Sans Soleil wasn’t released as an interactive CD ROM and is tethered initially to the chronological viewing. If you want to say that one can interact by way of freeze frame, FF, and RW then all DVDs are interactive and a bridge has been formed to a potential new language.
I’m not sure, however, one can say that experience of Sans Soleil is the same as a video game.
“I’m not sure, however, one can say that experience of Sans Soleil is the same as a video game.”
Thank goodness for that.
I can and I do. You can’t grow up having played Zelda and Final Fantasy games without feeling like Sans Soleil is the documentary equivalent. The better versions of those games leave traces in the winds, side missions, that add to a completer whole than the sad stereotype of the first person shooter. It’s about world building. Or in Marker’s words, “Survival in the two extremes.”
And Sans Soleil footage is available for manipulation on CD-Rom. I own one of them. I bought it during the Glasgow International Film Festival.
Where can I find Lav Diaz’s films?
i was going to suggest Trash Humpers, but realised it’s already been mentioned. i do think it’s brilliant, not sure if it’d qualify as a ‘new’ fimmaking language but it’s a language i haven’t encountered before
@CAT Trash Humpers, ….. i do think it’s brilliant
That makes two of us. Korine says that he didn’t think traditionally about scenes, sounds, or color during filming, but more about being true to a feeling. “If it feels right to me. If there is some strong, palpable, raw quality in the moment then I won’t question it.”
yeah, that’s exactly it. raw quality
Can someone recommend me not-so-well-known filmmakers of the same style than Lynch-Kar Wai-Malick? by this, i mean filmmakers who make films for EVERYONE, no boring contemplative cinema, no stupid quotes to Joyce, no 1 same take of an hour which doesn’t contribute in anything for me, that’s not actually a new language.
Films such as, Mulholland Drive, In the mood for love, The New World… all sensitive, subtle, beautiful, without caring about the structure with new ways to express feelings to the audience, a new way to make GOOD cinema for EVERYONE.
Kim Ki-Duk comes to mind. Needn’t have consumed a condensed history of Eastern Philosophy to enjoy the sensibilities and sensitivities of his cinema, and though in places he can be slow his cuts average probably 1 minute, not 1 hour.
^ I agree. Kim Ki-Duk, Hong Sang-soo and Bong Joon-ho have made amazing films of the past decade.
Kiarostami and Tsai made their better films during the 90s, not the 00s.
IMO, Pedro Almodovar is a great contender for the director of the 21st century.
Thank you pals, i know those well except Hong Sang-soo, i will definitely watch something from him, any recommendation to start with? Turning Gate maybe?
Yes, Turning Gate. Actually I have only seen 2 of Hong’s films, the other is Woman on the Beach. I prefer Turning Gate. :)
Kim ki-Duk is great but is he really an example of somebody with a new filmmaking language? The formal elements of style don’t seem all together new to me and remind me of other Asian filmmakers (the CCC guys) who were making films before him. I was thinking that in order for you to warrant having your own language of cinema, you need to be quite unique.
The first people that come to mind for me are Guy Maddin, Harmony Korine, Joe, Gaspar Noe, Wong Kar Wai, maybe Wes Anderson (but for him it’s more his style that’s unique then his language).
@Michael, re: “Kim ki-Duk is great but is he really an example of somebody with a new filmmaking language?”
Alex had requested “Can someone recommend me not-so-well-known filmmakers of the same style than Lynch-Kar Wai-Malick? by this, i mean filmmakers who make films for EVERYONE, no boring contemplative cinema, no stupid quotes to Joyce, no 1 same take of an hour which doesn’t contribute in anything for me, _that’s not actually a new language.”_ So he was essentially asking for something of a counter-argument to this thread, in terms of ‘greats’ who aren’t buggered to invent ‘new filmmaking language.’ That’s why I thought of Kim Ki-Duk. His filmmaking is very practical and direct, structurally/film language speaking.
Interestingly enough, Lynch does have a specified film language. You can almost see Inland Empire as his own language’s glossolalia. Once you’ve seen enough Lynch films, you know what ‘red curtain’ means visually and don’t have to break down the symbolism all over again.
“…without caring about the structure…”
If one doesn’t care about structure, they aren’t even making art, let alone creating a new language within that art. If one believes someone like Lynch, Malick or Wong don’t care about structure…
P.S. – Using a new technology (i.e. digital) and finding a new usage of that technology (i.e. its ability to record uninterrupted long takes) to express a new formal aesthetic is pretty much the definition of a new ‘language.’
“Needn’t have consumed a condensed history of Eastern Philosophy…”
Which is somewhat of a problem when he makes a film pretending to present a condensed understanding of Eastern Philosophy to his predominantly Western audience; Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring
What i meant was that Éloge de l’amour is not a new language because it’s not cinema, its a filmed essay, Lynch is, and that’s what I’m asking for.
By structure i mean an order, follow the script line by line, typical of conventional narrative cinema.
How is following, line-by-line, conventions of past cinema, creating a new language?
And if we’re actually calling this a “language,” wouldn’t the “essay film” be the purest creation of “new languages”?
I never said this.
I’m interested in cinema. I don’t care about Joyce, and i don’t care about what Godard thinks about Spielberg..
Essay films have been around forever though, since the 1950s at least. Although I think the aesthetics and means of making the essay film are a great jumping off point, the entire “camera-stylo” thing. I think more films should be made by just a one person crew. It breeds ingenuity.
“Essay films have been around forever though, since the 1950s at least.”
Narrative fiction has been around since 1896, documentaries even earlier and films with one person crews are the earliest form of cinema…
“I never said this.”
You said exactly that. You said you wanted a “new cinema for everyone,” but then qualified it by saying you want a cinema that follows conventions of past cinema.
Also, if you care about narrative cinema, there’s no reason not to care about the novel, especially Joyce. If only for his deconstructions of narrative (through, what else? language)…
“i don’t care about what Godard thinks about Spielberg..”
I thought you were interested in cinema?
“Can someone recommend me not-so-well-known filmmakers of the same style than Lynch-Kar Wai-Malick? by this, i mean filmmakers who make films for EVERYONE, no boring contemplative cinema, no stupid quotes to Joyce, no 1 same take of an hour which doesn’t contribute in anything for me, that’s not actually a new language.
Films such as, Mulholland Drive, In the mood for love, The New World… all sensitive, subtle, beautiful, WITHOUT caring about the structure with new ways to express feelings to the audience, a new way to make GOOD cinema for EVERYONE."
This text says the opposite of wanting cinema that follows conventions of past cinema.
Of course i consider Lynch, Kar Wai and Malick directors for EVERYONE. It doesn’t matter your nationality, your intelligence or your culture.
If he has to say something about Spielberg he can write a book or make documentaries. Hitchcock and Bresson must be crying in they’re graves “oh my god what have i done!”
Kim Ki-Duk is premature ejaculation personified.
“This text says the opposite of wanting cinema that follows conventions of past cinema.”
Hence why I said:
“…You [want] a ‘new cinema for everyone,’ but then [qualify] it by saying you want a cinema that follows conventions of past cinema.”
“If he has to say something about Spielberg he can write a book or make documentaries.”
First of all, essay films are always related to documentaries, and that includes Godard’s fictive essay works.
Second, you just said you were interested in cinema, not books. If the audience for a “new cinema for everyone” isn’t interested in deconstruction through written word, then the perfect mold for critique is in the essay film. Hence Godard’s deconstruction of Spielberg in In Praise of Love.
Surprised nobody has mentioned Costa yet, esp given the low grade quality of the filming equipment he used.vs the end result.
Both Vandas and Colossal.challenged my view and understanding of film aesthetics in a way that was meaningful, unlike something like Trash Humpers.
Well I mean….
More often than not those movies that ‘expanded film language’ were the results of limited means, not considerate processes. Those Kino ‘Avant Garde’ film sets are sort of ironic because many of the earlier movies weren’t really ‘experimental’ beyond how movies just were in that era, and they more stand to represent ways film language was developing that got dropped or denied or left behind than confrontations of the status quo: they didn’t know they were making ‘avant garde’ movies, they just were making pictures move in this camera apparatus thing that was new. We talk about things like ‘film movements’ or we talk about ‘film noir’ as a historical perspective but almost all of them relate to a new group of people gaining access to a camera for the first time, OR that group of people changing location and bringing what they were doing before (the Germans, for instance) into a different industry (early Hollywood).
The irony behind the calculated ‘I am trying to create a new cinema language’ type people is that they know the contemporary cinema language. They’re only expanding it, not rebuilding it. Putting treads on the wheels, not rounding out a semi-circular type object for new use.
Yeah, his use of zooms and pans are incredibly innovative. He cuts off characters, re-includes them, and then cuts off others, all in a single take.
Rossellini did this in much more complicated form with his history tv films. So while Sang-soo is great, I wouldn’t call it innovative.
I tend to remember more tracking long takes in the History films I’ve seen, Jerry. But even if we say Rossellini used the same technique, I’m not sure we can say he used it to the same ends.
This is all in one take, and it’s a striking shot because one is aware that Hong is allowing a personal exploration of emotion, within a framework of mundanity (the self-oriented distance of Lee (the girl), with the almost pathetic warmth of Kim).
Rossellini’s long takes, even when they move inward to close-up, were more a distancing technique for consideration of rational behind decision making (the all pervading “reason” that fills discussion in the works), but Hong’s usage is to cut out the objectivity of the distanced long take, for meaningless, subjective emotion. And to make that feeling even more evident without cutting in the shot.
there’s a thread:
challenged my view and understanding of film aesthetics in a way that was meaningful, unlike something like Trash Humpers.