1924 - Jean Renoir and Albert Dieudonne
Quick takes, perhaps un-Renoir like. Deeply impressionist, blurring cameras and subjectivity. Quite a few twos, but a surprising about of ones in the fast montage. Sympathetic tale of an outcast, wrongly chastised. Sympathetic portrait of bumbling foolish upper class.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Thursday, 2 June 2011
WeekEnd
It baffled me the first time - Jean-Luc Godard - 1967
This is really a pretty straightforward film in some ways. We know who we hate, and the corsucating portrait-slashing is carried out in uncharacteristic washed out colours. There is a pretty straight arc to the 'story' (not the most pertinent point, but all the same...), as in 'Pierrot Le Fou', and as far as that goes we know where we are.
The film divided into episodes, of ideas, increasingly politically engaged. The long takes, the pans and so on, cover images rent from another cinema that has always existed, underneath the surface of theo one on all those screens.
To be honest, this isn't my favourite Godard; it it a little one-track, as thoug Godard is uncomfortable with what he's doing, wanting to express his ideas some other way (Fin Du Cinema). The mood is consistent here, unlike Godard's previous work I have seen. Still, humiliates pretty much the rest of the history of cinema, in a like manner to its bourgeoises.
This is really a pretty straightforward film in some ways. We know who we hate, and the corsucating portrait-slashing is carried out in uncharacteristic washed out colours. There is a pretty straight arc to the 'story' (not the most pertinent point, but all the same...), as in 'Pierrot Le Fou', and as far as that goes we know where we are.
The film divided into episodes, of ideas, increasingly politically engaged. The long takes, the pans and so on, cover images rent from another cinema that has always existed, underneath the surface of theo one on all those screens.
To be honest, this isn't my favourite Godard; it it a little one-track, as thoug Godard is uncomfortable with what he's doing, wanting to express his ideas some other way (Fin Du Cinema). The mood is consistent here, unlike Godard's previous work I have seen. Still, humiliates pretty much the rest of the history of cinema, in a like manner to its bourgeoises.
Pierrot Le Fou
A while since I'd seen the 1965 - J-L Godard
I don't think it's possible, fair, or worthwhile discussing Godard on a kind of 'purely formal' plane. He doesn't hog techniques, or have a a running theme used for particular reasons through his films. Their isn't that kind of stasis.
'Pierrot' uses long shots, of the country with often low framings of action/people, and I was surprised to remember just how long Godard's takes are. There really is hardly a fast edit here.
One can play the game of trying to work out what is 'pre-planned', but it doesn't seem worth it. To me, Godard's starting point was films like 'Gun Crazy', some shots directly reminiscent (using the car, often). We the have music from other films, of course the literature, and various Brechtian elements (I loved the drawing of Anna Karina above where she is sitting). We the have some Cary Grant- style 'island paradise' stuff, a shot from Capra, and if I'm not mistaken a little hint at 'Tabu' with the bow and arrow. And Sam Fuller! Playing these games is all rather missing the point, of course.
The voiceover, the dialgoue between Belmondo and Karina, is stuuning. I had also inderestimated how powerful a presence Karina was in this; willful, not being pushed around or patronised.
Godard seems able to make cinema precisely what it should be; intelligent and beautiful, true and good, as far as it can. It is slightly like he was beemed in from another planet, and yet so of this world. Deliriously enjoyable, inexhaustively brilliant.
I don't think it's possible, fair, or worthwhile discussing Godard on a kind of 'purely formal' plane. He doesn't hog techniques, or have a a running theme used for particular reasons through his films. Their isn't that kind of stasis.
'Pierrot' uses long shots, of the country with often low framings of action/people, and I was surprised to remember just how long Godard's takes are. There really is hardly a fast edit here.
One can play the game of trying to work out what is 'pre-planned', but it doesn't seem worth it. To me, Godard's starting point was films like 'Gun Crazy', some shots directly reminiscent (using the car, often). We the have music from other films, of course the literature, and various Brechtian elements (I loved the drawing of Anna Karina above where she is sitting). We the have some Cary Grant- style 'island paradise' stuff, a shot from Capra, and if I'm not mistaken a little hint at 'Tabu' with the bow and arrow. And Sam Fuller! Playing these games is all rather missing the point, of course.
The voiceover, the dialgoue between Belmondo and Karina, is stuuning. I had also inderestimated how powerful a presence Karina was in this; willful, not being pushed around or patronised.
Godard seems able to make cinema precisely what it should be; intelligent and beautiful, true and good, as far as it can. It is slightly like he was beemed in from another planet, and yet so of this world. Deliriously enjoyable, inexhaustively brilliant.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Menilmontant
Forty minute long piece from Dmitri Kirsanoff, 1926
Quickly cut, but following a narrative, however it may look associational at times. This has a frenzied pace to it, with fast camera movements, the quick cutting, blurs. Even the action seems to happen at a kind of intensified pace, though the acting is wonderfully understated. It tells its story with great charm, and very impressively considering the lack of intertitles.
One really finds Paris here; there is a realism in the obviously street-shooting, in the lack of sentimentality regarding the part-players. The fast montage takes us all around. A tough film to take in, clearly very innovative.
Quickly cut, but following a narrative, however it may look associational at times. This has a frenzied pace to it, with fast camera movements, the quick cutting, blurs. Even the action seems to happen at a kind of intensified pace, though the acting is wonderfully understated. It tells its story with great charm, and very impressively considering the lack of intertitles.
One really finds Paris here; there is a realism in the obviously street-shooting, in the lack of sentimentality regarding the part-players. The fast montage takes us all around. A tough film to take in, clearly very innovative.
Mrs Miniver
William Wyler - 1942 ; wartimefilm
This film is so classical that it almos has no distinguishing features. It is classicism brought to a complete pitch of pure craftsmanship. Which makes it extremely affecting. We could perhaps note some low angle shots and an unusual depth. Some fast dialogue, and longer takes (though not too long, Wyler can cut around), especially the closer one in the air raid shelter. The framings maybe a little tighter as it goes on. All told though, it is simply a perfectly classical picture.
One thing to add to this; I am scratching my head to think of a single shot-reverse dialogue sequence in the whole film. THAT is perfect classicism.
This film is so classical that it almos has no distinguishing features. It is classicism brought to a complete pitch of pure craftsmanship. Which makes it extremely affecting. We could perhaps note some low angle shots and an unusual depth. Some fast dialogue, and longer takes (though not too long, Wyler can cut around), especially the closer one in the air raid shelter. The framings maybe a little tighter as it goes on. All told though, it is simply a perfectly classical picture.
One thing to add to this; I am scratching my head to think of a single shot-reverse dialogue sequence in the whole film. THAT is perfect classicism.
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1931)
1931 adaption - Rouben Mamoulian
Mamoulian appears to work by the agage; don't cut unless you have to. With some wonderful pans and tracks, almost autonomous (indeed so) on occassion, we dare use the word 'Ophuls' at times. It gives a freedom, a fluidity to proceedings. The two and three shots allow the scene to be played out, not to push. There is also a great sense of that great thing, reticence; we don't see the bird be killed, instead we stay on March.
This isn't to say that Karl Struss hasn't also made with Mamoulian some remarkable expressionist touches. It is here that we find the auteur. The opening sequence, the point of view, is remarkable, as is the long tracking shots that go with it. There is, on the very few occassions when he wants to change position for dialogue, a straight to camera framing that brings out a certain strangeness. Perhaps the most exciting framing though is the extra close-up, used on just one or two occassions.
The sets further deserve mention; exteriors and ante-rooms are wide, deep, shot with a remarkable depth. Mamoulian's sets are most interesting in their use of the vertical; they appear above all tall, with floors above floors, quite unexpected in the usual set-building. And the lighting; fill seems to dominate over key, and there is strong, even ethereal, backlighting, especially for the love scenes.
The most is affecting because Frederic March, allowed to act, brings a pathos to Jekyll. By all rights priggish, March is playful and, somehow, we care deeply when his word is broken.
This film is famous for being pre-code, but that doesn't mean it is lasivious; it is simply honest. Why must truth be hid? The superimpostions show that this is a film about desire and sex, betrayed by arbitary conservatism; and why not make a film about this, speak the mind? Why not show sensuality, desire, allow to show some flesh, if that's what the film's about. An impressive introduction, for me, to Mamoulian.
Mamoulian appears to work by the agage; don't cut unless you have to. With some wonderful pans and tracks, almost autonomous (indeed so) on occassion, we dare use the word 'Ophuls' at times. It gives a freedom, a fluidity to proceedings. The two and three shots allow the scene to be played out, not to push. There is also a great sense of that great thing, reticence; we don't see the bird be killed, instead we stay on March.
This isn't to say that Karl Struss hasn't also made with Mamoulian some remarkable expressionist touches. It is here that we find the auteur. The opening sequence, the point of view, is remarkable, as is the long tracking shots that go with it. There is, on the very few occassions when he wants to change position for dialogue, a straight to camera framing that brings out a certain strangeness. Perhaps the most exciting framing though is the extra close-up, used on just one or two occassions.
The sets further deserve mention; exteriors and ante-rooms are wide, deep, shot with a remarkable depth. Mamoulian's sets are most interesting in their use of the vertical; they appear above all tall, with floors above floors, quite unexpected in the usual set-building. And the lighting; fill seems to dominate over key, and there is strong, even ethereal, backlighting, especially for the love scenes.
The most is affecting because Frederic March, allowed to act, brings a pathos to Jekyll. By all rights priggish, March is playful and, somehow, we care deeply when his word is broken.
This film is famous for being pre-code, but that doesn't mean it is lasivious; it is simply honest. Why must truth be hid? The superimpostions show that this is a film about desire and sex, betrayed by arbitary conservatism; and why not make a film about this, speak the mind? Why not show sensuality, desire, allow to show some flesh, if that's what the film's about. An impressive introduction, for me, to Mamoulian.
Wuthering Heights
1939 version by William Wyler
The point of interest here is really Greg Toland's photography; and true to form here, we have pin-sharp depth at times, enhanced by Wyler's staging in depth. The depth is rarely from immediately in front of the camera; a few feet, and then back a long way. Closerf figures can help frame, out of focus, with backs turned.
But the depth isn't constant. All the close-ups remain soft, and even in some depth stagings the background, or even the foreground, is quite deliberately left out of focus. There is also quite a bit of racking.
Wyler's direction uses the depth there is for some terrific effects; the old maid looking upward the field where Heathcliff should have been. We are always sure of the space, with an establishing and usually a cut in. There are, however, a few exciting track-ins, giving that investigative air. Wyler's mis-en-scene is also notably long shots; perhaps as a consequence of innovations in depth.
The story is pretty standard adaption, with a lot of time spent at the start and a run through at the end. It succeeds in nearly entirely removing any traces of interest beyond a traditional love story, quite remarkable condering source. Olivier is occassionally a bit self-conscious, but always magnetic. Oberon turns things up nicely at times, a wonderful close-up on the deathbed.
Precisely what one would expect, that being a good thing in the case of Toland.
The point of interest here is really Greg Toland's photography; and true to form here, we have pin-sharp depth at times, enhanced by Wyler's staging in depth. The depth is rarely from immediately in front of the camera; a few feet, and then back a long way. Closerf figures can help frame, out of focus, with backs turned.
But the depth isn't constant. All the close-ups remain soft, and even in some depth stagings the background, or even the foreground, is quite deliberately left out of focus. There is also quite a bit of racking.
Wyler's direction uses the depth there is for some terrific effects; the old maid looking upward the field where Heathcliff should have been. We are always sure of the space, with an establishing and usually a cut in. There are, however, a few exciting track-ins, giving that investigative air. Wyler's mis-en-scene is also notably long shots; perhaps as a consequence of innovations in depth.
The story is pretty standard adaption, with a lot of time spent at the start and a run through at the end. It succeeds in nearly entirely removing any traces of interest beyond a traditional love story, quite remarkable condering source. Olivier is occassionally a bit self-conscious, but always magnetic. Oberon turns things up nicely at times, a wonderful close-up on the deathbed.
Precisely what one would expect, that being a good thing in the case of Toland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)