Text based cinema
Mikko Pihkoluoma
across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this just recently
from an interview.
(http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html)
He has grand scale ideas about changing the medium
(http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6112/1.html)... I'm very
interested in Tulse Luper Suitcase. I'm just afraid that nothing is going to
change. We'll see...
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male hero,
the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism... I suppose you could
take these theories a lot further. Basically, I would support the notion of
the female over the male; I always find females far more exciting and
entertaining. Females are on the cusp now of the greatest revolution that is
happening in the world; it's not political, it's not capitalistic, it has
to do finally with some sense of emancipation of the female which has never
been present before in our civilisation"
-- Peter Greenaway
Pikemann Urge
>
> The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried to put
> across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this just recently
> from an interview.
> (http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html)
Greenaway said that "the cinema should be image-based. It should not be
text-based. I cannot really understand why we've had this 100 years of
text-based cinema." I don't think I fully understand what he's saying,
but I don't think that the cinema was ever text-based. Rather, in the
early days it tried to be a kind of recorded theatre, where the only
editing you did was pretty much to splice together the several large
lengths of film you had shot. Yeah, there's a script, but that's more a
blueprint than anything else. So I need some help here to understand
Greenaway's statement.
I agree with this a lot: "The ability for a writer to tell stories is
far richer, far more manipulative of the human imagination than ever a
filmmaker can be." Not totally, but a lot. I have the idea that both
media are great for story-telling. If only we dispensed with 2 hour
feature films - I say that only half-seriously.
This is interesting: "A general tenor of my conversation to you is
certainly to indicate my disenchantment with what could be called the
Casablanca syndrome cinema, which I now think is rapidly dying." I
didn't know what the hell he was on about until -
> (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6112/1.html)
"back to the Casablanca syndrome way back in the 1940s: stories simply
told, beginnings, middles and ends, just one image, based very much on
structures of the late 19th-century novel writing." Ah, I see now. I
guess he has a very good point: the beginning-middle-end formula is
actually not necessary for a good story. Though I think he doesn't like
endings tied up with a pretty bow and with no further paths for the
imagination. I mean, I would argue that a movie like MD actually is told
in the three-stage process (it has a beginning, middle and end); yet
Lynch didn't let that restrict what we saw and felt, and what we would
think after seeing it.
BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that for
tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
interest.
> "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male hero,
> the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point there.
MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
-- Pikemann Urge --
'However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light'
-- Stanley Kubrick
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko Pihkoluoma wrote:
> >
> > The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried to
put
> > across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this just
recently
> > from an interview.
> > (http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html)
>
> Greenaway said that "the cinema should be image-based. It should not be
> text-based. I cannot really understand why we've had this 100 years of
> text-based cinema." I don't think I fully understand what he's saying,
> but I don't think that the cinema was ever text-based. Rather, in the
> early days it tried to be a kind of recorded theatre, where the only
> editing you did was pretty much to splice together the several large
> lengths of film you had shot. Yeah, there's a script, but that's more a
> blueprint than anything else. So I need some help here to understand
> Greenaway's statement.
I'm not sure yet but the way I see it now, it's all about the fact that
images have too little meaning without text... For me it's also about the
frustration that cinema of today gives me. ... I see potential in cinema,
but I don't see it in terms of telling stories. Probably because it's been
done, and very little of it fascinates me.
I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over by
"wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
we're talking about writing here. To me music, photography and editing are
far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt like
music.
Have you seen 'Un Chien Andalou'? I have a pretty decent quality mov-file
for anyone interested.
If you understand what Greenaway says with "the medium is the message" then
you'll understand.
> I agree with this a lot: "The ability for a writer to tell stories is
> far richer, far more manipulative of the human imagination than ever a
> filmmaker can be." Not totally, but a lot. I have the idea that both
> media are great for story-telling. If only we dispensed with 2 hour
> feature films - I say that only half-seriously.
>
> This is interesting: "A general tenor of my conversation to you is
> certainly to indicate my disenchantment with what could be called the
> Casablanca syndrome cinema, which I now think is rapidly dying." I
> didn't know what the hell he was on about until -
>
> > (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6112/1.html)
>
> "back to the Casablanca syndrome way back in the 1940s: stories simply
> told, beginnings, middles and ends, just one image, based very much on
> structures of the late 19th-century novel writing." Ah, I see now. I
> guess he has a very good point: the beginning-middle-end formula is
> actually not necessary for a good story. Though I think he doesn't like
> endings tied up with a pretty bow and with no further paths for the
> imagination. I mean, I would argue that a movie like MD actually is told
> in the three-stage process (it has a beginning, middle and end); yet
> Lynch didn't let that restrict what we saw and felt, and what we would
> think after seeing it.
>
> BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that for
> tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
> one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
> interest.
I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's about
"the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is going
to cause a banal film!
> > "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male
hero,
> > the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
>
> I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point there.
> MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
> were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as they
are, not from the male perspective.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
"And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male hero,
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over by
> "wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
> we're talking about writing here. To me music, photography and editing
are
> far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt
like
> music.
Add painting to that list.
Joshua Zyber
news:3ED20A23...@MAPSONbigpond.net.au...
> Greenaway said that "the cinema should be image-based. It should not
be
> text-based. I cannot really understand why we've had this 100 years of
> text-based cinema." I don't think I fully understand what he's saying,
> but I don't think that the cinema was ever text-based. Rather, in the
> early days it tried to be a kind of recorded theatre, where the only
> editing you did was pretty much to splice together the several large
> lengths of film you had shot. Yeah, there's a script, but that's more
a
> blueprint than anything else. So I need some help here to understand
> Greenaway's statement.
Greenaway has been tattering on for some years now about how he believes
that cinema (or "cinemaaaaaaaah" as he pronounces it) is too dependant
on narrative, and that ideally film should be pure images without the
contraints of a story.
I respect a lot of what Greenaway has accomplished in the medium, but
sometimes he's also just a big fruity nutcase. He doesn't practice what
he preaches, as his best films have all had strong narrative backings.
And when he presents this case he conveniently forgets that a string of
images with no supporting story is just about the most tedious thing
imaginable (see his film Stairs 1: Geneva for reference).
- Josh
Trichome
"Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Greenaway has been tattering on for some years now about how he believes
> that cinema (or "cinemaaaaaaaah" as he pronounces it) is too dependant
> on narrative, and that ideally film should be pure images without the
> contraints of a story.
>
> I respect a lot of what Greenaway has accomplished in the medium, but
> sometimes he's also just a big fruity nutcase. He doesn't practice what
> he preaches, as his best films have all had strong narrative backings.
> And when he presents this case he conveniently forgets that a string of
> images with no supporting story is just about the most tedious thing
> imaginable (see his film Stairs 1: Geneva for reference).
>
> - Josh
Man climbs the tallest mountain to reach the unattainable, leaves the
Population behind him on the valley floor. Some like to watch him
climb, empathize with the goal. Whereas down below where the people
live, life goes on and stories are told. Some stories are inspired,
some of the techniques are inspired by the feats of previous
mountaineers. Most movies aren't serious and also lie on the worthless
side of watching. Some stories NEED to be told, and that's why I stay
down in the valley. Mountaineers are more than a little bit crazy.
I took an avant-garde films class in college, and often I wish you
all could have all been there with me; after all, discussion roots the
short-term experience into long-term consolidated memory. I only got
the chance to see these strange films once each, and sometimes I had an
experience that was akin to feeling and understanding the intention of
the creator. Kenneth Anger, Stan Brakhage, James Broughton, Jonas Mekas
Maya Deren, Hollis Frampton, Andy Warhol - for me most of these now,
(except of course Peter Greenaway), are only names in a yellowing
syllabus. And yet the memory lingers on occasion, of flashes my insight
into the insights of those avant-garde films in a dark theater in 1991.
If we all had the chance to see these pinnacles of non-narrative cinema,
boy, that would give us a chance to talk through this text/narrative or
image-based/non-narrative argument about what Cinema is, could, or
should be.
Trichome
--
Texts available: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobioy, On the Air, LH, MD pilot.
damnfine
> Greenaway has been tattering on for some years now about how he believes
> that cinema (or "cinemaaaaaaaah" as he pronounces it) is too dependant
> on narrative, and that ideally film should be pure images without the
> contraints of a story.
>
> I respect a lot of what Greenaway has accomplished in the medium, but
> sometimes he's also just a big fruity nutcase. He doesn't practice what
> he preaches, as his best films have all had strong narrative backings.
> And when he presents this case he conveniently forgets that a string of
> images with no supporting story is just about the most tedious thing
> imaginable (see his film Stairs 1: Geneva for reference).
But isn't it reasonable to over-compensate (at least in theory) when you
have that kind of agenda? Basically he wants movies to be considered as a
visual medium first before a narrative meduim, when the industry is so
overwhelmingly weighted toward the latter. I think a lot of film fans would
agree with him on this, even though they might vomit at the idea of the
kinds of films Greenaway SAYS he wants to make.
Say you and the other guy have one dart each and YOU want your combined
scores to arrive at an average value of "5"... but the other guy just hit
"1". You don't then aim for "5", you aim for "9"... you compensate. That's
all his tattering represents to me... and he still makes great movies so who
the hell cares how much of a sook he might be.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"Kill all Muslums" - Graffiti
Pikemann Urge
>
> "wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
> we're talking about writing here.
I don't agree that cinema is ruled by the 'wrong' arts. It might, sadly,
be often ruled by studios or producers, but without some kind of
blueprint, be it a script or storyboard or just *some* kind of outline,
you will have a hard time making movies. I mean, all your shots have to
be put in some kind of order in the end. That's inherently part of the
cinema language.
> To me music, photography and editing are
> far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt like
> music.
I think there's room for non-narrative cinema (after all, most music is
not narrative), but I don't think people would enjoy those films if they
were too long.
> I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's about
> "the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is going
> to cause a banal film!
I disagree very strongly. No conflict, no tension, which *imply* story
anyway, means exactly what you dislike: banality.
> It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as they
> are, not from the male perspective.
But... either men or women cannot be filmed from the perspective of a
dog or a bird, because people, whether male or female, have a
perspective of some kind. If Diane Keaton directed MD, the movie would
be different, but would her perspective of Betty and Rita be necessarily
'better'? If you know what I mean.
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Pikemann Urge" wrote...
>> Mikko Pihkoluoma wrote:
>> >
>> > The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried to
>put
>> > across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this just
>recently
>> > from an interview.
>> > (http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html)
>>
>> Greenaway said that "the cinema should be image-based. It should not be
>> text-based. I cannot really understand why we've had this 100 years of
>> text-based cinema." I don't think I fully understand what he's saying,
>> but I don't think that the cinema was ever text-based. Rather, in the
>> early days it tried to be a kind of recorded theatre, where the only
>> editing you did was pretty much to splice together the several large
>> lengths of film you had shot. Yeah, there's a script, but that's more a
>> blueprint than anything else. So I need some help here to understand
>> Greenaway's statement.
>
>I'm not sure yet but the way I see it now, it's all about the fact that
>images have too little meaning without text...
???
The problem is that most filmmakers don't imbue their images with
meaning, if anything.
>For me it's also about the
>frustration that cinema of today gives me. ... I see potential in cinema,
>but I don't see it in terms of telling stories.
???
What is it then?
>Probably because it's been
>done, and very little of it fascinates me.
>
Millions of books have been written and very few of them fascinate me,
especially in comparison with the number of films that I love. But I
don't think I'll be writing off that whole "limited" medium of the
written word!
>I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over by
>"wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
>we're talking about writing here.
There needs to be a balance, Mikko.
>To me music, photography and editing are
>far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt like
>music.
>
Music is composed - notes are arranged, arrangements are made for
instruments in a band or in an orchestra, lyrics can be written for a
vocalist. Why isn't this restricting?
>Have you seen 'Un Chien Andalou'? I have a pretty decent quality mov-file
>for anyone interested.
>
No one (here, at least) is saying image-driven movies can't be made,
just that to denounce everything else is madness!
>If you understand what Greenaway says with "the medium is the message" then
>you'll understand.
>
He's talking in riddles, really. If the medium is the message alone
then all it would take is for me to throw up any image on a screen for
however long I liked. It really needs to be more than that.
Even photographs-as-art- need to be composed.
<snip>
>>
>> BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that for
>> tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
>> one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
>> interest.
>
>I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's about
>"the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is going
>to cause a banal film!
>
There aren't enough question-marks in the world - in the history of
the world - to show how utterly I am at a loss to understand your
statement here, Mikko.
>> > "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male
>hero,
>> > the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
>>
This isn't a criticism of films-as-a-medium, it's a criticism of the
politics of the industry and society!
>> I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point there.
>> MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
>> were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
>
>It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as they
>are, not from the male perspective.
>
Because a man can't capture a woman on film?
I do agree that the female perspective is woefully underseen in
cinema, but as an argument it's one of Greenaway's more specious.
-- Keith Gow --
Joshua Zyber
news:bautma$3to7g$1...@ID-138038.news.dfncis.de...
> But isn't it reasonable to over-compensate (at least in theory) when
you
> have that kind of agenda? Basically he wants movies to be considered
as a
> visual medium first before a narrative meduim, when the industry is so
> overwhelmingly weighted toward the latter. I think a lot of film fans
would
> agree with him on this, even though they might vomit at the idea of
the
> kinds of films Greenaway SAYS he wants to make.
>
> Say you and the other guy have one dart each and YOU want your
combined
> scores to arrive at an average value of "5"... but the other guy just
hit
> "1". You don't then aim for "5", you aim for "9"... you compensate.
That's
> all his tattering represents to me... and he still makes great movies
so who
> the hell cares how much of a sook he might be.
The problem is that in this case the "9" isn't even on the dartboard.
It's way off to the side, painted on the wall where nobody is looking.
So even if he does hit that 9, who's going to know or care?
In his mind the average value is brought up to 5, but for the rest of
the world who weren't paying attention to his last throw we're still at
1. There has to be some form of reasonable compromise. If "5" is the
ideal spot for the film medium to be, he should aim for 5, make his
throw the best it can be, and don't worry about the average value. If he
hits 5 just right and people see it and are impressed, the next player
might just aim for the same.
Anyone who actually plays darts must be cringing at this half-assed
metaphor!
- Josh
damnfine
> The problem is that in this case the "9" isn't even on the dartboard.
> It's way off to the side, painted on the wall where nobody is looking.
> So even if he does hit that 9, who's going to know or care?
It doesn't matter, because I'm not saying anybody wants to see the 9... the
point is the average.
> In his mind the average value is brought up to 5, but for the rest of
> the world who weren't paying attention to his last throw we're still at
> 1. There has to be some form of reasonable compromise. If "5" is the
> ideal spot for the film medium to be, he should aim for 5, make his
> throw the best it can be, and don't worry about the average value. If he
> hits 5 just right and people see it and are impressed, the next player
> might just aim for the same.
But he does hit 5. Usually. That's the point. I think he wants to make 5s,
and he just TALKS about 9s.
> Anyone who actually plays darts must be cringing at this half-assed
> metaphor!
I was slightly... whacked when I thought of it. And you went and made it
worse.
Anyway, I mentioned darts, not a dartboard. To me the numbers were just
painted on the wall in vertically arranged squares. And there were some
kittens hanging up there by the side too, but I'm not sure why.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 17:02:10 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Pikemann Urge" wrote...
> >> Mikko Pihkoluoma wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried
to
> >put
> >> > across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this just
> >recently
> >> > from an interview.
> >> > (http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html)
> >>
> >> Greenaway said that "the cinema should be image-based. It should not be
> >> text-based. I cannot really understand why we've had this 100 years of
> >> text-based cinema." I don't think I fully understand what he's saying,
> >> but I don't think that the cinema was ever text-based. Rather, in the
> >> early days it tried to be a kind of recorded theatre, where the only
> >> editing you did was pretty much to splice together the several large
> >> lengths of film you had shot. Yeah, there's a script, but that's more a
> >> blueprint than anything else. So I need some help here to understand
> >> Greenaway's statement.
> >
> >I'm not sure yet but the way I see it now, it's all about the fact that
> >images have too little meaning without text...
>
> ???
Images alone without stories don't really have that much meaning. It's about
that frustration. You don't want words to rule over cinema but there is not
that much of an option...
> The problem is that most filmmakers don't imbue their images with
> meaning, if anything.
Yes.
> >For me it's also about the
> >frustration that cinema of today gives me. ... I see potential in cinema,
> >but I don't see it in terms of telling stories.
>
> ???
>
> What is it then?
It's something like Jazz is. It's something as gorgeous as Radiohead's
'Paranoid Android', 'Everything in its right place' or 'Idioteque'. No
storytelling there.
I'm not against words. But it probably shouldn't be such a central focus in
cinema...
> >Probably because it's been
> >done, and very little of it fascinates me.
> >
>
> Millions of books have been written and very few of them fascinate me,
> especially in comparison with the number of films that I love. But I
> don't think I'll be writing off that whole "limited" medium of the
> written word!
When I was younger I never watched films because of their stories. ...for
the most part I still don't. ...stories really don't fascinate me.
> >I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over by
> >"wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
> >we're talking about writing here.
>
> There needs to be a balance, Mikko.
Yes I know that. But the balance is most of the time fucked up.
> >To me music, photography and editing are
> >far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt
like
> >music.
> >
>
> Music is composed - notes are arranged, arrangements are made for
> instruments in a band or in an orchestra, lyrics can be written for a
> vocalist. Why isn't this restricting?
It's not restricting because those methods are pretty close to what music
is. (...btw I don't believe that many rock-bands compose their music on
paper...)
The thing is that when a band composes or "orchestrates" their music they
can do it by actually playing it... With film it's just far more expensive,
and that's why it's not being made. Kubrick took the time, and I'm afraid
that's exactly the reason why I love his films so much.
> >Have you seen 'Un Chien Andalou'? I have a pretty decent quality
mov-file
> >for anyone interested.
> >
>
> No one (here, at least) is saying image-driven movies can't be made,
> just that to denounce everything else is madness!
Why aren't they made?
> >If you understand what Greenaway says with "the medium is the message"
then
> >you'll understand.
> >
>
> He's talking in riddles, really. If the medium is the message alone
> then all it would take is for me to throw up any image on a screen for
> however long I liked. It really needs to be more than that.
>
> Even photographs-as-art- need to be composed.
Of course you need to make it interesting. ...by bending the medium...
changing it.
> <snip>
> >>
> >> BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that for
> >> tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
> >> one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
> >> interest.
> >
> >I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's about
> >"the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is
going
> >to cause a banal film!
> >
>
> There aren't enough question-marks in the world - in the history of
> the world - to show how utterly I am at a loss to understand your
> statement here, Mikko.
Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and mostly
it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a narrative
film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
together.
Every film I've seen from Godard is extremely intense... and it's always an
experience to see one. And I think that's exactly because they don't try to
be narrative films in the sense 98% of the films out there are.
Lynch-films are experiences; almost like music is. A lot of this is caused
by the fact that Lynch approaches cinema through abstract ideas, certain
feelings which then form a story... But there is appreciation for the image
and sound, which makes them special.
I have seen only three Bergman films but there is similiar approach of
capturing a certain feeling. (For further explanation read his article
"Cinema Has Nothing to Do with Literature")
Every Kubrick film after 2001 is exciting to watch because all of them are
attempts to change the narrative... The way stories are being told. And all
of them have cinematic moments in them (ie "silent cinema scenes").
> >> > "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male
> >hero,
> >> > the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
> >>
>
> This isn't a criticism of films-as-a-medium, it's a criticism of the
> politics of the industry and society!
Who said anything else?
> >> I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point there.
> >> MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
> >> were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
> >
> >It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as they
> >are, not from the male perspective.
> >
>
> Because a man can't capture a woman on film?
I didn't mean that. I knew it could be interpreted in such a way but I
didn't intend it to be that. I don't know if it's true. I haven't seen any
films by men that captured women as they are. Lynch has partly done it but
they all have distinctive male perspective in them as well...
> I do agree that the female perspective is woefully underseen in
> cinema, but as an argument it's one of Greenaway's more specious.
???
Pikemann Urge
>
> Images alone without stories don't really have that much meaning. It's about
> that frustration. You don't want words to rule over cinema but there is not
> that much of an option...
Words are not the only things that are used to convey narrative. A good
director will exploit everything - actors, lighting, editing - to
achieve a rich narrative. Some directors don't, but that's no fault with
cinema.
> It's something like Jazz is. It's something as gorgeous as Radiohead's
> 'Paranoid Android', 'Everything in its right place' or 'Idioteque'. No
> storytelling there.
Then what you want from cinema is something simply different to the
conventional, story-based cinema. Just like there are different types of
music, there are different types of cinema, e.g. music videos, montages,
animation, etc. Cinema is not limited, then - there merely isn't enough
of the *kind* of cinema that you prefer.
> When I was younger I never watched films because of their stories. ...for
> the most part I still don't. ...stories really don't fascinate me.
Okay, now I understand what you're driving at. Perhaps you are at a
disadvantage as you seem to be in a minority. The problem then is that
most people love a good story, so audiences like you are not catered for
as much.
> is. (...btw I don't believe that many rock-bands compose their music on
> paper...)
Perhaps you would like directors to do a storyboard first, then the
script? I think that might work with some movies.
> Every Kubrick film after 2001 is exciting to watch because all of them are
> attempts to change the narrative... The way stories are being told. And all
> of them have cinematic moments in them (ie "silent cinema scenes").
Then it's the modern directors who are at fault, not cinema(?).
> > I do agree that the female perspective is woefully underseen in
> > cinema, but as an argument it's one of Greenaway's more specious.
>
> ???
>
> Mikko
A 'specious' arguement goes something like this (taken from The
Simpsons): I have a rock in my hand, but it's a *magic* rock, because it
keeps away tigers, and I can *prove* it keeps away tigers because if you
look around you, you can see no tigers.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>"Joshua Zyber" wrote:
>> The problem is that in this case the "9" isn't even on the dartboard.
>> It's way off to the side, painted on the wall where nobody is looking.
>> So even if he does hit that 9, who's going to know or care?
>
>It doesn't matter, because I'm not saying anybody wants to see the 9... the
>point is the average.
>
Then we are talking about volume and not about anyone ever hitting the
9. Really, given the number of films that are made every year in
Hollywood, the balance will never be redressed.
I'm not saying it's not a vicious circle, either. Give the world crap
and crap is what it thinks it wants...
-- Keith Gow --
damnfine
> >It doesn't matter, because I'm not saying anybody wants to see the 9... the
> >point is the average.
>
> Then we are talking about volume and not about anyone ever hitting the
> 9. Really, given the number of films that are made every year in
> Hollywood, the balance will never be redressed.
You know what they say about unwinnable wars...
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"The President is gagging on my gas bladder!" - Dr. Zoidberg
Ruat Coelum
< The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried
to put across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this
just recently from an interview.
(http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html) >
My approach to Greenaway is to watch his usually great work, and
completely ignore anything he has to say. He's the first one to
(thankfully) not follow his own advice when making his best work,
which is indeed story-based.
For many of the things he said in that interview, I just thought to
substitute "cinema" for "the internet", and, presto, the same lunatic
comments I got tired of reading on the last part of the '90's, about
how the medium was going to change immediately etc., which of course
didn't -and won't- happen.
< He has grand scale ideas about changing the medium
(http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6112/1.html)... I'm very
interested in Tulse Luper Suitcase. I'm just afraid that nothing is
going to change. We'll see... >
Rest assured, nothing is going to change.
Regardless of Greenaway's comments, I sympathize with your plight, but
I think you're looking in the wrong direction. You complain you only
like 2% of the cinema being done, but do you like 100% of the books
you read, the music you hear, the paintings you see? That's not a
problem of the medium - the medium has to cater to all tastes.
You want cinema that feels like music? Why? You state that cinema is a
slave to literature, and then you want it to become a slave to another
art form? Cinema is *not* a slave to literature, cinema *is*
storytelling. In fact, almost every movie I remember that you ever
mentioned you love, is indeed story-driven. Maybe your search is just
for better stories.
I didn't want to add this pedantic last bit, but what the hell: one of
the things that characterize humanity is the tendency to turn
everything into stories, a vestigial trait for the need to pass on
experience as a way to preserve the species. So, everything that can
be turned into a story, will be. Taking that out of cinema leaves you
with something as emotionally interesting as a Powerpoint
presentation.
Then again, I realizee I'm completely biased toward stories in
everything I like in life... But anyway, of this I'm sure: taking the
storytelling ability out of cinema is even more artificial.
FIAT IUSTITIA RUAT COELUM
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
Exactly right.
>> The problem is that most filmmakers don't imbue their images with
>> meaning, if anything.
>
>Yes.
>
I think this is your major problem, really, that you don't get this
enough.
>> >For me it's also about the
>> >frustration that cinema of today gives me. ... I see potential in cinema,
>> >but I don't see it in terms of telling stories.
>>
>> ???
>>
>> What is it then?
>
>It's something like Jazz is. It's something as gorgeous as Radiohead's
>'Paranoid Android', 'Everything in its right place' or 'Idioteque'. No
>storytelling there.
>
>I'm not against words. But it probably shouldn't be such a central focus in
>cinema...
>
It isn't always. Words and stories are not interchangable things
though, Mikko.
You can have a wordless movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
without story.
>> >Probably because it's been
>> >done, and very little of it fascinates me.
>> >
>>
>> Millions of books have been written and very few of them fascinate me,
>> especially in comparison with the number of films that I love. But I
>> don't think I'll be writing off that whole "limited" medium of the
>> written word!
>
>When I was younger I never watched films because of their stories. ...for
>the most part I still don't. ...stories really don't fascinate me.
>
Again, I don't think I can wrap my head around this statement.
I know what you are saying, I just don't get it.
>> >I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over by
>> >"wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema... And
>> >we're talking about writing here.
>>
>> There needs to be a balance, Mikko.
>
>Yes I know that. But the balance is most of the time fucked up.
>
So focus on the times it isn't fucked up. There's always going to be
crap films.
>> >To me music, photography and editing are
>> >far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt
>like
>> >music.
>> >
>>
>> Music is composed - notes are arranged, arrangements are made for
>> instruments in a band or in an orchestra, lyrics can be written for a
>> vocalist. Why isn't this restricting?
>
>It's not restricting because those methods are pretty close to what music
>is. (...btw I don't believe that many rock-bands compose their music on
>paper...)
>
Well, I have absolutely no way of arguing this. I don't know what rock
bands do. Some do write lyrics first. Some write the music. Some
compose it on a keyboard and transpose for other instruments. Ditto
for guitar, etc.
I have seen skilled musicians compose things in their heads and write
notes on a staff without an instrument within reach. And they wrote it
like I occasionally hand-write - flowing that quickly.
It's not about the way it's done, it's about the fact that it needs to
be done.
>The thing is that when a band composes or "orchestrates" their music they
>can do it by actually playing it...
Radiohead don't walk out onto stage and start playing their
instruments and songs magically appear.
>With film it's just far more expensive,
>and that's why it's not being made. Kubrick took the time, and I'm afraid
>that's exactly the reason why I love his films so much.
>
Stories, Mikko, always stories. Kubrick knew the power of narrative.
>> >Have you seen 'Un Chien Andalou'? I have a pretty decent quality
>mov-file
>> >for anyone interested.
>> >
>>
>> No one (here, at least) is saying image-driven movies can't be made,
>> just that to denounce everything else is madness!
>
>Why aren't they made?
>
Because most filmmakers are story tellers first and foremost. Those
that aren't may be painters, like Lynch. But even then, it's about
structure.
Turning to literature, you could rail against those dang books with
all their punctuation and their rigid rules about beginning-middle-end
and praise James Joyce's Ulysses... but very few people would agree
that that style of writing is what they want over and over again (or
more than once).
>> >If you understand what Greenaway says with "the medium is the message"
>then
>> >you'll understand.
>> >
>>
>> He's talking in riddles, really. If the medium is the message alone
>> then all it would take is for me to throw up any image on a screen for
>> however long I liked. It really needs to be more than that.
>>
>> Even photographs-as-art- need to be composed.
>
>Of course you need to make it interesting. ...by bending the medium...
>changing it.
>
No one is arguing against that.
>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that for
>> >> tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
>> >> one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
>> >> interest.
>> >
>> >I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's about
>> >"the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is
>going
>> >to cause a banal film!
>> >
>>
>> There aren't enough question-marks in the world - in the history of
>> the world - to show how utterly I am at a loss to understand your
>> statement here, Mikko.
>
>Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and mostly
>it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a narrative
>film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
>together.
>
It's not a full length feature though, is it?
You didn't answer my "stunned silence", though. Your claim that every
film that is based on storytelling is banal confounds me!
>Every film I've seen from Godard is extremely intense... and it's always an
>experience to see one. And I think that's exactly because they don't try to
>be narrative films in the sense 98% of the films out there are.
>
Godard is hit and miss with me. I love some of his stuff and other
stuff I abhor - mostly his later stuff where there's so much political
bullshit in them.
>Lynch-films are experiences; almost like music is. A lot of this is caused
>by the fact that Lynch approaches cinema through abstract ideas, certain
>feelings which then form a story... But there is appreciation for the image
>and sound, which makes them special.
>
And story. For the love of god, story! (His most divisive film is Lost
Highway, though, which supports you somewhat.)
>I have seen only three Bergman films but there is similiar approach of
>capturing a certain feeling. (For further explanation read his article
>"Cinema Has Nothing to Do with Literature")
>
>Every Kubrick film after 2001 is exciting to watch because all of them are
>attempts to change the narrative... The way stories are being told. And all
>of them have cinematic moments in them (ie "silent cinema scenes").
>
Oh, now you want your cake and eat it too!
>> >> > "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the male
>> >hero,
>> >> > the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
>> >>
>>
>> This isn't a criticism of films-as-a-medium, it's a criticism of the
>> politics of the industry and society!
>
>Who said anything else?
>
Because it's in an article where Greenaway raves about the problems
with narrative film - and it's ludicrous to compound that argument
with problems that are clearly not the problem of narrative film but
society.
>> >> I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point there.
>> >> MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
>> >> were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
>> >
>> >It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as they
>> >are, not from the male perspective.
>> >
>>
>> Because a man can't capture a woman on film?
>
>I didn't mean that. I knew it could be interpreted in such a way but I
>didn't intend it to be that. I don't know if it's true. I haven't seen any
>films by men that captured women as they are. Lynch has partly done it but
>they all have distinctive male perspective in them as well...
>
This is fascinating, of course, mostly because Lynch is often branded
a misogynist. But then a lot of male directors have been!
I just tend to think it's close-minded to believe men are incapable of
it. I think mostly if a male director wants to make an honest film,
his characters of both sexes can be revealing.
Most directors don't want to be honest, though.
>> I do agree that the female perspective is woefully underseen in
>> cinema, but as an argument it's one of Greenaway's more specious.
>
>???
>
Pikemann explained specious, if that was your problem.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Keith Gow wrote:
>> >It doesn't matter, because I'm not saying anybody wants to see the 9... the
>> >point is the average.
>>
>> Then we are talking about volume and not about anyone ever hitting the
>> 9. Really, given the number of films that are made every year in
>> Hollywood, the balance will never be redressed.
>
>You know what they say about unwinnable wars...
I know, I know. But all this chatter seems futile. Go out and make
good films, gosh darn it! Don't obsess over things beyond your
control, do something that redresses the situation, even just a
little.
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:<bar6di$94r$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
>
>
> < The debate "script is the soul of the film" and the feelings I tried
> to put across are shared by a filmmaker I admire... I found out this
> just recently from an interview.
>
> (http://www.mndaily.com/ae/Print/1997/14/st/intgreen.html) >
>
>
> My approach to Greenaway is to watch his usually great work, and
> completely ignore anything he has to say. He's the first one to
> (thankfully) not follow his own advice when making his best work,
> which is indeed story-based.
They have a story, yes, but that's hardly ever their main concern... They
always have structural obsessions that move me far more than anything
"profound" the story might grasp of this life...
> For many of the things he said in that interview, I just thought to
> substitute "cinema" for "the internet", and, presto, the same lunatic
> comments I got tired of reading on the last part of the '90's, about
> how the medium was going to change immediately etc., which of course
> didn't -and won't- happen.
>
>
> < He has grand scale ideas about changing the medium
> (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/film/6112/1.html)... I'm very
> interested in Tulse Luper Suitcase. I'm just afraid that nothing is
> going to change. We'll see... >
>
>
> Rest assured, nothing is going to change.
>
> Regardless of Greenaway's comments, I sympathize with your plight, but
> I think you're looking in the wrong direction. You complain you only
> like 2% of the cinema being done, but do you like 100% of the books
> you read, the music you hear, the paintings you see? That's not a
> problem of the medium - the medium has to cater to all tastes.
>
> You want cinema that feels like music? Why? You state that cinema is a
> slave to literature, and then you want it to become a slave to another
> art form?
It wouldn't be a slave as music is far more closer to the feeling of the
medium than writing is.
> Cinema is *not* a slave to literature, cinema *is*
> storytelling.
Why is that? Prove me that it is.
"The Arrival of a Train at the Station" did not tell a story. A lot of the
prehistory of cinema was not narratively driven.
(I don't want so much of non-narrative cinema as I want cinema that isn't so
strictly narrative...)
> In fact, almost every movie I remember that you ever
> mentioned you love, is indeed story-driven. Maybe your search is just
> for better stories.
Lynch is not story-driven, although his films have stories; Godard is not
story-driven at all... Kubrick is story driven but that certainly was not
why I fell in love with his cinema. I did not fell in love with The
Shining's story.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
news:3ed496b8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 23:06:57 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Keith Gow" wrote...
> >> The problem is that most filmmakers don't imbue their images with
> >> meaning, if anything.
> >
> >Yes.
> >
>
> I think this is your major problem, really, that you don't get this
> enough.
Yes.
> >> >For me it's also about the
> >> >frustration that cinema of today gives me. ... I see potential in
cinema,
> >> >but I don't see it in terms of telling stories.
> >>
> >> ???
> >>
> >> What is it then?
> >
> >It's something like Jazz is. It's something as gorgeous as Radiohead's
> >'Paranoid Android', 'Everything in its right place' or 'Idioteque'. No
> >storytelling there.
> >
> >I'm not against words. But it probably shouldn't be such a central focus
in
> >cinema...
> >
>
> It isn't always. Words and stories are not interchangable things
> though, Mikko.
I know that... And I do know that I've been a little more than illogical
between attacking both of these.
> You can have a wordless movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
> without story.
I've seen silent films.
> >> >Probably because it's been
> >> >done, and very little of it fascinates me.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Millions of books have been written and very few of them fascinate me,
> >> especially in comparison with the number of films that I love. But I
> >> don't think I'll be writing off that whole "limited" medium of the
> >> written word!
> >
> >When I was younger I never watched films because of their stories.
...for
> >the most part I still don't. ...stories really don't fascinate me.
> >
>
> Again, I don't think I can wrap my head around this statement.
>
> I know what you are saying, I just don't get it.
Anyone without a brain like mine probably doesn't get it...
Some (/all) of it may be caused by the fact that I didn't read much when I
was little. It certainly has affected my ability to read fast, which is
nonexistent. As far as I can remember I dreamed, I drew (past tense of draw
if that isn't that) and I played soccer. That was my childhood.
...
I think I love ideas and themes in cinema more than the stories that
surround or give birth to them.
> >> >I think it's also frustration with the fact that cinema is ruled over
by
> >> >"wrong" arts, those that don't necessarily play well with cinema...
And
> >> >we're talking about writing here.
> >>
> >> There needs to be a balance, Mikko.
> >
> >Yes I know that. But the balance is most of the time fucked up.
> >
>
> So focus on the times it isn't fucked up. There's always going to be
> crap films.
Yeah but it makes me mad to see films that I like but aren't as good as I
would like them to be.
> >> >To me music, photography and editing are
> >> >far closer to what cinema is. If only there were more films that felt
> >like
> >> >music.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Music is composed - notes are arranged, arrangements are made for
> >> instruments in a band or in an orchestra, lyrics can be written for a
> >> vocalist. Why isn't this restricting?
> >
> >It's not restricting because those methods are pretty close to what music
> >is. (...btw I don't believe that many rock-bands compose their music on
> >paper...)
> >
>
> Well, I have absolutely no way of arguing this. I don't know what rock
> bands do. Some do write lyrics first. Some write the music. Some
> compose it on a keyboard and transpose for other instruments. Ditto
> for guitar, etc.
>
> I have seen skilled musicians compose things in their heads and write
> notes on a staff without an instrument within reach. And they wrote it
> like I occasionally hand-write - flowing that quickly.
>
> It's not about the way it's done, it's about the fact that it needs to
> be done.
>
> >The thing is that when a band composes or "orchestrates" their music they
> >can do it by actually playing it...
>
> Radiohead don't walk out onto stage and start playing their
> instruments and songs magically appear.
No they don't. But whoever has the ideas for the songs (mostly Thom I guess)
has them in his head and he can grab a guitar and play it... And he'll
remember it. I guess they write something down on paper as well but the
point is that they can trim and train the songs ("orchestrate") with the
tools that they are going to play the finished product. With cinema you
can't do this.
Very few directors allow (/ have the time and money to let) scenes to
grow... give them time to rehearse to think of an angle where to shoot it
and the actors to enhance their performance... To think of new ideas.
Kubrick did that. And I do think that's the main reason why I love his films
so much.
Radiohead's Kid A was a result of a loooong time in a studio and a
collection of ten songs out of almost 30 that they taped. Which, I believe,
has a lot to do with the fact that it's my favourite album.
> >With film it's just far more expensive,
> >and that's why it's not being made. Kubrick took the time, and I'm
afraid
> >that's exactly the reason why I love his films so much.
> >
>
> Stories, Mikko, always stories. Kubrick knew the power of narrative.
Yes he did. And he wanted to become a storyteller. It has always been his
main concern. *But* that isn't why, to me, Kubrick's cinema goes beyond
any other cinema I've seen.
> >> >Have you seen 'Un Chien Andalou'? I have a pretty decent quality
> >mov-file
> >> >for anyone interested.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No one (here, at least) is saying image-driven movies can't be made,
> >> just that to denounce everything else is madness!
> >
> >Why aren't they made?
> >
>
> Because most filmmakers are story tellers first and foremost. Those
> that aren't may be painters, like Lynch. But even then, it's about
> structure.
Me likes structure.
> Turning to literature, you could rail against those dang books with
> all their punctuation and their rigid rules about beginning-middle-end
> and praise James Joyce's Ulysses... but very few people would agree
> that that style of writing is what they want over and over again (or
> more than once).
I don't read anything if it's not thought provoking... I don't read much
fiction. I love 'Trainspotting' -- its structure and style.
> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> BTW, what *is* important for a good story are conflict (swap that
for
> >> >> tension if you want) and subtext. Without these, stories are
> >> >> one-dimensional or just plain flat boring. No conflict/tension, no
> >> >> interest.
> >> >
> >> >I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's
about
> >> >"the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is
> >going
> >> >to cause a banal film!
> >> >
> >>
> >> There aren't enough question-marks in the world - in the history of
> >> the world - to show how utterly I am at a loss to understand your
> >> statement here, Mikko.
> >
> >Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and
mostly
> >it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a narrative
> >film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
> >together.
> >
>
> It's not a full length feature though, is it?
No. 16 minutes. Have you seen it?
But I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a series of films like that. Like an
album with songs.
> You didn't answer my "stunned silence", though.
I tried to answer to it by explaining why these films that don't merely spur
from the idea "let's tell a story", fascinate me.
> Your claim that every
> film that is based on storytelling is banal confounds me!
Commitment to telling a story is definitely limiting the freedom of
expression in the medium. And it's about "the fact" that cinema doesn't tell
stories that well... It's most of the time very passive and thus banal.
I like the term "Casablanca-syndrome" because I didn't find anything
interesting in that film.
> >Every film I've seen from Godard is extremely intense... and it's always
an
> >experience to see one. And I think that's exactly because they don't try
to
> >be narrative films in the sense 98% of the films out there are.
> >
>
> Godard is hit and miss with me. I love some of his stuff and other
> stuff I abhor - mostly his later stuff where there's so much political
> bullshit in them.
Well, I know next to nothing about Kosovo but I do love his latest film 'In
Praise of Love'.
> >Lynch-films are experiences; almost like music is. A lot of this is
caused
> >by the fact that Lynch approaches cinema through abstract ideas, certain
> >feelings which then form a story... But there is appreciation for the
image
> >and sound, which makes them special.
> >
>
> And story. For the love of god, story! (His most divisive film is Lost
> Highway, though, which supports you somewhat.)
What about Eraserhead?
His films have stories and he has obviously thought about telling one before
making a film. But I still don't think that's the thing that drives his
films.
> >I have seen only three Bergman films but there is similiar approach of
> >capturing a certain feeling. (For further explanation read his article
> >"Cinema Has Nothing to Do with Literature")
> >
> >Every Kubrick film after 2001 is exciting to watch because all of them
are
> >attempts to change the narrative... The way stories are being told. And
all
> >of them have cinematic moments in them (ie "silent cinema scenes").
> >
>
> Oh, now you want your cake and eat it too!
Yes I know that Bergman and Kubrick made narrative films, but that isn't
what makes them special. I'm not saying that they could live without
narratives... But they always have a sense of new in them as well.
> >> >> > "And film after film after film, my distrust, I suppose, of the
male
> >> >hero,
> >> >> > the macho behavior, the vulgarity, the philistinism...
> >> >>
> >>
> >> This isn't a criticism of films-as-a-medium, it's a criticism of the
> >> politics of the industry and society!
> >
> >Who said anything else?
> >
>
> Because it's in an article where Greenaway raves about the problems
> with narrative film - and it's ludicrous to compound that argument
> with problems that are clearly not the problem of narrative film but
> society.
It was? What article it was in? I don't think it was in either one of the
articles I gave a link to.
> >> >> I think I know what he's saying, and I kind of agree to a point
there.
> >> >> MD was I think helped by the fact that two of the three protagonists
> >> >> were women. Or maybe it doesn't matter?
> >> >
> >> >It does matter, but there's not enough films about women... Women as
they
> >> >are, not from the male perspective.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because a man can't capture a woman on film?
> >
> >I didn't mean that. I knew it could be interpreted in such a way but I
> >didn't intend it to be that. I don't know if it's true. I haven't seen
any
> >films by men that captured women as they are. Lynch has partly done it
but
> >they all have distinctive male perspective in them as well...
> >
>
> This is fascinating, of course, mostly because Lynch is often branded
> a misogynist. But then a lot of male directors have been!
Like Lars von Trier by you. Do you still think Breaking the Waves is
misogynist?
> I just tend to think it's close-minded to believe men are incapable of
> it. I think mostly if a male director wants to make an honest film,
> his characters of both sexes can be revealing.
I don't think men are incapable of doing it, but I don't think I've seen a
film that proved they were capable of doing it either.
> Most directors don't want to be honest, though.
That's very true.
> >> I do agree that the female perspective is woefully underseen in
> >> cinema, but as an argument it's one of Greenaway's more specious.
> >
> >???
> >
>
> Pikemann explained specious, if that was your problem.
Now that I think of it I may agree with you... I don't think the revolution
is coming. And he wasn't only talking about female perspective in cinema...
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Keith Gow" <kw...@vicnet.net.au> kirjoitti viestissä
>news:3ed496b8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
>Yeah but it makes me mad to see films that I like but aren't as good as I
>would like them to be.
>
Join the club.
<snip>
>Very few directors allow (/ have the time and money to let) scenes to
>grow... give them time to rehearse to think of an angle where to shoot it
>and the actors to enhance their performance... To think of new ideas.
>
>Kubrick did that. And I do think that's the main reason why I love his films
>so much.
>
You love his films because you know he spent a long time crafting
them?
<snip>
>> >Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and
>mostly
>> >it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a narrative
>> >film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
>> >together.
>> >
>>
>> It's not a full length feature though, is it?
>
>No. 16 minutes. Have you seen it?
>
Yes. My main point was that if that was stretched to feature-length, I
doubt it would have had anywhere near the same impact - if any at all!
<snip>
>Commitment to telling a story is definitely limiting the freedom of
>expression in the medium. And it's about "the fact" that cinema doesn't tell
>stories that well... It's most of the time very passive and thus banal.
>
Yes, most of the time it's passive, I agree. But the greatest films
are *not* passive experiences.
>I like the term "Casablanca-syndrome" because I didn't find anything
>interesting in that film.
>
It's an easy film to denigrate, because it's so story-focused. And I
do think it's terribly over-rated. (And the fact that Robert McKee
thinks it's the best film ever gives me more reason to hate it and
him.)
<snip>
>> And story. For the love of god, story! (His most divisive film is Lost
>> Highway, though, which supports you somewhat.)
>
>What about Eraserhead?
>His films have stories and he has obviously thought about telling one before
>making a film. But I still don't think that's the thing that drives his
>films.
>
I disagree. I think story drives most of his films - Eraserhead and
Lost Highway are the exceptions to that rule.
<snip>
>>
>> This is fascinating, of course, mostly because Lynch is often branded
>> a misogynist. But then a lot of male directors have been!
>
>Like Lars von Trier by you.
Actually, I'm just agreeing with most people who saw "Breaking the
Waves" because the charge seems reasonable based on that film.
>Do you still think Breaking the Waves is
>misogynist?
>
Yes.
>> I just tend to think it's close-minded to believe men are incapable of
>> it. I think mostly if a male director wants to make an honest film,
>> his characters of both sexes can be revealing.
>
>I don't think men are incapable of doing it, but I don't think I've seen a
>film that proved they were capable of doing it either.
>
Oh, good lord.
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 15:49:15 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Keith Gow" <kw...@vicnet.net.au> kirjoitti viestissä
> >news:3ed496b8...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> <snip>
> >Yeah but it makes me mad to see films that I like but aren't as good as I
> >would like them to be.
> >
>
> Join the club.
Do I need a credit card for that? ;P
> <snip>
> >Very few directors allow (/ have the time and money to let) scenes to
> >grow... give them time to rehearse to think of an angle where to shoot it
> >and the actors to enhance their performance... To think of new ideas.
> >
> >Kubrick did that. And I do think that's the main reason why I love his
films
> >so much.
> >
>
> You love his films because you know he spent a long time crafting
> them?
No, it's my hypothetical analysis of why I enjoy them so much. I know from
experience that I enjoy them more than anything else. And I've thought
about it -- why is that so -- and that's my explanation.
> <snip>
> >> >Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and
> >mostly
> >> >it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a
narrative
> >> >film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
> >> >together.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not a full length feature though, is it?
> >
> >No. 16 minutes. Have you seen it?
> >
>
> Yes. My main point was that if that was stretched to feature-length, I
> doubt it would have had anywhere near the same impact - if any at all!
Yes, I suspected as much.
> <snip>
> >Commitment to telling a story is definitely limiting the freedom of
> >expression in the medium. And it's about "the fact" that cinema doesn't
tell
> >stories that well... It's most of the time very passive and thus banal.
> >
>
> Yes, most of the time it's passive, I agree. But the greatest films
> are *not* passive experiences.
Agreed. I wouldn't love cinema if they were.
> >I like the term "Casablanca-syndrome" because I didn't find anything
> >interesting in that film.
> >
>
> It's an easy film to denigrate, because it's so story-focused. And I
> do think it's terribly over-rated. (And the fact that Robert McKee
> thinks it's the best film ever gives me more reason to hate it and
> him.)
Am I supposed to know who Robert McKee is?
> <snip>
> >> And story. For the love of god, story! (His most divisive film is Lost
> >> Highway, though, which supports you somewhat.)
> >
> >What about Eraserhead?
> >His films have stories and he has obviously thought about telling one
before
> >making a film. But I still don't think that's the thing that drives his
> >films.
> >
>
> I disagree. I think story drives most of his films - Eraserhead and
> Lost Highway are the exceptions to that rule.
In my book, those two films are in the top three of Lynch.
> <snip>
> >>
> >> This is fascinating, of course, mostly because Lynch is often branded
> >> a misogynist. But then a lot of male directors have been!
> >
> >Like Lars von Trier by you.
>
> Actually, I'm just agreeing with most people who saw "Breaking the
> Waves" because the charge seems reasonable based on that film.
Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Keith Gow" wrote...
<snip>
>> You love his films because you know he spent a long time crafting
>> them?
>
>No, it's my hypothetical analysis of why I enjoy them so much. I know from
>experience that I enjoy them more than anything else. And I've thought
>about it -- why is that so -- and that's my explanation.
>
That's a reasonable assumption to make, but I would suggest that this
is also a cop-out because you know no other filmmaker can indulge the
way Kubrick did. So there's nothing that can be compared to him in
your limited worldview.
>> <snip>
>> >> >Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen, and
>> >mostly
>> >> >it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be a
>narrative
>> >> >film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and music sewn
>> >> >together.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It's not a full length feature though, is it?
>> >
>> >No. 16 minutes. Have you seen it?
>> >
>>
>> Yes. My main point was that if that was stretched to feature-length, I
>> doubt it would have had anywhere near the same impact - if any at all!
>
>Yes, I suspected as much.
>
Very clever.
>> <snip>
>> >Commitment to telling a story is definitely limiting the freedom of
>> >expression in the medium. And it's about "the fact" that cinema doesn't
>tell
>> >stories that well... It's most of the time very passive and thus banal.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, most of the time it's passive, I agree. But the greatest films
>> are *not* passive experiences.
>
>Agreed. I wouldn't love cinema if they were.
>
>> >I like the term "Casablanca-syndrome" because I didn't find anything
>> >interesting in that film.
>> >
>>
>> It's an easy film to denigrate, because it's so story-focused. And I
>> do think it's terribly over-rated. (And the fact that Robert McKee
>> thinks it's the best film ever gives me more reason to hate it and
>> him.)
>
>Am I supposed to know who Robert McKee is?
>
The full-of-shit screenwriting instructor Brian Cox played in
"Adaptation". The sad part is - he actually exists!
>> <snip>
>> >> And story. For the love of god, story! (His most divisive film is Lost
>> >> Highway, though, which supports you somewhat.)
>> >
>> >What about Eraserhead?
>> >His films have stories and he has obviously thought about telling one
>before
>> >making a film. But I still don't think that's the thing that drives his
>> >films.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree. I think story drives most of his films - Eraserhead and
>> Lost Highway are the exceptions to that rule.
>
>In my book, those two films are in the top three of Lynch.
>
And I understand your reasons for that, but I just have to
agree-to-disagree with you about narrative cinema.
>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> This is fascinating, of course, mostly because Lynch is often branded
>> >> a misogynist. But then a lot of male directors have been!
>> >
>> >Like Lars von Trier by you.
>>
>> Actually, I'm just agreeing with most people who saw "Breaking the
>> Waves" because the charge seems reasonable based on that film.
>
>Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
>(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
>
No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:08:06 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Keith Gow" wrote...
> <snip>
> >> You love his films because you know he spent a long time crafting
> >> them?
> >
> >No, it's my hypothetical analysis of why I enjoy them so much. I know
from
> >experience that I enjoy them more than anything else. And I've thought
> >about it -- why is that so -- and that's my explanation.
> >
>
> That's a reasonable assumption to make, but I would suggest that this
> is also a cop-out because you know no other filmmaker can indulge the
> way Kubrick did. So there's nothing that can be compared to him in
> your limited worldview.
I've seen it in other arts. Radiohead for example. What's your take on
Radiohead, by the way?
<snip>
> >> >I like the term "Casablanca-syndrome" because I didn't find anything
> >> >interesting in that film.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's an easy film to denigrate, because it's so story-focused. And I
> >> do think it's terribly over-rated. (And the fact that Robert McKee
> >> thinks it's the best film ever gives me more reason to hate it and
> >> him.)
> >
> >Am I supposed to know who Robert McKee is?
> >
>
> The full-of-shit screenwriting instructor Brian Cox played in
> "Adaptation". The sad part is - he actually exists!
When I saw "Adaptation" I was sure that he existed even if I hadn't ever
heard of him.
<snip>
> >Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
> >(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
> >
>
> No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
When you're done tell me what you think.
Joshua Zyber
> > >Am I supposed to know who Robert McKee is?
> > >
> >
> > The full-of-shit screenwriting instructor Brian Cox played in
> > "Adaptation". The sad part is - he actually exists!
>
> When I saw "Adaptation" I was sure that he existed even if I hadn't
ever
> heard of him.
Yes, he is very much a real person, and he has been delivering those
exact same "How To Sell Out and Make Big Money By Writing A Shit
Screenplay" seminars for decades.
- Josh
damnfine
> Yes, he is very much a real person, and he has been delivering those
> exact same "How To Sell Out and Make Big Money By Writing A Shit
> Screenplay" seminars for decades.
What's weird is how likeable Kaufman and Jonze made him. Or maybe it was
just Cox. that did that.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>"Joshua Zyber" wrote:
>> Yes, he is very much a real person, and he has been delivering those
>> exact same "How To Sell Out and Make Big Money By Writing A Shit
>> Screenplay" seminars for decades.
>
>What's weird is how likeable Kaufman and Jonze made him. Or maybe it was
>just Cox. that did that.
>
Cox did it. The writer and director were obviously holding him up for
ridicule. How could they not in a film called "Adaptation" which
completely obliterates most of the guy's teachings?
-- Keith Gow --
Henry The Horse
post by Mr Mikko:
< I've seen it in other arts. Radiohead for example. >
Re your earlier comments on Radiohead's creative process, I can only
say this: *Every* band that have some success and can afford it, do
create their albums in the same way, ie, spending months in the
studio, recording dozens of tracks and then choosing the best 10-15
for their releases. That applies to Radiohead but also to, say, Elton
John or Paul McCartney.
Meaning, again: You like some artists more than others based on
personal taste, not on MO. With music as with cinema.
<< The full-of-shit screenwriting instructor Brian Cox played in
"Adaptation". The sad part is - he actually exists! >>
< When I saw "Adaptation" I was sure that he existed even if I hadn't
ever heard of him. >
That instructor was certainly full of shit, but his place in the film
is a very important and true one: to break the rules, one must first
really know them. Very few true geniuses can do without that.
Of course,
HENRY THE HORSE
Henry The Horse
post by Mr Mikko:
<< My approach to Greenaway is to watch his usually great work, and
completely ignore anything he has to say. He's the first one to
(thankfully) not follow his own advice when making his best work,
which is indeed story-based. >>
< They have a story, yes, but that's hardly ever their main concern...
They always have structural obsessions that move me far more than
anything "profound" the story might grasp of this life... >
That's reasonable.
<< You want cinema that feels like music? Why? You state that cinema
is a slave to literature, and then you want it to become a slave to
another art form? >>
< It wouldn't be a slave as music is far more closer to the feeling of
the medium than writing is. >
Why? Because it's more abstract, you mean?
<< Cinema is *not* a slave to literature, cinema *is* storytelling. >>
< Why is that? Prove me that it is. >
From an, er, anthropological perspective, if it can tell stories, it
will. Empirical proof tells that if 99.9% of films tell stories,
that's certainly indicative. But I could never really prove that.
< "The Arrival of a Train at the Station" did not tell a story. A lot
of the prehistory of cinema was not narratively driven. >
"The Arrival..." is comparable to a documentary, it was meant to show
the possibilities of the medium. In fact, it's astonishing how early
cinema was used to indeed tell stories. The short film with the man
and the hose *was* a story.
More importantly, you can't make a 90 minutes film with that. Well,
Greenaway could. It would be called "The Arrival of 200 trains at 200
stations", it would only be shown in museums (where no-one would be
expected no watch the whole thing), and then he'd go on to make one of
his really good films.
< (I don't want so much of non-narrative cinema as I want cinema that
isn't so strictly narrative...) >
Apart from my, er, satyrical tone, I do understand what you say. I
don't share your opinion, but I admit I'm very biased myself - I
*want* to be told stories.
< Lynch is not story-driven, although his films have stories; >
Prove it! I mean... which of his films are not story-driven? Mind you,
my definition of that is obviously not "films where the story is the
only important thing", but rather "films where everything in them is
in the service of telling a story". I don't even agree about
Eraserhead not being story-driven, as I think Keith said.
< Godard is not story-driven at all... >
I confess I've not seen many of his films, only some of the earlier
ones. Those were indeed story-driven (they were all about characters
and their reactions to things happening to them). But they can be
exceptions, I don't know.
< Kubrick is story driven but that certainly was not why I fell in
love with his cinema. I did not fell in love with The Shining's story.
>
Again, a very respectable opinion. But for me, Kubrick is the ultimate
proof that story does not deny per se any formal aspect.
I still think that if you only like 2% of the cinema you see, it's
because, as in everything, there are very few masters in cinema, not
because of any structural or formal reason.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On behalf of my friend Mr Fiat Iustitia Ruat Coelum, I answer to this
> post by Mr Mikko:
>
>
> < I've seen it in other arts. Radiohead for example. >
>
>
> Re your earlier comments on Radiohead's creative process, I can only
> say this: *Every* band that have some success and can afford it, do
> create their albums in the same way, ie, spending months in the
> studio, recording dozens of tracks and then choosing the best 10-15
> for their releases.
13 months? Enough material for a double album? They recorder all of Amnesiac
and Kid A during the same session.
> That applies to Radiohead but also to, say, Elton
> John or Paul McCartney.
>
> Meaning, again: You like some artists more than others based on
> personal taste, not on MO. With music as with cinema.
Of course it's about personal taste. Tendency to only like "perfect" things
is personal taste as well...
Henry The Horse
<<<< Un Chien Andalou is perhaps the most energic film I've ever seen,
and mostly it's exactly because it frees itself from even trying to be
a narrative film. Which still doesn't mean that it's just images and
music sewn together. >>>>
<<< It's not a full length feature though, is it? >>>
<< No. 16 minutes. Have you seen it? >>
< Yes. My main point was that if that was stretched to feature-length,
I doubt it would have had anywhere near the same impact - if any at
all! >
Further proof of your point is that, immediately after Un Chien
Andalou, and faced with making a full length film, they indeed chose
to... tell a story (L'Age D'Or).
It's also true that Dalí left the film very early in production -or
even earlier-, and it became 95% Buñuel.
Joshua Zyber
news:3ed70a27...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >> Yes, he is very much a real person, and he has been delivering
those
> >> exact same "How To Sell Out and Make Big Money By Writing A Shit
> >> Screenplay" seminars for decades.
> >
> >What's weird is how likeable Kaufman and Jonze made him. Or maybe it
was
> >just Cox. that did that.
> >
>
> Cox did it. The writer and director were obviously holding him up for
> ridicule. How could they not in a film called "Adaptation" which
> completely obliterates most of the guy's teachings?
No, it's in the writing as well. It's a part of Charlie's arc, of
learning to see people as multi-dimensional. He argues that he wants to
make a movie where the characters don't change, because that's formula
bullshit and in real life people don't behave like that. In
'Adaptation', McKee is one of a host of characters who really don't
change, but Charlie's perception of them does. McKee is the same
arrogant, blustering jackass in all of his scenes, but by the end
Charlie has found his advice to be genuinely helpful even though it goes
against everything he believes in. McKee is the same as he was at the
beginning, but now we see him differently.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> I don't think it's about the banality of storytelling per se. It's
about
> "the fact" that any storytelling as a premise for creating a film is
going
> to cause a banal film!
Something tells me that Mikko is going to LOVE 'Brown Bunny' and
proclaim its virtues here if it ever finds release.
- Josh
Mikko Pihkoluoma
What is that?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
I don't think 'L'Age D'Or has any more story than 'Un Chien Andalou'.
Perhaps a bit more coherent themes but I would never ever agree with you
that story drives the film.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On behalf of my friend Mr Fiat Iustitia Ruat Coelum, I answer to this
> post by Mr Mikko:
> << You want cinema that feels like music? Why? You state that cinema
> is a slave to literature, and then you want it to become a slave to
> another art form? >>
>
> < It wouldn't be a slave as music is far more closer to the feeling of
> the medium than writing is. >
>
>
> Why? Because it's more abstract, you mean?
Yes. And it's more directly in connection to your feelings.
> << Cinema is *not* a slave to literature, cinema *is* storytelling. >>
>
> < Why is that? Prove me that it is. >
>
>
> From an, er, anthropological perspective, if it can tell stories, it
> will. Empirical proof tells that if 99.9% of films tell stories,
> that's certainly indicative. But I could never really prove that.
That's why I would never say that Cinema *is* storytelling.
> < "The Arrival of a Train at the Station" did not tell a story. A lot
> of the prehistory of cinema was not narratively driven. >
>
>
> "The Arrival..." is comparable to a documentary, it was meant to show
> the possibilities of the medium.
Finding out those possibilities is still a work in progress although a very
slow one.
> In fact, it's astonishing how early
> cinema was used to indeed tell stories. The short film with the man
> and the hose *was* a story.
>
> More importantly, you can't make a 90 minutes film with that. Well,
> Greenaway could. It would be called "The Arrival of 200 trains at 200
> stations", it would only be shown in museums (where no-one would be
> expected no watch the whole thing), and then he'd go on to make one of
> his really good films.
Read my comment quoted by you:
> < Lynch is not story-driven, although his films have stories; >
>
>
> Prove it! I mean... which of his films are not story-driven? Mind you,
> my definition of that is obviously not "films where the story is the
> only important thing", but rather "films where everything in them is
> in the service of telling a story".
Everything can be, and should be, interpreted to have those connections, but
I will not agree that that is what *DRIVES* those films. In Lynch films
it's really the ideas and themes that drive the film rather than
constructing a good story.
> I don't even agree about
> Eraserhead not being story-driven, as I think Keith said.
Why? Do you think the story of the film is important?
> < Godard is not story-driven at all... >
>
>
> I confess I've not seen many of his films, only some of the earlier
> ones. Those were indeed story-driven (they were all about characters
> and their reactions to things happening to them). But they can be
> exceptions, I don't know.
'A Bout de Souffle' certainly does *not* fit your description. It is NOT all
about characters and their reactions to things happening to them! Just
like in 'Pierrot le Fou'; the film is not about the characters as such... It
wouldn't be a very interesting film if it were. It's definitely about what
they and their relationship represent. It's always about the ideas before
the story. The story tries to catch Godard's thinking...
> < Kubrick is story driven but that certainly was not why I fell in
> love with his cinema. I did not fell in love with The Shining's story.
> >
>
>
> Again, a very respectable opinion. But for me, Kubrick is the ultimate
> proof that story does not deny per se any formal aspect.
I was afraid of that argument coming. And you may very well be right. But
one could argue that Kubrick often needed films like 'Last Year at
Marienbad' or 'Eraserhead' to make his films more interesting.
> I still think that if you only like 2% of the cinema you see, it's
> because, as in everything, there are very few masters in cinema, not
> because of any structural or formal reason.
It's not so much about not liking 98% of the cinema, as it is frustration
with 20% that could be better.
Kasper Bang
> "Joshua Zyber" wrote...
> > Something tells me that Mikko is going to LOVE 'Brown Bunny' and
> > proclaim its virtues here if it ever finds release.
>
> What is that?
A horrible film by Vincent Gallo:
http://akas.imdb.com/Title?0330099
http://www.screendaily.com/micrositestory.asp?MSID=14&storyid=12597 (he
later excused it)
http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes/story/0,13266,962970,00.html
I would sure like to see the last five minutes of it, though...
Kasper Bang
Keith Gow
<johnn...@hotmail.com> waxed lyrical:
>I would sure like to see the last five minutes of it, though...
>
I always said Chloe Sevigny had a good head for porn...
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Keith Gow" wrote...
>> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:08:06 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
>> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>>
>> >"Keith Gow" wrote...
>> <snip>
>> >> You love his films because you know he spent a long time crafting
>> >> them?
>> >
>> >No, it's my hypothetical analysis of why I enjoy them so much. I know
>from
>> >experience that I enjoy them more than anything else. And I've thought
>> >about it -- why is that so -- and that's my explanation.
>> >
>>
>> That's a reasonable assumption to make, but I would suggest that this
>> is also a cop-out because you know no other filmmaker can indulge the
>> way Kubrick did. So there's nothing that can be compared to him in
>> your limited worldview.
>
>I've seen it in other arts. Radiohead for example. What's your take on
>Radiohead, by the way?
>
I like them, not in huge amounts, but they are pretty darn good.
Comparing rock music to film is weird, to say the least :-)
<snip>
> <snip>
>> >Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
>> >(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
>> >
>>
>> No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
>
>When you're done tell me what you think.
Okay, firstly the nature of the essay is about "Transgressing
Goodness" and doesn't really tackle the misogynist argument. Take the
final line of the essay:
"Whether Bess is a victim of patriarchy or whether she is heroic in
her choice to live and die on her own terms is a question that viewers
will invariably need to answer for themselves."
That's the key question that needs to be answered if the film is to be
written off as misogynist or not. The author refuses to tackle it
because she is looking at "goodness" and what defines that.
Here's where the author tries to divorce herself from the claim that
the films is misogynistic:
"I can see why feminists could find fault with von Trier's creation of
Bess. Encoded in the beginning of this story is its tragic end:
fairy-tale weddings do not have happy endings. In both narrative and
real time the princess dies. The recent death of Diana, Princess of
Wales, and the unprecedented out-pouring of grief were sad reminders
of the fate that invariably awaits women."
So she believes feminists think BTW is misogynistic because "of the
fate that invariably awaits women". Hmm, death - kind of a fate that
awaits all of us.
And then there is this:
"Even today the traditional paradigm seems to pertain: the 'good'
woman is the dead woman who can be safely mourned when she can no
longer disrupt the 'natural' order of things."
The author claims that *today*, the *traditional* paradigm is that the
only good woman is the dead one. I think this is hard to bear out,
even in a film culture that is dominated by male directors.
And nothing in the essay truly suggests than von Trier transcends this
paradigm which the author claims is today's tradition.
I actually have less problems with the essay, mainly because the idea
of transgressing moral codes is interesting to me. The author's point
that Bess does things that would normally be considered "bad" is
hardly revelatory, though. But the essay is discussing why the notion
of goodness is restrictive in this context (ie. patriarchal society).
My major problem with "Breaking the Waves" is that the character of
Bess is mostly passive. She feels guilty by sheer coincidence. She is
talked into having sex with other men. She prostitutes herself. She
continues to place herself at risk for someone else's pleasure. She
dies horribly.
Equating her having sex with strangers with her husband's recovery
from an accident that she irrationally blames herself for is pretty
darn ludicrous and fairly offensive really. Whether she is "good" for
doing it is almost beside the point, as the essay demonstrates with
its failure to really tackle the film at all.
-- Keith Gow --
Henry The Horse
<< Further proof of your point is that, immediately after Un Chien
Andalou, and faced with making a full length film, they indeed chose
to... tell a story (L'Age D'Or). >>
< I don't think 'L'Age D'Or has any more story than 'Un Chien
Andalou'. Perhaps a bit more coherent themes but I would never ever
agree with you that story drives the film. >
In this instance, you'll see I didn't say L'Age D'Or was
"story-driven", 'cause you're right and it isn't. My point was, as
soon as it had to be a full length film, some kind of story had to be
attached to it.
(What's fascinating about L'Age D'Or, for me, is its main structure.
It has one of the best first minutes of a movie ever, and then it
proceeds to show during the rest of the film exactly what he was
meaning in that beginning.)
Curiously (not to deny your point), I remember reading somewhere -some
Cahiers Du Cinéma maybe?- an interview with Buñuel where he insisted
that Un Chien Andalou did have a story, and proceeded to explain it
scene-by-scene, "this here means this, this here means that", etc. But
of course he said that many decades after, when going through a phase
in which he critizised other works for not having enough of a story
-trying to separate his early Surrealism from later vogues such as
Dadaism. Also, maybe rightly, Dalí always insisted that Buñuel *never*
understood Un Chien Andalou, even while shooting it. This is why I
insist I only mention this as a curiousity, not to attempt to prove
you wrong or anything.
Henry The Horse
<< Re your earlier comments on Radiohead's creative process, I can
only say this: *Every* band that have some success and can afford it,
do create their albums in the same way, ie, spending months in the
studio, recording dozens of tracks and then choosing the best 10-15
for their releases. >>
< 13 months? Enough material for a double album? They recorder all of
Amnesiac and Kid A during the same session. >
It's a long time, but not at all unheard of. And if they did two
albums in those sessions, the average 6.5 months per album is even
more common. Heck, Tina Turner could spend that time for recording an
album, and she didn't even write the songs...
Funny - we really do think differently! For me what has really merit
is doing a masterwork in one month. Just semi-joking, I don't really
care about studio time. Also, consider that it's really hard measuring
that. Some artists (say, Genesis) liked to enter the studio with
completely empty hands and work everything there. But many others have
been writing and recording demos in their own home studios before
going into the "proper" studio.
In any case... if Radiohead are geniuses or not (I can't have an
opinion yet), I'm sure that has little to do with studio time, more
with natural talent. It's not a Kubrick-esque situation.
<< Meaning, again: You like some artists more than others based on
personal taste, not on MO. With music as with cinema. >>
< Of course it's about personal taste. Tendency to only like "perfect"
things is personal taste as well... >
Hah hah! Good try... but the notion of "perfect" also changes from one
person to another.
Henry The Horse
<<< It wouldn't be a slave as music is far more closer to the feeling
of the medium than writing is. >>>
<< Why? Because it's more abstract, you mean? >>
< Yes. And it's more directly in connection to your feelings. >
Well, you've stated a million times that you're not moved by stories,
so that makes sense.
Since I don't have that problem with stories, I can be moved equally
intensely by both in their different ways.
<< From an, er, anthropological perspective, if it can tell stories,
it will. Empirical proof tells that if 99.9% of films tell stories,
that's certainly indicative. But I could never really prove that. >>
< That's why I would never say that Cinema *is* storytelling. >
PLEASE excuse the harshness, but following that logic you can't say
that dogs *have* four legs either.
<< "The Arrival..." is comparable to a documentary, it was meant to
show the possibilities of the medium. >>
< Finding out those possibilities is still a work in progress although
a very slow one. >
I not only agree with you on this, but also I think experimentation in
cinema is absolutely necessary.
<< Prove it! I mean... which of his films are not story-driven? Mind
you, my definition of that is obviously not "films where the story is
the only important thing", but rather "films where everything in them
is in the service of telling a story". >>
< Everything can be, and should be, interpreted to have those
connections, but I will not agree that that is what *DRIVES* those
films. In Lynch films it's really the ideas and themes that drive the
film rather than constructing a good story. [...]
Why? Do you think the story of [Eraserhead] is important? >
You think it isn't?! I don't understand. For me, all its visual
brilliance, all its metaphors, are great in the sense that they tell a
true story way better and more sincerely than it would have been with
a "straightforward" approach. Without the meaning, the film would be
pretty but ultimately, er, meaningless.
I understand you could say "But Eraserhead pictures more a state of
mind than a story". The point were we seem to disagree and I confess I
still don't really understand your meaning, is that, to picture that
state of mind, things happen to the main character, and those things
lead to a resolution. So, we have a very clear (in this sense) story.
(More of this on next paragraph.)
< 'A Bout de Souffle' certainly does *not* fit your description. It is
NOT all about characters and their reactions to things happening to
them! Just like in 'Pierrot le Fou'; the film is not about the
characters as such... It wouldn't be a very interesting film if it
were. It's definitely about what they and their relationship
represent. It's always about the ideas before the story. The story
tries to catch Godard's thinking... >
I haven't seen Pierrot Le Fou, but I'd contend a million times what
you said about A Bout De Souffle... I think the key is in your last
sentence: *of course* a good story "tries to catch" the author's
thinking - that its mission. If not, it's not a good story. Stories
have to go beyond themselves and point at something greater, bigger
than the story itself. Meaning, say, Blade Runner isn't about a guy
chasing robots but about a reflection on what constitutes life itself
etc... Lord of the Rings isn't about dwarves and monsters but a
reflection on, as the African saying goes, how after a war there are
two losing sides etc... Pretty Woman is a reflection on how even
someone as awful as Julia Roberts can look cool with high boots (er,
just kidding on that last one...)
If your beef is with pointless stories that go nowhere and tell
nothing, well, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. Though
of course there would be still thousands of arguments about concrete
examples of that.
< I was afraid of that argument coming. And you may very well be
right. But one could argue that Kubrick often needed films like 'Last
Year at Marienbad' or 'Eraserhead' to make his films more interesting.
>
But what would that prove, exactly? I mean, who doesn't? You've got me
completely at a loss on this, I'm afraid.
< It's not so much about not liking 98% of the cinema, as it is
frustration with 20% that could be better. >
I'm going to say something too obvious here, but... would everyone
agree on that 20%? And even then, would everyone agree on *how* could
they have been made better? Not "conventional" cinema, not
"experimental" cinema, not an incredible revolution on how films are
made, could solve that frustration on your part.
Meaning, I remember you said something similar about one of the Lord
of the Rings film, and it became painfully obvious that your opinion
was only shared by yourself. Similarly, I had this situation where
something in Lost Highway prevents me from thinking of it as a
"perfect" film, and everybody disagreed with me also. Every regular
here, and every cinema lover in the world, have gone through that. We
all tend to intellectualize all that and blame it on commercialism, or
marketing, or the director's wifey (that would be Carlos Saura's
case), but that's oversimplifying wildly. Not Peter Jackson fault, not
David Lynch fault, not the studio's fault, not the screenplays' fault
per se. One more time, personal tastes. Unsolvable situation.
Henry The Horse
< [Adaptation] McKee is the same arrogant, blustering jackass in all
of his scenes, but by the end Charlie has found his advice to be
genuinely helpful even though it goes against everything he believes
in. McKee is the same as he was at the beginning, but now we see him
differently. >
That's a fucking good post, if you'll excuse my Victorian English.
While I didn't particularly love or hate the film, I still have to
work out if I dislike it due to its extreme self-indulgence, or like
it for its honesty in accepting what you mentioned, thus going on to
provide a "by the book" ending.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:59:18 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
> > <snip>
> >> >Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
> >> >(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
> >
> >When you're done tell me what you think.
>
> Okay, firstly the nature of the essay is about "Transgressing
> Goodness" and doesn't really tackle the misogynist argument.
It does show how the film explores the contradictory impossibility to be a
woman in a patriarchal society.
> Take the
> final line of the essay:
>
> "Whether Bess is a victim of patriarchy or whether she is heroic in
> her choice to live and die on her own terms is a question that viewers
> will invariably need to answer for themselves."
>
> That's the key question that needs to be answered if the film is to be
> written off as misogynist or not.
Why?
Isn't she both?
I think the ultimate strength in von Trier's cinema is how he melts
contradictory feelings and interpretations into one film... A bi-polar
nature not unlike a certain Mr. Kubrick tried to create over and over again
throughout his whole career.
> The author refuses to tackle it
> because she is looking at "goodness" and what defines that.
>
> Here's where the author tries to divorce herself from the claim that
> the films is misogynistic:
>
> "I can see why feminists could find fault with von Trier's creation of
> Bess. Encoded in the beginning of this story is its tragic end:
> fairy-tale weddings do not have happy endings. In both narrative and
> real time the princess dies. The recent death of Diana, Princess of
> Wales, and the unprecedented out-pouring of grief were sad reminders
> of the fate that invariably awaits women."
>
> So she believes feminists think BTW is misogynistic because "of the
> fate that invariably awaits women". Hmm, death - kind of a fate that
> awaits all of us.
I understood she meant that in the context of narrative traditions of
storytelling. (No need to be foolish Keith.)
> And then there is this:
>
> "Even today the traditional paradigm seems to pertain: the 'good'
> woman is the dead woman who can be safely mourned when she can no
> longer disrupt the 'natural' order of things."
>
> The author claims that *today*, the *traditional* paradigm is that the
> only good woman is the dead one. I think this is hard to bear out,
> even in a film culture that is dominated by male directors.
The point is that "our" culture and film culture are very heterosexual-male
dominated.
> And nothing in the essay truly suggests than von Trier transcends this
> paradigm which the author claims is today's tradition.
That's a lie.
"[11] Tempting though it may be to accept this feminist critique and hard
though it may be to argue against it, I believe that von Trier is interested
in more than creating yet another film to titillate viewers with violence
against women. I am not attributing to von Trier a conscious intentionality.
Rather, following Bordwell's description of symptomatic meaning, I suggest
that embedded in von Trier's filmic narrative are current cultural and
ideological concerns, including that of gender.9 Von Trier does use the
woman-as-sinner/woman-as-martyr stereotypes that have led critics to see
Bess as Mary Magdalene or Joan of Arc; however, I see his use of these
stereotypes as cultural critique. If one allows for this possibility, then
von Trier can be seen as less of a misogynist, less of a proponent of
repressive attitudes toward women and more of a critic of the religious and
cultural attitudes that, as Kaplan argues, condemn women to "the bondage of
some stereotype of normal femininity ..." "
> I actually have less problems with the essay, mainly because the idea
> of transgressing moral codes is interesting to me. The author's point
> that Bess does things that would normally be considered "bad" is
> hardly revelatory, though. But the essay is discussing why the notion
> of goodness is restrictive in this context (ie. patriarchal society).
>
> My major problem with "Breaking the Waves" is that the character of
> Bess is mostly passive. She feels guilty by sheer coincidence. She is
> talked into having sex with other men. She prostitutes herself. She
> continues to place herself at risk for someone else's pleasure. She
> dies horribly.
But can't you see how all of this is part of von Trier's critique of the
patriarchal society, where women are denied the active role? Didn't it
bother you in EWS that the film's and Bill's "natural order" is disturbed by
the revelation of female lust? That actually the active woman is the most
frightening thing in Bill's head?
> Equating her having sex with strangers with her husband's recovery
> from an accident that she irrationally blames herself for is pretty
> darn ludicrous and fairly offensive really.
The film equates her martyr-death with her husband's recovery. Bess having
sex with strangers is not what recovers Jan's condition. From mere
storyline perspective it is offensive. And I was extremely angry at the film
exactly because of that. But I think it would be ludicrous to think that von
Trier "creates a failed religious fable of woman as sacrificial victim".
> Whether she is "good" for
> doing it is almost beside the point, as the essay demonstrates with
> its failure to really tackle the film at all.
I think you read the article eyes wide shut. Or Mementoishly grabbing the
bits that you want to believe.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko Pihkoluoma said, and I quote:
> << Prove it! I mean... which of his films are not story-driven? Mind
> you, my definition of that is obviously not "films where the story is
> the only important thing", but rather "films where everything in them
> is in the service of telling a story". >>
>
> < Everything can be, and should be, interpreted to have those
> connections, but I will not agree that that is what *DRIVES* those
> films. In Lynch films it's really the ideas and themes that drive the
> film rather than constructing a good story. [...]
>
> Why? Do you think the story of [Eraserhead] is important? >
>
>
> You think it isn't?! I don't understand. For me, all its visual
> brilliance, all its metaphors, are great in the sense that they tell a
> true story way better and more sincerely than it would have been with
> a "straightforward" approach. Without the meaning, the film would be
> pretty but ultimately, er, meaningless.
So films can't have meaning without a story? They can't say anything without
a story? Define what story is. And tell me what's the story in
'Eraserhead'.
> I understand you could say "But Eraserhead pictures more a state of
> mind than a story". The point were we seem to disagree and I confess I
> still don't really understand your meaning, is that, to picture that
> state of mind, things happen to the main character, and those things
> lead to a resolution. So, we have a very clear (in this sense) story.
> (More of this on next paragraph.)
>
>
> < 'A Bout de Souffle' certainly does *not* fit your description. It is
> NOT all about characters and their reactions to things happening to
> them! Just like in 'Pierrot le Fou'; the film is not about the
> characters as such... It wouldn't be a very interesting film if it
> were. It's definitely about what they and their relationship
> represent. It's always about the ideas before the story. The story
> tries to catch Godard's thinking... >
>
>
> I haven't seen Pierrot Le Fou, but I'd contend a million times what
> you said about A Bout De Souffle... I think the key is in your last
> sentence: *of course* a good story "tries to catch" the author's
> thinking - that its mission. If not, it's not a good story.
No I mean that literally. That the story is entirely secondary to Godard's
ideas. It's not an uncommon trait for Godard to have these moments "oh, gosh
we may need to fake something for the plot as well... to catch up a little".
> Stories
> have to go beyond themselves and point at something greater, bigger
> than the story itself. Meaning, say, Blade Runner isn't about a guy
> chasing robots but about a reflection on what constitutes life itself
> etc... Lord of the Rings isn't about dwarves and monsters but a
> reflection on, as the African saying goes, how after a war there are
> two losing sides etc... Pretty Woman is a reflection on how even
> someone as awful as Julia Roberts can look cool with high boots (er,
> just kidding on that last one...)
>
> If your beef is with pointless stories that go nowhere and tell
> nothing, well, I don't think anybody would disagree with that. Though
> of course there would be still thousands of arguments about concrete
> examples of that.
What is the story of 'À bout de souffle'?
Let's take a look at the plot summary from imdb:
"Michel is a young thug who romantically models himself on Humphrey Bogart.
While driving a stolen car, Michel shoots a policeman who follows him onto a
country road. Penniless and on the run from the police, he turns to his
American girlfriend Patricia, a student and aspiring journalist. Patricia
agrees to hide him and the two spend their time evading the police, making
love and stealing cars to raise money for a trip to Italy. As the police net
tightens, Michel's bravado and desperation grow..."
If this film really has a story and it's important, can you explain me why
is that?
> < I was afraid of that argument coming. And you may very well be
> right. But one could argue that Kubrick often needed films like 'Last
> Year at Marienbad' or 'Eraserhead' to make his films more interesting.
> >
>
>
> But what would that prove, exactly? I mean, who doesn't? You've got me
> completely at a loss on this, I'm afraid.
Does Last Year at Marienbad gain its meaning through the story it tells? Do
you think the film is about story? (I'll be waiting for your account on
Eraserhead)
I guess I was thinking that it would prove that storytelling is a limiting
approach. Which I do think it is, but sometimes limiting can be good...
> < It's not so much about not liking 98% of the cinema, as it is
> frustration with 20% that could be better. >
>
>
> I'm going to say something too obvious here, but... would everyone
> agree on that 20%? And even then, would everyone agree on *how* could
> they have been made better? Not "conventional" cinema, not
> "experimental" cinema, not an incredible revolution on how films are
> made, could solve that frustration on your part.
>
> Meaning, I remember you said something similar about one of the Lord
> of the Rings film, and it became painfully obvious that your opinion
> was only shared by yourself. Similarly, I had this situation where
> something in Lost Highway prevents me from thinking of it as a
> "perfect" film, and everybody disagreed with me also. Every regular
> here, and every cinema lover in the world, have gone through that. We
> all tend to intellectualize all that and blame it on commercialism, or
> marketing, or the director's wifey (that would be Carlos Saura's
> case), but that's oversimplifying wildly. Not Peter Jackson fault, not
> David Lynch fault, not the studio's fault, not the screenplays' fault
> per se. One more time, personal tastes. Unsolvable situation.
"Earth is doomed. People are going to kill each other until the end of time.
See if I care."
That's your attitude?
If something is an unsolvable situation it never means that you shouldn't do
anything about it! You don't want to change things? You don't want to
believe that you could do something about it? You don't believe that
anything could be done? What do you live for then? Is the meaning of life to
redo the crap that has been done and just accept it all? To become crap?
(There's a load of naive idealism for you. I hope you can take it.)
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dobt com
Henry The Horse
< So films can't have meaning without a story? They can't say anything
without a story? Define what story is. And tell me what's the story
in 'Eraserhead'. >
Mikko, sorry, it's late, I'm tired, I like you, you're wrong, and I
won't do the homework you ask.
I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really boil
down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not opposed
concepts much as you would like them to be.
Since it's obvious we don't even agree on what a story is, this is
getting quite a pointless argument for both of us, right?
<< Meaning, I remember you said something similar about one of the
Lord of the Rings film, and it became painfully obvious that your
opinion was only shared by yourself. Similarly, I had this situation
where something in Lost Highway prevents me from thinking of it as a
"perfect" film, and everybody disagreed with me also. Every regular
here, and every cinema lover in the world, have gone through that. We
all tend to intellectualize all that and blame it on commercialism, or
marketing, or the director's wifey (that would be Carlos Saura's
case), but that's oversimplifying wildly. Not Peter Jackson fault, not
David Lynch fault, not the studio's fault, not the screenplays' fault
per se. One more time, personal tastes. Unsolvable situation. >>
< "Earth is doomed. People are going to kill each other until the end
of time. See if I care."
That's your attitude?
If something is an unsolvable situation it never means that you
shouldn't do anything about it! You don't want to change things? You
don't want to believe that you could do something about it? You don't
believe that anything could be done? What do you live for then? Is the
meaning of life to redo the crap that has been done and just accept it
all? To become crap?
(There's a load of naive idealism for you. I hope you can take it.) >
Er, hello? Pretty words, but, remember I'm the one who actually
*likes* story-based cinema?
Joshua Zyber
> > Something tells me that Mikko is going to LOVE 'Brown Bunny' and
> > proclaim its virtues here if it ever finds release.
>
> What is that?
Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera blowjob.
damnfine
> > > Something tells me that Mikko is going to LOVE 'Brown Bunny' and
> > > proclaim its virtues here if it ever finds release.
> >
> > What is that?
>
> Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
> telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
> cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera blowjob.
You know, if this blowjob had involved any other established "legit" actress
in the world other than Chloe Sevigny, it would have surprised me.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"The President is gagging on my gas bladder!" - Dr. Zoidberg
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>You know, if this blowjob had involved any other established "legit" actress
>in the world other than Chloe Sevigny, it would have surprised me.
She's doing him for her "art"...
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko Pihkoluoma made this text-based post:
> < So films can't have meaning without a story? They can't say anything
> without a story? Define what story is. And tell me what's the story
> in 'Eraserhead'. >
>
>
> Mikko, sorry, it's late, I'm tired, I like you, you're wrong, and I
> won't do the homework you ask.
>
> I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really boil
> down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not opposed
> concepts much as you would like them to be.
I never said they're opposed concepts. They are two different things.
Although stories can be used to create meaning. Stories can be used to
create pretty non-meaningful "content" as well.
> Since it's obvious we don't even agree on what a story is, this is
> getting quite a pointless argument for both of us, right?
I don't think so but if you want to give up, be my guest.
We don't agree on the definition of what a story is because you don't use a
very traditional one. You bend the definition in order to support your
arguments.
If you're unable to explain me in words the story of Eraserhead I think
that's a pretty strong inclination that it is NOT a story-driven film. The
mere fact that it's difficult suggests that it is not a story-driven film.
> << Meaning, I remember you said something similar about one of the
> Lord of the Rings film, and it became painfully obvious that your
> opinion was only shared by yourself. Similarly, I had this situation
> where something in Lost Highway prevents me from thinking of it as a
> "perfect" film, and everybody disagreed with me also. Every regular
> here, and every cinema lover in the world, have gone through that. We
> all tend to intellectualize all that and blame it on commercialism, or
> marketing, or the director's wifey (that would be Carlos Saura's
> case), but that's oversimplifying wildly. Not Peter Jackson fault, not
> David Lynch fault, not the studio's fault, not the screenplays' fault
> per se. One more time, personal tastes. Unsolvable situation. >>
>
>
> < "Earth is doomed. People are going to kill each other until the end
> of time. See if I care."
>
> That's your attitude?
>
> If something is an unsolvable situation it never means that you
> shouldn't do anything about it! You don't want to change things? You
> don't want to believe that you could do something about it? You don't
> believe that anything could be done? What do you live for then? Is the
> meaning of life to redo the crap that has been done and just accept it
> all? To become crap?
>
> (There's a load of naive idealism for you. I hope you can take it.) >
>
>
> Er, hello? Pretty words, but, remember I'm the one who actually
> *likes* story-based cinema?
Read what I wrote. Then read what you wrote and tell me if you still think
your words make any bit of sense, because I really don't think they do.
Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>"Keith Gow" wrote...
>> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:59:18 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
>> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>> <snip>
>> > <snip>
>> >> >Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
>> >> >(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
>> >
>> >When you're done tell me what you think.
>>
>> Okay, firstly the nature of the essay is about "Transgressing
>> Goodness" and doesn't really tackle the misogynist argument.
>
>It does show how the film explores the contradictory impossibility to be a
>woman in a patriarchal society.
>
Oh, what a lot of shit, Mikko. It's not impossible. To even think it
is impossible doesn't give women much credit.
>> Take the
>> final line of the essay:
>>
>> "Whether Bess is a victim of patriarchy or whether she is heroic in
>> her choice to live and die on her own terms is a question that viewers
>> will invariably need to answer for themselves."
>>
>> That's the key question that needs to be answered if the film is to be
>> written off as misogynist or not.
>
>Why?
>
>Isn't she both?
>
If she's a victim of patriarchy, then she has herself to blame. As
much as she's manipulated, she also chooses each step. Jan doesn't
have a gun to her head.
But this is the problem I have with the film and why I call is
misogynistic - because her motivations are so implausible.
>I think the ultimate strength in von Trier's cinema is how he melts
>contradictory feelings and interpretations into one film... A bi-polar
>nature not unlike a certain Mr. Kubrick tried to create over and over again
>throughout his whole career.
>
I'm offended that you even think to compare the two.
>> The author refuses to tackle it
>> because she is looking at "goodness" and what defines that.
>>
>> Here's where the author tries to divorce herself from the claim that
>> the films is misogynistic:
>>
>> "I can see why feminists could find fault with von Trier's creation of
>> Bess. Encoded in the beginning of this story is its tragic end:
>> fairy-tale weddings do not have happy endings. In both narrative and
>> real time the princess dies. The recent death of Diana, Princess of
>> Wales, and the unprecedented out-pouring of grief were sad reminders
>> of the fate that invariably awaits women."
>>
>> So she believes feminists think BTW is misogynistic because "of the
>> fate that invariably awaits women". Hmm, death - kind of a fate that
>> awaits all of us.
>
>I understood she meant that in the context of narrative traditions of
>storytelling. (No need to be foolish Keith.)
>
No, the author wants the best of both worlds. She uses a real-life
example to prove her point, thus she is suggesting that what Bess does
in BTW is somehow analogous to Princess Diana dying. It holds no
water.
>> And then there is this:
>>
>> "Even today the traditional paradigm seems to pertain: the 'good'
>> woman is the dead woman who can be safely mourned when she can no
>> longer disrupt the 'natural' order of things."
>>
>> The author claims that *today*, the *traditional* paradigm is that the
>> only good woman is the dead one. I think this is hard to bear out,
>> even in a film culture that is dominated by male directors.
>
>The point is that "our" culture and film culture are very heterosexual-male
>dominated.
>
>> And nothing in the essay truly suggests than von Trier transcends this
>> paradigm which the author claims is today's tradition.
>
>That's a lie.
>
>"[11] Tempting though it may be to accept this feminist critique and hard
>though it may be to argue against it, I believe that von Trier is interested
>in more than creating yet another film to titillate viewers with violence
>against women. I am not attributing to von Trier a conscious intentionality.
Sorry, but this also makes no sense. He's interested in creating
something more, but he's not concious of it?
>Rather, following Bordwell's description of symptomatic meaning, I suggest
>that embedded in von Trier's filmic narrative are current cultural and
>ideological concerns, including that of gender.9 Von Trier does use the
>woman-as-sinner/woman-as-martyr stereotypes that have led critics to see
>Bess as Mary Magdalene or Joan of Arc; however, I see his use of these
>stereotypes as cultural critique. If one allows for this possibility,
*If* one allows for this possibility. Meaning, if you can be fed this
crap, I'll continue feeding you more. Please, take a seat.
>then
>von Trier can be seen as less of a misogynist, less of a proponent of
>repressive attitudes toward women and more of a critic of the religious and
>cultural attitudes that, as Kaplan argues, condemn women to "the bondage of
>some stereotype of normal femininity ..." "
>
Again, I say, the author does *not* suggest von Trier transcends
anything, only that he might have unconciously if you happen to live
in some world where any of Bess' motivations make the slightest bit of
sense.
>> I actually have less problems with the essay, mainly because the idea
>> of transgressing moral codes is interesting to me. The author's point
>> that Bess does things that would normally be considered "bad" is
>> hardly revelatory, though. But the essay is discussing why the notion
>> of goodness is restrictive in this context (ie. patriarchal society).
>>
>> My major problem with "Breaking the Waves" is that the character of
>> Bess is mostly passive. She feels guilty by sheer coincidence. She is
>> talked into having sex with other men. She prostitutes herself. She
>> continues to place herself at risk for someone else's pleasure. She
>> dies horribly.
>
>But can't you see how all of this is part of von Trier's critique of the
>patriarchal society, where women are denied the active role? Didn't it
>bother you in EWS that the film's and Bill's "natural order" is disturbed by
>the revelation of female lust? That actually the active woman is the most
>frightening thing in Bill's head?
>
EWS doesn't offend me because it's *about* Bill's head. It's all about
Bill's paranoia and insecurity. It's one thing to have Kubrick tell us
a story about a man's problems with women, it's another to have von
Trier create a female character that must degrade herself, suffer, be
murdered, to save the man she loves... because she irrationally blames
herself for his condition.
>> Equating her having sex with strangers with her husband's recovery
>> from an accident that she irrationally blames herself for is pretty
>> darn ludicrous and fairly offensive really.
>
>The film equates her martyr-death with her husband's recovery. Bess having
>sex with strangers is not what recovers Jan's condition.
Is there a course in hair-splitting that you have taken?
>From mere
>storyline perspective it is offensive. And I was extremely angry at the film
>exactly because of that. But I think it would be ludicrous to think that von
>Trier "creates a failed religious fable of woman as sacrificial victim".
>
I don't even give him that much credit when it comes to BTW.
>> Whether she is "good" for
>> doing it is almost beside the point, as the essay demonstrates with
>> its failure to really tackle the film at all.
>
>I think you read the article eyes wide shut. Or Mementoishly grabbing the
>bits that you want to believe.
>
The essay is weak and does not support your claim that the film isn't
misogynistic - for one reason alone, it doesn't even seek to do that,
it's a discussion of traditional "goodness". I know that's also a fine
line, but there you have it.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>If you're unable to explain me in words the story of Eraserhead I think
>that's a pretty strong inclination that it is NOT a story-driven film. The
>mere fact that it's difficult suggests that it is not a story-driven film.
>
Let me:
Henry's world is thrown into chaos when his girlfriend gives birth to
a mutant baby.
It's not why I love the film, but there is a story.
-- Keith Gow --
Mikko Pihkoluoma
I said that the story of the film is not important. There are far more
important and meaningful things in the film than the story itself. These
meaningful themes are connected to the story, but the story does not drive
the film.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:47:37 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >"Keith Gow" wrote...
> >> On Thu, 29 May 2003 15:59:18 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> >> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
> >> <snip>
> >> > <snip>
> >> >> >Did you read the article I forwarded in the "Lars on Stan" post?
> >> >> >(http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/breaking.htm)
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I didn't read it, but I will now.
> >> >
> >> >When you're done tell me what you think.
> >>
> >> Okay, firstly the nature of the essay is about "Transgressing
> >> Goodness" and doesn't really tackle the misogynist argument.
> >
> >It does show how the film explores the contradictory impossibility to be
a
> >woman in a patriarchal society.
> >
>
> Oh, what a lot of shit, Mikko. It's not impossible. To even think it
> is impossible doesn't give women much credit.
I meant that to truly become an individual with female sexuality in
patriarchal society is an impossiblity. (I'm not saying the world we live in
today is that patriarchal anymore) It's the reality of the film I meant.
The film is extremely feminist in that respect and I think it's absolutely
ridiculous to argue that it's misogynistic. Your argumentation is even more
ridiculous.
> >> Take the
> >> final line of the essay:
> >>
> >> "Whether Bess is a victim of patriarchy or whether she is heroic in
> >> her choice to live and die on her own terms is a question that viewers
> >> will invariably need to answer for themselves."
> >>
> >> That's the key question that needs to be answered if the film is to be
> >> written off as misogynist or not.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Isn't she both?
> >
>
> If she's a victim of patriarchy, then she has herself to blame.
???
I didn't know victims should blame themselves... ? I really truly cannot
understand you.
> As
> much as she's manipulated, she also chooses each step. Jan doesn't
> have a gun to her head.
I don't think you can understand her if you're not religious. I'm not saying
the film is realistic. It's not the point of the film at all. Actually the
whole point of the latest von Trier aesthetic is to create "impossible"
stories.
BtW is about the guilt put on women for having lust. Bess is religious.
That's why after trying a step to become a sexual female she turns back to
the patriarchy.
> But this is the problem I have with the film and why I call is
> misogynistic - because her motivations are so implausible.
That's what pissed me off as well. There's only a level-difference to
Dancer in the Dark. DitD helped me to understand von Trier better.
> >> The author refuses to tackle it
> >> because she is looking at "goodness" and what defines that.
> >>
> >> Here's where the author tries to divorce herself from the claim that
> >> the films is misogynistic:
> >>
> >> "I can see why feminists could find fault with von Trier's creation of
> >> Bess. Encoded in the beginning of this story is its tragic end:
> >> fairy-tale weddings do not have happy endings. In both narrative and
> >> real time the princess dies. The recent death of Diana, Princess of
> >> Wales, and the unprecedented out-pouring of grief were sad reminders
> >> of the fate that invariably awaits women."
> >>
> >> So she believes feminists think BTW is misogynistic because "of the
> >> fate that invariably awaits women". Hmm, death - kind of a fate that
> >> awaits all of us.
> >
> >I understood she meant that in the context of narrative traditions of
> >storytelling. (No need to be foolish Keith.)
> >
>
> No, the author wants the best of both worlds. She uses a real-life
> example to prove her point, thus she is suggesting that what Bess does
> in BTW is somehow analogous to Princess Diana dying. It holds no
> water.
Oh boy is that not her point!
The fictious play based on reality that was the tabloid scandal called
Princess Diana applies to explain that still in some ways the good woman is
the dead woman. Lars von Trier plays with this stereotype, that's why she
mentions Diana.
> >> And then there is this:
> >>
> >> "Even today the traditional paradigm seems to pertain: the 'good'
> >> woman is the dead woman who can be safely mourned when she can no
> >> longer disrupt the 'natural' order of things."
> >>
> >> The author claims that *today*, the *traditional* paradigm is that the
> >> only good woman is the dead one. I think this is hard to bear out,
> >> even in a film culture that is dominated by male directors.
> >
> >The point is that "our" culture and film culture are very
heterosexual-male
> >dominated.
> >
> >> And nothing in the essay truly suggests than von Trier transcends this
> >> paradigm which the author claims is today's tradition.
> >
> >That's a lie.
> >
> >"[11] Tempting though it may be to accept this feminist critique and hard
> >though it may be to argue against it, I believe that von Trier is
interested
> >in more than creating yet another film to titillate viewers with violence
> >against women. I am not attributing to von Trier a conscious
intentionality.
>
> Sorry, but this also makes no sense. He's interested in creating
> something more, but he's not concious of it?
It's the writer that is afraid to attack against her own team.
> >Rather, following Bordwell's description of symptomatic meaning, I
suggest
> >that embedded in von Trier's filmic narrative are current cultural and
> >ideological concerns, including that of gender.9 Von Trier does use the
> >woman-as-sinner/woman-as-martyr stereotypes that have led critics to see
> >Bess as Mary Magdalene or Joan of Arc; however, I see his use of these
> >stereotypes as cultural critique. If one allows for this possibility,
>
> *If* one allows for this possibility. Meaning, if you can be fed this
> crap, I'll continue feeding you more. Please, take a seat.
Why is it crap?
It's the only plausible interpretation of the film.
> >then
> >von Trier can be seen as less of a misogynist, less of a proponent of
> >repressive attitudes toward women and more of a critic of the religious
and
> >cultural attitudes that, as Kaplan argues, condemn women to "the bondage
of
> >some stereotype of normal femininity ..." "
> >
>
> Again, I say, the author does *not* suggest von Trier transcends
> anything, only that he might have unconciously if you happen to live
> in some world where any of Bess' motivations make the slightest bit of
> sense.
Why do they need to make sense?
> >> I actually have less problems with the essay, mainly because the idea
> >> of transgressing moral codes is interesting to me. The author's point
> >> that Bess does things that would normally be considered "bad" is
> >> hardly revelatory, though. But the essay is discussing why the notion
> >> of goodness is restrictive in this context (ie. patriarchal society).
> >>
> >> My major problem with "Breaking the Waves" is that the character of
> >> Bess is mostly passive. She feels guilty by sheer coincidence. She is
> >> talked into having sex with other men. She prostitutes herself. She
> >> continues to place herself at risk for someone else's pleasure. She
> >> dies horribly.
> >
> >But can't you see how all of this is part of von Trier's critique of the
> >patriarchal society, where women are denied the active role? Didn't it
> >bother you in EWS that the film's and Bill's "natural order" is disturbed
by
> >the revelation of female lust? That actually the active woman is the most
> >frightening thing in Bill's head?
> >
>
> EWS doesn't offend me because it's *about* Bill's head. It's all about
> Bill's paranoia and insecurity. It's one thing to have Kubrick tell us
> a story about a man's problems with women, it's another to have von
> Trier create a female character that must degrade herself, suffer, be
> murdered, to save the man she loves... because she irrationally blames
> herself for his condition.
You're talking on two different levels here. You choose to interpret EWS,
but you refuse to do the same for BtW. You merely explain the plot of the
film without any attempt to understand the film.
> >> Equating her having sex with strangers with her husband's recovery
> >> from an accident that she irrationally blames herself for is pretty
> >> darn ludicrous and fairly offensive really.
> >
> >The film equates her martyr-death with her husband's recovery. Bess
having
> >sex with strangers is not what recovers Jan's condition.
>
> Is there a course in hair-splitting that you have taken?
Dozens. They're called mathematics.
> >From mere
> >storyline perspective it is offensive. And I was extremely angry at the
film
> >exactly because of that. But I think it would be ludicrous to think that
von
> >Trier "creates a failed religious fable of woman as sacrificial victim".
> >
>
> I don't even give him that much credit when it comes to BTW.
For which films you do then?
> >> Whether she is "good" for
> >> doing it is almost beside the point, as the essay demonstrates with
> >> its failure to really tackle the film at all.
> >
> >I think you read the article eyes wide shut. Or Mementoishly grabbing the
> >bits that you want to believe.
> >
>
> The essay is weak and does not support your claim that the film isn't
> misogynistic - for one reason alone, it doesn't even seek to do that,
> it's a discussion of traditional "goodness". I know that's also a fine
> line, but there you have it.
The article does that. The writer is only afraid of experssing her opinion
strongly.
Henry The Horse
< Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera blowjob.
>
A real blowjob, you mean? Like in Devil in the Body, you mean? How
controversial. I have no intention whatsoever of watching that movie,
but the "Kazaa edit" may prove interesting for whacking purposes.
It's still the best argument I've heard lately in favor of
non-narrative cinema, though I suspect even a *9-minute* blowjob
(longer than in real porn) will manage to become boring.
Henry The Horse
<< Let me:
Henry's world is thrown into chaos when his girlfriend gives birth to
a mutant baby.
It's not why I love the film, but there is a story. >>
< I said that the story of the film is not important. [...] >
You said "And tell me what's the story in 'Eraserhead'." Keith
answered that (whether the baby's really a mutant or not is
interpretation). Now you'll accept that there's a story but you'll say
it's not important.
< There are far more important and meaningful things in the film than
the story itself. These meaningful themes are connected to the story,
but the story does not drive the film. >
See?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
If I didn't know you better I would say go fuck yourself and come back when
you're not drunk. I probably should but I'm not in the mood to make it
sound stupid enough.
Look back what I've written. I have never said that Eraserhead does not have
a story. In fact, I have suggested that it has one. I just wanted you to
tell me what is the story of the film and why is it important, so that we
could fully discuss if the story is the main concern of the film.
I don't believe Lynch films are story-driven, especially when it comes to
Eraserhead. You denied this (you brought it up). I asked you questions. You
were unable to answer. You abandond the discussion. (Which I don't think is
quite as pointless as everyone else seems to think.)
Henry The Horse
<< I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really boil
down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not opposed
concepts much as you would like them to be. >>
< I never said they're opposed concepts. They are two different
things. Although stories can be used to create meaning. Stories can be
used to create pretty non-meaningful "content" as well. >
So?
<< Since it's obvious we don't even agree on what a story is, this is
getting quite a pointless argument for both of us, right? >>
< I don't think so but if you want to give up, be my guest. >
I'll be your guest then.
< We don't agree on the definition of what a story is because you
don't use a very traditional one. You bend the definition in order to
support your arguments. >
Well, now that this is so clear, let's move on, OK? So, I've heard
you're also against bread-based sandwiches. Care to comment on that?
< If you're unable to explain me in words the story of Eraserhead I
think that's a pretty strong inclination that it is NOT a story-driven
film. The mere fact that it's difficult suggests that it is not a
story-driven film. >
No, it's an indication that you just earlier mentioned the story to A
Bout De Souffle and said it wasn't a story, or wasn't relevant to the
film, or whatever. As soon as you see something you like in a film,
you assume that. So what's the use?
**** LONG RECAP HERE ****
That's your attitude?
**** END OF LONG RECAP ****
Ah, that's classic Mikko. I wrote a full paragraph, you took *two
words* ("unsolvable situation") from it, used them in the opposite
sense to what I was saying, and wrote your answer from there. And you
wonder why I refuse to do the homework you ask?
One last time: It's an "unsolvable situation" for *you*. I'm pretty
happy with narrative cinema, so why should I fight against it? While
in your definition of "redo the crap" you include everything from
Paths of Glory to Hitchcock to Casablanca, one thing's sure: your war
is most definitely not my war. If I want to fight for something, it
will be for better stories.
...oh, and one more thing:
You're a Nazi.
(I don't really think you are - just trying to see if that Usenet law
works, and then I've automatically lost the discussion, the thread is
finally ended, and we can move on to better things... :)
Mikko Pihkoluoma
Endless footage with no story is not what I'm after. I've seen (clips of)
those films and I didn't like them.
Cinema could be music; more intense, inspired music. Something that we have
not seen or we haven't seen enough. Why on earth should we think that the
form of one story that wraps it all up is the best way to go? I would love
to see a bit more abstract musicals with reoccurring themes and perhaps not
such a emhasis on story.
Not that many albums tell a story, yet they have genuine meaning.
I'm looking for something like 'Fantasia' but without the stories and with
more serious themes.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:<bbfcu1$mt6$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
>
>
> << I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really boil
> down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not opposed
> concepts much as you would like them to be. >>
>
> < I never said they're opposed concepts. They are two different
> things. Although stories can be used to create meaning. Stories can be
> used to create pretty non-meaningful "content" as well. >
>
>
> So?
You misquoted me. You continuosly want to misinterpret me.
> << Since it's obvious we don't even agree on what a story is, this is
> getting quite a pointless argument for both of us, right? >>
>
> < I don't think so but if you want to give up, be my guest. >
>
>
> I'll be your guest then.
>
>
> < We don't agree on the definition of what a story is because you
> don't use a very traditional one. You bend the definition in order to
> support your arguments. >
>
>
> Well, now that this is so clear, let's move on, OK? So, I've heard
> you're also against bread-based sandwiches. Care to comment on that?
I guess that's because I like the stuff in between but not the bread.
> < If you're unable to explain me in words the story of Eraserhead I
> think that's a pretty strong inclination that it is NOT a story-driven
> film. The mere fact that it's difficult suggests that it is not a
> story-driven film. >
>
>
> No, it's an indication that you just earlier mentioned the story to A
> Bout De Souffle and said it wasn't a story, or wasn't relevant to the
> film, or whatever. As soon as you see something you like in a film,
> you assume that. So what's the use?
Well tell me how exactly is the story of 'A Bout De Souffle' interesting and
an important story. Do you think it was worth telling? Why is that?
To me it seems like you run from room to another shouting "that's a
story-driven film; cinema is story!!" But you can't even tell me what the
story is and why is it important in these examples that have been brought
into discussion.
I love a lot of story-driven films, such as Barry Lyndon. And I adore
Kubrick's storytelling in Barry Lyndon and it's a mighty part of the reason
it's such an amazing film. There's no way of thinking of Kubrick's cinema
without stories. A lot of their complexity is based on the exceptional
narrative brilliance of Kubrick. However, that's not how I fell in love with
it.
I don't even know what I want. Maybe I want stories, but I do know that I
don't like stories. At least not those ones that wrap it all up. I guess I
just hate things that are finished, dead.
Mikko
(Some of the reason I rant and ramble about these things here is because I
need to know where I stand and what is it that I want exactly... If I think
about them it hardly ever goes anywhere... I need opposition to distinct my
own thought. If you can help me I'll send you a candy ... or a case of red
wine, perhaps?)
damnfine
> A real blowjob, you mean? Like in Devil in the Body, you mean? How
> controversial. I have no intention whatsoever of watching that movie,
> but the "Kazaa edit" may prove interesting for whacking purposes.
>
> It's still the best argument I've heard lately in favor of
> non-narrative cinema, though I suspect even a *9-minute* blowjob
> (longer than in real porn) will manage to become boring.
To all those twits who reckoned the rancid 'Buffalo 66' was the emergence of
this wonderful new film making talent... HA! I say: HA!!!
The infamous scene in question could not possibly sum Gallo up better.
Joshua Zyber
news:3270c46.03060...@posting.google.com...
> < Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
> telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
> cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera blowjob.
>
> A real blowjob, you mean? Like in Devil in the Body, you mean?
Yes, a real, uncensored blowjob from start to messy finish.
It's ::ahem:: art, you see.
Joshua Zyber
> > Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
> > telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
> > cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera
blowjob.
>
> Endless footage with no story is not what I'm after. I've seen (clips
of)
> those films and I didn't like them.
>
> Cinema could be music; more intense, inspired music. Something that we
have
> not seen or we haven't seen enough. Why on earth should we think that
the
> form of one story that wraps it all up is the best way to go? I would
love
> to see a bit more abstract musicals with reoccurring themes and
perhaps not
> such a emhasis on story.
>
> Not that many albums tell a story, yet they have genuine meaning.
>
> I'm looking for something like 'Fantasia' but without the stories and
with
> more serious themes.
Mikko, I don't think even you have any idea what it is that you are
really looking for. It's time to stop looking for something you'll never
get, and probably wouldn't really like if you did get it, and start
looking at what is here.
- Josh
Henry The Horse
<<<< I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really
boil down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not
opposed concepts much as you would like them to be. >>>>
<<< I never said they're opposed concepts. They are two different
things. Although stories can be used to create meaning. Stories can be
used to create pretty non-meaningful "content" as well. >>>
<< So? >>
< You misquoted me. You continuosly want to misinterpret me. >
That was cut & paste, no misquote, I didn't even leave any bit out.
And I assure you, if I misinterpret you, it's not on purpose.
<< Well, now that this is so clear, let's move on, OK? So, I've heard
you're also against bread-based sandwiches. Care to comment on that?
>>
< I guess that's because I like the stuff in between but not the
bread. >
But you'll concede that it's a convenient way to carry a slice of ham.
And, more to the point, if it doesn't have bread, it's not a sandwich.
(Cool, now it seems as if I was making a real analogy...)
< Well tell me how exactly is the story of 'A Bout De Souffle'
interesting and an important story. Do you think it was worth
telling? Why is that? >
Aaaarghhhh! If this is a plot to give me a heart attack, I'll have you
know that I've taken you out of my will anyway. :)
OK, seriously... The point where we disagree it's when you separate
meaning from story. Was it a good story? If it provided a good
meaning, yes. And the story is the vehicle by which all the things you
like about the movie flow in a coherent direction, with a sense of
purpose.
< To me it seems like you run from room to another shouting "that's a
story-driven film; cinema is story!!" >
Bah, lucky guess. You couldn't have known that.
< But you can't even tell me what the story is and why is it important
in these examples that have been brought into discussion. >
What the story is in A Bout De Souffle? The synopsis from imdb was
accurate enough, if I remember right. The story of Eraserhead? *Come
on*! OK...
*** SPOILERS WARNING *** (Er, that's a joke.)
Alienated man leaves girlfriend pregnant accidentally, has to cope
with it, discovers he doesn't fit into life as a married man and
especially as a father, has very strong temptations of sending it all
to hell and forget about everything ever happening, ultimately killing
(or just wishing to) his son.
All of which you knew perfectly well. You didn't want me to tell you
what you already know - you wanted to later reply that the story's not
important. You wanted to say that the way the feelings are presented
is more important than the story itself. And then I'd say OK, but that
doesn't change the fact that every scene in Eraserhead is following a
story, (and with a classical beginning, middle and end, at that)
regardless of the way it's presented - so it's the story that drives
the film.
The most important thing about the film isn't the story? That's
acceptable. Though, personally, I feel that what separates Eraserhead
from other kookoo films is that, in this case, *everything* has a
meaning, *everything* tells us a part of the story, which makes it a
much more serious effort than other films.
Compare that to, say, Pi - great visuals, important concept, all in
black and white which means it's a very high and mighty thing, but,
oops, stupid story - so, bad movie.
(Well, not *that* bad actually, I'm exaggerating for dramatic
purposes.)
< I love a lot of story-driven films, such as Barry Lyndon. And I
adore Kubrick's storytelling in Barry Lyndon and it's a mighty part of
the reason it's such an amazing film. There's no way of thinking of
Kubrick's cinema without stories. A lot of their complexity is based
on the exceptional narrative brilliance of Kubrick. However, that's
not how I fell in love with it. >
Haven't we gone through this like a zillion times already? OK, so you
didn't fall in love with Kubrick because of his stories. But, *so
what*? What on earth does than mean???
< I don't even know what I want. Maybe I want stories, but I do know
that I don't like stories. At least not those ones that wrap it all
up. I guess I just hate things that are finished, dead. >
Again, it's not mandatory for a story to wrap everything up. But that
has not really anything to do with working with screenplays, or being
text-based, or whatever. That's the connection I still completely fail
to see in your argumentation.
< (Some of the reason I rant and ramble about these things here is
because I need to know where I stand and what is it that I want
exactly... If I think about them it hardly ever goes anywhere... I
need opposition to distinct my own thought. If you can help me I'll
send you a candy ... or a case of red wine, perhaps?) >
That's cute, really, but could you make that a red-haired girl with
green eyes, a 60's white woollen sweater, white mini-skirt, and white
boots, hates pantyhose, and is a bit of a beatnik, smokes Gauloises
non-stop, plays the piano, and sings softly with some kind of an
exotic accent? Er, if it's not too much to ask... If it *is* too much,
I could do without the piano...
Henry The Horse
< If I didn't know you better I would say go fuck yourself and come
back when you're not drunk. I probably should but I'm not in the mood
to make it sound stupid enough. >
Mikko, I don't get drunk before reading your posts -I get drunk
*after* reading them.
Heh heh...
< Look back what I've written. I have never said that Eraserhead does
not have a story. In fact, I have suggested that it has one. I just
wanted you to tell me what is the story of the film and why is it
important, so that we could fully discuss if the story is the main
concern of the film. >
The only thing I will concede you is that what is or isn't the main
concern of a film, is something debatable.
Apart from that, sorry, we've hit the brick wall again. I do think a
great film needs a story.
< I don't believe Lynch films are story-driven, especially when it
comes to Eraserhead. You denied this (you brought it up). >
Yes I did.
< I asked you questions. You were unable to answer. >
*Unwilling* to answer. Because we've been here 1,000 times already.
< You abandond the discussion. (Which I don't think is quite as
pointless as everyone else seems to think.) >
Sadly for me, I've never been really able to abandon a discussion.
And, speaking for me, I don't think this discussion's pointless. On
the contrary, I think it's a very important one. Really. My problem is
not there, but in the fact that I think we've all said everything we
had to say, and are now just going in circles. I think you're badly
mistaken, and I'm sure I won't be able to ever prove it to your
satisfaction.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
> news:bbgaeg$qup$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> > > Your soon-to-be new favorite movie. A film that makes no attempt at
> > > telling a story, but just shows endless footage of a man driving
> > > cross-country in a van, and then getting a 9-minute on-camera
> blowjob.
> >
> > Endless footage with no story is not what I'm after. I've seen (clips
> of)
> > those films and I didn't like them.
> >
> > Cinema could be music; more intense, inspired music. Something that we
> have
> > not seen or we haven't seen enough. Why on earth should we think that
> the
> > form of one story that wraps it all up is the best way to go? I would
> love
> > to see a bit more abstract musicals with reoccurring themes and
> perhaps not
> > such a emhasis on story.
> >
> > Not that many albums tell a story, yet they have genuine meaning.
> >
> > I'm looking for something like 'Fantasia' but without the stories and
> with
> > more serious themes.
>
> Mikko, I don't think even you have any idea what it is that you are
> really looking for.
I did say that, didn't I.
> It's time to stop looking for something you'll never
> get, and probably wouldn't really like if you did get it, and start
> looking at what is here.
Nooooo!
Kasper Bang
> You know, if this blowjob had involved any other established "legit" actress
> in the world other than Chloe Sevigny, it would have surprised me.
Does she have a history of doing things like this (in films that is -
oh, you get my point)? I haven't really followed her career - I only
know her from "Kids", where she did a great job (acting). But why did
she participate in this Gallomania and has she fired her agent? Has she
been confronted with the incident by any journalists?
Kasper Bang
damnfine
> > You know, if this blowjob had involved any other established "legit"
actress
> > in the world other than Chloe Sevigny, it would have surprised me.
>
> Does she have a history of doing things like this (in films that is -
> oh, you get my point)? I haven't really followed her career - I only
> know her from "Kids", where she did a great job (acting). But why did
> she participate in this Gallomania and has she fired her agent?
She's worked with Larry Clark and Harmony Korine and been in a long term
relationship with the latter... after living like that for so many years,
sucking off a lightweight like Vincent Gallo on camera for a worthless film
would probably feel relatively empowering.
And she's in Lars von Trier's new film too... talk about consorting with the
scum of the film making business! Who next, the guy who made 'Irreversible'?!
(Actually looking forward to 'Dogville', however.)
damnfine
http://us.imdb.com/WN?20030603#2
Man, I never was more of an Ebert fan than I am now.
damnfine
> > A real blowjob, you mean? Like in Devil in the Body, you mean?
>
> Yes, a real, uncensored blowjob from start to messy finish.
>
> It's ::ahem:: art, you see.
Just read that ol' Vinny has "vowed" never to make a film again. Looks like
some good comes out of everything. Though of all the people I'd never trust a
promise from...
Joshua Zyber
> > It's time to stop looking for something you'll never
> > get, and probably wouldn't really like if you did get it, and start
> > looking at what is here.
>
> Nooooo!
Well then, grab a camera and make your own movie. Here are some tips:
http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/50/nobudget.html
Mikko Pihkoluoma
"Shoot tape and tell a good story" -- not exactly what I'm after.
I would need an idea for a film. (I have a couple but none of them are
original) I've made a few without any or bad ones. ... I'm also 19.
Welles was, what, 26 (?), when he did CK... I'm ahead of schedule. ;]
(...I think I'll focus on photography during the summer...)
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:<bbgcq9$sgl$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
>
>
> <<<< I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really
> boil down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not
> opposed concepts much as you would like them to be. >>>>
> < You misquoted me. You continuosly want to misinterpret me. >
>
>
> That was cut & paste, no misquote, I didn't even leave any bit out.
>
> And I assure you, if I misinterpret you, it's not on purpose.
"They're not opposed concepts much as you would like them to be," is
misquote / misinterpretation of what I've said.
> << Well, now that this is so clear, let's move on, OK? So, I've heard
> you're also against bread-based sandwiches. Care to comment on that?
> >>
>
> < I guess that's because I like the stuff in between but not the
> bread. >
>
>
> But you'll concede that it's a convenient way to carry a slice of ham.
> And, more to the point, if it doesn't have bread, it's not a sandwich.
I don't like ham. ;]
> (Cool, now it seems as if I was making a real analogy...)
Yes you almost did.
> < Well tell me how exactly is the story of 'A Bout De Souffle'
> interesting and an important story. Do you think it was worth
> telling? Why is that? >
>
>
> Aaaarghhhh! If this is a plot to give me a heart attack, I'll have you
> know that I've taken you out of my will anyway. :)
>
> OK, seriously... The point where we disagree it's when you separate
> meaning from story. Was it a good story? If it provided a good
> meaning, yes. And the story is the vehicle by which all the things you
> like about the movie flow in a coherent direction, with a sense of
> purpose.
But does the story of 'A Bout de Souffle' provide meaning or is it just an
irrational way to connect meaningful scenes?
> < But you can't even tell me what the story is and why is it important
> in these examples that have been brought into discussion. >
>
>
> What the story is in A Bout De Souffle? The synopsis from imdb was
> accurate enough, if I remember right.
The synopsis didn't seem like a very interesting or meaningful story to me.
> The story of Eraserhead? *Come
> on*! OK...
>
> *** SPOILERS WARNING *** (Er, that's a joke.)
>
> Alienated man leaves girlfriend pregnant accidentally, has to cope
> with it, discovers he doesn't fit into life as a married man and
> especially as a father, has very strong temptations of sending it all
> to hell and forget about everything ever happening, ultimately killing
> (or just wishing to) his son.
>
> All of which you knew perfectly well. You didn't want me to tell you
> what you already know - you wanted to later reply that the story's not
> important. You wanted to say that the way the feelings are presented
> is more important than the story itself. And then I'd say OK, but that
> doesn't change the fact that every scene in Eraserhead is following a
> story, (and with a classical beginning, middle and end, at that)
> regardless of the way it's presented - so it's the story that drives
> the film.
>
> The most important thing about the film isn't the story? That's
> acceptable.
Doesn't that make it a non-story-driven film?
> Though, personally, I feel that what separates Eraserhead
> from other kookoo films is that, in this case, *everything* has a
> meaning, *everything* tells us a part of the story, which makes it a
> much more serious effort than other films.
>
> Compare that to, say, Pi - great visuals, important concept, all in
> black and white which means it's a very high and mighty thing, but,
> oops, stupid story - so, bad movie.
>
> (Well, not *that* bad actually, I'm exaggerating for dramatic
> purposes.)
Actually I agree with you how you explain 'Pi'. The greatest mistakes
Aronofsky has done all have to do with the choice of "narratively forced
cinema". He's clearly very untalented in creating an interesting narrative.
He's good with themes and visualising his themes, but he cannot tell and/or
pick a story.
Then again, 'Killer's Kiss' lacked an interesting story and I doubt 'Fear
and Desire' is much better on that department.
> < I don't even know what I want. Maybe I want stories, but I do know
> that I don't like stories. At least not those ones that wrap it all
> up. I guess I just hate things that are finished, dead. >
>
>
> Again, it's not mandatory for a story to wrap everything up. But that
> has not really anything to do with working with screenplays, or being
> text-based, or whatever.
It has everything to do with the Casablanca-syndrome.
> < (Some of the reason I rant and ramble about these things here is
> because I need to know where I stand and what is it that I want
> exactly... If I think about them it hardly ever goes anywhere... I
> need opposition to distinct my own thought. If you can help me I'll
> send you a candy ... or a case of red wine, perhaps?) >
>
>
> That's cute, really, but could you make that a red-haired girl with
> green eyes, a 60's white woollen sweater, white mini-skirt, and white
> boots, hates pantyhose, and is a bit of a beatnik, smokes Gauloises
> non-stop, plays the piano, and sings softly with some kind of an
> exotic accent? Er, if it's not too much to ask... If it *is* too much,
> I could do without the piano...
I'll send you Marla Singer in white with green contacts.
It's a deal.
Mikko
Kasper Bang
> She's worked with Larry Clark and Harmony Korine and been in a long term
> relationship with the latter... after living like that for so many years,
> sucking off a lightweight like Vincent Gallo on camera for a worthless film
> would probably feel relatively empowering.
What she actually did suck off in "Brown Bunny" wasn't all that
lightweight rumour has it...
> And she's in Lars von Trier's new film too... talk about consorting with the
> scum of the film making business! Who next, the guy who made 'Irreversible'?!
Watch your mouth now, you're talking to a Dane! ;-)
In my book films like "The Element of Crime", "Breaking the Waves"
(though "Secrets & Lies" deserved the palme d'or in Cannes that year)
and the tv series "The Kingdom" are all masterpieces, but we shouldn't
start a big argument over that. His work has been discussed in this NG
before, I guess.
And I can't wait till I get to see "Irreversible" - didn't you like it?
> (Actually looking forward to 'Dogville', however.)
Me too - it opens next week here in Denmark. Whether you like von
Trier's films or not, you're always in for something different,
something fresh-looking on the screen when you see his latest film.
Kasper Bang
Kasper Bang
> In further news...
>
> http://us.imdb.com/WN?20030603#2
>
> Man, I never was more of an Ebert fan than I am now.
Gallo's apologies for the film were all over the news here in Europe -
Ebert and Screen are not the only sources.
And Ebert, hmmmm, he rode that whole American wave of indignation over
von Trier's alleged anti-Americanism. What about Gus Van Sant's
"Elephant" then? Von Trier just made an universal statement about how we
treat foreigners - be it here in Denmark (we are no angels on that
account) or in the USA. The Americans should also be the last to make
accusations of von Trier not getting the American settings in his films
right, because he never sat foot in the States. Hollywood never bothered
to do proper research when setting films abroad. In that light I loved
von Trier's mocking comment at the press conference: "Ich bin ein
American".
And in Ebert's article summing up the Cannes festival, he doesn't even
get the Camera D'or winner right - it was the Dane Christopher Boe's
"Reconstruction". Hmmm!
Glad I got all that off my chest...
Kasper Bang
Joshua Zyber
> > http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/50/nobudget.html
>
>
> "Shoot tape and tell a good story" -- not exactly what I'm after.
The point of that article was about how to get your film off the ground,
and yet you skip right to the one part you don't like and dismiss the
whole thing out of hand.
Joshua Zyber
news:3EDCFFE2...@hotmail.com...
> Me too - it opens next week here in Denmark. Whether you like von
> Trier's films or not, you're always in for something different,
> something fresh-looking on the screen when you see his latest film.
Actually, they're all exactly the same as one another. A mildly-retarded
woman in a rural community is put through an irrational trial to test
her love/faith/what-have-you. Shoot the movie on video following about
half of the Dogme 95 rules, break the other rules when it is convenient
to do so because they're a big load of crap anyway. Show up at Cannes
and demand prize.
- Josh
damnfine
> > She's worked with Larry Clark and Harmony Korine and been in a long term
> > relationship with the latter... after living like that for so many years,
> > sucking off a lightweight like Vincent Gallo on camera for a worthless
film
> > would probably feel relatively empowering.
>
> What she actually did suck off in "Brown Bunny" wasn't all that
> lightweight rumour has it...
Well, of course... from memory there was an "I have a big dick" joke five
minutes into 'Buffalo 66'... I have no doubt at all that his primary
motivation in making this film was to prove it. What an artist!
> > And she's in Lars von Trier's new film too... talk about consorting with
the
> > scum of the film making business! Who next, the guy who made
'Irreversible'?!
>
> Watch your mouth now, you're talking to a Dane! ;-)
> In my book films like "The Element of Crime", "Breaking the Waves"
> (though "Secrets & Lies" deserved the palme d'or in Cannes that year)
> and the tv series "The Kingdom" are all masterpieces, but we shouldn't
> start a big argument over that. His work has been discussed in this NG
> before, I guess.
In truth, I don't dislike von Trier blindly, as you'll see if you look back
through the threads... I'm very ambivalent about him and his work. Still,
there's no denying his degrading female roles, whatever approach you might
take toward the degradation.
> And I can't wait till I get to see "Irreversible" - didn't you like it?
I haven't seen it. It will be banned here in communist China anyway. I'll
probably order the DVD at some point... though I'm concerned it will ruin
Monica Bellucci for me...
damnfine
> > Me too - it opens next week here in Denmark. Whether you like von
> > Trier's films or not, you're always in for something different,
> > something fresh-looking on the screen when you see his latest film.
>
> Actually, they're all exactly the same as one another. A mildly-retarded
> woman in a rural community is put through an irrational trial to test
> her love/faith/what-have-you. Shoot the movie on video following about
> half of the Dogme 95 rules, break the other rules when it is convenient
> to do so because they're a big load of crap anyway. Show up at Cannes
> and demand prize.
From what I hear 'Dogville' has this kind of play-within-a-movie narrative or
something which interests me a great deal. Ever since The Baby of Macon I've
been waiting for someone else to do it in some way or another.
Henry The Horse
<<<< I began to answer the questions you pose, but they all really
boil down to this: The story is what gels the meaning. They're not
opposed concepts much as you would like them to be. >>>>
< [...] >
<<< You misquoted me. You continuosly want to misinterpret me. >>>
<< That was cut & paste, no misquote, I didn't even leave any bit out.
And I assure you, if I misinterpret you, it's not on purpose. >>
< "They're not opposed concepts much as you would like them to be," is
misquote / misinterpretation of what I've said. >
OK, let's not argue about this word too, but where you above put that
clever [...] originally I had put a quote by you. If you immediately
answer with "You misquoted me", it kinda seems like you're meaning I
didn't quote you right but it was an exact quote and therefore whereas
insomuch ah whatever
Aaanyway...
It's right that you've never said story and meaning are opposed
concepts. But it's what you've been implying all along! *Every*
example you've given is of some film where you found a deeper meaning
and then immediately concluded that the story was irrelevant. So, in
fact, you're implying those two things can't go together. To which I,
of course (Henry the Horse) strongly disagree.
<< But you'll concede that it's a convenient way to carry a slice of
ham. And, more to the point, if it doesn't have bread, it's not a
sandwich. >>
< I don't like ham. ;] >
I disagree. You *do* like ham. Only, you call it cheese.
(No, I have no idea what I mean either.)
<< (Cool, now it seems as if I was making a real analogy...) >>
< Yes you almost did. >
Yeah but "almost" doesn't cut it. The sandwich I mean.
(Eh?)
< But does the story of 'A Bout de Souffle' provide meaning or is it
just an irrational way to connect meaningful scenes? >
OK, seriously now. What do you find especially irrational about it? I
admit I haven't seen that movie in a long time, but I don't remember
thinking anything like that at the time. ("Irrational" is very
different than "good" or "bad" or "strong" or "weak".)
I could understand that comment about Un Chien Andalou, even about
Eraserhead when seen the first time, but I don't see how it applies to
A Bout de Souffle.
Hence my previous comment that I feel you -maybe not consciously- try
to dismiss every story aspect to any film you like except if it's by
Kubrick.
< The synopsis didn't seem like a very interesting or meaningful story
to me. >
Didn't we go through this before? Many synopses seem interesting or
meaninful per se, but that's not revelant.
"The epic saga of a monkey who finds a bone and then crushes an
animal's skull with it and then night arrives and he goes to sleep and
the next morning he wakes up and finds a very big black wall in front
of his cave and he touches it and it kind of hums" doesn't seem like a
promising synopsis, right?
On the contrary, I'm sure the synopsis to, say, Pi, is much more
interesting than the actual story.
<< The most important thing about the film isn't the story? That's
acceptable. >>
< Doesn't that make it a non-story-driven film? >
Like I said, in this case I'd accept that opinion. But only if you
interpret "story-driven" as in "story is the only important thing".
Hey, I already accepted many posts ago that *I'm* story-driven, and
thus biased.
On a related note, it's a pity you don't care for stories, because
then I think you'd appreciate Eraserhead's choice of narrative even
better. I mean, it's simply amazing how, by telling the story in a
symbolic way, Lynch managed to make maybe the most sincere reflection
on parenthood I've ever seen.
< Actually I agree with you how you explain 'Pi'. The greatest
mistakes Aronofsky has done all have to do with the choice of
"narratively forced cinema". He's clearly very untalented in creating
an interesting narrative. He's good with themes and visualising his
themes, but he cannot tell and/or
pick a story. >
Well, what do you know, we agree! (Though, to be fair, I've only seen
Pi by him, I haven't seen Requiem for a Dream.)
< Then again, 'Killer's Kiss' lacked an interesting story and I doubt
'Fear and Desire' is much better on that department. >
I haven't seen them either, but I understand those two are generally
considered not to be terribly good on *any* department?
<< Again, it's not mandatory for a story to wrap everything up. But
that has not really anything to do with working with screenplays, or
being text-based, or whatever. >>
< It has everything to do with the Casablanca-syndrome. >
You make that sound like an illness. And I (again, being story-driven
myself) found that comment by Greenaway to be utter bullshit. Let's
just say, if more movies today had the script standard of Casablanca
and many other films from that period, I'd be *extremely* happy.
< I'll send you Marla Singer in white with green contacts.
It's a deal. >
I've searched for "Marla Singer" and I've only found that character
from Fight Club. Mmmm... I'd be more grateful if you could send me the
real Helena Bonham-Carter. I have this theory that, if born earlier,
she could have perfectly been one of the best muses of the English
free cinema, much more than it seems at first.
And since you promised that, I'll leave with a piece of serious
advice: I think you try to categorize too much, maybe that's the
problem you mentioned you had. There is really no method, no guru, no
teacher, as Van Morrison said. Kubrick was great because he was
Kubrick, Greenaway is great because he's Greenaway, etc. It's really
about the people, not their theories. Everyone who becomes great feels
the need to develop some personal theory - which only works for
themselves.
What's the use of over-analizing every little bit of anything? Just
enjoy 'em when you like 'em!
(Except if you want to make jerk-off posts like those you mentioned
from the Kubrick newsgroup. Then you most certainly need to
over-analyze wildly.)
Of course,
HENRY THE HORSE
DON'T MISS NEXT CHAPTER! Mikko and Henry the Horse discuss story and
meaning in cinema, while at the same time juggling *50 red balls*, and
getting a blowjob from Chloe Sevigny! Soon to be turned into the next
blockbuster movie by that most excellent avant-garde filmmaker, Lars
von Galloway! A splendid time is guaranteed for all!
Henry The Horse
< Yes, a real, uncensored blowjob from start to messy finish.
It's ::ahem:: art, you see. >
Isn't this kind of a vogue lately, to have real sex scenes (Romance,
Baise-Moi, that one with the "real" rape, that other one by Larry
Clark) to show how uncompromising, honest and new those movies are?
Like, wow.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Kasper Bang wrote:
> > Watch your mouth now, you're talking to a Dane! ;-)
> > In my book films like "The Element of Crime", "Breaking the Waves"
> > (though "Secrets & Lies" deserved the palme d'or in Cannes that year)
> > and the tv series "The Kingdom" are all masterpieces, but we shouldn't
> > start a big argument over that. His work has been discussed in this NG
> > before, I guess.
>
> In truth, I don't dislike von Trier blindly, as you'll see if you look
back
> through the threads... I'm very ambivalent about him and his work. Still,
> there's no denying his degrading female roles, whatever approach you might
> take toward the degradation.
He just said in an interview that the only reason he tells stories with
women suffering is because it's more melodramatic that way. He obviously
cares more about women in trouble than men.
Again I think it would be absolutely ridiculous to interpret that just
because one tells one kind of fictious stories (especially them being
melodramas) that he thinks that should happen in reality.
damnfine
> > In truth, I don't dislike von Trier blindly, as you'll see if you look
> > back through the threads... I'm very ambivalent about him and his
> > work. Still, there's no denying his degrading female roles, whatever
> > approach you might take toward the degradation.
>
> He just said in an interview that the only reason he tells stories with
> women suffering is because it's more melodramatic that way. He obviously
> cares more about women in trouble than men.
So why does he tell stories in which a woman's suffering is presented as a
positive aspect in her life, or as a redemption? That, not the suffering
itself, is the problem.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
I'm sorry. I just can't see how that article could be of any help to me. Do
you honestly believe that someone, even in the crazy latitudes of Finland,
would be mad enough to give buckets full of money for a nineteenyearold with
no experience in the business?
If and when I want to make a film I'll go to a school to make one (...in
finland we have this thing called free college...).
I know your intentions were good. It's just that a) I should first make
more short films (without anyone paying for them), b) I want to shoot on
film, c) I don't know enough about the world to make an interesting film,
d) the funding of films, and the methods to do that, are different in
Finland.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:<bbi993$987$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
> It's right that you've never said story and meaning are opposed
> concepts. But it's what you've been implying all along! *Every*
> example you've given is of some film where you found a deeper meaning
> and then immediately concluded that the story was irrelevant. So, in
> fact, you're implying those two things can't go together. To which I,
> of course (Henry the Horse) strongly disagree.
I don't think that they can't go together.
I want to believe that they can be seperated.
> < But does the story of 'A Bout de Souffle' provide meaning or is it
> just an irrational way to connect meaningful scenes? >
>
>
> OK, seriously now. What do you find especially irrational about it? I
> admit I haven't seen that movie in a long time, but I don't remember
> thinking anything like that at the time. ("Irrational" is very
> different than "good" or "bad" or "strong" or "weak".)
I don't think it's necessarily bad, but I don't think the story is good or
that important. That's why it's not very rational.
> "The epic saga of a monkey who finds a bone and then crushes an
> animal's skull with it and then night arrives and he goes to sleep and
> the next morning he wakes up and finds a very big black wall in front
> of his cave and he touches it and it kind of hums" doesn't seem like a
> promising synopsis, right?
Actually that sounds very interesting. But that's not the whole movie...
> On the contrary, I'm sure the synopsis to, say, Pi, is much more
> interesting than the actual story.
... Plot synopsis and story aren't the same thing... We agree. But you
were perfectly happy with the plot synopsis of A bout de souffle.
> << The most important thing about the film isn't the story? That's
> acceptable. >>
>
> < Doesn't that make it a non-story-driven film? >
>
>
> Like I said, in this case I'd accept that opinion. But only if you
> interpret "story-driven" as in "story is the only important thing".
How do you interpret it, then?
> < Then again, 'Killer's Kiss' lacked an interesting story and I doubt
> 'Fear and Desire' is much better on that department. >
>
>
> I haven't seen them either, but I understand those two are generally
> considered not to be terribly good on *any* department?
I have seen 'Killer's Kiss'. Nice lighting/cinematography, some good
scenes -- that's pretty much it.
> < It has everything to do with the Casablanca-syndrome. >
>
>
> You make that sound like an illness.
That's what it is.
> And I (again, being story-driven
> myself) found that comment by Greenaway to be utter bullshit. Let's
> just say, if more movies today had the script standard of Casablanca
> and many other films from that period, I'd be *extremely* happy.
Here we strongly disagree.
> < I'll send you Marla Singer in white with green contacts.
> It's a deal. >
>
>
> I've searched for "Marla Singer" and I've only found that character
> from Fight Club. Mmmm... I'd be more grateful if you could send me the
> real Helena Bonham-Carter. I have this theory that, if born earlier,
> she could have perfectly been one of the best muses of the English
> free cinema, much more than it seems at first.
>
> And since you promised that, I'll leave with a piece of serious
> advice: I think you try to categorize too much, maybe that's the
> problem you mentioned you had. There is really no method, no guru, no
> teacher, as Van Morrison said. Kubrick was great because he was
> Kubrick, Greenaway is great because he's Greenaway, etc. It's really
> about the people, not their theories. Everyone who becomes great feels
> the need to develop some personal theory - which only works for
> themselves.
The problem I have is that I try to dissect things that are like a ball of
wool with different colours of cord in them. But what do you do with cords?
It's really the ball that you love.
> What's the use of over-analizing every little bit of anything? Just
> enjoy 'em when you like 'em!
>
> (Except if you want to make jerk-off posts like those you mentioned
> from the Kubrick newsgroup. Then you most certainly need to
> over-analyze wildly.)
I know it was overanalytical, but it's not without a slice of truth in it.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko Pihkoluoma wrote:
> > > In truth, I don't dislike von Trier blindly, as you'll see if you look
> > > back through the threads... I'm very ambivalent about him and his
> > > work. Still, there's no denying his degrading female roles, whatever
> > > approach you might take toward the degradation.
> >
> > He just said in an interview that the only reason he tells stories with
> > women suffering is because it's more melodramatic that way. He obviously
> > cares more about women in trouble than men.
>
> So why does he tell stories in which a woman's suffering is presented as a
> positive aspect in her life, or as a redemption? That, not the suffering
> itself, is the problem.
I don't think it's about the suffering... He finds something beautiful about
willingness to do anything if you truly love someone. And he obviously has
a martyr-fixation, but I don't think that makes him misognynist.
Kasper Bang
> Actually, they're all exactly the same as one another. A mildly-retarded
> woman in a rural community is put through an irrational trial to test
> her love/faith/what-have-you. Shoot the movie on video following about
> half of the Dogme 95 rules, break the other rules when it is convenient
> to do so because they're a big load of crap anyway. Show up at Cannes
> and demand prize.
Tiny spoiler for Dogville:
>From what I've heard, Kidman's character in Dogville is neither stupid
nor weak - if you expect that, you're up for a big surprise towards the
end of the film.
And the Dogme 95 rules were not meant to determine the rest of his
career - they were only meant as a new approach to film-making at that
certain point. Generally, constraints give him inspiration and that's
the reason why "Dogville" is made the way it is.
Kasper Bang
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
<snippity snip>
>You're talking on two different levels here.
Not at all.
>You choose to interpret EWS,
>but you refuse to do the same for BtW.
It's not an interpretation that EWS is about what's going in Bill's
head - it's what the film is about!
>You merely explain the plot of the
>film without any attempt to understand the film.
>
No, I understand the film perfectly well. EWS is a complex look at a
person, BtW is a facile story about a woman who suffers torment,
degredation and death for her man.
<snip>
>> I don't even give him that much credit when it comes to BTW.
>
>For which films you do then?
>
I only said this because I think "Dancer in the Dark" can definitely
be viewed in another way.
<snip>
>The article does that. The writer is only afraid of experssing her opinion
>strongly.
>
Then the essay suffers, as I already said.
-- Keith Gow --
Keith Gow
<fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>c) I don't know enough about the world to make an interesting film,
I just couldn't *not* respond to this.
-- Keith Gow --
Kasper Bang
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert04.html
Kasper Bang
damnfine
> Ebert makes a nice comeback in this article, though:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert04.html
'I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more
entertaining than "The Brown Bunny."'
BRILLIANT!!
If Ebert only had consistent taste he'd be a fucking genius.
--
/^\damnfine/^\
"The wound is beginning to smell a little like almonds."
damnfine
> > Ebert makes a nice comeback in this article, though:
> >
> > http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert04.html
>
> 'I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more
> entertaining than "The Brown Bunny."'
>
> BRILLIANT!!
>
> If Ebert only had consistent taste he'd be a fucking genius.
'It is true that I am fat, but one day I will be thin, and he will still be
the director of "The Brown Bunny."'
Almost a Churchill paraphrase! Genius!
Henry The Horse
<< It's right that you've never said story and meaning are opposed
concepts. But it's what you've been implying all along! *Every*
example you've given is of some film where you found a deeper meaning
and then immediately concluded that the story was irrelevant. So, in
fact, you're implying those two things can't go together. To which I,
of course (Henry the Horse) strongly disagree. >>
< I don't think that they can't go together.
I want to believe that they can be seperated. >
Of course they can. The important thing is to know if they can in a
fashion that can keep you interested for 2 hrs.
Certainly, Koyaanisqatsi managed to do that in its time (meaning that
everybody loved it - hell, even I, but I was 15). Things like The Fall
don't count if we're talking about cinema that's meant to be seen
whole.
And anyway, those things are only good as exceptions. You can't
generate a "new way of doing cinema" out of them.
<<< But does the story of 'A Bout de Souffle' provide meaning or is it
just an irrational way to connect meaningful scenes? >>>
<< OK, seriously now. What do you find especially irrational about it?
I admit I haven't seen that movie in a long time, but I don't remember
thinking anything like that at the time. ("Irrational" is very
different than "good" or "bad" or "strong" or "weak".) >>
< I don't think it's necessarily bad, but I don't think the story is
good or that important. That's why it's not very rational. >
I don't understand this comment. What's any of that to do with
rationality?
<< "The epic saga of a monkey who finds a bone and then crushes an
animal's skull with it and then night arrives and he goes to sleep and
the next morning he wakes up and finds a very big black wall in front
of his cave and he touches it and it kind of hums" doesn't seem like a
promising synopsis, right? >>
< Actually that sounds very interesting. But that's not the whole
movie... >
No, then it develops a story.
< ... Plot synopsis and story aren't the same thing... We agree.
But you were perfectly happy with the plot synopsis of A bout de
souffle. >
Yes. My point was, synapsis and plot are not the story. So you can't
judge A Bout De Souffle's story by its synapsis.
<< Like I said, in this case I'd accept that opinion. But only if you
interpret "story-driven" as in "story is the only important thing". >>
< How do you interpret it, then? >
Gordon Bennett, Mikko! I've stated before that a story that is just a
story and nothing more, is *not* a good story.
< I have seen 'Killer's Kiss'. Nice lighting/cinematography, some good
scenes -- that's pretty much it. >
I don't blame Kubrick. That's the logical way in which a photographer
learns to make movies, I guess.
<< [So-called Casablanca syndrome] You make that sound like an
illness. >>
< That's what it is. >
If it is (and I don't agree to that), then there's no cure for it.
"I'm afraid you've developed Casablanca Syndrome." "Oh, doctor, that's
awful. What are the symptoms?" "I have no idea, Mr Casablanca." (Drum
roll.)
< The problem I have is that I try to dissect things that are like a
ball of wool with different colours of cord in them. But what do you
do with cords? It's really the ball that you love. >
But if you're able to analyze it that way, then why don't you stop?
<< (Except if you want to make jerk-off posts like those you mentioned
from the Kubrick newsgroup. Then you most certainly need to
over-analyze wildly.) >>
< I know it was overanalytical, but it's not without a slice of truth
in it. >
Yeah, all that talk to conclude that both films have something or
other to do with dreams. Here's where it shows I'm 36 - I lose
patience easily with high and mighty bullshit.
Now, have you already shipped my Helena Bonham-Carter?
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> "Mikko Pihkoluoma" <fak...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:<bbkd48$gn7$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi>...
>
>
> << It's right that you've never said story and meaning are opposed
> concepts. But it's what you've been implying all along! *Every*
> example you've given is of some film where you found a deeper meaning
> and then immediately concluded that the story was irrelevant. So, in
> fact, you're implying those two things can't go together. To which I,
> of course (Henry the Horse) strongly disagree. >>
>
> < I don't think that they can't go together.
> I want to believe that they can be seperated. >
>
>
> Of course they can. The important thing is to know if they can in a
> fashion that can keep you interested for 2 hrs.
They can.
> Certainly, Koyaanisqatsi managed to do that in its time (meaning that
> everybody loved it - hell, even I, but I was 15). Things like The Fall
> don't count if we're talking about cinema that's meant to be seen
> whole.
>
> And anyway, those things are only good as exceptions. You can't
> generate a "new way of doing cinema" out of them.
Why not?
> <<< But does the story of 'A Bout de Souffle' provide meaning or is it
> just an irrational way to connect meaningful scenes? >>>
>
> << OK, seriously now. What do you find especially irrational about it?
> I admit I haven't seen that movie in a long time, but I don't remember
> thinking anything like that at the time. ("Irrational" is very
> different than "good" or "bad" or "strong" or "weak".) >>
>
> < I don't think it's necessarily bad, but I don't think the story is
> good or that important. That's why it's not very rational. >
>
>
> I don't understand this comment. What's any of that to do with
> rationality?
Nothing I guess.
So you think it's an extremely normal plot for a movie?
> < ... Plot synopsis and story aren't the same thing... We agree.
> But you were perfectly happy with the plot synopsis of A bout de
> souffle. >
>
>
> Yes. My point was, synapsis and plot are not the story. So you can't
> judge A Bout De Souffle's story by its synapsis.
No. When I asked you what's the story of 'A bout de souffle' you were
perfectly happy with the synopsis I provided.
> << Like I said, in this case I'd accept that opinion. But only if you
> interpret "story-driven" as in "story is the only important thing". >>
>
> < How do you interpret it, then? >
>
>
> Gordon Bennett, Mikko! I've stated before that a story that is just a
> story and nothing more, is *not* a good story.
I asked how do you interpret "story-driven film".
> < The problem I have is that I try to dissect things that are like a
> ball of wool with different colours of cord in them. But what do you
> do with cords? It's really the ball that you love. >
>
>
> But if you're able to analyze it that way, then why don't you stop?
I'm not satisfied.
> << (Except if you want to make jerk-off posts like those you mentioned
> from the Kubrick newsgroup. Then you most certainly need to
> over-analyze wildly.) >>
>
> < I know it was overanalytical, but it's not without a slice of truth
> in it. >
>
>
> Yeah, all that talk to conclude that both films have something or
> other to do with dreams. Here's where it shows I'm 36 - I lose
> patience easily with high and mighty bullshit.
>
> Now, have you already shipped my Helena Bonham-Carter?
Nah. You haven't passed the test.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
If you have something to say. Just say it.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 16:41:32 +0300, "Mikko Pihkoluoma"
> <fak...@welho.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> <snippity snip>
> >You're talking on two different levels here.
>
> Not at all.
>
> >You choose to interpret EWS,
> >but you refuse to do the same for BtW.
>
> It's not an interpretation that EWS is about what's going in Bill's
> head - it's what the film is about!
This is bullshit and you know it too.
It is indeed what the film is about. "What this film is about" is a question
that asks you to interpret the film.
This is a synopsis of EWS and on the same level with how you talk about BtW:
"A doctor (Tom Cruise) becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter after
his wife (Nicole Kidman) admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she
met and chastising him for dishonesty in not admitting to his own fantasies.
This sets him off into unfulfilled encounters with a dead patient's daughter
and a hooker. But when he visits a nightclub, where a pianist friend Nick
Nightingale (Todd Field) is playing, he learns about a secret sexual group
and decides to attend one of their congregations. However, he quickly learns
he is in well over his head and finds he and his family are threatened."
(imdb)
> >You merely explain the plot of the
> >film without any attempt to understand the film.
> >
>
> No, I understand the film perfectly well. EWS is a complex look at a
> person, BtW is a facile story about a woman who suffers torment,
> degredation and death for her man.
No it is not. That's not an interpretation of the film.
> <snip>
> >> I don't even give him that much credit when it comes to BTW.
> >
> >For which films you do then?
> >
>
> I only said this because I think "Dancer in the Dark" can definitely
> be viewed in another way.
I do prefer DitD to BtW, but I think BtW has more content in it.
> <snip>
> >The article does that. The writer is only afraid of experssing her
opinion
> >strongly.
> >
>
> Then the essay suffers, as I already said.
I didn't say the article was perfect.
Mikko
damnfine
> > >c) I don't know enough about the world to make an interesting film,
> >
> > I just couldn't *not* respond to this.
>
> If you have something to say. Just say it.
What I would say is: Make a film about not knowing enough about the world.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
> Mikko Pihkoluoma wrote:
> > > >c) I don't know enough about the world to make an interesting film,
> > >
> > > I just couldn't *not* respond to this.
> >
> > If you have something to say. Just say it.
>
> What I would say is: Make a film about not knowing enough about the world.
LOL.
Not entirely original way to handle a situation but still a pretty brilliant
idea for a film. Do you want to write the script.
Mikko,
that motherfucker Microsoft or some lunatic pretending to be ms has sent me
well over fourty emails about security bullshit -- one each minute!
damnfine
> Mikko,
> that motherfucker Microsoft or some lunatic pretending to be ms has sent me
> well over fourty emails about security bullshit -- one each minute!
Yeah, I got about 70 of them today. Good to know I'm not the only one. ;)
It's certainly not Microsoft.
Henry The Horse
<< [Story and meaning] Of course they can. The important thing is to
know if they can in a fashion that can keep you interested for 2 hrs.
>>
< They can. >
Glad to see you're so sure, after having accepted you have no idea how
to go about it.
<< Certainly, Koyaanisqatsi managed to do that in its time (meaning
that everybody loved it - hell, even I, but I was 15). Things like The
Fall [...] >>
Of course, that was meant to be The Fall*s*. Sorry.
<< [...] don't count if we're talking about cinema that's meant to be
seen whole.
And anyway, those things are only good as exceptions. You can't
generate a "new way of doing cinema" out of them. >>
< Why not? >
Picture this. "Let's go to the cinema." "OK, what are they playing?"
"Mmm, there's Koyaanisqatsi, The Falls, and The Movie Where Nothing
Happens Until The Blowjob At The End. So, where do we go?" "Wait a
moment while I get my gun."
'Cause I, along with 99.5% of other cinemagoers, would kill ourselves
in a situation like that.
< [A Bout De Souffle] Nothing I guess.
So you think it's an extremely normal plot for a movie? >
I don't see anything strange about it.
<< Yes. My point was, synapsis and plot are not the story. So you
can't judge A Bout De Souffle's story by its synapsis. >>
< No. When I asked you what's the story of 'A bout de souffle' you
were perfectly happy with the synopsis I provided. >
So? You can make a synopsis of a story, but not *judge* it by the
synapsis. Get the difference?
<< Gordon Bennett, Mikko! I've stated before that a story that is just
a story and nothing more, is *not* a good story. >>
< I asked how do you interpret "story-driven film". >
a) Already answered that in previous posts.
b) The "interrogation room" tone will get you nowhere with me.
<<< The problem I have is that I try to dissect things that are like a
ball of wool with different colours of cord in them. But what do you
do with cords? It's really the ball that you love. >>>
<< But if you're able to analyze it that way, then why don't you stop?
>>
< I'm not satisfied. >
With that method, you'll never be. The method is wrong, and even you
semi-accept that.
<< Now, have you already shipped my Helena Bonham-Carter? >>
< Nah. You haven't passed the test. >
The test doesn't make any sense.