Re: italian neorealism vs the french new wave
Will Dockery
neopaleon boneparts wrote:
> italian neo-realism vs the french new wave?
>
> okay, 'versus' is merely for hype sake but what were the respective
> signficance, virtues, and shortcomings of the two great cinematic
> movements? which was ultimately more important and influential?
> what were their advantages and limitations? Etc. etc.
>
> 1. in terms of scope, the french new wave was broader, more
> comprehensive and experimental, and revolutionary than italian
> neo-realism. while there was something like a reasonably
> well-defined credo within neo-realism, the new wave was really
> hodge-podge of styles by markedly different artists. one may argue
> that rohmer had more in common with rossellini than with godard, that
> truffaut had more in common with french masters like renoir than with
> rivette, etc. neo-realism was anchored to the world it was trying
to
> convey whereas the new wave shaped the means by which we intepreted
> the world.
> so, one could argue that 'nouvelle vague' is a useful coinage but
> indeed vague, rather like 'generation x', more a media invention than
> a set of principles, an approach, or a 'school'. granted, one can
> make the same argument about italian neo-realism since there is a
> great variance between rossellini and desica; even among desica's
> movies, bicycles thieves and miracle in milan are significantly
> different. however, there's no question that italian neo-realism was
> rooted in reality whereas french new wave wasn't....
>
> 2. ... which brings us to the historical, cultural, economic,
> generational differences between neo realism and neo wave.
> neo-realists went from life to cinema; they wanted cinema to honestly
> reflect life, and as humanists in immediate post war world filled
with
> poverty, desperation, and humiliation, 'life' and 'reality' meant the
> basic needs for survival and human dignity. yet, unlike the hard
> left, they didn't forgo the personal. soviet cinema celebrated the
> collective spirit of the proletariat; its heroes were the iconic new
> man or soviet hero. hollywood films gave us the mythic movie stars
> who had money, glamour, beauty, etc. and fascist cinema glorified
> man as defined by race and nation, or like soviet and hollywood
> movies wanted to lull the audience away from reality.
> in a europe devastated by war, hungry, and ashamed for its embrace of
> or cowardice against fascism and also fearful of hardline fanaticism
> of simplistic communist movements, neo-realists(often marxist leaning
> but not stalinist) wanted to reconnect cinema with truth about
society
> and the individual. they confronted cinema defined as a dream
factory
> for the masses manipulated by capitalists, or as a propagandistic
tool
> of the right and left. neo-realists had had enough of the grandiose
> but empty bombasm of italian cinema under mussolini. hollywood
> fantasies seemed cruel and irrelevant when old folks and chillun were
> going hungry in the streets, when italian women had turned to
> prostitution to get by. also, since the 1920s italians had invested
> their hopes and trust in mussolini and fascism who had brought
nothing
> but ruination to italy. so, it was imperative for neo-realists to
be
> engaged with reality first; cinema would reflect and flow out of
> reality.
>
> if neorealists went from life-to-movies, new wavers, in contrast,
> went from movies-to-life. they grew up in a depressing world of
> postwar europe and lost themselves in the dreamfactory of hollywood
> movies. movies became their life, their hopes, their fantasies, their
> passion. unlike the previous generation like rossellini and desica
> who'd seen the rise and fall of europe and felt personally
responsible
> and obligated to do the right thing, the new wavers didn't feel any
> burden of guilt. they were too young to have collaborated with or
> committed political evil. they were born into a world they didn't
> care for, they weren't exactly starving, and so they discovered
their
> own world in the movie theater(just as lennon and others find truth
in
> american rock n roll). for them, truth was cinema 24 hrs a day.
>
> unlike the neorealists, their starting point was not life but movies;
> they couldn't and didn't want to distinguish between the two.
> however, as filmmakers with genuine artistic intentions, they weren't
> content merely with movies as entertainment; it was their religion,
> their faith, and such cinema was their tool toward understanding and
> defining the truth, and in this respect, they met the neorealists
> halfway; but whereas neorealists' starting point was reality, new
> wavers' starting point was cinema(with the possible exception of the
> older rohmer).
> but, starting point is just as crucial as the destination for it
> colors the nature of the journey, which is why different religions
and
> philosophies while searching the same mystery arrive at fundamentally
> different conclusions.
> in the 60s, it was said US and USSR would meet learn to coexist
> peacefully with US relying more on social programs and soviets
> liberalizing their economy and culture; it never happened as the
> gravitational pull of their ideological origins proved too powerful.
> still, as neorealists honed their skills, they moved away from
realism
> of the street to that of the soul, from the public to the private,
> from the emotions of physical survival to the need for spiritual
> sustenance; as their films became more refined, they began to take on
> the shadings of genre--de sica's two women is a like a neo-realist
> women's movie.
> similarly, though new wavers began with the love of movie
> movies(genre fare like noir, romance, gangster film, thriller, etc)
> they used those genres to explore and unearth what was truthful and
> personal.
> the artist most frustrated and fascinated by the contradiction
between
> life and art was probably godard though one could make the case for
> the more difficult and obtuse rivette.
>
> godard is an interesting case because he illustrates the truism that
> the formative yrs define one's lifelong character. godard's family
> was clearly defined by the calvinist strain despite its secularism;
> but scratch the surface of a hardline feminist and there's new
england
> puritanism underneath. in a world without faith, intellect became the
> weapon that keeps one pure from the corruptions of the world, and
> godard developed a calvinistic intellectualism. his immersion in
> cinema and later women were passionate and genuine, but both made him
> feel corrupted, compromised thru their irrational and seductive
> sensuality. he didn't like losing selfcontrol to temptations nor
> could he trust his passions beyond his intellect. it's hardly
> surprising that he rejected both woman and cinema after exploring one
> to examine the other and vice versa. indeed, just as cinema was sex
to
> kael, it was to godard, and this perhaps explains kael's admiration
> for his earlier films. but unlike unabashedly sensual jewess kael,
> godard the quasi-calvinist couldn't stand his emotional dependence on
> and awe of women and cinema. so he chose maoism--the most
> puritanical of leftist ideology--and reduced cinema down to signals
> and reduced woman as a mere intellectual companion/collaborator; his
> cinema became deconstructionist religious games, and karina was
> replaced first by intellectual wiazemsky and even more intellectual
> and dry anne marie melville. godard struck down cinema as dream,
> woman as fantasy. he used the maoist concepts then in vogue and
> explained cinema thru ideological jargons--bourgeois this, marxist
> that, yabba dabba do--but, it was really about a deeply buried sense
> of sin of being helpless before the false idolatrous god of cinema
and
> the pagan allure of goddess woman babe.
> at any rate, the case of godard highlights the tension between life
> and art that was crucial to both movements.
>
> 3. to ask which movement was more important would be like comparing
> apples and oranges. both were important and essential in their own
> ways in the expanding and advancing cinematic art and possibilities.
> one could argue that neorealism was more important for its moral and
> social commitment--the notion that art should be connected to life.
> but, most critics, is asked at gunpoint, would probably choose the
new
> wave. there's no question that on the issue of exploring cinematic
> possibilities--'art for art's sake'--the new wave went way beyond
> neorealism while appropriating many of its elements.
> however, one could make the case for the primacy of neorealism on the
> basis that it preceded french new wave, laying down the groundwork
> that made new wave and other developments possible; to an extent,
> neorealism was the root and new wave was one of its flowers--though
> new wave also has roots in other traditions in french, hollywood, and
> world cinema(similarly, one can argue that though WWII was much
> greater event than WWI, the latter was more important for the simple
> reason that it came before, in its path destorying the old
> aristocracy, bringing bolsheviks, fascists, and nazis into power and
> thereby making WWII possible).
> think of 'voyage to italy', considered as one of the most crucial
> postwar movies by the cahier critics. and, also recall that bazin's
> theories which proved so influential to new wavers were immeasurably
> enriched, exercised, and proven thru the cinema of desica. though we
> don't usually associate neo-realism with film theories, neorealist
> films certainly inspired alot of fresh thinking about the meaning,
> possibility, and mission of cinema.
> considering that bazin's was truffaut's most important tutor and
> considering bazin's theories were most fully realized in his essays
on
> desica, perhaps it's not so surprising that truffaut's first film
'400
> blows' possesses many of the neorealist virtues. 400 blows is
> differerent than your average neo-realist film in its emphasis of the
> personal over the social and the quirky over the universal, but
there
> is the acute awareness of the self trapped in a harsh world and of
the
> interactions between individual and society in contemporary setting.
> other truffaut films informed by neorealist aesthetics would be 'wild
> child', 'small change', and the films of the doinel series. but, even
> his genre films--fahrenheit 451(sci-fi), shoot the piano
> player(romance thriller), mississippie mermaid(suspense/crime)--have
> one foot firmly set on realism.
> as for godard, while he took many of the plot elements from hollywood
> genre films, the stories were set in the grimy real world. his films
> were 1/3 hollywood(plot and situations), 1/3 neorealism(setting,
> location, milieu), and 1/3 intellectual gameplaying. the difference
> between tarantino(at least post-reservoir) and godard is the latter
> was concerned with reality apart from cinema and anxious about the
> opiate powers of cinema to pull us away from the truth of life and
> society whereas tarantino really only knows and cares about movies.
>
> anyway, if we make the case for the greater importance of
neorealism,
> we must consider the following glories of cinema of the 50s. central
> to neorealism was humanism, the idea that there was a common humanity
> and universal decency unifying all mankind. neorealism/humanism made
> us see beyond culture, races, languages, and told us that in the
> postwar world of poverty, hardships, and struggle, all of mankind was
> working toward the same essential things. while it could be argued
> that japanese humanist cinema of the 50s developed parallel to and
not
> as a result of neorealism, there is something unmistakably neorealist
> in spirit and style of kurosawa's ikiru. also think of 'i live in
> fear'. think of mizoguchi's 50s--sansho the mastiff, ugetsu, street
> of shame, geisha--films which were socially more committed than
> anything he'd done before. and think of kon ichikawa's harp of
burma.
> also, kobayashi's 'human condition' which for a war movie focuses
> more on the travails of the individual mired in daily toil and
> frustrations than in thrill of combat--though there is some of that.
> the films of bergman in the 50s might owe something to neorealism.
> before bergman became an intensely personal artist, he made films
like
> 'summer with monika'--one of his best--which paid close and honest
> attention to life and its dreams limited by social reality.
> and of course the great satyajit ray was a lifelong admirer of
italian
> neorealism. his apu trilogy is in many ways inconceivable without
the
> inspiration of 'bicycles thieves' and other classics for which ray
> expressed boundless admiration.
> and, neorealism probably has had a fair amount of impact on british
> cinema to this very day. everything from 'angry young man' films of
> the 60s to the works of ken loach, stephen frears, and mike leigh owe
> something to the notion that cinema is a great and ennobling tool for
> reflecting reality and that there is a set of rules, methods, and
> guidelines--perhaps best articulated by bazin in his consideration of
> 'bicycle thieves'--that effectively accomodate this process.
> even today all over the world, serious film artists with limited
> budgets and a passionate need to express something about themselves
> and the conflicts in their worlds turn to neorealist mode.
hollywood
> style production is beyond their reach, but even with just a camera,
> small crew, and amateur actors, they can say something moving and
> special thru neorealist aesthetics--just as rossellini worked with
the
> crudest means with 'open city'(indeed, one can argue the new wave was
> hollywood done with neorealist means). personally, i'd rather watch
a
> neorealist film from some country of which i know nothing than its
> imitation of artsy fartsy trendiness or crass commercialism. i'd
> rather have some nepalese or colombian director try to be rossellini
> or desica than spielberg or godard.
> bollywood has made countless genre spectacles but the greatest indian
> filmmaker is still satyajit ray.
> i don't care to see a sci-fi, horror, or thriller from romania or
> taiwan(it'd be just other people imitating and conforming to
> hollywood), but i wouldn't mind learning something about those people
> thru a neorealist film that captures the essential qualities of their
> world. think of ousmeme sembene's 'guelwaar' which humanized the
> reality of africa. or 'yellow asphalt' which prsented the
jewish-arab
> tensions more powerfully than any number of books or news programs.
> and, think of the works of iranian masters who are no doubt deeply
> indebted to the humanist strain in world cinema of which italian
> neorealism has been an integral part.
> and even hollywood cinema was deeply influenced by neorealism in the
> 50s. kazan injected elements of neorealism into films like streetcar
> named desire and on the waterfront, introducing a sobering as well as
> refreshing grit and grimness to american cinema. kazan and others
who
> took the cue from neorealism brought a starker and rougher reality to
> the movie screen which had been the realm of fantasies. it's
unlikely
> that sam fuller was influenced by neorealism but his cinema certainly
> developed in parallel to cultural shift inspired by neorealism. and,
> though cassavettes is considered in parallel to the french new wave,
> he was undoubtedly deeply inspired by the style and methods of
> neorealism.
> even very mainstream films like 'from here to eternity' probaby owe
> something--even if indirectly--to the changes in american movie
> culture as a result of european influences(and in the early 50s, it
> was nearly all italian). and think of 'blackboard bungle'. and 'west
> side story' was a musical--of all things--acutely aware of the social
> malaise of the streets. there were bad developments as a result of
> humanism--stanley kramer--but whaddya gonna do?
> soviet films like 'ballad of a soldier' and 'cranes are flying'
> probably owe something to neorealism as they moved away from
stalinist
> emphasis on the masses to the socio-poetry of the individual.
> indeed, neorealism is one 'school' of cinema appreciated and welcomed
> by all nations, all political ideologies, etc. while some nations
> might object to bombastic propaganda of their enemies, hollywood
glitz
> and glitter, or intellectualized gobbledygook--as either indulgent,
> subversive, or bourgeois decadent--of much of art cinema, who dare
> reject neorealism? from iran to italy to senegal to america to
latin
> america to france to asia, its humanism and core universal values
have
> been as accessible and relevant and moving as charlie chaplin.
> bicycle thieves is a movie that could be appreciated by a hardline
> commie, free enterprise capitalist, devout catholic, fundamentalist
> muslim, jiveass african, radical atheist, or lameass asiatic(with the
> exception of a hardline libertarian).
> and at film festivals around the world today, we often see
> shoestringbudgeted indie films made in the neo-realist mold; they may
> lack the committed or urgent humanism of rossellini or desica, but
> they are highly aware of the individual's place in his environment
and
> grapple with economic and social realities.
> and of course, of course, neorealism didn't expire in italy without
> having thorougly changed its cinematic culture; even those who
> eventually abandoned it digested its lessons, even if mostly in
> rejection(rejection defines us as much as acceptance; what would
> mccarthy have been without communism, moore without bush?).
> visconti began as a neorealist--la terra trema--and though his later
> films went for opulence and grandiosity, there was always a layer of
> social critique at the heart of his films. and one of his finest
> films--rocco and his brothers--drew its power from neorealist
> elements(and probably later influenced the works of scorsese--raging
> bull--and coppola--godfather, outsiders, rumblefish).
> both rossellini and desica were to have illustrative careers up to
the
> 70s. rossellini tuned his methods toward works for italian tv and
> desica won accolades near the end of his career with garden of finzo
> continis.
> but, more importantly there were fellini and pasolini. fellini, who
> couldn't stand being tied down to any aesthetic discipline--to
> anything or anyone, inf fact--soared away from neorealism but even in
> his most lavish and extravagant films, there is a guilt-ridden boy
> longing for simpler times with simpler values and freedoms. some of
> his best films--white sheik, i vitelloni, la strada, il bidone,
nights
> of cabiria--are freshly covered in neorealist placenta goo, and he
> would return time and again to neorealist elements--out of mocking
> mischief, nostalgic admiration, artistic burnout--in films like
> amarcord, fellini roma, and ginger and fred.
> pasolini got started in cinema in the heyday of neorealism and his
> best works owe at least half their power to neorealism. his best
> films--accatone, gospel according to matthew, hawks and sparrows,
mama
> roma, and arabian nights--are steeped in neorealism while his
> worst--teorema and salo--strain to be otherwise(self-indulgent
> intellectual gobbledygook).
> in either case, even in rejection, neo-realism was the reference
point
> that defined italian directors as disparate as bertolucci, leone, and
> antonioni.
> antonioni, considered by some as italy's greatest director, began
with
> a certain degree of allegiance to neo-realism--consider the grim
> details and drama of il grido; though he defined his own style that
> centered on alienation, isolation, and neurosis of the priveleged
> upper-middle class in italy of rapidly expanding economy of the 60s,
> there is a sense in his films of longing for core values, urgency,
and
> meaning so abundant in neorealist films. the people of 'open city',
> 'paisan', 'bicycle thieves', and 'umberto d' have it pisspoor bad
but
> they believe in something, have some hope, or there may be a solution
> to their problems. in open city and paisan, it's liberation from nazi
> occupation. in bicycle thieves, it's a steady job and paycheck and
> feeding the family. in umberto d, it's security for the dog and
> affordable housing; none of these people aks for much. the people
of
> antonioni films don't suffer from want; they are priveleged and enjoy
> many freedoms. yet, they are empty, as though life loses meaning once
> removed from the elemental struggles of existence. in other words,
> damned if you do, damned if you don't. if you struggle like people
in
> neorealist films, life is damn hard; but if you don't have it hard,
> you grow decadent, neurotic, lazy, and confused. blow-up was
> especially disturbing for it even questioned the validity of reality
> itself. neorealism said there is a reality that film must record and
> represent. antonioni said in his italian films that man had become
> divorced from reality. in blowup and in the fantasy apocalyptic
scene
> in zabriskie(which is surreal throughout), antonioni questions
> reality itself; is ANYTHING real? if reality itself is unstable, how
> can art--one step removed from reality--ever hope to do reality
> justice when reality doesn't do itself justice? at any rate, there
is
> an unmistakable link between neorealism and antonioni; his cinema may
> be called neuroto-realism, or neurotic about reality.
>
> neorealism also gave europeans and other non-americans a
raisinedtart
> for continuing, struggling, and surviving--like persistent ricci in
> bicycle thieves--in the aftermath of war and disaster and with the
> 'culturally imperialistic' influx and domination of hollywood and
> americanism all over the globe. americans couldn't be rivaled in
> amusement and thrill but could be challenged on the level of truth,
> integrity, and artistic seriousness. 'we can't compete with
> hollywood' no longer need be a defeatist refrain but the vital reason
> for doing something different and new. it's probably true that
> without neorealism, there probably would have been no french new
wave.
> no satyajit ray. and the rise of humanist cinema of kurosawa,
> ichikawa, and others in japan might not won the respect and support
in
> world cinema circuits. and, then think of the indirect influnce all
> these films had on the future generations.
> and even non-realist directors like bresson surely learned a thing or
> two from neorealism
>
> neorealism, though it emphasized amateur actors, also had a serious
> impact on professional acting. brando in 'on the waterfront' wanted
> to go beyond the archetype of the hoodlum punk and speak with a voice
> that could have been off the street. of course, brando would have had
> a great career, neorealism or no neorealism. but for many, his role
> in 'on the waterfront' was his signature role and a landmark in
> american cinema; and, 'on the waterfront' does owe much to
neorealism.
> one could argue that indirectly thru brando, neorealism also
> influenced the works of nicholson, hackman(especially in french
> connection, a kind of neorealist cop thriller), and stallone of
rocky.
>
>
> personally, i prefer the films of new wave but i have greater
> admiration for the longterm influence of neorealism. ultimately,
> bertrand tavernier is more important than new waveism in the long run
> because it's applicable to all places and all times, forever truthful
> and relevant. but new waveisms, while brilliant for its time and
> though some new wave works will last forever, the lessons of new
> waveism can't be applied to future cinema which must find its own
> voice. when it refuses to do so, you end up with the rot of latter
> day tarantino. neo-realism is always new because it grows out of
> forever regenerating reality. but new wave was based on style and
all
> styles grow old.
> of course, great artists know how to learn from all styles and
methods
> to find their own special voice. think of the great great 'y tu mama
> tambien' and 'amores perros' which seamlessly combined the urgency of
> neorealism with the brilliance of the new wave.
>
> anyway, new wave has had greater appeal and obvious influence among
> the later generation of filmmakers. there are still films of the
> neorealist mold being made. think of motorcycle diaries, central
> station, hour of the star, el norte, chalk, etc. and there have
been
> many films which are indebted to both: mean streets and other
> masterworks by scorsese.
> but, it appears that new wave has subsumed the elements of neorealism
> in the same way that Rock has subsumed rock n roll. Rock owes its
> being to rock n roll but it was much more, blending with elements of
> folk, raga, classical, modern, jazz, etc. if new wave and Rock seem
> more appealing to artists than neorealism or rock n roll, it's
largely
> because new wave and rock promise the freedom to make cinema or music
> whatever they want it to be. neorealism had a narrower set of rules
> than the new wave which comprised everything from 400 blows to
> alphaville to my night at maud's to man and a woman to umbrellas of
> churbug. but we mustn't forget the roots.
>
> finally, could one argue bunuel is the real father of neorealism with
> 'los olvidados'? a kind of neo-surrealism?
Influence on Bob? He once said "I never saw a film like Breathless".
And Godard had Anna Karina! What a dish!
Shadowville/Netherlands song/poem project:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/shadowville.htm
Autograph Of Zorro Mp3:
http://www.kannibaal.nl/zorro.mp3
Will Dockery
Milan wrote:
> "neopaleon boneparts" <eat_the_boy...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
> news:8a8a5283.04110...@posting.google.com...
> > finally, could one argue bunuel is the real father of neorealism
with
> > 'los olvidados'? a kind of neo-surrealism?
>
already
> directed Bicycle Thieves in 1948 and Rosselini had directed Roma,
Citta
> Aperta back in 1945.
>
> regards
> Milan
Speaking of Bunuel, I saw one of his films back around 1980 that was
really good, but never have been able to remember the name.
It was about a group of people in a house, the end of the world, or
something, with kind of a Twilight Zone feel to it... does this ring a
bell? I'd like to look that one up again...
Art, music, poetry of Will Dockery:
http://www.lulu.com/dockery
Tricia J
wrote:
>Speaking of Bunuel, I saw one of his films back around 1980 that was
>really good, but never have been able to remember the name.
>
>It was about a group of people in a house, the end of the world, or
>something, with kind of a Twilight Zone feel to it... does this ring a
>bell? I'd like to look that one up again...
The Avenging Angel - a true classic.
michaelgsmith
> Speaking of Bunuel, I saw one of his films back around 1980 that was
> really good, but never have been able to remember the name.
>
> It was about a group of people in a house, the end of the world, or
> something, with kind of a Twilight Zone feel to it... does this ring a
> bell? I'd like to look that one up again...
The Exterminating Angel.
Tricia J
wrote:
right, Exterminating, not Avenging...
Will Dockery
Ah! Thanks for refreshing an old man's memory. I saw this film, and
other great ones, including several of Godard's, way back in the Winter
of 1981, in a shabby little moviehouse in Atlanta.
Anyway, a quick search led me easily to a pretty decent review of the
film in the Google archives:
EXTERMINATING ANGEL
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This is Luis Bunuel's strange and humorous attack
on the upper classes in Mexico. After a dinner party the
guests find a strange force will not let then leave.
Instead their refined ways are deconstructed. This is a
weird but likable fantasy. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), +2 (-4 to +4)
It is going to be a marvelous party. All of the upper crust in
town is invited. In the host's house the servants are working
overtime to prepare. Well, not all of them are preparing. Some
just want to walk out of the house. They are not sure why they
feel compelled to leave, but they are willing even to lose their
jobs just to get out of the house.
The marvelous guests arrive and have charming witty conversation.
The party is so nice that they cannot bring themselves to leave.
Soon it is clear something out of the ordinary is going on.
People now want to leave, but cannot bring themselves to cross the
threshold. Hours turn into days and food and water are running
out. Still the guests are compelled by force or forces unknown to
stay and continue the party. Soon sickness and death will follow
if they cannot leave.
Luis Bunuel's films are noted for their bizarre twists on reality.
This 1956 low-budget, black-and-white fantasy from Mexico takes a
nasty bite out of the upper class. While it was filmed in Mexico,
there is little visual clue of its country of origin. It could
take place any big city of America or Europe. The conflicts
Bunuel is commenting on are those of class and not nations. He
deconstructs the upper classes of society and tests them under
stress in ways they could not be tested in the real world.
It is interesting to see the mechanics by which the sinister
barrier seems to work. The characters see themselves as trapped
and even are dying as a result. On one level they want to leave.
Still, physically they cannot force themselves to make the exit.
It is almost as if they have become addicted to being in the house
as if it were a drug they abhor but are physically unable to give
up. Perhaps this was even intended to be a metaphor for drug
addiction, which would be similarly destructive. Eventually the
victims degenerate into barbaric behaviors for their habit.
Meanwhile people outside want to get in, but they are tied up with
the official bureaucracy. The local government, with concern for
safety matters is controlling entrance. The simple action of
stepping across a threshold is seemingly forever forestalled.
THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL, if made today, might be considered a
light comic fantasy on the level of a GROUNDHOG DAY. For its time
is was a startlingly different classic from a great experimental
director. I would give it a rating of 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and
a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. It was shown at the Toronto
International Film Festival as a companion piece to BUNUEL AND
KING SOLOMON'S TABLE.
Mark R. Leeper
