Ok I don’t see a specific topic devoted to this movement, so I’m going to start one here to keep current.
Here are some links to recent production notes in Garage:
In Passing, Heidi Beaver’s short.
Remodernist Shorts Cinekinosis.
Will add a few more later. Or you guys can add. We can keep this all in one place and be connected to production notes in Garage this way.
Feel free to discuss these films, filmmakers and this movement HERE in this very spot! :)
I read the wiki article on remodernism, and I don’t have a clear idea of it. What it sounds like is a combination of mumblecore (authenticity, awkwardness—>"shadows") and CCC (long takes of mundane things). I have no idea if this is accurate or not. But my sense is that both of the “genres” I mentioned deal offer some of the things these filmmakers seem to be looking for (except for the spirituality component). Anyway, I’ll try to check out the films later. Thanks for posting this, Odi.
To me, remodernism is an era of pure subjectivity. The use of modern filmmaking techniques/technology (i.e. easily affordable HD cameras) to tell a completely personal story without any real kind of objectivity. It’s just another progression from post-modernism, where we question the relevancy (or more commonly portrayed, the “irrelevancy”) of self … but I haven’t read the wiki article, so maybe I’m wrong. ;)
I’m just on my phone so I can’t respond in depth right now, but these essays in Mungbeing explain things a bit further- here
Also Jack Sargeant describes things well here
Jazz — nothing to do with mumblecore. CCC, I think that’s more of a description of aesthetics than a movement in and of itself, but of course there’s that thread here on the forum that discusses this a bit more.
Remodernism has a manifesto. Hold on let me get a hold of a production note re: Closure of Catharsis, Rouzbeh Rashidi’s film…
And here too.
Remodernism is discussed in this thread from about two years ago.
I don’t know, the manifesto and description of the “movement” (It sounds more like an attitude and approach to filmmaking versus a specific attributes that the films possess.) makes me think of the mumbelcore films I’ve seen. Some of them are raw, and authenticity and emotional honesty personal expression—with a minimal emphasis on "story—seem to characterize the films I’ve seen. As I haven’t seen any of the remodernists films, I can’t really say for certain if this perception is valid or not.
I haven’t checked out the links, but I’ll try to do that later. Here are some comments and questions about the manifesto:
1. When you say, “An artificial sense of “perfection” should never be imposed on a remodernist film. Flaws should be accepted and even encouraged,” and then mention filmmakers like Ozu and Mizoguchi, that puzzles me a bit as the films of the latter seem to be the opposite of what you’re saying; I wouldn’t go so far as saying Mizoguchi and Ozu have an “artificial” perfection about their work, but they really seem to be perfectionists. Perhaps you could talk about the difference between authentic and artificial perfection.
2. You mention that the movement is different from Dogme ’95, but is the difference mainly in the rigid use of a checklist? My sense is that the spirit behind Dogme ’95 is not very different from your manifesto.
3. Point #13 says, “The remodernist filmmaker should be accepting of their influences, and should have the bravery to copy from them in their quest for understanding of themselves.” I thought that was interesting because I expected the opposite—" bravery to be break away from their influences, etc."—not that I disagree with the point, but this was a little surprising, especially given the emphasis on personal filmmaking. Do you feel like many young filmmakers feel a greater anxiety about not accepting their influences?
^ YAY! Discussion! Thanks, Jazz — I hope you will get a chance to see some of the Remodernist films (e.g. In Passing, Closure of Catharsis).
What is so exciting to me about this movement is that it is current, and current and former members of Garage are taking part in it, leading it, and creating with it in mind. It is amazing to be able to speak to the filmmakers themselves about their own movement directly, right in this forum.
Word on the street is that Remodernism is actually being taught in at least one class already, so even some academics are aware of this movement and respect it enough to reference it and teach it.
We are lucky to be able to have this conversation, I don’t think this kind of access happens frequently! :D
What is so exciting to me about this movement is that it is current, and current and former members of Garage are taking part in it. It is amazing to be able to speak to the filmmakers themselves about their own movement directly, right in this forum.
I agree, although maybe I better see the films first before I say anything. ;)
Good — you are being a true Mubian, i.e. using your critical thinking. That is valued here over personal rantings and ravings.
That’s^ the greatest post ever! 10/10. (Just playful teasing. :)
Ha ha ha
Totally 10/10. :D
I am looking forward to seeing “In Passing”.
Personally, I feel like my own view on film aligns with Remodernism. My main influences are Tarr, Jancsó, and Tarkovsky. Hopefully I will be able to make my next short relatively soon. Need to get the ball rolling on a location search!
^ I do too, though I have not seen many films by Tarkovsky and I have yet to see any by Tarr and Jancsó…
For me it is the approach and the freedom of Remodernism that I like so much. Because I do not come from a film background, making films and watching films by well-known directors are really entirely two different things. I don’t try to emulate anyone (and if I do my sources would not probably not come from other filmmakers), though I might be inspired by films, by the spirit of whoever creates them.
Your homework: The Sacrifice, Werckmeister Harmonies, and The Round-Up
I feel like I am stylistically influenced by filmmakers, but as far as content goes I draw some influence from literature, and mostly draw on my own personal world views and feelings.
Composition/color-wise, I think I’m most influenced by painting, rhythmically, by dance and music. Content, often by literature. And then there’s my own special brand of insanity.
Painting is a huge influence as well. I grew up surrounded by art, always at the museum. Everyone will have their influences, but at the end of the day you have to stay true to yourself. Otherwise what you create will not have the same soul the work your idols created possesses.
Exactly. That’s been THE most important part of my artistic venture, finding my own voice, and listening to it.
Without knowing who you are and what you have to say, all your work will be empty at the center.
It is there a list of Remodernist films? Are there any feature lenght works or are they mostly shorts?
@jazz- will respond when on computer not phone. Hate typing long answers on this.
@Francisco- Many shorts and some features.
Closure of Catharsis, dir. Rouzbeh Rashidi
In Passing, omnibus film
The Turin Horse, dir. Bela Tarr (described in his production notes at Berlinale as “Remodernist cinema”).
More are in progress.
So is this is a very recent movement?
Yes! It’s current! :)
The Turin Horse.
And see the lower right for all the notebook and forum links.
@ Francisco- Since 2003 it was mostly short films with the people involved working and showing sporadically, without a manifesto, and mostly in conjunction with Stuckism painting exhibitions. The filmmakers were mainly interested in making shorter works. The move toward also making features has been very recent.
@Jazz- 1. Authenticity is a tricky thing to talk about, but I personally see a huge difference between filmmakers like Mizoguchi, Ozu and Tarkovsky, vs. say Stanley Kubrick…
However the main point with this concern about being overly focused on perfection is that it can prevent the filmmaker from being open to accidents, the unexpected and allowing the film to develop naturally and uncensored.
2. By Dogme enforcing a checklist they end up running into the same kind of problem the claim to be trying to avoid, so they made dead films. Plus there was always a publicity stunt atmosphere around Dogme and Von Trier particularly.
3. I think this is also similar to the idea of allowing oneself to make shitty films if that is something that needs to be worked through. We are all influenced things whether we want to be or not. I think accepting that this happens and working through and with this is more useful than pretending not to. If someone is working without trying to force things to be one way or another their own mark will develop on it’s own.
Tarkovsky, for example seemed to have a lot of anxiety about Brueghel creeping into his work once and a while. I wish he could have been comfortable with accepting that this happens and it was a natural thing that happened in his process.
As far as inspiration goes I think music and paintings are more useful than filmmakers.
As far as inspiration goes I think music and paintings are more useful than filmmakers.
^ This! :D
i agree with some of what jesse is saying. but i think i see motion in paintings and music gives me visuals that i use in my films. i primarily listen to noise music though.
can i show in passing in my basement in brighton cincinnati and give you the proceeds? I have a nice sub basement with a ten foot screen. i can borrow a projector and the room itself is a stone vault in an arch shape.
just want to see your reaction
1. What I hear you saying is that you’re against perfection that is sterile or cold. (While I love Ozu, I think his formal style can be constricting, even suffocating—although his characters can’t be called sterile or cold, imo.)
2. I think using a checklist was a misguided idea, but what about the spirit behind their manifesto? It seems like you’d sympathize and relate to that.
3. Well, I agree with what you’re saying. Do you and your peers feel significant anxiety over being too much like your influences? In the jazz world, the opposite can happen (or at least it seemed to in the past)—musicians feeling content to stay close to their influences and not move away from them. Being too stressed about one’s influence or too comfortable with them can be problems, I think.
Welles said “You either imitate them or you worry about not imitating them”. And so, in a way, point #13 in Jesse’s manifesto is freeing because it lets you allow yourself to ‘steal’ from them. And in this action of LETTING YOU ALLOW YOURSELF to ‘steal’, i feel like you will mystically override outside influences and unconsciously pull from deep within.
That’s what a lot of the manifesto is — mystical combat tactics against the outside forces in your head, conscious and unconscious, that are predominate. In no way do I live and work by this manifesto. That is not what it is for. It is not a checklist. Like a Buddhist would say “Read it, learn from it, now forget it and get to work”.
Like a Buddhist would say “Read it, learn from it, now forget it and get to work”.
Learn the rules, then forget the rules.
Most people don’t get beyond learning the rules…