D.W. Griffiths - 1916
Throughout the ages, intolerance has reined... as, obviously, has lust.
Griffiths' style uses, and we'll here compare him to his successors, longer shots. We have fully body stuff, or only the legs off. What Griffiths then does is break down the scenes, usually not going closer than plan americains or medium shots (though there are a few extreme close-ups, which are startling). The establishing shots of rooms are often huge long shots, especially for the emptier rooms of the richer elements of the stories.
There is a real sense of the excitment of simply filming some spectacular events. It is made sure we get the full shots for Babylon and a few other spectacular set-ups (and there is that repeating track in on the great hall of Babylon). The sets are so incredible, so monumental, it seems almost like a situationist spectacle being recorded at times. The spectacular element is that this was done at all; the cinema's job is to capture it.
Not that Griffiths does not use the camera spectacularly, often using complex images, juxtaposing far horizons (mattes, surely), complex shapes and colours and different walkways and so on. Although his interior scenes are pretty flat, he isn't overly interested, just moderately so, in centering. Also note his use of irises, and those few shots where our screen becomes a rectangle standing vertically, for the seige machines. This is surely to emphasise that shape.
What we notice here is Griffiths lingering on the made-up women of Babylon, erotic stuff of legs and white flesh. Though he'll happily imply and partly show a rape in any period. There's also some gratuitous swords plunging through the flesh.
Griffiths' editing is simple; he shows what he needs to show, which can be very fast. The crosscutting is heavily telegraphed, but nicely worked out. Each story, in this essay, has a clearly marked locale. We stay in each, usually but not always, for a long period of time. The focus is clearly on Babylon and the modern day, the other two are at best shading and at worst a little clumsy (though spectacular of course, especially at the end).
One interesting element is how he crosscuts within the stories, not just across. They have complex narratives individually, he really throws us between them. Not in a 1-2-3-4 pattern either; we can almost forget about one strand for half an hour, and we have had perhaps 5 or 6 before the Babylonian one is introduced at all.
And the intertitles; self-conscious, with notes about history and set design (adding to the situationist feeling) (also in 'Birth Of A Nation'), they are a little flowery, but I wouldn't really call them overblown or pompous; a little wheedling, maybe.
The big theme of 'Intolerance' is hammered home, I finished the film being rather unsure what the word meant, as the stories are so different it seemed impossibly general (who is an 'intolerant'). I get the feeling Griffiths wanted to say everything he could in the entire world, animals, the dowdiness of reform league woman, aren't sets wonderful, let's read some history books.... and wanted to connect them together, very loosely. Completely spectacular, hugely ambitious, magnificently executed.
Sunday, 3 July 2011
Saturday, 2 July 2011
The Palm Beach Story
Preston Sturges - 1942
I mean, all Sturges films are charming, and really rather funny in an absurd way. Here we have the idea of mistaken identities being the 'good' ones taken to their logical conclusions; lets have a fantasy world of clones, so there's enough of everything to go around. For all the entrapment with money, the use of sex and so on, Sturges is in a sense deeply romantic.
Also the interesting narrative opening and closing, asking what comes before or after the classic Hollywood film (while largely, plus absurdism, being that itself).
Notice also that Sturges, for whatever reason, seems really opposed to non-diagetic music; we go to elaborate lengths when he wants it for it to be diagetic (orchestras, record players given time to being turned on, etc).
We also have the return of the fantasy of infinite wealth, of the ordinary man with desperate, slightly crazy hopes.
I mean, all Sturges films are charming, and really rather funny in an absurd way. Here we have the idea of mistaken identities being the 'good' ones taken to their logical conclusions; lets have a fantasy world of clones, so there's enough of everything to go around. For all the entrapment with money, the use of sex and so on, Sturges is in a sense deeply romantic.
Also the interesting narrative opening and closing, asking what comes before or after the classic Hollywood film (while largely, plus absurdism, being that itself).
Notice also that Sturges, for whatever reason, seems really opposed to non-diagetic music; we go to elaborate lengths when he wants it for it to be diagetic (orchestras, record players given time to being turned on, etc).
We also have the return of the fantasy of infinite wealth, of the ordinary man with desperate, slightly crazy hopes.
Sullivan's Travels
Preston Sturges - 1941
The most philosopical attempt I have seen by Sturges. A comedy film about itself, that is, about the film industry and comedy. That opening, of thinking we are watching a film, then discovering we are watching a film in a film, is quite a little jolt. Also some nice little lines about Capra, and a namecheck for Lubitsch (and of course the Coen references now, 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou').
Sturges is then able to see that films can patronise misery. In the film, he almost seems to suggest it should then be ignored. But he doesn't do this himself; there is a scene with clear civil rights resonance. The idea that films should be comedy, to try and at least offer some succour, is by intention laudable, and true in its way, but ultimately a pretty terrible point if over-generalised.
The most philosopical attempt I have seen by Sturges. A comedy film about itself, that is, about the film industry and comedy. That opening, of thinking we are watching a film, then discovering we are watching a film in a film, is quite a little jolt. Also some nice little lines about Capra, and a namecheck for Lubitsch (and of course the Coen references now, 'Oh Brother Where Art Thou').
Sturges is then able to see that films can patronise misery. In the film, he almost seems to suggest it should then be ignored. But he doesn't do this himself; there is a scene with clear civil rights resonance. The idea that films should be comedy, to try and at least offer some succour, is by intention laudable, and true in its way, but ultimately a pretty terrible point if over-generalised.
The Lady Eve
Preston Sturges - 1941
This is really charming. There isn't much to say about Sturges style except that it is easy and pleasurable, and hegely classical. Establishing, in for SRS, not too much cutting about, there you go. Nicely shimmering dark seas behind. A few more exciting moves, I especially remember here a scene that is essentially in the dark.
There is also a wonderful piece, screamingly funny as well as smart, where quick revelations of her former lovers are crosscutted with increasingly frantic-seeming thunderous trains, there horns and steam.
It's also obviously unusual that we have an intrusion of magic; the picture changing.
Sturges uses money to push people apart, mistaken identities that are the attempts to overcome these problems and set up a comic happiness, that we know can't last. Sturges then suggests that, in a world ruled by money, why not keep up these 'false' identities?
This is really charming. There isn't much to say about Sturges style except that it is easy and pleasurable, and hegely classical. Establishing, in for SRS, not too much cutting about, there you go. Nicely shimmering dark seas behind. A few more exciting moves, I especially remember here a scene that is essentially in the dark.
There is also a wonderful piece, screamingly funny as well as smart, where quick revelations of her former lovers are crosscutted with increasingly frantic-seeming thunderous trains, there horns and steam.
It's also obviously unusual that we have an intrusion of magic; the picture changing.
Sturges uses money to push people apart, mistaken identities that are the attempts to overcome these problems and set up a comic happiness, that we know can't last. Sturges then suggests that, in a world ruled by money, why not keep up these 'false' identities?
Friday, 1 July 2011
A Separation
Asghar Farhadi - 2011
A fine, fine work, not particularly ambitious but completely succesful as far as it goes.
Formally, it is about as unexciting as you can get away with and still be a film of its overall standing. Using next to no depth, shaky work. It moves with characters, passing from P.O.V. It is a high complement from me if I say it had certain echoes of Assayas (fuzz, from no depth, accentuates this comparison). This technique did help convey the problem of the lack of focus of the individuals, the overall picture of a society that is busy, harried, lacking clear
paths.
I was deeply impressed with the edit. It only cuts when necessary, it finds a reason to, rather than looking for not to, cut. This is actually quite often. We move from face to face often, but they tell us something, by seeing that gaze it adds to the consideration of the particular event.
There is a great economy of the editing, which tends to ellipsis; the later, we find this ellipsis is cause of the so many problems. This is a smart formal aspect; the viewer's lack of attention is drawn in, complicit with the situation.
This is a social problem film really, a narrative with a build up of small problems, difficulties, which in a low-key manner come together to underscore a near impossbility of life. The only moment I could have a problem with is that religion is used as a 'solution' at the one moment when their may be one; but this isn't clear all the same. That religion, sexism, and key to all, class is used, leaves a varied impression. There is much interesting viewer response here; perhaps for personal reasons, I sided more with the man. But the film offers a double view on this, leading one to consider one's siding; this is done by constant juxtapositions, constant revelations, developments, justifications and condemnations of the 'other view'.
When one sees a film wehre all are right, all are wrong, all are open to grace, but flawed, but have their reasons, one gives the name Renoir. This film isn't as existentially ambitious as Renoir; it appeals really to a pretty small, probably deeply bourgeois, and patient audience. Yet it does do these things.
This film does allow a few wondrous moments among the chaos, which is gripping if challenging, of the story. Small moments of calm, a cut to a clam face. This is often in the framing, where a shot will use the whole frame, two centres rather than one, to give a certain aestheticism, a different view. They offer moments for consideration. In the lift, or with half the screen blocked by a door. This use is played on later, where we have a sort of half-use of it in moments that call at once for a calmness but contribute to explaining difficulties in the plot.
This wouldn't not work as a play, though it exploits the cinema to an extent. What it is fine at is telling us the state of the world, of Iranina society at this time, to a certain degree of depth. It is easy to compare to 'Crimson Gold' which is maybe less reportage, but also gives us, basically, the missives on a society. This isn't a film to see if one is impatient; though one will hopefully, through the not cool or trendy, but challenging, world depicted and expressed in the form, learn the use, and perhaps impossibility, of patience.
A fine, fine work, not particularly ambitious but completely succesful as far as it goes.
Formally, it is about as unexciting as you can get away with and still be a film of its overall standing. Using next to no depth, shaky work. It moves with characters, passing from P.O.V. It is a high complement from me if I say it had certain echoes of Assayas (fuzz, from no depth, accentuates this comparison). This technique did help convey the problem of the lack of focus of the individuals, the overall picture of a society that is busy, harried, lacking clear
paths.
I was deeply impressed with the edit. It only cuts when necessary, it finds a reason to, rather than looking for not to, cut. This is actually quite often. We move from face to face often, but they tell us something, by seeing that gaze it adds to the consideration of the particular event.
There is a great economy of the editing, which tends to ellipsis; the later, we find this ellipsis is cause of the so many problems. This is a smart formal aspect; the viewer's lack of attention is drawn in, complicit with the situation.
This is a social problem film really, a narrative with a build up of small problems, difficulties, which in a low-key manner come together to underscore a near impossbility of life. The only moment I could have a problem with is that religion is used as a 'solution' at the one moment when their may be one; but this isn't clear all the same. That religion, sexism, and key to all, class is used, leaves a varied impression. There is much interesting viewer response here; perhaps for personal reasons, I sided more with the man. But the film offers a double view on this, leading one to consider one's siding; this is done by constant juxtapositions, constant revelations, developments, justifications and condemnations of the 'other view'.
When one sees a film wehre all are right, all are wrong, all are open to grace, but flawed, but have their reasons, one gives the name Renoir. This film isn't as existentially ambitious as Renoir; it appeals really to a pretty small, probably deeply bourgeois, and patient audience. Yet it does do these things.
This film does allow a few wondrous moments among the chaos, which is gripping if challenging, of the story. Small moments of calm, a cut to a clam face. This is often in the framing, where a shot will use the whole frame, two centres rather than one, to give a certain aestheticism, a different view. They offer moments for consideration. In the lift, or with half the screen blocked by a door. This use is played on later, where we have a sort of half-use of it in moments that call at once for a calmness but contribute to explaining difficulties in the plot.
This wouldn't not work as a play, though it exploits the cinema to an extent. What it is fine at is telling us the state of the world, of Iranina society at this time, to a certain degree of depth. It is easy to compare to 'Crimson Gold' which is maybe less reportage, but also gives us, basically, the missives on a society. This isn't a film to see if one is impatient; though one will hopefully, through the not cool or trendy, but challenging, world depicted and expressed in the form, learn the use, and perhaps impossibility, of patience.
Christmas In July
Preston Sturges – 1940
Struges’ direction is boring; not bad, just not really worth discussing (discuss the classical system if you want to discuss Sturges).
This is really a short, sharp, searing indictment of the sadism of capitalism. Based, like ‘The Crowd’, on that stupid dream of advertising slogans (again, a mediocre man is deceived), the entire ‘you can look, but you can’t touch’ ethos is shown. This film is really sadistic, in that the audience knows we’re going to be subjected to miseries (though they also know it won’t last, the pain remains acute). The sadism of the competition, the arbitrariness, that there really isn’t such a thing as skill at all; only really having a job based on ‘insurance’, i.e. capital of some sort. As its ideology, this film says the system can lead to some bad things; but at points, the film seems to almost be led to the conclusion, which is the logical one, that the whole system is unjustified. ‘Everyone deserves a chance’, precisely, because no one really does, the whole exercise is a sham.
Only an hour or so, an impressively thoughtful little vignette, with a logic taken far. If director’s are going to be classical, to extinguish deep particular interest there, then this is the kind of film that I like to see.
Struges’ direction is boring; not bad, just not really worth discussing (discuss the classical system if you want to discuss Sturges).
This is really a short, sharp, searing indictment of the sadism of capitalism. Based, like ‘The Crowd’, on that stupid dream of advertising slogans (again, a mediocre man is deceived), the entire ‘you can look, but you can’t touch’ ethos is shown. This film is really sadistic, in that the audience knows we’re going to be subjected to miseries (though they also know it won’t last, the pain remains acute). The sadism of the competition, the arbitrariness, that there really isn’t such a thing as skill at all; only really having a job based on ‘insurance’, i.e. capital of some sort. As its ideology, this film says the system can lead to some bad things; but at points, the film seems to almost be led to the conclusion, which is the logical one, that the whole system is unjustified. ‘Everyone deserves a chance’, precisely, because no one really does, the whole exercise is a sham.
Only an hour or so, an impressively thoughtful little vignette, with a logic taken far. If director’s are going to be classical, to extinguish deep particular interest there, then this is the kind of film that I like to see.
The Great McGinty
Preston Sturges – 1940
Sturges’ direction is classical, and a pretty anonymous version of that. Establishing, moving in from plan Americain to SRS. Some tracking in and out, that doesn’t really qualify more than framing two shots. People generally stay still and deliver the lines. There are closer views when we can be helped to see something (the bribe).
Sturges does do this well, his direction is pretty much never annoying. It is straight down the line classicism, with no brilliance, just roomy shots where we are shown what is happening.
Saying that, he certainly uses all the obvious classical weapons, and uses them efficiently and clearly. Impositions, montage scenes, are all dispatched nicely, if not really telling us anything new.
The narrative structure here operates as a flashback, with the very light suggestion it’s all made up. There is a hell of a lot of ellipsis, giving, indeed adding to, the general thought that this is a very fake, manicured world, a world of clean surfaces entirely of Sturges’ creation. This is surely enhanced by the quick plot and the almost complete lack of character shading, except at its clearest.
We have a view of politics and mobsters that takes its cynicism as so natural it is almost throwaway. This is just the shitty way things are. In that way, it’s pretty brutal. Yet we also have the man trapped in it, and a sympathy for him, enhanced by the clearness of the piece.
Sturges’ direction is classical, and a pretty anonymous version of that. Establishing, moving in from plan Americain to SRS. Some tracking in and out, that doesn’t really qualify more than framing two shots. People generally stay still and deliver the lines. There are closer views when we can be helped to see something (the bribe).
Sturges does do this well, his direction is pretty much never annoying. It is straight down the line classicism, with no brilliance, just roomy shots where we are shown what is happening.
Saying that, he certainly uses all the obvious classical weapons, and uses them efficiently and clearly. Impositions, montage scenes, are all dispatched nicely, if not really telling us anything new.
The narrative structure here operates as a flashback, with the very light suggestion it’s all made up. There is a hell of a lot of ellipsis, giving, indeed adding to, the general thought that this is a very fake, manicured world, a world of clean surfaces entirely of Sturges’ creation. This is surely enhanced by the quick plot and the almost complete lack of character shading, except at its clearest.
We have a view of politics and mobsters that takes its cynicism as so natural it is almost throwaway. This is just the shitty way things are. In that way, it’s pretty brutal. Yet we also have the man trapped in it, and a sympathy for him, enhanced by the clearness of the piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)