To Irene Jacob on her birthday
septimus
had successful runs on the London stage; I hope she hasn't
forgotten her movie fans who don't live in Europe. Jacob
is never someone who puts her career above everything
else; this is after all that rare screen actress who reads
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. In interviews back in the mid 90s,
at the height of her fame, she talked about trying not to
"sell out" too quickly. She speaks four langauges and is
probably most comfortable with her French, but I never feel
that she is a darling of French cinema, being Swiss and an
outsider by nationality and temperament. For all that, she
has had a great career, with signature starring roles in
_Red_, _Double Life of Veronique_ (for which she won Cannes
film festival best actres), by far the best segment in
_Beyond the Clouds_, and the sadly neglected _The Big Brass
Ring_. I hope sooner or lately I'll get to see Rivette's
_Gang of Four_, and _All Men are Mortal_ (based on the
Simone de Beauavoir novel), in which she also appeared.
For now I content with cherished memory of her every gesture
on the big screen.
In particular I remember her in _Red_, which has remained one
of my two favorite films. Its greatness lies in Kieslowski's
direction of course, and the script cowritten by Piesiewicz,
the autumnal performance by Tritignant, the peerless camera work
by the late Piotr Sobocinski. But there obviously wouldn't be
_Red_ without Ms. Jacob. It is a film so delicately hinged
on the mysterious link between her and Tritignant, at their very
best. In _Blue_ Julie (Binoche) chose herself, and in _White_
Karol chose the Other; _Red_ is the synthesis, the rare instance
where meaningful intersubjectivity is achieved. I saw it on the
big screen six times, and how I regreted not having seen it a
hundred more times when I had the chance. I always walked out of
the credits feeling I should really be a better person or else I
didn't deserve to be watching it. Truth be told, for me, it
became the last wellspring of religious sentiments. I never had
much faith to begin with; Kieslowski (who like Godard moved
from the particular and the political to the mystical and more
purely aesthetics) gave that back, and when he passed away
there was a huge gaping hole and I never had it anymore ...
When I bought my modest a townhouse I made sure it had the
Stonehenge like sky windows, like Joseph Kern's house in
_Red_; I put the _Red_ poster in the spot where sun comes
through and lights up Jacob's face like a saint, at a different
time everyday. There are so many memorable scenes in _Red_ but
the relevant one is probably where Valentine makes a toast to
the judge on his birthday. So it is only fair that I too raise
my imaginary glass of pear brandy, and wish Ms. Jacob a happy
birthday. I have no doubt, like Valentine in Joseph Kern's
dreams, she is going to wake up one day when she is 50 year old,
acknowledges she has had a very fulfilling life, and is happy.
I'll repost a heavily abridged review I wrote 7 years ago.
Like everything else I do the syntax is awkward at best
and the grammar is inventive, but alone among my "output"
(as such it is ) it is mercifully brief, not written over
some tortuous length of time. (I put it together in one
hour flat.) I never gave it a title, perhaps because the
title would have been so obvious; I have always associated
it, sacrilegiouslly perhaps, with the words "The Second Coming."
x x x x x x x
Like all things eternal _Red_ begins and ends in the sea. It
is well the film has the complexion of water, the water motif
transports the fairy tale, points the way. Benign, sympathetic
images answer each other like waves, carrying within them their
own inexorable unity and completeness even as they draw on
humanistic traditions from way back when. So it is that
Valentine gulps down the life-giving substance before going
on the fashion show; exhausted, the bolero trails off, a wedge
of light settling on her windshield like a dove. Other lights,
other signals follow, pointing to the bloodshed, bringing her
before the judge. He is a dark, pathetic figure who fiddles his
suspensor straps and spills water all over --- a walking
profanity against the human race Beckett would have approved.
The all-knowing judge pontificates on the maiden's past as they
circle each warily, two Peking opera divas at war over justice
and truth. The winner renounces his spells and charms, the
loser descends into the perfect amber sunset through the
mist in her eyes. Biblical allusions abound: Valentine plays
`winners-lose'' at slot machines and crashes into churches,
and indeed she is a most Christ-like figure, almost made of
water herself. Irene Jacob has such a difficult face, now
overflowing with radiance, now soulful and thin. It takes
a Kieslowski to challenge its many facets, bring out the beauty;
that must be why she is his Muse Extraordinaire. It is such a
special honor to witness that staggering beauty as she takes
the runway again, lights in her hair, flanked by a commoner
to each side, her bejewelled necklace Kieslowski's thorn crown
that absolves us of our failings. Also present is Joseph Kern,
thirty years younger by the earnestness in his eyes, and in the
stillness before the storm they tell the future, read the signs.
(Water has its violent ways too.) With a ballet dancer's grace
Valentine throws herself against the storm-battered theater gate,
trying to beat back the wind and the rain. Under whose watchful
gaze is she in turn spared by the tempest in the sea? Set in
pacific, urban Geneva, RED is strangely elemental, shot almost
entirely in the magic hour in the shadow of distant hilltops,
from whence lightning issues like judgement on Mount Sinai and
the evening sun vanishes like a lost hope. The many interior
sunsets in Kern's mansion are memorable indeed. And yet it is
morning, ten minutes to eight, when our protagonists are plucked
wet and shivering from the English Channel. As the judge looks
on, time stops and telescopes on to that exact moment Valentine
turns back towards the scene of the shipwreck. The circle closes
on the very imperfect replica of her canvas-sized profile,
accompanied by the tell-tale foghorn which was already there when
the picture was first taken. A peaceful note rings out, blossoms
into a reprise of the runway choral, starts to fade away, and
finally rises to a second crescendo even more glorious than the
first. There is always hope then, just as there will be dreams
of eternal redemption. And because of RED, there will always be
memories of the most profound and absolute beauty.
-- To Stanley, who knew about the lightning, the wind, and the rain
Reginald567
I suppose _Red_ makes good television as all Kieslowski's work does. The
"peerless camera work" by Sobocinski hasn't wowed anyone who wasn't already
willing to pant after all things Kieslowski. And to think that truly brilliant
Polish directors are far less known than a single film such as _Red_ or 'the
Decalogue' (which is hardly anything but television, and of uneven quality.)
I'm almost afraid to ask what 'Stanley', our first-name friend, would say to
such an outpouring of slush. I suppose you think _Sunrise_ or _Andre Rubilev_
or Chaplin are lacking something that "only Irene Jacob" could bring to cinema,
that "Beckett would have approved", "chose the Other", etc. I'm guessing you
are an academic of some sort, as such uptight conventional-minded drivel would
be unacceptable from a more mature and adventurous person.
monterone
> Oh Gawd. She's a "model turned actress", and a none too remarkable one at that.
Greta fucking Garbo began as a model. I don't know if Irene Jacob was
ever a model (on Google I see "...STARRED as a Swiss model" -- not
"STARTED as a Swiss model") but if she was, that would put her in the
best company, I'd say.
septimus
>regin...@aol.com (Reginald567) wrote in message news:<20020721221625...@mb-fm.aol.com>... (in part):
>> Oh Gawd. She's a "model turned actress", and a none too remarkable one at that.
>Huh? Grace Kelly began as a model. Anna Karina began as a model.
>Greta fucking Garbo began as a model.
As was Maggie Cheung. (Nice article on Stanley Kwan and _The
Actress_ on the Voice web site.)
>I don't know if Irene Jacob was
>ever a model (on Google I see "...STARRED as a Swiss model" -- not
>"STARTED as a Swiss model") but if she was, that would put her in the
>best company, I'd say.
I don't think she was a model. She studied acting in Paris and London
(and also studied at the Geneva Conservatory of Music).
Paul Gallagher
>It is unfortunate you choose to bring up _Sunrise_. _Red_ is a far, far
>superior film in terms of screenplay, depth of character, intellectual
>breadth, and philosophical maturity; it is at the very least the equal of
>_Sunrise_ in all other departments. The _Sunrise_ script is distressingly
>reactionary. The story is your basic male redemption fantasy, but that
>the redeemed-to-be has little dignity or originality. He is merely weak
>and shifty. The wife is a doormat who takes him back despite his murderous
>intent. I get the feeling the audience is asked to be complicit in that
>doormat mentality too. At the end of the film the Husband makes a big
>show of moral superiority over his partner-in-crime, as if he has been the
>victim all along. What an insufferable phony this guy is. Rosenbaum makes
>many interesting points ("light and darkness sing in relation to the
>polarities of day and night, fire and water, sky and earth, city and
>country ..."); but it bothers me that the film's lyricism and the excellent
>editing are put at the service of a story centered around a character
>unworthy of them. _Red_ expands our consciousness, because it pushes at
>the boundary of its narrative, allow glimpses and noises of other stories
>about other characters to leak through. (More on this later.) Murnau aimed
>for universality in _Sunrise_, leaving the characters nameless, but the
>world of _Sunrise_ is small; it collapses around the protagonists, is
>diminished by them. Its apparent subtext (the moral superiority of innocent
>country folks led astray by evil city temptress Eve) is troubling, particularly
>in the post 2000 Election U.S. of A. There was a recent NYTimes editorial
>which examined the myth about the self-reliant heartland of America (it
>will receive more farm subsidies than ever before) and its supposed superior
>moral values (it has a divorce rate at least comparable to the Gomorrahs
>along the coasts). _Days of Heaven_ was likely influenced by _Sunrise_, but
>from my perspective it feels so right philosophically, whereas _Sunrise_
>feels absolutely wrong in every way.
Have you read Robin Wood's essay on Sunrise in 'Sexual Politics and
Narrative Film'? He makes some similar points. He also emphasizes
its narrative eccentricity; for example, he considers most of
the middle section a distraction, for example, the visit to the
amusement park and the comic scenes, such as the drunk pig. He also
points out how banal the married life in _Sunrise_ is shown to be:
"Murnau seems able to conceive their supposedly perfect union only
in terms of triviality... The film can convincingly affirm the
value of marriage, in fact, only when the marriage is in jeopardy...
it unwittingly supplies its own commentary on the idealization that
is inextricable from its artistic intensity and distinction."
I do think you underestimate _Sunrise's_ visual magnificence, but even here
the film's importance diminishes its impact. _Sunrise_ can be viewed
as a foundation, formally, thematically, and ideologically, of Hollywood
sound film, so that it appears over-familiar or even a regression from
the silent film traditions. Jean-Andre Fieschi argued that the major
works of silent film were a different kind of cinema from the subsequent
sound cinema. He writes,
With Sunrise, the conquest of narrative (novelistic) fluidity is
achieved at the expense of abandoning the attainments specific to
the silent period (in a sense, liquidating the tradition). Dramaturgy
was now firmly in the driver's seat; and for decades cinema was
chiefly to mean well-told stories. But could one so describe Caligari,
La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, October, Nosferatu or Tartuffe? The
aim in preparing a shootings script now became transparency (with
the articulations concealed, tending to create the illusion of spatio-
temporal continuity); that transparency which can be seen as a
dual symptom, ideological and formal, of Hollywood films from the 30s
until the 60s. So Sunrise, universally praised, occupies a somewhat
equivocal position. Today, to an extent shared by few other silent
films, its story, decoupage, and imagery have an air of familiarity
about them: one feels like saying that only sound is missing.
Sunrise was to create its own tradition in which the 'sentimental
(and psychologizing) virus' was to dominate. Of course Sunrise can
in no way be reduced to these terms, nor can it be retrospectively
discredited because of a bastard progeny.
_Sunrise's_ ideological content does seem thoroughly conventional
and reactionary. It can be put in context of Murnau's emphasis on
dualism. Fieschi lists "Town/Country, Nature/Culture, Man/Woman, Night/Day,
Earth/Water, Wish/Real, Good/Evil," as well as light/darkness, movement/
repose. Fieschi identifies this as the heritage of the romantics and
classical German philosophy, but its value in Murnau's films is that
Murnau treats it "an immense potential reservoir of forms, images,
and narratives."
So the Vamp in _Sunrise_ plays much the same role as Nosferatu,
Mephistopheles, Tartuffe, and the priest in _ Tabu _. But their
ideological significance is different. For example, in _Tabu_
Matahi and Reri's relationship is based on erotic love and is
opposed by tradition, by social norms, so that it is in other
respects the opposite of _Sunrise's_ defense of marriage and rural
values.
Robin Wood emphasizes the parallels between _Sunrise_ and _Nosferatu_:
Nosferatu and the City Woman are both "associated with night, animals,
contamination, and the erotic; [Nosferatu] too, poses a threat to an
'innocent' heterosexual couple; he, too, is vanquished by the rising
sun. Like Dracula, the City Woman of the first part of the film
becomes a figure of vaguely defined but irresistible power, before
which the male protagonist can only prostrate himself helplessly.
Within the Expressionist context, Murnau's films inflect the notion
of Fate very differently from Lang's. For Lang, Fate is a complex
mechanism whose workings can be analyzed, understood, and defeated
(though always at a cost); for Murnau, it is some terrible, implacable,
and finally incomprehensible dark force. The helplessness of the hero
is one of the most prominent motifs in the overall structure of the
work." Wood goes on to contrast _Sunrise_ with _Tabu_, in which
Matahi is exceptional, an active hero, sexuality and innocence are
reconciled, and the threat is conceived in social terms. In contrast,
"in Sunrise -- as in Nosferatu before it -- the destructive forces
are those of the Id, and the film becomes itself an enactment of
repression, through the process of idealization. That the City
Woman is a thoroughly inadequate substitute for Murnau's terrifying
vampire -- that so slight a figure cannot possibly sustain the
great weight of imagery and symbolic significance with which she is
burdened -- is but one of the film's problems."
Wood identifies the root of _Sunrise's_ identification of sexuality
and evil in Murnau's homosexuality:
The ultimate -- and ultimately distasteful -- paradox of _Sunrise_
is that this eloquent hymn to home and hearth, heterosexual
marriage and family, was the work of a homosexual. In making
this point one is not laying a charge of hypocrisy, exactly...
When this film was made... the male homosexual's drives were
(if acted upon) punishable by law, a situation powerfully
supported by the dominant social myths of homosexuality as
a vice of sickness or both. To be homosexual then was to feel
oneself to be living in a barren desert gazing longingly at the
unattainable mirage of home/marriage/family. And _Sunrise_ with
its idealization and its artifice, has something of the nature--
even the appearance -- of a mirage. Ostensibly a hymn to
health (as societally conceived), it in fact testifies to the
essential sickness of Western culture.
An act of self-oppression never stops there; it always transforms
itself into the oppression of others. In Sunrise evil is defined,
not in terms of homosexuality (though that was doubtless for Murnau
the root of it), but in terms of sexuality itself: the erotic is
associated with darkness, fog, mud, and "sin," and must be
forcibly repressed in order that the idealized "holy family"
(the final image is eloquent about the holiness) can be (re-)
constituted. That construction further demands the subordination
of woman and their relegation to archetypical roles: the asexually
"pure" wife/mother who is finally sanctified, the sexually "active"
evil woman who must be eliminated from the narrative altogether.
Behind the realization of this project is not just Murnau (though
his presence lends its its wish-fulfilling intensity, its
artistic distinction, and its ultimate perversity) but the whole
tendency of Western culture (European and American) toward
repression and idealization (the two being aspects of the same
process).
Wood also notes that Sunrise, despite its praise of rural values,
would have been seen primarily by urban audiences.
I'm reminded of Griffith's _ True Heart Susie _, another tale setting
a pure rural girl against a worthless urban woman. But _True
Heart Susie_ is, I think, much more complex or ambiguous. The women
are the protagonists; the man, William Jenkins, is shown as weak and
obtuse, but this is a weakness of character, not a result of the
machinations of women or of Fate. Susie is innocent, but her desire and
passion are evident -- for example, the scene with popcorn in the fireplace is
an obvious symbol of sexual desire. Also, whereas in _Sunrise_ the City
Woman and the Wife are never seen together, Susie and Bettina are shown
to have a closer bond with each other than either has with Jenkins.
Susie protects her, deceives Jenkins for her; they even sleep together
in the same bed and embrace each other. The film ends not with a
depiction of Susie marrying Jenkins, but with a flashback to their
youth; Jenkins seems unworthy of Susie, and there seems to be no clear
resolution to their relationship except to return in memory to happier times.
Paul
septimus
>
> Have you read Robin Wood's essay on Sunrise in 'Sexual Politics and
> Narrative Film'? He makes some similar points. He also emphasizes
> its narrative eccentricity; for example, he considers most of
> the middle section a distraction, for example, the visit to the
> amusement park and the comic scenes, such as the drunk pig. He also
> points out how banal the married life in _Sunrise_ is shown to be:
> "Murnau seems able to conceive their supposedly perfect union only
> in terms of triviality... The film can convincingly affirm the
> value of marriage, in fact, only when the marriage is in jeopardy...
> it unwittingly supplies its own commentary on the idealization that
> is inextricable from its artistic intensity and distinction."
I should put Robin Wood on my weekly reading list. I'll search for
his new reviews online. In my haste to paint a contrast with _Red_
I also conveniently forgot that the ideological content (for want
of a better term) of silent films are different than today's.
I wonder what an audience 70 years from now will think of my favorite
films of the 90s. _Broken Blossom_, which I like, has a title card
in which the heroine calls the Chinese character "Chinkie"!
>
> I do think you underestimate _Sunrise's_ visual magnificence, but even here
> the film's importance diminishes its impact.
Same with _Citizen Kane_, I guess. (Cheshire's essay on the film in
that
"A-List" book Monterone recommended is positively apologetic about the
"greatest film of all time" label pinned on _Kane_.)
I don't know _Sunrise_ at all well. I also have too much of a prejudice
against the expressionist style.
> Robin Wood emphasizes the parallels between _Sunrise_ and _Nosferatu_:
> Nosferatu and the City Woman are both "associated with night, animals,
> contamination, and the erotic; [Nosferatu] too, poses a threat to an
> 'innocent' heterosexual couple; he, too, is vanquished by the rising
> sun. Like Dracula, the City Woman of the first part of the film
> becomes a figure of vaguely defined but irresistible power, before
> which the male protagonist can only prostrate himself helplessly.
>
That's a fascinating read indeed.
> Wood identifies the root of _Sunrise's_ identification of sexuality
> and evil in Murnau's homosexuality:
> The ultimate -- and ultimately distasteful -- paradox of _Sunrise_
> is that this eloquent hymn to home and hearth, heterosexual
> marriage and family, was the work of a homosexual. In making
> this point one is not laying a charge of hypocrisy, exactly...
> When this film was made... the male homosexual's drives were
> (if acted upon) punishable by law, a situation powerfully
> supported by the dominant social myths of homosexuality as
> a vice of sickness or both. To be homosexual then was to feel
> oneself to be living in a barren desert gazing longingly at the
> unattainable mirage of home/marriage/family. And _Sunrise_ with
> its idealization and its artifice, has something of the nature--
> even the appearance -- of a mirage. Ostensibly a hymn to
> health (as societally conceived), it in fact testifies to the
> essential sickness of Western culture.
Eastern cultures are hardly better on this score!
> Wood also notes that Sunrise, despite its praise of rural values,
> would have been seen primarily by urban audiences.
Absolutely. I wonder if Murnau has ever lived on a farm, if his
idealization of pastorial lifestyle is based on impulses similar to
his idealization of heterosexual marriage. Of course there may
be social forces in the 20s leading him to make such choices and
which I know nothing about.
>
> I'm reminded of Griffith's _ True Heart Susie _, another tale setting
> a pure rural girl against a worthless urban woman. But _True
> Heart Susie_ is, I think, much more complex or ambiguous.
> ...
> The film ends not with a
> depiction of Susie marrying Jenkins, but with a flashback to their
> youth; Jenkins seems unworthy of Susie, and there seems to be no clear
> resolution to their relationship except to return in memory to happier times.
>
> Paul
I don't remember ever reading about this film. Too bad it is not
available on video. Lots of silent films are complex and ambigous
even by today's standard.) This sort of cancels out what I wrote
at the beginning of this post doesn't it.) This probably wasn't
Murnau's goal for _Sunrise_ which is fine. I probably went after
the _Sunrise_ characters a little too harshly; if anyone else
feel they want to defend the film please do! The excerpts you
made are amazing. I was not actually aware that most critics have
anything but praise for _Sunrise_.
Paul Gallagher
as _Sunrise_? There's _ Fatal Attraction _. I'm having a hard time thinking
of other examples. I'd think there would be more since the fear that the
family and family values are threatened is widespread. But usually the man is
also guilty, not just a victim, or the other woman is much more charismatic,
(Joan Crawford vs Norma Shearer in _ The Women _, for example). I suppose
there's a similarity between the City Woman in _Sunrise_ and film noir
villainesses like Barbara Stanwyck in _Double Indemnity_ and Ava Gardner
in _The Killers_.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>I should put Robin Wood on my weekly reading list. I'll search for
>his new reviews online. In my haste to paint a contrast with _Red_
>I also conveniently forgot that the ideological content (for want
>of a better term) of silent films are different than today's.
>I wonder what an audience 70 years from now will think of my favorite
>films of the 90s.
Did you notice Jonathan Rosenbaum's comments about the New German Cinema
of the 1970's? http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2002/0702/020726.html
"The overall message seemed to be that people and social conditions were
doomed to remain mired in ruts and that hope was for suckers."
I think that's unfair, and certainly doesn't apply to the films of
Alexander Kluge or Straub and Huillet. I don't think Fassbinder's films
can be reduced to sarcarsm, "cynical disillusionment and cookie-cutter
formal patterning."
Paul
septimus
>
> Did you notice Jonathan Rosenbaum's comments about the New German Cinema
> of the 1970's? http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2002/0702/020726.html
>
> "The overall message seemed to be that people and social conditions were
> doomed to remain mired in ruts and that hope was for suckers."
>
> I think that's unfair, and certainly doesn't apply to the films of
> Alexander Kluge or Straub and Huillet. I don't think Fassbinder's films
> can be reduced to sarcarsm, "cynical disillusionment and cookie-cutter
> formal patterning."
>
Fassbinder--even though I've read his book _The Anarchy of Imagination_.
_Fear Eats the Soul_ is the one film of his I've seen that seems to
be elude Rosenbaum's criticism. Wenders and Herzog do seem to have
limited range, even though I love the early Wenders dearly.
>There's a fascinating article about the filming of _Tabu_ online:
.SUNRISE IN BORA BORA
>>by Scott Eyman, Film Comment, November-December 1990
>http://milestonefilms.com/articles/borabora1.html
That is a great treat, especially since I just finished watching
the video and it is fresh in my mind. I do like _Tabu_ much better
than _Sunrise_; the opening scenes again may have been a point of
reference for Malick (in _The Thin Red Line_), although Scott Eyman
suggests those scenes are by Flaherty.
Paul Gallagher
>Paul Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> Did you notice Jonathan Rosenbaum's comments about the New German Cinema
>> of the 1970's? http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2002/0702/020726.html
>>
>> "The overall message seemed to be that people and social conditions were
>> doomed to remain mired in ruts and that hope was for suckers."
>>
>> I think that's unfair, and certainly doesn't apply to the films of
>> Alexander Kluge or Straub and Huillet. I don't think Fassbinder's films
>> can be reduced to sarcarsm, "cynical disillusionment and cookie-cutter
>> formal patterning."
>>
>Not that familiar with the first two. I never quite know how to place
>Fassbinder--even though I've read his book _The Anarchy of Imagination_.
>_Fear Eats the Soul_ is the one film of his I've seen that seems to
>elude Rosenbaum's criticism. Wenders and Herzog do seem to have
>limited range, even though I love the early Wenders dearly.
Kluge and Straub-Huillet are probably the most politically engaged
filmmakers in the New German Cinema, perhaps along with Syberberg,
who's right-wing. I don't think they think "people and social
conditions are doomed to remain mired in ruts." I don't get that
impression from Fassbinder either. He was a bitter critic of German
society, but that doesn't mean he thought "hope was for suckers."
Films by Kluge and Straub are hardly every shown in the US.
Once again I'm wondering whether I should post some of my bootleg
tapes online, but people would need a very fast internet connection
to download them.
Paul
Al Jackson
my understanding! Kurosawa appears twice on the director's list. Why
Satyajit Ray
has been slighted for so long is also a puzzle for me! I don't think
he has ever made the Sight and Sound top ten list. He is not on the
directors list
either!
The critics' Top Ten Films were: 1, Citizen Kane (Welles) 1941; 2,
Vertigo (Hitchcock) 1958; 3, La Regle du Jeu (Renoir) 1939; 4, The
Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola) 1972, 1974; 5, Tokyo
Story
(Ozu) 1953; 6, 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick) 1968; 7, Sunrise
(Murnau)
1927; 8, Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein) 1925; 9, 8-1/2 (Fellini)
1963;
and 10, Singin' in the Rain (Kelly, Donen) 1951.
Directors' Top Ten Films were: 1, Citizen Kane (Welles) 1941; 2, The
Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola) 1972, 1974; 3, 8-1/2
(Fellini) 1963; 4, Lawrence of Arabia (Lean) 1962; 5, Dr Strangelove
(Kubrick) 1963; 6, Bicycle Thieves (De Sica) 1948; 7, Raging Bull
(Scorsese) 1980; 8, Vertigo (Hitchcock) 1958; 9, Rashomon (Kurosawa)
1950; La Regle du jeu (Renoir) 1939; Seven Samurai (Kurosawa) 1954
(Three films share equal ninth place, therefore there is no 10th
placed
film).
Paul Gallagher
>Paul Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> _Sunrise_ has risen in the polls. For the first time, it made it to the
>> top ten of the Sight and Sound critic's poll.
>>
>> http://www.bfi.org.uk/topten
>>
>Wasn't it voted best film by Cahiers in the 50's, though?
Yes... Many of the Cahiers-era revaluations seem to have caught on.
I do think the historical importance of _Sunrise_ is comparable to
that of _Kane_ or _Birth of a Nation_. Historical importance is
something different from aesthetic merit, I admit...
It's interesting to compare this list to one from fifty years ago...
Clair, Sjoeberg, Pudovkin are today nowhere to be found; Pabst received
only a couple of votes.
>As if my non-conformist streak needs any confirmation --
>I like the Eisenstein and the Renoir, but
>the only film the BFI top ten I really love is _Tokyo Story_.
I noticed that _Story of Late Crysanthemums _ took first place among
Mizoguchi's films. However, Ozu's and Naruse's films from
the 1930's and 1940's did not similarly rise in the polls. Naruse's
_ Wife, Be Like a Rose _ and Ozu's early sound films received no
votes.
Paul
Luuk Houwen
Kieslowski's "Rouge"? It is one of my few 10s in the IMDB list.
Luuk
septimus
>
> >Wasn't it voted best film by Cahiers in the 50's, though?
>
> Yes... Many of the Cahiers-era revaluations seem to have caught on.
> I do think the historical importance of _Sunrise_ is comparable to
> that of _Kane_ or _Birth of a Nation_. Historical importance is
> something different from aesthetic merit, I admit...
>
> It's interesting to compare this list to one from fifty years ago...
> Clair, Sjoeberg, Pudovkin are today nowhere to be found; Pabst received
> only a couple of votes.
>
> I noticed that _Story of Late Crysanthemums _ took first place among
> Mizoguchi's films. However, Ozu's and Naruse's films from
> the 1930's and 1940's did not similarly rise in the polls. Naruse's
> _ Wife, Be Like a Rose _ and Ozu's early sound films received no
> votes.
>
Monet went from being the most important and profitable painter to
obscurity to posthumous stardom, all in 50 years. Vivaldi was
apparently forgotten for centuries (probably deservedly so). Van Gogh
and Schubert were ignored in their lifetimes. I'm sure there are
many more examples in the literary field. Fame is so fickle.
If I am asked to name my favorite novel I wouldn't think twice:
it has to be Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_. The writing is
so spectacular that every other page I had to put the book down
and ask myself if I really just read that. I seldom ask the
whether this extremely lurid tale about a band of killers deserves
the technical virtuosity. I guess that's because writing to me
is more a performance, whereas cinema is such a total experience,
the "grand passion" (to quote Kieslowski's quote of Stalin) that
unites all the arts; it is
so immediate and related to the way you see the world, that I
have completely different expectations. I don't know if this is
related to Bazin and Rohmer's ideas about the "reality" of cinema,
or whether it is the complete opposite of what they were thinking.
But in this sense I can understand why many would prefer _Sunrise_
to _Three Colors: Red_ or _Days of Heaven_, but I can't.
septimus
>
>... the "grand passion" (to quote Kieslowski's quote of Stalin) ...
That should be Lenin, I think. It is something Jerzy Stuhr's
character says to his boss in _Camera Buff_.
I guess _Sunrise_ is not as good an example as something like
_The Man with a Movie Camera_ (Hoberman's pick). Or Abel
Gance's _Napoleon_. No one seems to gush over that film anymore,
and at the risk of further offending people here (which I've
done plenty of lately) -- I can't begin to say how much I dislike
_Napoleon_.
I wonder whether one can draw some anology between films and
novels. _Ulysses_ has been sitting on top of many polls on novels
forever.
monterone
> Hey, hey, tell me more about the "vote Red" campaign. I take it you mean
> Kieslowski's "Rouge"? It is one of my few 10s in the IMDB list.
Septimus recently wrote eloquently about _Red_ here. _Sunrise_ played
a large part in the ensuing discussion, and I should have explained
that that's why I mentioned _Red_ in connection with _Sunrise_.
Paul Gallagher
>I guess _Sunrise_ is not as good an example as something like
>_The Man with a Movie Camera_ (Hoberman's pick). Or Abel
>Gance's _Napoleon_. No one seems to gush over that film anymore,
>and at the risk of further offending people here (which I've
>done plenty of lately) -- I can't begin to say how much I dislike
>_Napoleon_.
I liked _ Napoleon _. I saw it a very long time ago, back in 1981.
I think I see your point of view. Would you say that you demand that
a film be successful as a whole (maybe an organic whole)? Whereas others
are willing to isolate elements of a film or parts of a film and
overlook the rest.
However, in the case of _Sunrise_ and I'm guessing _Napoleon_ as well,
you are objecting to the ethical and political content of a film.
In some cases political content will have aesthetic consequences:
for example, Robin Wood's claim that the joys of married life in
_Sunrise_ are trivial rather than heartfelt (in contrast to, say, Leo
McCarey's odes to marriage) and that the City Woman is plainly inadequate
to function as a substitute Nosferatu. But in general figuring out
the relationship of ethical, the political, and the aesthetic is
a bit tricky...
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>How Godfather could out rank Rashomon or Seven Samurai passes beyond
>my understanding!
It might be because of a tendency to favor perfection, forgetting
that an imperfect work can be greater than a perfect work.
Paul
septimus
> I liked _ Napoleon _. I saw it a very long time ago, back in 1981.
>
> I think I see your point of view. Would you say that you demand that
> a film be successful as a whole (maybe an organic whole)? Whereas others
> are willing to isolate elements of a film or parts of a film and
> overlook the rest.
For some reason, yes. Whereas I am much more willing to embrace
the writers who are great prose stylists (Hemingway, Faulkner,
Ondaatje, and especially McCarthy) regardless of their numerous
other failings. This is probably a personal/historical thing for
me. The first novels that impressed me did so by virtue of their
writing, I suppose.
>
> However, in the case of _Sunrise_ and I'm guessing _Napoleon_ as well,
> you are objecting to the ethical and political content of a film.
>
> In some cases political content will have aesthetic consequences:
> for example, Robin Wood's claim that the joys of married life in
> _Sunrise_ are trivial rather than heartfelt (in contrast to, say, Leo
> McCarey's odes to marriage) and that the City Woman is plainly inadequate
> to function as a substitute Nosferatu. But in general figuring out
> the relationship of ethical, the political, and the aesthetic is
> a bit tricky...
>
Agreed. The blood-curdling, lustful relish Gance puts on killing
Englishman is bizarre, to say the least. It was after WWI and
the French, who lost a great many men, needed to be reaffirmed
about their military prowess, I guess, but in my view this hardly
makes for art of lasting virtue. And Gance's decision to film
a 20 minute snowball fight (entirely fictional) rather than detail
the Emperor's masterful battle plan for Austerlizt is ridiculous.
(I can't believe I don't remember how to spell Austerlizt (sp) anymore.)
septimus
>
> Luuk Houwen <luuk....@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<Xns9266AF...@62.153.159.134>...
> > Hey, hey, tell me more about the "vote Red" campaign. I take it you mean
> > Kieslowski's "Rouge"? It is one of my few 10s in the IMDB list.
> _Sunrise_ played
> a large part in the ensuing discussion, and I should have explained
> that that's why I mentioned _Red_ in connection with _Sunrise_.
Yes, I was speculating about what Miramax is going to do with _Heaven_,
when it is releasing the trilogy DVD's in this country. To continue
the discussing in another thread -- I do think Kieslowski is the most
"complete" filmmaker, and to me the trilogy is the most successful
series of film of the 90s, taken as an organic whole. But I probably
can understand if others prefer other films because of certain (e.g.
stylistic) aspects of those films. Although I'd rather that they
don't, of course.
Paul Gallagher
>> I noticed that _Story of Late Crysanthemums _ took first place among
>> Mizoguchi's films. However, Ozu's and Naruse's films from
>> the 1930's and 1940's did not similarly rise in the polls. Naruse's
>> _ Wife, Be Like a Rose _ and Ozu's early sound films received no
>> votes.
>>
>Monet went from being the most important and profitable painter to
>obscurity to posthumous stardom, all in 50 years. Vivaldi was
>apparently forgotten for centuries (probably deservedly so). Van Gogh
>and Schubert were ignored in their lifetimes. I'm sure there are
>many more examples in the literary field. Fame is so fickle.
I also noticed that Flaherty's star has fallen. His documentaries
once routinely placed in best of all time lists, but here he receives
only two votes. The Soviet cinema of the 30's and 40's also was far
more prominent fifty years ago, though I did see votes for Boris
Barnet's _ By the Bluest of Seas _ and _ Okraina _ in the current
poll.
It might be an interesting premise for a film series: films that used
to be thought classics but aren't anymore.
Paul
Al Jackson
I guess you are being facetious.
I know of nothing imperfect about Rashomon or Seven Samurai.
..or a least I would never the Godfather films are not without
their flaws.
Even though I love the Godfather films, I consider them lessor
works of art compared to Kurosawa.
monterone
>
> It's interesting to compare this list to one from fifty years ago...
> Clair, Sjoeberg, Pudovkin are today nowhere to be found; Pabst received
> only a couple of votes.
I was surprised that Borzage, Chabrol, Fuller, Boetticher, Andrzej
Munk, maybe Stanley Kwan or Todd Haynes, received no votes at all.
Others? And of course plenty of major critics weren't represented
either.
Paul Gallagher
>I guess you are being facetious.
I wasn't being facetious, but I was almost certainly wrong about what was
going through the voters' minds.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>I don't know if this is
>related to Bazin and Rohmer's ideas about the "reality" of cinema,
>or whether it is the complete opposite of what they were thinking.
>But in this sense I can understand why many would prefer _Sunrise_
>to _Three Colors: Red_ or _Days of Heaven_, but I can't.
I've been thinking about this. Some texts came to mind:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Esteevee/Daney_1977.html,
in particular Serge Daney's remarks on morality, such as those
concerning Rivette's comments on _ Kapo _.
Richard Lewontin's review of Gertrude Himmelfarb's book, 'On Looking
into the Abyss,' http://cs.nyu.edu/ms_students/m-pg0123/lewontin.html
He provides a useful reminder that classic works of art are not
repositories of universal truths.
Also, Truffaut's famous essay:
http://javari.com/javari/archive.truffaut.htm#TODAY
I might well be closer to Aurenche's beliefs (Quand on est
mort, tout est mort): than to Bernanos' (Qu'est-ce que cela fait,
tout est grace), but Bresson's scenario seems to be vastly
superior. This is an aesthetic preference, but I think it
is also a question of the moral bond between Bresson and the fictional
Priest of Ambricourt. It is not a matter of asserting the truth of
his beliefs; it's a matter of love for the character.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>
>I was surprised that Borzage, Chabrol, Fuller, Boetticher, Andrzej
>Munk, maybe Stanley Kwan or Todd Haynes, received no votes at all.
>Others? And of course plenty of major critics weren't represented
>either.
I noticed that there were only three votes for Rohmer's films, which
is surprising since Rohmer is well respected among a wide range of critics.
Some of my personal favorites didn't do well: only one vote for L'Herbier,
none for Jean Rouch or Jacques Rozier or Straub and Huillet or Arnaud
Desplechin. Only two votes for King Hu. No votes for the founding fathers,
Lumiere and Melies and Porter. Animation didn't fare well: no votes for
Winsor McKay, Dave Fleischer, Walt Disney, Norman McLaren, or Robert Breer.
Comedy was largely left out: no votes for films with Fatty Arbuckle,
W.C. Fields, Laurel and Hardy, Harold Lloyd, Harry Langdon, or Mae West,
so far as I could tell. The one vote for Robert Aldrich is an unusual
choice: it's for _The Grissom Gang _.
I tried making up a list of the some of the directors who were
completely overlooked. I'm not sure what their absence proves:
after all, since the voters each get only ten votes, a lot will have
to be overlooked. I'm not sure why I even made the list. But it does
seem that a lot of film history has been forgotten.
There were no votes for Leonce Perret, Benjamin Chistensen, Maurice
Tourneur, E.A. Dupont, or Allan Dwan. None for _ Cabiria _. No votes
for Sjostrom, Stiller, or Sjoberg. No mention of _ Menilmontant _,
_ Anemic Cinema_, or _ Ballet mecanique_. None of _ Kuhle Wampe _ or
Cavalcanti. No votes for Clair, Jean Epstein, Germaine Dulac, Hans
Richter. None for Feyder, Gremillon, Marcel Pagnol, Carne, Clement or
Alexandre Astruc. No votes for Hanoun or Rene Allio or Robbe-Grillet,
apart from _ Marienbad _. (Pollet does show up.) No votes for Shimizu,
Gosho, Tesigahara, Ichikawa, Kobayashi, Masumura, Wakamatsu, or Suwa.
(It was good to see several votes for Naruse, as well as Oshima,
Suzuki, and Imamura, but many of Naruse and Ozu's greatest films were
overlooked.) No Sang-soo Hong. No Cai Chushenga, Xie Jin, Wang Weiyi (I
know these directors only by reputation), Jia Zhang-ke. Two votes for
Sun Yu. No votes for Pudovkin, Mikhail Romm, Kuleshov, Kozintsev, or
Yuliya Solntseva. No mention of _ Aerograd _, _ Michurin _, _Bed and
Sofa_, _ Chapajev _, _ The Road to Life _. (Barnet and Donskoi got a
few votes.) No votes for _The Last Stage _. No votes for
Bellocchio, Marco Ferreri, Nanni Moretti, Sergio Sollima, or Sergio Corbucci.
None for Makavejev, Skolimowski, or Zanussi. Two votes for Jancso and
one for Chytilova. Nobody from Quebec -- no Lefebvre or
Perrault. No votes for Kubelka, George Kuchar, Emshwiller, Shirley Clarke,
Kenneth Anger, Peter Emanuel Goldman, or Robert Kramer. None for Tim
Burton, Joe Dante, John McTiernan, John Carpenter, or Paul Verhoeven. None
for Michael Hui, Tsui Hark, Ching Siu-tung, Jackie Chan, Ringo Lam,
John Woo, or Fruit Chan. No _ Fist of Fury _ or _ Tragedy of the Emperor's
Daughter _. One vote for Chang Cheh. None for Werner Schroeter, Barbet
Schroeder, or Alexander Kluge. No votes for Victor Erice. None for Joao
Cesar Monteiro or Pedro Costa. No votes for _The Texas Chainsaw Massacre _
or Sam Raimi, none for Jess Franco, Jean Rollin, Deodato, or Fulci. None
for Olivier Assayas, Andre Techine, Jean-Claude Brisseau, Claire Denis,
Catherine Breillat, Cedric Kahn, Cyril Collard. No votes for Ed Wood,
oddly enough... No votes for videos, so far as I could tell: no Nam June
Paik, no _Histoire(s) du cinema_, no music videos or porn videos. No
American or British television series, but there were votes for European
mini-series like _ Scenes from a Marriage _, _ Berlin Alexanderplatz _,
_ Heimat _, and _ Out 1 _. No votes for Peter Weir or George Miller. Only
one vote for Stephen Frears -- perhaps odd since so many of the critics
are British. No Borowczyk or Tinto Brass.
It was good to see Rocha and Cisse and Sembene and Chahine and Kleifi:
Africa and Latin America and the Middle East weren't forgotten. I was
glad to see Russ Meyer and Dario Argento and George Romero got some votes.
In many cases it's not possible to see these films if one doesn't live
in a handful of big cities. That might be part of the reason for their
absence, although I imagine most critics would have access to them. In
some cases the critics probably simply don't like these films or at
least don't think they measure with the very best.
Paul
monterone
> it does
> seem that a lot of film history has been forgotten.
Well, actually there _were_ some votes for Carne (3, I think),
Sjostrom (3), Melies (1), [with or without the diacriticals], Dwan (1)
... don't know about all the rest!! Pretty shocking about Ichikawa,
Straub/Huillet, Pagnol, etc. etc., among the many others you name!
(And also no Neil Jordan?) I must say I wouldn't know how to choose
only ten films (there have been so many films, and so many _kinds_ of
films) and obviously many greats and near-greats wouldn't make the cut
-- it's chiefly the huge number of oddball choices that makes some of
the omissions so remarkable, I think. Also, were voters allowed to
choose more than one by the same director? Did any do so? The
fallacy of these lists is that if one loves one work by, say, Godard
or Renoir or Ford or Mizoguchi or Hitchcock, one would almost
certainly love others too ...
Paul Gallagher
>Paul Gallagher <p...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<ajv4ub$7ie$1...@reader2.panix.com>... (in part):
>Well, actually there _were_ some votes for Carne (3, I think),
>Sjostrom (3), Melies (1), [with or without the diacriticals], Dwan (1)
>... don't know about all the rest!! Pretty shocking about Ichikawa,
My apologies to Sight and Sound! I searched through the document,
but I forgot that searching for Carne doesn't find Carne/, Melies
doesn't find Me/lie\s... I don't know how I missed Dwan.
Paul
septimus
>
Also, were voters allowed to
> choose more than one by the same director? Did any do so? The
> fallacy of these lists is that if one loves one work by, say, Godard
> or Renoir or Ford or Mizoguchi or Hitchcock, one would almost
> certainly love others too ...
Some of the links are not working for me, including all the title links.
Surely *someone* voted for _Citizen Kane_? Maybe the critics should
trade votes and vote in blocs, like figure skating. Maybe they already
do.
Paul Gallagher
>In <3D555DEC...@millenicom.com> septimus <sept...@millenicom.com> writes:
>>I don't know if this is
>>related to Bazin and Rohmer's ideas about the "reality" of cinema,
>>or whether it is the complete opposite of what they were thinking.
>>But in this sense I can understand why many would prefer _Sunrise_
>>to _Three Colors: Red_ or _Days of Heaven_, but I can't.
>I've been thinking about this. Some texts came to mind:
>http://home.earthlink.net/%7Esteevee/Daney_1977.html,
>in particular Serge Daney's remarks on morality, such as those
>concerning Rivette's comments on _ Kapo _.
I think Septimus is correct to see parallels between Bazin's realism
and the demand for a certain ethics in the cinema. The idea is that film
seems to affirm and to validate, to assert the truth of what it shows, and
that this puts a special obligation on the filmmaker to tell the
truth and to develop a kind of moral bond both to reality and to the
fictional world of the film.
I wonder how this relates to illusionism and to narrative. For example,
in an animated film or in a film based on non-illusionist montage, both
of which you might expect to provide continuous reminders that you're not
being shown a window into the real world, do people feel the same ethical
bond to what's depicted? I can imagine that they often do, but this
may be because film seems to impress us as real even when it is plainly not...
Also, it's interesting that realism in film (and in literature and theater)
is closely linked to the presence of a plausible narrative, which is
paradoxical since narratives are such artificial creations...
The relation of film to reality has inspired a lot of metaphors, some
more sinister than others: creation, resurrection, hypnotism, vampirism, etc.
By the way, I think the end of Spielberg's _ A.I. _ could be seen to
draw on these metaphors for realism in the cinema, just as the boy A.I.'s Oedipal
trajectory seems related to the some fundamental aspects of narrative.
I find it hard to make sense of my own experience; I can't think of
a consistent rule for what I find morally objectionable in art, and I'm
not sure whether I have different standards for film, or for realist film.
I feel bad when Odysseus slays the suitors, when Wotan kills Hunding; I
find the Inferno generally repellant despite the great beauty of many
passages; yet I like _I Spit on Your Grave_, _Wild Things_, and _Rapid_
(to choose three films singled out for moral condemnation by Roger Ebert,
Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Robin Wood, respectively).
It's interesting that Serge Daney in the interview I cited opposes the
moral to the political: morality is individualistic. This strikes me
as an odd point of view, but I have encountered it elsewhere. Dominique
Lecourt's 'Mediocracy' for example denounces how many intellectuals in the
1970's and 1980's rejected politics, specifically left politics, in favor
of 'morality.' You might see similarities between Bazin and right-wing
individualism, but one could also see parallels with the idea of authenticity
(a la Sartre, morality derives not for external ethical codes, but from
the responsibility that arises out of human freedom).
Maybe not unrelated is Rohmer's comment that his 'Moral Tales' are called
moral because of their lack of action; they are studies of personal points
of view, studies of individuals. Maybe unrelated is the tendency to
identify goodness with passivity, evil with action -- which appears in
films by Murnau and Bresson, not to mention lots of religious thought
throughout the world.
Back to Bazin's morality and to Rohmer's aesthetics: I'm not familiar with
aesthetic philosophy, but I browsed through a book on the subject and
noticed some parallels between Bazin and Tolstoy's 'What is Art?,' which
Bazin quotes, and maybe between Rohmer and the neo-Platonic tradition,
represented by Schopenhauer, for example. I'm thinking especially of
Rohmer's assertion in 'Venite/ que la peinture' that the world is inherently
beautiful, we just have a hard time seeing it, but painting and the cinema
reveal this inherent beauty to us. This might be like the neo-Platonists
thinking that art reveals to us the ideal forms behind appearances, but
maybe not... Also, I wonder if Bazin like Tolstoy grounds his aesthetics
in religious experience. For example, Bazin's Personalism asserted
that human beings are completely free; hence, deep focus and long takes allow
human action to reveal its inherent ambiguity and freedom; however, the
world, according to Personalism, is everywhere pervaded by God's love, and
paradoxically God's will is expressed in human freedom. I think you could
draw parallels between the eye of the camera and the Personalist God, in particular
in the call for affectless, objective, transparent film image that paradoxically
expresses a kind of love for the world. There is also a paradox in calling
for self-abnegation (a styleless style) as the path toward personal expression.
Parallels can be made to Tolstoy's call for simple and direct expression that leads
to shared religious experience: place the camera the right way, and the
beauty of God's creation will reveal itself. It's easy to point out
the naivite and absurdity of this position, but at least while one is watching them
this is what _The River _ and _Journal d'un cure de campagne_ and _Voyage to
Italy_ accomplish...
Anyway I'm rambling...
Paul
septimus
> The relation of film to reality has inspired a lot of metaphors, some
> more sinister than others: creation, resurrection, hypnotism, vampirism, etc.
> By the way, I think the end of Spielberg's _ A.I. _ could be seen to
> draw on these metaphors for realism in the cinema, just as the boy A.I.'s Oedipal
> trajectory seems related to the some fundamental aspects of narrative.
In what way?
> It's interesting that Serge Daney in the interview I cited opposes the
> moral to the political: morality is individualistic. This strikes me
> as an odd point of view, but I have encountered it elsewhere. Dominique
> Lecourt's 'Mediocracy' for example denounces how many intellectuals in the
> 1970's and 1980's rejected politics, specifically left politics, in favor
> of 'morality.' You might see similarities between Bazin and right-wing
> individualism, but one could also see parallels with the idea of authenticity
> (a la Sartre, morality derives not for external ethical codes, but from
> the responsibility that arises out of human freedom).
Having just read Annette Insdorf's book on Kieslowski this has special
resonance for me. Kieslowski started out in documentaries, some of them
overtly political, and moved towards the personal and "moral" (in a
decidedly non-dogmatic way).
>
> Maybe not unrelated is Rohmer's comment that his 'Moral Tales' are called
> moral because of their lack of action; they are studies of personal points
> of view, studies of individuals. Maybe unrelated is the tendency to
> identify goodness with passivity, evil with action -- which appears in
> films by Murnau and Bresson, not to mention lots of religious thought
> throughout the world.
Here Schrader's _The Transcendental Style in Cinema_ comes to mind ...
>
> Back to Bazin's morality and to Rohmer's aesthetics: I'm not familiar with
> aesthetic philosophy, but I browsed through a book on the subject and
> noticed some parallels between Bazin and Tolstoy's 'What is Art?,' which
> Bazin quotes, and maybe between Rohmer and the neo-Platonic tradition,
> represented by Schopenhauer, for example. I'm thinking especially of
> Rohmer's assertion in 'Venite/ que la peinture' that the world is inherently
> beautiful, we just have a hard time seeing it, but painting and the cinema
> reveal this inherent beauty to us. This might be like the neo-Platonists
> thinking that art reveals to us the ideal forms behind appearances, but
> maybe not... Also, I wonder if Bazin like Tolstoy grounds his aesthetics
> in religious experience. For example, Bazin's Personalism asserted
> that human beings are completely free; hence, deep focus and long takes allow
> human action to reveal its inherent ambiguity and freedom; however, the
> world, according to Personalism, is everywhere pervaded by God's love, and
> paradoxically God's will is expressed in human freedom. I think you could
> draw parallels between the eye of the camera and the Personalist God, in particular
> in the call for affectless, objective, transparent film image that paradoxically
> expresses a kind of love for the world. There is also a paradox in calling
> for self-abnegation (a styleless style) as the path toward personal expression.
> Parallels can be made to Tolstoy's call for simple and direct expression that leads
> to shared religious experience: place the camera the right way, and the
> beauty of God's creation will reveal itself.
And, having just read _The Melancholy of Resistance_, it is hard for me
not
to be cynical about such idealism.
I have too bad a headache to ramble much more at this point ...
Paul Gallagher
In <3D67D16E...@millenicom.com> septimus <sept...@millenicom.com> writes:
>Paul Gallagher wrote:
>> The relation of film to reality has inspired a lot of metaphors, some
>> more sinister than others: creation, resurrection, hypnotism, vampirism, etc.
>> By the way, I think the end of Spielberg's _ A.I. _ could be seen to
>> draw on these metaphors for realism in the cinema, just as the boy A.I.'s Oedipal
>> trajectory seems related to the some fundamental aspects of narrative.
>In what way?
I'm not exactly sure, but I'll try to figure this out. Some critics influenced
by psychoanalysis think that many stories and genres are closely related
to the Oedipus complex. Freud claimed that in normal development the son
separates from the mother and becomes like the father, eventually possessing
his own woman (his own copy of the mother -- a bit like David). It's claimed
that many stories and genres are symbolic of this: the hero separates
from or repudiates the mother and comes to identify with the father.
Bruno Bettleheim thought that a basic function of fairy tales is to
help the male child resolve the Oedipus complex. A.I. seems to be a
fairy tale for the future A.I., among other things
allowing them to examine their relationship to the humans -- their parents
in a sense -- and to David, who represents their kind's childhood.
David wants to possess his mother, and Freud considered the Oedipus
myth symbolic of a basic male drive to sexually possess the mother.
The father poses a threat to this. And he wants to be real, like his
human 'fathers.' He wants to both take the place of and be like his
father. In the future all humanity is extinct (hence, all fathers --
Henry, Professor Hobby, and Gigolo Joe -- are dead), and the future
A.I. recreate David's mother. David is reunited and either dies or dreams,
which the future A.I. and Teddy watch. David's obsession with his mother
is said to have made him human, but also seems to have led to his death
or at least a tragic fate; his obsession seems to be both self-destructive
and fundamentally human.
However, the mother is also thought to pose a threat to the male child:
since she lacks a penis, she represents the threat of castration. (I
don't know -- though the boys at the pool tried to find out -- whether
David has genitals.) Now, some film critics -- Laura Mulvey notably --
think that the pleasures of illusionist cinema derive from looking at
women: their threat of castration is negated either by fetishism and
scopophilia or voyeurism, which usually has a sadistic component in which 'bad'
women are punished. David seems to exhibit both voyeurism and fetishism:
he spies on his mother (in fact I think he spies on her reading Freud while
on the toilet). He also fetishizes her, for example, the lock of her hair by
which he hopes to win her love and with which she is eventually recreated.
In the Oedipus story Oedipus solves the riddle of the Sphinx, leading
to her suicide, but also to Oedipus becoming king of Thebes and to
marrying the widowed Queen, who turns out to be his mother. The Sphinx,
or archaic mother, or mother goddess, is considered to be an important
part of the tale. The Sphinx is half-beast and half-human and is
repudiated by the hero. Hegel commented that solving the riddle of
the Sphinx was 'the founding moment of a subjectivity that is centered
on human consciousness.' I'm not sure how this relates to _A.I._,
but David too is achieving or trying to achieve human consciousness.
Both Dr. Know and the Blue Fairy seem something like the Sphinx.
David solves Dr. Know's riddle, which sets in motion his final fate.
Dr. Know is something between a modern computer and an advanced intelligence
and a carnival huckster, while the Blue Fairy is somewhere between a
statue (a human artifact) and a fairy tale figure and a mother goddess.
The Blue Fairy, somewhere between an artifact and an goddess, is something
like the future A.I. -- both artificial mechanisms and something close
to gods, with the power of creation -- like film itself, a technology
that permits the creation of imaginary worlds, that can bring the
past and those now dead to a kind of temporary life. Hence, like the
Sphinx, who is half-human and half-beast and therefore half-way between
the mind and body, they exist on boundaries between worlds and between
categories -- boundaries that David is crossing. When David embraces the
Blue Fairy, she is destroyed, not completely unlike the Sphinx... Mulvey
for example thinks the repudiation of the archaic mother is essential
to the Oedipus myth.
On the other hand, the Blue Fairy is destroyed and recreated as an image.
Also, David gazes at the Blue Fairy for centuries; one critic drew
parallels with the obsession with the film image. Using Mulvey's language,
this is scopophilia in the extreme, and also fetishism, since David
invests the Blue Fairy, the film image, with magical powers.
If all this sounds a little absurd, maybe more accurate is the Cahiers
du Cinema review I mentioned a few months ago that claimed that
Spielberg's favorite story or theme is the child (whether E.T. or
Private Ryan) returning home, returning to the mother. _A.I._, however,
shows David's quest to be an obsession, essentially pathological; as
a result Spielberg's favorite theme is examined but stripped of
sentimentality.
Paul
Paul Gallagher
>she represents the threat of castration. (I
I may have been too literal-minded here. If we are looking for a symbolic
threat of castration, the obvious threat is that the mother can return David
to the factory to be demolished. Instead she abandons him because
he appears to threaten his brother -- rather like Jocasta exposing
Oedipus because of the prophecy that he would kill his father.
A common way critics of certain ilk approach these questions is to look
for binary oppositions in the film and to observe their parallels and
transformations. I think there is _A.I._ an opposition between object
and subject that parallels the opposition between film and spectator.
Hence, David progresses from being an object - a machine - to a subject -
a conscious being - to, at the end, some kind of reflexivity, in which
machines observe themselves, and which is ambiguously identified with both dreams
and death. David is originally like a movie: an artifact for the humans'
amusement and emotional benefit; he becomes like a film spectator when he
gazes at the Blue Fairy; at the end he lives out an illusion, like a character
in a film, or a film viewer losing himself in a film. But this is more like
Oedipus blinding himself than a happy ending. So I think one can find parallels both to
film spectatorship and to normal childhood development (in which, says
Freud, the superego is formed through working through the Oedipus complex),
except that something goes a bit awry in that David returns to the mother,
rather than becoming autonomous; the father (and the entire human species) is
dead; and David is blind to reality, dreaming, or dying, with eyes wide shut...
Paul Gallagher
>I think Septimus is correct to see parallels between Bazin's realism
>and the demand for a certain ethics in the cinema. The idea is that film
>seems to affirm and to validate, to assert the truth of what it shows, and
>that this puts a special obligation on the filmmaker to tell the
>truth and to develop a kind of moral bond both to reality and to the
>fictional world of the film.
It's interesting to relate this to the idea of personal expression or
communication. Here the idea is that the artist communicates his or her
apprehensions; not true facts, but 'true' sensations or 'true' emotions.
The artist is valued for his or her ability to communicate sensations
or emotions, to increase their vividness and intensity, and to impose
on them coherence or organic unity. This is something like the ideas of
Truffaut or Andrew Sarris, though there are differences -- both recognize the
active role of the viewer in deciphering meaning, for example. It's interesting
that this stands somewhere between the idea that film offers a special
relationship, both visual and spiritual, to reality, and the idea that film
should communicate true, correct ideas. Hence, Bazin's aesthetics, a somewhat
depoliticized descendent of neo-Realism, reject formalism and montage-based
aesthetics in favor of showing reality; this quickly evolves into the idea of
communicating a personal 'reality,' which in turn evolves both into the
examination of images abstracted from reality and into the demand to communicate
true ideas: that is, towards modernism and towards politics, and hence back
to the montage-based aesthetics that were initially rejected. Afterwards
critics like Serge Daney went back to Bazin, while retaining the idea of
film as a systems of codes and signs. And a third category is added on: in addition
to film's ability to show (the world) and to signify (ideas), there is
spectactle: images without ideas, as well as deceptive images.
Paul
septimus
>
> In <akein2$mtl$1...@reader1.panix.com> Paul Gallagher <p...@panix.com> writes:
>
> >she represents the threat of castration. (I
>
> I may have been too literal-minded here. If we are looking for a symbolic
> threat of castration, the obvious threat is that the mother can return David
> to the factory to be demolished. Instead she abandons him because
> he appears to threaten his brother -- rather like Jocasta exposing
> Oedipus because of the prophecy that he would kill his father.
>
again some time. I agree there are Freudian overtones and one can make
a case that individual scenes can be symbolic of cinema
watching/filmmaking.
I'm just not convinced these are related. I agree with the balance
of what you said about _AI_ though.
Paul Gallagher
>>
>I didn't notice the mother was reading Freud. I should watch this film
>again some time. I agree there are Freudian overtones and one can make
>a case that individual scenes can be symbolic of cinema
>watching/filmmaking.
>I'm just not convinced these are related. I agree with the balance
>of what you said about _AI_ though.
I'm not convinced myself. Actually I have quite a lot of doubt about
everything I've posted over the past few days. I should take a look
at what others have written about _A.I._
In addition to the possibility that I'm reading too much into the film,
it might be that something like my interpretation is present in Kubrick
and Ian Watson's original scenario but remains only a faint echo in Spielberg's film.
I have some confidence that in Kubrick's films, almost every detail is meant,
has a purpose, even if it may not be emotionally compelling; I don't
have the same confidence in the meticulousness of Spielberg's films.
Paul
Dave C
I'm inclined to the view that, at least in the case of AI, there is a degree
of meticulousness present in the film, which a lot of people may be missing
because of preconceptions about both Spielberg and Kubrick. I posted a
webpage of shot comparisons between AI and Kubrick-directed films, at:
http://freespace.virgin.net/d.corcoran/aianalysis.htm
These certainly suggest to me a degree of meticulousness in the making of
AI, and imply that the depths read into other aspects are not illusory, but
real and intentional.
Dave C
septimus
> I'm inclined to the view that, at least in the case of AI, there is a degree
> of meticulousness present in the film, which a lot of people may be missing
> because of preconceptions about both Spielberg and Kubrick. I posted a
> webpage of shot comparisons between AI and Kubrick-directed films, at:
> http://freespace.virgin.net/d.corcoran/aianalysis.htm
> These certainly suggest to me a degree of meticulousness in the making of
> AI, and imply that the depths read into other aspects are not illusory, but
> real and intentional.
>
> Dave C
Would you care to summarize and post some of your thoughts?
Personally I don't go to many web sites; it is not as though
I can strike up a conversation with java graphics! Thanks.
Dave C
"septimus" <sept...@millenicom.com> wrote in message
news:3D6D9298...@millenicom.com...
The page was originally posted in response to discussions on
alt.movies.kubrick, and does presuppose a degree of familiarity with the
films of Kubrick. Essentially, the point is that Kubrick runs what might be
dubbed "metathemes" through his films, and illustrates these through
repeated set-ups, compositions, and dialogue. These are much more than just
"references" or "homages", because they often rework ideas ironically, such
that recognition of the scene referred to in another film brings further
insight into the meaning of the shot. AI continues in this tradition, with
large numbers of shots carefully woven into the film which directly
reference shots in Kubrick films, in ways which add additional layers of
meaning to the imagery of AI. The whole point of the webpage is that it is
*visual* - I've deliberately avoided commentary on it because I feel that
the images speak for themselves- there's no java, no javascript, no flash -
just good old-fashioned nutritious home-baked HTML and jpgs! I'd strongly
encourage you to have a look, and then I'll be happy to discuss further.
Dave C