I have a soft spot for directors who swing for the fences. Many of my favorite films are imperfect, and I would trade all of a well-sustained good movie for a mess that has at least one truly astonishing scene. When I’m at the movies, I’m always hoping for pure moments, flares of discovery or exhilaration or pleasure, and those isolated fragments—which may last only for seconds—can enthrall me even when the film entire leaves me cold. One superb performance, image, insight, or joke can justify any picture. In fact, fragments might matter more than films, because often they are what we absorb from a movie and most want to talk about.
@Ignatiy
Re: Moullet’s analysis of Thing From Another World
So Moullet is saying that the characters constantly moving simultaneously, etc. (not sure what he meant by "…the film shows how they react as if each actor was at the same time directed and his own director.) as proof that Hawks’ style is communist seems a bit of a stretch. Communism as an ideology is much more than those things. Couldn’t we as easily describe Hawks’ style as communitarian? Or just social (versus individualistic)?
Robin Wood’s take on Triumph of the Will, where he clearly (and pretty viciously) elucidates that a defense of the film as “pure cinema” (this was written after the film had already developed a reputation as a “depoliticized” film school staple) is a defense of fascism, because every aspect of the film’s framing and editing supports fascist political theory — and would still be fascist if it were applied to any other content.
I can see how the editing, framing, etc. are highly organized, formal or even rigid, but fascist? That just seems like an inappropriate use of the word. If by a fascist style we mean that the filmmaker uses the camera, editing, etc. to deny only the filmmaker’s interpretation or point of view, I guess we could call that “fascist.” However, 1) I doubt that a filmmaker can deny other interpretations/points of view of the film; 2) it might serve the art and therefore may not technically “fascist”—but sans the negative connotations.
Now it’s important to remember that Rivette isn’t using this single shot against the film — rather, it is symptomatic of what is wrong with Pontecorvo. This expands on a classic Godard statement — “tracking shots are a question of morality” — which, though ambiguous, sums up the interrelation between aesthetic choices and moral ones.
OK, but in this instance the use of tracking (which would be an element of a director’s style) is the moral or not based on the content. A filmmaker can use a tracking shot in a way that is morally questionable way. That makes sense. But the previous examples suggest that the style can be moral or political independently of the content.
Jazzaloha,
Re: Moullet,
Moullet himself is a political pessimist — he is usually identified as the only anarchist out of the core Cahiers critics — so his politics are a little playful.
He brings up communism because Hawks is making the film within an anti-communist environment. His point is less than Hawks is ardently communist (which is ridiculous, but is a notion he enjoys entertaining because of the juxtaposition, and because Moullet is a jokey bastard), but that Hawks and the system he works within espouse values that are shared with communism (by emphasizing the work of groups and the value of individuals for the tasks they are able to accomplish in concert with each other) even as they are supposed to be attacking it.
His point is that a capitalist system like Hollywood should be espousing “individualistic” values, but instead espouses the opposite through its aesthetics.
Re: Wood
In particular, Wood takes issue with the way Riefenstahl takes crowds and abstracts them through the framing in a way where they resemble machines, denying their individuality, while constantly — through editing — asserting a single leader’s (Hitler’s) dominance over their actions.
I’ll quote from Wood here: “its alleged beauty is a fascist beauty, centered on dehumanization, mechanization, the drive to domination, militarism […] humans being … turned into tiny cogs in a vast machine.” So the issue is less L.R.’s “oppressive” point of view — which you could accuse many, many, many directors of — but in the distinctive way in which she uses the camera, choosing angles which deny the individuality of the people she is filming in order to emphasize the “beauty” of their mechanized actions — parades, formations, etc. This — and the emphasis on scale, as well as the mythological undercurrents of the editing, like the scene of Hitler descending in a plane from the sky — ties it in with a lot of fascist ideology regarding art.
So, to relate those two: Moullet posits that showing human beings as individuals in harmony with one another (which is what he means by “each actor was at the same time directed and his own director” — that they are individuals and a group at the same time) brings the film closer to the classical values of communism than capitalism; Wood, in turn, posits that showing human beings purely as groups, divorced from their individuality, is inherently fascist, because it plays into ideas of “us” versus “them,” as well as certain ideas about “purity.”
Re: Rivette
Yes, I’ll admit that one is partly about context — a tracking shot, on its own, does not carry the same political undercurrent. So, yes, you’re right in pointing it out — it is the way Pontecorvo uses it that has negative political repercussions, not the very existence of the tracking shot.
But there’s not just historical context — there is the context of the film itself, and the fact that the scene is a suicide. Similarly, I doubt Wood would be able to build as strong a case if Riefenstahl celebrated individuality and the collective movement.
Though he (I’m gonna guess Leaves is male for our purposes) is still talking about Rossi, this is essentially his complaint with the article as well, albeit he realizes at some point that what he’s arguing against wasn’t actually written by me.
hahaha
Your presumptions of intent by others are never ending! I was speaking to Rossi and Rossi alone. That you and he share the same proclivity to attaching negative criticisms to manufactured complaints was purely coincidental. It hadn’t occurred to me in the slightest. When you claim I’m doing something ‘however slyly’ it by now is clear to everyone reading that this phrase merely means ‘completely unfounded supposition on my part’, and you deliver with impeccable predictability.
Zulawski is an interesting point of comparison (I think, for example, of Adjani’s performance in Possession), but a poor example if he wants to make an argument. “Too much forest, not enough trees,” you could say. If a man steals $20 out of malice, the fact that someone else did it out of need does not disprove the maliciousness of the act.
haha, what nonsense. You provide completely unsubstantiated nonsense about a person’s desires being inextricably linked to the films he chooses to make which are disproved by counter example and then resort to an irrelevant and unsubstantiated reference to an idiom which proves nothing but your penchant for diversion.
his earliest accusations—that these are unrelated arguments strung together to “propagandize” a negative opinion of the director—slowly give way to another accusation about how the wording and writing are too consistent to the same ends.
Yeah, unfortunately this isn’t true and my stance hasn’t budged an inch since the thread started, and I would challenge you to cite an example where it has. My initial post referenced the diction as serving the propaganda, so implying that the focus on diction was a new development is hilariously silly.
Now, I’m not really expecting anything from you at this point since you seem entirely wrapped up in mudslinging and nothing else.
I think all there really is left to say is: “What a silly person.”
As usual a film discussion devolves into a discussion of writing and opinions rather than the film itself. Some really rich stuff in here, thanks all for participation, I wish all articles at the Notebook generated 3 pages of heated response. I hope it can stay civil and get to the issues rather than the writers.
Ahh, yes, ignore the principle and cut straight to the sensationalist justification of such deplorable writing. Any press is good press, eh? Armond White is now the most famous critic on the internet, so you can’t argue with results.
Please, Daniel, I beg of you, tell me how sentences such as the following are supposed to generate discussions of the film rather than the absurdity of the writing:
Obsessed by darkness but lacking an inner darkness of his own, he has gazed deep within himself, tried his best tragic artist / egoist routine (in The Fountain, a film that is paradoxically both artless andarty) and found little aside from an intelligence for special effects and a film student’s knack for imitation and transposition. Aronofsky’s direction gives the impression that he’s the only man who has ever lost sleep over being able to sleep well at night; he wants badly to be psychotic or tormented and in his films creates a fantasy of psychosis (at its most morally questionable in Requiem for a Dream).
I hope it can stay civil…
So much for that. FWIW, I find Leaves’ posts highly obnoxious and unpleasant.
@Eric
I have a soft spot for directors who swing for the fences. Many of my favorite films are imperfect, and I would trade all of a well-sustained good movie for a mess that has at least one truly astonishing scene.
I don’t think I could go that far. (I’m curious to hear some of the movies you liked that were a mess, but had one good moment that made the film worth seeing to you. I can’t think of any films off the top of my head.)
@Ignatiy
Even with your further explanation of Moullet’s position, I don’t think his view is very compelling (although it is amusing). Again, does a filmmaker’s interest in social groups and having her style reflect that interest signify a communist position? If I understand Moullet’s position, one’s political position would manifest itself in extremely narrow ways—to the extent that I find hard to take seriously.
I think Wood’s analysis of L.R. is more compelling. (And maybe if I read the specific examples cited by Moullet, I’d change my mind.) It makes me want to watch Triumph of the Will again. I did like that filmmaking in that, so I wonder if I would change my mind after what Wood said.
I think every artist aspires beyond what they are realistically capable of, that’s the nature of the game. It doesn’t work when their execution is faulty or what they’re aspiring for isn’t that great to begin with. I don’t think it has anything to do with their ambition.
@Deck
I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t know if I agree—or at least something about your statement doesn’t sit right with me. I guess an artist can have the biggest ambition, but they have to have some self-awareness to critically examine whether these results are close to meeting these ambitions. So when an artist puts out something that is ambitious, we can assume that the artist believes they have met or came close to meeting that ambition. But if we find that the actual work—maybe because of a significant deficiency in talent, intelligence or depth—dramatically falls short of that ambition, the word pretentious comes into play.
So, I guess I’m not sure if I agree with this idea that the artist “aspires beyond what he/she is realistically capable of.”
“but they have to have some self-awareness to critically examine whether these results are close to meeting these ambitions.”
Yeah, that’s the next stage I’d say. First is the unrealistic, overly ambitious stage, then (hopefully) they begin to minimalize that to it’s strongest points.
I’m not saying it begins and ends with ambition, of course, other things are required. Sensibility just for one.
@JAZZALOHA
Again, does a filmmaker’s interest in social groups and having her style reflect that interest signify a communist position?
Let’s abstract the film from the attribution of a filmmaker or person for the moment and say that yes indeed a film’s interest in social groups can signify a communist position. All filmmaking involves taking a position (/ positions). Why can a film not portray a group in such a way as to reflect elements of an ideology?
@Daniel
All filmmaking involves taking a position (/ positions). Why can a film not portray a group in such a way as to reflect elements of an ideology?
Oh, I didn’t mean to say it can’t signify an ideology—it may or may not—but I’m asking whether it must (which is the impression that I got from Ignatiy’s posts or the quotes he posted).
I can agree with the proposition that “all filmmaking involves taking a position(s)” depending on what you mean by that. I’m not sure it means that one must either choose to be a communist or a capitalist. I’m also not sure that the presence of what could be either “social” or “individualistic” elements necessarily signifies one’s political affiliation. If I a filmmaker features many strong individuals in her films, does that mean the person is a capitalist? I guess, we could describe that feature as capitalistic or part of capitalist values. On other hand, would it be impossible for a communist to make the same sort of film? I don’t see why not.
I am an American, and, while I wouldn’t call myself a “capitalist”, I certainly think it’s a better system than communism. But I am also interested in groups and teams. I would love to make a film about basketball and show the team aspects of the game. I’d also love to make a comic book adaptation where the superheroes use their powers as a team. I could think of other examples.
_Oh, I didn’t mean to say it can’t signify an ideology—it may or may not—but I’m asking whether it must _
It depends on how coherent a film is. It would be hard to reflect an ideology if a film is relatively inconsistent and self-contradictory.
_I can agree with the proposition that “all filmmaking involves taking a position(s)” depending on what you mean by that. _
I mean that any artistic choice involves in the filmmaking practice requires interpretation. It’s not about the filmmaker(s) choosing a position but rather than any decision taken is intrinsically taking a position by definition.
@Daniel
It depends on how coherent a film is. It would be hard to reflect an ideology if a film is relatively inconsistent and self-contradictory.
I can accept that. I also think that it depends on how pervasive the indicators are. How many examples can one cite regarding the film or filmmaker’s ideology and how compelling are these examples. (For example, I found Wood’s analysis of L.R. more compelling than Moullet’s analysis of Hawks—at least from the snippets I read.)
I mean that any artistic choice involves in the filmmaking practice requires interpretation.
Agreed. And I would add that the interpretation that is the most convincing use many relevant examples.
_ It’s not about the filmmaker(s) choosing a position but rather than any decision taken is intrinsically taking a position by definition._
I don’t know about any decision. Are you saying a single decision necessarily means taking a political or moral position? I can understand if you look at all the decisions in total and then make a determination about which positions have been chosen. It seems like an imprecise and maybe even “hokey” process (although “hokey” might be too strong).
@Jerry
Sorry, I forgot to respond to this:
_Why? Hitchcock never made a sci-fi or historical film and Spielberg has never made a mystery.
More importantly, Hitch films are full of great performances and Spielberg’s aren’t._
I made the comparison because of the way both use the camera—particularly in constructing suspense sequences—or for Spielberg, action sequences. I also think there is something to the way each shots effortlessly flow together to create a good effect. I remember Spielberg said that you should be able turn off the sound and be able to understand what’s going on. I’ve never done that with Spielberg, but I get the sense that his films would qualify.
As for performances, I don’t know if I could say either of them got great performances (good, yes; great, I’m not so sure). Hitch probably got better performances, though.
I don’t know about any decision. Are you saying a single decision necessarily means taking a political or moral position?
No, I just said it requires interpretation. What that interpretation is is for the critical viewer to investigate.
Obsessed by darkness but lacking an inner darkness of his own, he has gazed deep within himself, tried his best tragic artist / egoist routine (in The Fountain, a film that is paradoxically both artless andarty) and found little aside from an intelligence for special effects and a film student’s knack for imitation and transposition
yes, i’m curious about this passage too. How do you know he has gazed deep within himself? Because he had the ambition to tackle The Fountain? How do you know he lacks inner darkness? Have you met him?
Ctrl + f “gaspar noe” not found? Not that I’m among the crowd of Noe naysayers but he always seems like one of the first to be mentioned when this topic is brought up
I’m sure Speilberg got the best acting out of Short Round he could in Temple of Doom.
I’m wondering what would be an example of a great film in which the director invested exactly the right amount of effort (?)
In particular, Wood takes issue with the way Riefenstahl takes crowds and abstracts them through the framing in a way where they resemble machines, denying their individuality, while constantly — through editing — asserting a single leader’s (Hitler’s) dominance over their actions.
I’ll quote from Wood here: “its alleged beauty is a fascist beauty, centered on dehumanization, mechanization, the drive to domination, militarism […] humans being … turned into tiny cogs in a vast machine.”
I think Wood has this entirely wrong:
crowds….. resemble machines
How can a crowd resemble a machine?
fascist beauty:centered on dehumanization
If we are talking about Triumph of the Will, then Wood missed the came scenes.
humans being … turned into tiny cogs in a vast machine.
This is what Germans and their collaborators wanted – If Wood knew anything about history Wood would know why they wanted that.
Triumph of the Will, depicted what was.
Peter Greenaway!
Griffith in Intolerance
Harmony Korine goes without saying. Do people take his output seriously in this community?
Ignatiy Vishnevetsky
He’s my Aronofsky, Z. My sad, miserable Aronofsky.