination, as it is in
writing. In painting, that "vision" was a bit more lively, but static. All
of a sudden it is MOVING.
The surrealists knew this difference, and made sure that they could have
something "moving", which later the likes of Bunuel and Godard ( also quite
a surrealist ) turned into a sort of "a day in the life", which Andy Warhol
ended up boring us with and destroying.
Pedro Sena
>
>You've got to be kidding. The whole idea was to shock. Slicing an eye
>with a razor blade is not shock value. When the Buneul and Dail films
>were shown there were riots, the theatre was wrecked, some of Dali's
>paintings were slashed and I think the audience tried to destroy both the
>films and makers. Now that's entertainment.
You mis-read my statement. The original idea, pointing the gun and so on,
was meant to shock, but really had no literary value per se. It challenged
no one.
The surrealistic idea was to create imagery, that was dream like
( intuitive --- not real life ), rather than the standard fare. Thus, these
films, YES, they have a shock value, but compared to our inner dreams, and
state of dreaming, are a form of kindergarten. Yes, it is entertaining,
although many might consider it sick, but then the idea of pulling a trigger
is just as sick in my book. I guess that I consider one style of imagery an
art, and the other - the every day stuff - just a bit meaningless, or simply
"pointed" idealism and ideas.
I much prefer the surrealistic style that dares you to define the image,
which is the way that things should be, rather than the model that we are
taught in schools that everything has a meaning, and that if we don't know
what it means that we are lesser members of the socio/political confines.
To me, this was the main reason, why people like Andy Warhol were "nobody".
Had as much depth as a kid's pool. It was good show, that's all, and I
really thought that this was a logical extension of the "show and tell"
attitude that film had gotten from its early WOW days.....
Pedro Sena
>
>Sorry, I just don't understand this. There will always be luminaries in
>any field, who deserve mentioning before others. Of course, a lot of
>this is down to personal choice, especailly in the arts.
I base my views, on a quotidian study of these arts. I was a theater major,
who loved film, and took film courses, living in a house full of literature
( 60,000 books ) with a literary figure who was a neo-contemporary of the
Bunuel's and Dali's ( we have originals signed ).
The one thing that these arts often lack, is the understanding that often
goes into them. The majority of the surrealists were people that were
seriously educated and had connections to the world of the arts, and were
much more aware of the state of the arts, than we give them credit for. It's
not like today that Joe Schmoe, the director of Godzilla does not know the
meaning of the word surrealism, and what it was all about, or why he did the
film, other than the money.
The surrealistic manifesto, and the film stuff that ensued, even including
the likes of Jean Cocteau, were very serious people that realized the
potential to make their "art" come alive from their writing, or painting, or
music, and they took to film, which could do that.... they were not "film"
people that had "ideas". like we see today ...AND THIS makes a difference,
when one is in the creative process.
Personally, I see in those two early Bunuel/Dali films, an "anti-commentary"
to the Freudian and Jungian view that was starting to develop in those days,
that pretty much stated something like "all intuition and stuff had
meaning...", and people like Bunuel and Dali, were not about to let someone
say that. They define a set of images ( out of the blue, let's say ), and
then filmed them. It was a way of saying ... now what Sigmund? now what
Carl? And the result is, that there is much more in the inner self than we
thought, and films like this SHOWED IT.
As an art form, this is very important for film. many will re-evaluate their
work and its meaning, and it is no coincidence that the hundreds of shorts
and comedies seemed to get cut in half all of a sudden, not because they
were not funny, but because they just were not "deep" anymore.
>But, there are
>certain directors who almost all film fans consider to be great
>talents. You mention Welles, and I would agree. But, I also would have
>to place Eisenstein among the top directors.
I agree. I used Welles as an example, as he is clearer than most. And his
film style is TOTALY theatrical from a stage point of view, and I think he
knew that. Even as an actor, he never let go of that "stage" personna.
> If you look at how cinema changed up to the 1930s (visually,
>of course), and how its changed since then, you can see that most of the
>basic techniques were developed very early on.
I like to discuss here, the harder part. The "technique" and the basic
"style" is already there. But now, with the surrealists, there was a desire
to define these things. 50 years later Godard would do "anti-films" and make
fun of hundreds of these techniques and film buffs "didn't get it" and
thought he was boring. And Godard, was right. The prevalent third person pov
was totaly impersonal, and if one took from it a "literary" meaning, that
pov was a "voyeur", and someone that was in many places at once and did not
give a poop about what was going on, except manipulating the audience's
emotions, which the likes of Polanski took seriously and went over board
with. ( Did you turn your head to look past the door? )
>How can you deny the inventiveness and importance, and even greatness,
>of these people, who invented all these techniques that we all just take
>for granted today?
Gosh, are people only reading three lines out of a whole article? I do not
think that anyone person is greater than another, and that not a single one
person has been more creative than another. All of them have value. I just
do not think that silent film, is any more creative today, or yesterday,
than any other film was in a comparative manner. I think that film today is
far more ambitious and creative than that of yesterday, including the famed
names. But this never means that they did not help define the medium ( THEY
DID ), or that they weren't any good. I just agreed with the surrealists, in
that I thought that most of the stories and film content was cheap, and
poor. I don't think all of it was that, but much of it was really ......
boring.
( but I was brought up in a literary/visual world of the arts. it may be
easy for me to say that, when visual imagery and imagination was something
that I never lacked, and much film was NOT an extension of what I wanted to
see, or fantasize about. -- try that on... thus early film had little
influence in me, and something like Kanal, or Knife in the Water would be
more inclined to shake my roots and add meaning to my inner sights. )
Rick Levinson
***************************************************
Which one of you guys ordered the latte short?
Thus ends lesson # 114 in the Sunrise Semesters series entitled Film
Semiotics 101: The Art of Taking Something Joyful and Turning It Into
Grist for Hideously Pretentious Discussions Which No One On This
Particular Newsgroup Gives A Damn About And Which Serve Only To
Establish In Agonizing Detail What a Crashing Bore You Are and What A
Striving Intellectual-Manque You So Desperately Desire To Be.
Tune in next week when we dissect a newborn kitten to 'prove' it really
isn't all that 'cute' at all.
Rick Levinson <goon...@interlog.com>
FIREZINE
surrealist act!
Pedro Sena
> Which one of you guys ordered the latte short?
HE DID.
> Rick Levinson goons tra
Have a noodle!
No, I'm trying to give them up.!
Rick Levinson
>
>
> > Rick Levinson goons tra
>
> Have a noodle!
> No, I'm trying to give them up.!
Well, I've taken a lot in my day, but when someone has the gall to
offer me a noodle....a noodle with an exclamation point, yet.
I'm sorry to have to resort to this, Pedro, but you've forced me to
retaliate with all the weapons at my disposal:
My Han-Shu Dynasty-obsessed tuna smacks you with the insolence of a
petit bourgeois sacredly ugly horse's blue-painted tongue wearing St.
Teresa of Avila's galoshes and possessing a prodigious pair of heaving
breasts the size of translucent Barcelona pears filled with American
Coca-Cola within the holy madre cleavage of which hangs a crucifix made
of smashed and burnt Mexican death's head candy.
Which holy horse's tongue, body of mine, basks in the perfume of your
mother's sandals and melts in a crust of glorious holy filth over a
plastic facsimile of Marilyn Monroe enacting a tableau of the pieta.
{for those of you who don't understand Dadaism and/or Surrealism, I
insulted Mr. Penna and his family lineage. At least I think I did. I
also summarized every Bunuel film ever made so there's no need seeing
any if you haven't already).
(I apologize to the Coca-Cola Company for any copyright infringement).
Rick Levinson <goon...@interlog.com>
Paul Penna
> Pedro Sena wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Rick Levinson goons tra
> >
> > Have a noodle!
> > No, I'm trying to give them up.!
>
> {for those of you who don't understand Dadaism and/or Surrealism, I
> insulted Mr. Penna and his family lineage. At least I think I did. I
> also summarized every Bunuel film ever made so there's no need seeing
> any if you haven't already).
How did I (and my family lineage, such as it is) get dragged into this?
Paul Penna
Pedro Sena
>Of course Breton considered 'firing a gun at random into a crowd' a
>surrealist act!
Used in a totally different context. But then, in those days, and in Europe,
that was something happening everyday, wasn't it? When you're born around it
so much, and have had so much of your family destroyed by guns and idealisms
about shit, do you think that you would not say things like that destroyed
silly, to make a point?
You see, this is the life of "private ryan" so to speak, the part that few
want to deal with, and many people's way to deal with the harshness of
reality is to escape into a sort of weirdness that is sad, often times sick,
and many more times pointed.
Ask Spike Mulligan, the biggest thorn in the side of the BBC. At least one
of them will be remembered.
Pedro Sena
>> Have a noodle!
>> No, I'm trying to give them up.!
> {for those of you who don't understand Dadaism and/or Surrealism, I
>insulted Mr. Penna and his family lineage. At least I think I did. I
>also summarized every Bunuel film ever made so there's no need seeing
>any if you haven't already).
The Goons will be proud of your exaltation of ..... noodles.
Pedro Sena
>
>How did I (and my family lineage, such as it is) get dragged into this?
As Neddie Seagoon would say ... "I resign." Major Dennis Bloodnock had
nothing to do with all this at all, he says, although Bluebottle does not
think so.!
Pedro Sena
>Of course Breton considered 'firing a gun at random into a crowd' a
>surrealist act!
Of course, he had seen the Nazi's and the French do it many times to
disperse political rallies. This was the context he had said this in ....
and his comment was not meant as a surrealistic statement as much as it was
a pointed political statement.
Michael Brooke
>
> Ask Spike Mulligan, the biggest thorn in the side of the BBC. At least one
> of them will be remembered.
You're right - I remember the BBC very well indeed, but I've never heard
of Spike Mulligan!
Misspelling apart, I'm highly intrigued by your claim that Spike
Milligan was "the biggest thorn in the side of the BBC". I'm sure he'd
have *liked* to be, but nothing Milligan ever did caused anything like
as much controversy as, say, Johnny Speight's 'Till Death Us Do Part',
many episodes of which the BBC refuses to repeat because they're as
inflammatory today as they ever were (more so, in fact, because words
like "coon" are far less likely to crop up in a comic context).
In fact, there's a far stronger case for claiming that Mary Whitehouse
was BY FAR the biggest thorn in the side of the BBC, and remains so to
this day.
Pedro Sena
>Milligan was "the biggest thorn in the side of the BBC". I'm sure he'd
>have *liked* to be, but nothing Milligan ever did caused ......
The BBC still has over 25 Goon shows that it has never released, not to
mention a couple of series of Michael Bentine shows that it has never
allowed anyone else to hear either. It is a known fact that the Bentine
shows are deadly on the attacks.
The "control", is what bother me. I don't think that these will be released
until Charles becomes king, since he was an honorary fan of the shows.