how is the state of german cinema?
noel_k...@my-deja.com
important germs today?
can't say i saw too many german movies lately. even the exciting von
trotta hasn't been heard of.
and wolfman peterson is working in hollywood, right?
do recall seeing stalingrad but it sucked. saw the ogre and that was
kinda good.
why can't the germs make movies like the french?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
McNeeley
>is it dead? i know in the 70s we had some big names but who are the
>important germs today?
>can't say i saw too many german movies lately. even the exciting von
>trotta hasn't been heard of.
>and wolfman peterson is working in hollywood, right?
>
>do recall seeing stalingrad but it sucked. saw the ogre and that was
>kinda good.
>
>why can't the germs make movies like the french?
Fer Christ's sake. Do we really need more people making movies like
the French? :-)
Cheers,
Todd "The French Never Really Understood Film" McNeeley
email: mcneeley at donet dot com
Christina Stanley
: On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:42:21 GMT, noel_k...@my-deja.com wrote:
: >why can't the germs make movies like the french?
: Fer Christ's sake. Do we really need more people making movies like
: the French? :-)
: Cheers,
: Todd "The French Never Really Understood Film" McNeeley
Aw, todd, I hope you're trolling ... I mean, hell, the french are an easy
target for so many other things, but not movies.
c.
Peter Reiher
>
> is it dead? i know in the 70s we had some big names but who are the
> important germs today?
> can't say i saw too many german movies lately.
Speaking from the outside, German cinema appears to be
emerging from a decade-long doldrum. Films like "Run Lola
Run" and "Bandits" (officially French, but set in Germany,
with a fully German cast, a German director, and a German
screenplay) suggest that there are young directors
with energy and an interest in doing things differently.
Only time will tell if they are one-hit wonders or if they
are major filmmakers.
One of the best signs, if I understand correctly, is that
these films are extremely popular in Germany. It's hard
for a national cinema to achieve much without strong support
from the nation's filmgoers.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@cs.ucla.edu
<http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/reiher>
Eric Wojcik
I would suggest that this trend will continue. I haven't seen 'Bandits'
but have seen 'Run Lola Run' several times. It's done well in the US as
well, which is no surprise. Whether or not these directors, Tykwer and
the other, make more movies isn't as important as these two factors: One,
that the national audience is there, as you've mentioned. And two, that
there's a lot of intellectual energy in Germany right now, particularly
Berlin. Germany will have some interesting things to say in the first
part of the century, if my guess is right.
Whether or not we'll get the genius of the New German Kino or not,
well, we can only hope.
____________
Eric Wojcik
ewo...@indiana.edu
Living means leaving traces.
- Walter Benjamin
McNeeley
Yes... I was being tounge and cheek... :)
But I do believe French Cinema is far less important than conventional
wisdom would dictate. Especially during the so-called "New Wave."
Since it's relavent to the thread, I'd say that German cinema and
Italian cinema have done far more to push the state of the art in
filmmaking. I also think that they have greater affect on mainstream
Hollywood film, which is important because no matter what you think
about mainstream filmmaking in Hollywood, you can't deny that
Hollywood is the "commercial" center of the film universe.
I may be wrong, but I'll cling stubbornly to my beliefs as long as the
French cling stubbornly to Goddard.
Cheers,
Todd "but its all derivative anyway" McNeeley
Peter Reiher
>
> Whether or not these directors, Tykwer and
> the other, make more movies isn't as important as these two factors: One,
> that the national audience is there, as you've mentioned. And two, that
> there's a lot of intellectual energy in Germany right now, particularly
> Berlin. Germany will have some interesting things to say in the first
> part of the century, if my guess is right.
> Whether or not we'll get the genius of the New German Kino or not,
> well, we can only hope.
At first thought, I believed that having the directors
of early successes in recent German cinemas succeed in
later films was key. Thinking further, though, it seems
to me that the national cinemas that have excelled in
the past few decades (leaving aside the large American
and French cinemas) have followed one of two patterns.
One is the pattern established by the PRC, Iran, the last
German New Wave, and Canada. This pattern is director-
centric. A handful of strong directors emerge and develop
an international reputation. Success breeds success, so
perhaps a few more also emerge, but the bulk of the national
cinema's international success rests on these few directors.
The other pattern is better characterized by Hong Kong,
and perhaps Australia. While these cinemas also tend to
eventually produce star directors, their success is based
more on a new style of filmmaking adopted by an entire
industry. Hong Kong succeeded, initially, on the basis
of extremely high octane action films. Australia succeeded
on the basis of beautifully polished dramas largely grounded
in the Australian national character. HK cinema became
popular less on individual popularity of John Woo and
Tsui Hark than on a common style. Similarly, Australian
cinema became popular not primarily because of the particular
styles of Bruce Beresford, George Miller, and Peter Weir,
but because Australian films could be counted on to have
solid production values backing up a credible story somewhat
outside of Hollywood cultural assumptions.
If I had to guess at this moment, on the basis of just a
couple films, current German cinema is moving more towards
the latter than the former.
Peter Reiher
>
> But I do believe French Cinema is far less important than conventional
> wisdom would dictate.
>, I'd say that German cinema and
> Italian cinema have done far more to push the state of the art in
> filmmaking.
Both the Germans and the Italians deserve credit for
great influence in the silent era. The Italians pioneered
large scale feature films in the 1910s. The Germans were
probably the most influential cinematographers and production
designers of the late teens and the 20s, having a dramatic
impact on how films looked. Those influences are still
present today. (Note, however, that the French deserve at
least as much credit in the early history of film as the
Germans and Italians. The Lumieres, Melies, etc.)
Having made these contributions, both national cinemas then
went into decline. (The historical-minded will note that
both nations were taken over by fascist governments during
this period. The French stuck with democracy, and their
cinema flourished through the 30s.) The Italians perked up
around the end of WWII and chipped in with neo-realism, an
extremely influential movement. Neo-realism made its mark by
1950 or so, and subsequently Fellini may have had some
individual influences on world cinema, but otherwise I
would not call later Italian cinema especially influential.
The Germans didn't do much after 1930 or so until the 70s,
and I would argue that the German New Wave had very little
overall influence on world cinema.
While you and I can get together and form the Godard Anti-fan
Club, I'm not really with you on the lack of influence of
the French New Wave. If nothing else, it swept a lot of
cobwebs out of European cinema, in general, and clearly
was influential on the reflowering of American cinema in the
70s.
chris littlefield
Ausgerechnet Banananen.
***********************************
blaue engel
noel_k...@my-deja.com
cris...@animal.blarg.net (Christina Stanley) wrote:
> McNeeley (nu...@slug.edu) wrote:
> : On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 04:42:21 GMT, noel_k...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : >why can't the germs make movies like the french?
>
> : Fer Christ's sake. Do we really need more people making movies like
> : the French? :-)
>
> : Cheers,
>
> : Todd "The French Never Really Understood Film" McNeeley
>
> Aw, todd, I hope you're trolling ... I mean, hell, the french are an
easy
> target for so many other things, but not movies.
>
>
christina, your superbabe rating has even reached higher. todd is a
moron.
noel_k...@my-deja.com
Peter Reiher <rei...@fmg.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> McNeeley wrote:
> >
> Both the Germans and the Italians deserve credit for
> great influence in the silent era.
>
> went into decline. (The historical-minded will note that
> both nations were taken over by fascist governments during
> this period. The French stuck with democracy, and their
> cinema flourished through the 30s.) The Italians perked up
> around the end of WWII and chipped in with neo-realism, an
> extremely influential movement. Neo-realism made its mark by
> 1950 or so, and subsequently Fellini may have had some
> individual influences on world cinema, but otherwise I
> would not call later Italian cinema especially influential.
surely you are kidding when you say italians weren't so influential
after neorealism. not only was there fellini but we had visconti,
antonioni, bertolucci, zefferelli(unfortunately!!), leone, pasonlini,
wertmuller, olmi, bellochio, rosi, as well as many other excellent
minor directors of works like the organizer, big deal on madonna
street, and easy life. and i know i am still omitting some important
names. of course, italian cinema, like world cinema, went into decline
in the 80s, but still we have guys like that guy who made palombolla
rossa.
>
> The Germans didn't do much after 1930 or so until the 70s,
> and I would argue that the German New Wave had very little
> overall influence on world cinema.
while it's true that german cinema came to life only in the 70s, to say
they had little impact is untrue. fassbinder was respected by many. and
i would say herzog's aguirre was just as a big an influence on coppola
as was bertolucci's the conformist. anyway, talk of 'influence' is
misleading. what matters rather is inspiration and i can't see how
filmmakers or would be filmmakers who saw 'kings of the road',
'fitzcaraldo', 'ali, fear eats the soulfood', 'heimat', 'marianne and
julianne' could not have been moved and inspired.
>
> While you and I can get together and form the Godard Anti-fan
> Club, I'm not really with you on the lack of influence of
> the French New Wave. If nothing else, it swept a lot of
> cobwebs out of European cinema, in general, and clearly
> was influential on the reflowering of American cinema in the
> 70s.
>
agree with you bro.
McNeeley
<rei...@fmg.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>McNeeley wrote:
>> But I do believe French Cinema is far less important than conventional
>> wisdom would dictate.
>While you and I can get together and form the Godard Anti-fan
>Club, I'm not really with you on the lack of influence of
>the French New Wave. If nothing else, it swept a lot of
>cobwebs out of European cinema, in general, and clearly
>was influential on the reflowering of American cinema in the
>70s.
What happened in American cinema from about 1969 to about 1980 is
often viewed as a response to the French New Wave, but I tend to think
that the American films made during this time were an attempt to fix
Goddard's mistakes.
BTW, I often call Oliver Stone "America's Goddard" and I do so with
great affection. I wonder what your take on Stone is, especially given
that he is a filmmaker that rose in the 70's despite the fact that he
really comes into his own in the otherwise abysmal 80's.
Cheers,
Todd "Film is truth, at 24 fps" McNeeley
McNeeley
ferdy
Americans directors will never understand that originality always make
a more positive impact than the number of people you can put in a
cinema or the amount of money you spend in your film. Thanks, and carry
on.
Peter Reiher
>
> In article <380482D3...@fmg.cs.ucla.edu>,
> > great influence in the silent era.
> >
> > around the end of WWII and chipped in with neo-realism, an
> > extremely influential movement. Neo-realism made its mark by
> > 1950 or so, and subsequently Fellini may have had some
> > individual influences on world cinema, but otherwise I
> > would not call later Italian cinema especially influential.
>
> surely you are kidding when you say italians weren't so influential
> after neorealism.
Great Italian directors and films came after neorealism, but
most of them were pretty much their own one-man (or,
infrequently) woman movements. Fellini was influential.
Many films of the 60s and 70s, particularly, show his
influence very clearly. I'll give you Leone, to some
extent, too. No one else ever quite achieved his grand
opera approach to Westerns, but other people did try to
do as he did. Visconti, Antonioni, Wertmuller, etc. made
some great films, but did not revolutionize filmmaking
in the way the neo-realists did.
> > The Germans didn't do much after 1930 or so until the 70s,
> > and I would argue that the German New Wave had very little
> > overall influence on world cinema.
>
> while it's true that german cinema came to life only in the 70s, to say
> they had little impact is untrue. fassbinder was respected by many.
Again, great filmmakers and great films, though in lesser
numbers (of both) than post-neorealist Italian cinema.
But where is the influence? Fassbinder had not too much,
I'd say. His rapid style of filmmaking and infatuation
with the cinema of Douglas Sirk was not adopted by many
others.
> i would say herzog's aguirre was just as a big an influence on coppola
Perhaps more on his life than his cinema . . .
But, anyway, that's one filmmaker, and really only one
phase of his filmmaking. "Aguirre" does not inform the
first two "Godfather" films, though it clearly shows up
in "Apocalypse Now." There's not a trace of Herzog, in
my opinion, in "Tucker" or "Dracula" or "The Rainmaker."
It's informative to see what each of these two filmmakers
did when they lost their creative way. Coppola went
commercial. Herzog went to documentaries. Each of these
responses was consistent with their earlier works and
careers.
>anyway, talk of 'influence' is
> misleading.
Well, influence was the word used, and influence is
sometimes real. After the Italian neo-realist movement,
for example, American filmmakers far more frequently took
to the streets and shot on location. The kinds of nearly
expressionistic sets so common in American films of the
30s and 40s were almost entirely swept away. Neo-realism
can't take full credit, but it deserves some. German
expressionism of the 20s also was clearly influential.
The classic Hollywood lighting styles of the 30s and 40s
grew out of how the Germans lit their films. That's real
influence.
Such influence is not all that common. Great films and
great filmmakers are far more common. It's easy to see
why. For an idea or movement to be influential, it really
has to be so broad and wide sweeping that tremendous numbers
of filmmakers can embrace it, including many of modest
talents. What is there in Dreyer or Antonioni or Ozu for the
mass of filmmakers to embrace? They represent individual
genius, inherently uncopyable. How you set up your lights,
or shooting on a location instead of a set, or using color
instead of B&W, or cross-cutting between different scenes,
or using realistic stories about common people are
copyable. Thus, when a filmmaker or group of filmmakers
show how these techniques can be effective, they have the
opportunity to change the way many others make films.
Along these lines, the folks who have the most potential
to be influential today, I'd say, are the Dogma 95 folks.
They set out a clear set of rules about how to make a
film that any moron can follow, if he chooses to. Many
morons probably will, along with a smaller number of
talented folks. These rules are very different than how
Americans and Europeans have been making films for decades,
and the resulting films look and feel different. It's
a blatant attempt to be influential, but it might succeed.
A less blatant attempt that might possibly have some
influence is Iranian cinema. While the great Iranian
directors have their individual characteristics, there
are commonalities among them. It's tough influence,
though, because it's not easily copyable. One common element
that makes their films interesting is that they closely
examine specific aspects of their own culture to obliquely
make artistic and political points. Unlike Dogma 95,
the morons can't look up the rules. They'd have to watch
the films and particularize their characteristics to their
own culture and circumstances. Personally, I'd rather
watch the French or Japanese or American intellectual
stepchild of modern Iranian cinema than the same
nationalities' takes on Dogma 95, for that reason alone.
No morons are likely to apply.