@ Aflwydd
Just to be polite, I read that – twice.
If there is something there that hasn’t been covered, please highlight it.
It is a screed against the way things are with a claim to the supreme ( supreme bodies of artistic work ).
I’ll go a step further than Matt did and say that Carney’s own words are not helpful. The use of the word supreme I find disconcerting. It is a word of exclusivity, which does not open debate, but squelches debate.
Can you please apply ‘power dynamics’….
I do it daily, as does everyone when they use language to reference perception from a single vantage point. It is what Fraser-Orr meant when he said: fenc(ing) in by intellectual definitions.
Mental Identities: When Being Replaces Doing
….One might say that Hollywood movies let us indulge in the luxury of seeing everyone the way we see ourselves–as insides viewed from the inside–while Leigh’s films force us to see characters the way others see us (and the way we see others)–as outsides viewed from the outside. It is the difference between judging from intentions (the way we normally see ourselves) and judging from actions (the way we customarily see others).
The subjectivization of experience in mainstream films is one of the reasons why viewers are so easily able to identify with the characters in these films, becoming the victims in Schindler’s List, the unsung heroes in Saving Private Ryan, the romantic lovers in Titanic, the nebbish with a heart of gold in Manhattan, the tough guy in Terminator, or the hipper-than-hip swingers in Boogie Nights. The outer lives of the characters in these films do not remotely resemble those of the viewers, but the inner states are the same. As long as what we are is equivalent to our basic thoughts and feelings, there is no difference between us and the characters played by Kate Winslett or Arnold Schwarzenegger. The viewer can frictionlessly slip inside the character’s skin. The character is always comprehensible in terms of the viewer’s own ways of thinking and feeling. Their motives are our motives. Their ideas are our ideas. Their generic thoughts and emotions give us versions of our own understandings of ourselves.
vs
Leigh’s characters’ insides are never directly visible–neither through their words, their actions, nor the visual and acoustic styles of the works they are in. The viewer does not have access to the character’s consciousness. He is held in the realm of expression and behavior–not empathizing with feelings and thoughts deep within a character, not identifying with the character, dropping into the character and “becoming” him or her, but–as in documentary film–standing outside of it, off to one side of it, scrutinizing opaque, impenetrable surfaces. Leigh holds us on the surface, and more than that, implicitly tells us that surfaces are all that matter.
For ourselves, our ideals, motives, and emotions are us; for others, what we are can be completely unrelated to or in contradiction to our own understanding of ourselves. Our behavior and expressions can admit of interpretations other than our own.
Worth re-highlighting as an expression of Ray’s self awareness:
what we are can be completely unrelated to or in contradiction to our own understanding of ourselves.
What about Kovács’ cinematography, is that a deal breaker?
side note:
- the victims in Schindler’s List, the unsung heroes in Saving Private Ryan, the romantic lovers in Titanic, the nebbish with a heart of gold in Manhattan, the tough guy in Terminator, or the hipper-than-hip swingers in Boogie Nights.-
To me, it’s passages like this where Carney irreparably harms his own arguments. Re: Boogie Nights, for example, the “swingers” he’s talking about are porn actors, and if we’re being asked to “identify” with anything about these characters, it’s not their “hipper-than-hipness” (one of them is always wearing roller skates, another’s ultimate ambition is to be a magician) but their idiosyncrasies, and the fact that the come together as a sort of substitute dysfunctional family. And doesn’t the “tough guy” in The Terminator we end up indentifying with actually end up being a woman, Sarah Connor, not Reese? Or does he mean the robot?
I just watched Rafelson’s The King of Marvin Gardens – anyone disagree that it is a Carney-esque film?
Weeell…we are still very much in the realm of “access to the character’s consciousness”. Nothing is terribly opaque or impenetrable. Nothing at all like Leigh or Cassavetes. “The character is always comprehensible in terms of the viewer’s own ways of thinking and feeling. Their motives are our motives. Their ideas are our ideas. Their generic thoughts and emotions give us versions of our own understandings of ourselves.” Rafelson has never convinced me he wanted to step terribly far from industrial filmmaking practices.
Kovacs’ camera in this one is superb. Not a deal-breaker.
…The character is always comprehensible in terms of the viewer’s own ways of thinking and feeling.
Mike Spence’s reading of that scene in A Woman Under the Influence tells me that Cassavetes’ characters are also comprehensible in terms of our (the audience’s) ways of thinking and feeling. I don’t see Cassavetes as being that inscrutable.
I agree, Nathan, strongly. There is much emphasis on things being “opaque” and “impenetrable”. Too much so, in my opinion. Thanks, Ray! The working methods for Cassavetes and Leigh are just vastly different from orthodoxy. You can catch the same sort of groove in “Frownland”, where director Ron Bronstein transcribed rehearsals (there’s our Leigh connection). He felt this was the best way to catch those subtleties of language which, when scripted and spoken, often fall flat and dies on the tongue. I think much of this is badly overstated, stretched and starched to make a point somewhere. We’d all be far better off attending to the ways these films are written and their approach to acting, rather than granting the filmmaker a position of mystifying privilege.
-Leigh holds us on the surface, and more than that, implicitly tells us that surfaces are all that matter.-
Is that what Leigh is telling us? Leigh :
“certainly would, for what it’s worth, and it’s not worth much, endorse the probably academic distinction between naturalism and realism. What I do is not naturalism, it’s not the replication of surface naturalism. I want to get to the essence of things, in a heightened and distilled way, so I certainly think it is realism.”
Re:“surfaces are all that matter” (a recurring them for Carney)—
from Alan Tansman’s The Aesthetics of Japanese Fascism:
“Kobayashi’s isolation of literary form from biographical “surplus” shares an affinity with the fascist aesthetic of valuing pure surface over content . . . to Kobayashi, even Akutagawa the “man” is a surface: he is a person with an inside who became a person who is all outside; he “ceased acquiring character (jinkaku) and became a phenomenon . . . to Kobayashi, Akutagawa’s fragmented prose was a “paradoxical measuring rod” by which to measure and build a literature of impenetrable surfaces and paradoxes.”
“in 1927 the novelist Yokomitsu Riichi (1898–1947) similarly called for a “new sensibility” of surfaces: “I love the light on the surface. . . . Form is nothing more than the arrangement of words whose meaning comes through rhythm. Without the form of this arrangement of words, can there possibly be content? That one might discern the content of what has been written through looking at the form is the illusion of readers; the form itself is the content.”
“The aesthetic of flat surfaces and musical rhythms had a political dimension, as I will suggest throughout this study, helping to create a shared political sentiment among its participants.”
-Leigh holds us on the surface, and more than that, implicitly tells us that surfaces are all that matter.-
Is that what Leigh is telling us? Leigh
“certainly would, for what it’s worth, and it’s not worth much, endorse the probably academic distinction between naturalism and realism. What I do is not naturalism, it’s not the replication of surface naturalism. I want to get to the essence of things, in a heightened and distilled way, so I certainly think it is realism.”
essence = depth
Re:“surfaces are all that matter” (a recurrent maxim in Carney’s writing)—
from Alan Tansman’s The Aesthetics of Japanese Fascism:
“Kobayashi’s isolation of literary form from biographical “surplus” shares an affinity with the fascist aesthetic of valuing pure surface over content . . . to Kobayashi, even Akutagawa the “man” is a surface: he is a person with an inside who became a person who is all outside; he “ceased acquiring character (jinkaku) and became a phenomenon . . . to Kobayashi, Akutagawa’s fragmented prose was a “paradoxical measuring rod” by which to measure and build a literature of impenetrable surfaces and paradoxes.”
“in 1927 the novelist Yokomitsu Riichi (1898–1947) similarly called for a “new sensibility” of surfaces: “I love the light on the surface. . . . Form is nothing more than the arrangement of words whose meaning comes through rhythm. Without the form of this arrangement of words, can there possibly be content? That one might discern the content of what has been written through looking at the form is the illusion of readers; the form itself is the content.”
“The aesthetic of flat surfaces and musical rhythms had a political dimension, as I will suggest throughout this study, helping to create a shared political sentiment among its participants.”
I heard an interview Leigh gave where the interviewer tried to get him to discuss some symbolic something or other that supposedly took place in a scene in one of Leigh’s films. Naturally, Leigh wasn’t playing along, and even after politely but firmly setting the questioner straight that he, Leigh, didn’t traffic in symbols, the guy still wouldn’t budge from this tack. The poor guy had it in his head that what he saw was a symbol, and a symbol it would remain.
Well, symbolism is a complicated discussion, but, strictly speaking, symbolism in a work doesn’t have to be intentional, so lack of acknowledgement from an artist doesn’t necessarily invalidate a symbolic reading of a work.
On a related note, one could also point out that, strictly speaking, a symbol exists on the surface of a work, it only refers to a non-literal, non-surface meaning, so even a literal-only, surface-only work could have components that could be interpreted symbolically.
Right. A cross and a cross. However, in Leigh’s case he was quite clear that he wasn’t one of those who intentionally employ these devices as a form of expression.
Okay KJ, my two suggestions were both comedies so I guess I don’t get the concept but think comedy is not this:
viewer’s own ways of thinking and feeling. Their motives are our motives. Their ideas are our ideas. Their generic thoughts and emotions give us versions of our own understandings of ourselves.
step terribly far from industrial filmmaking practices
That was a BBS production – you didn’t think the way it was edited was uh… out there?
the scene where she is all-of-a-sudden burning her clothes on the beach?
Are we supposed to know these films from the way they are made, or a can we tell by viewing?
I like “TKOMG”, but I never saw it as a kindred spirit to what this thread is discussing. Yeah, it was kinda out there. If nothing else, it was of its time.
Are we supposed to know these films from the way they are made, or a can we tell by viewing?
That’s a real good question. Not every film which baffles or seems to engage in a rupture of one sort or another would qualify. Man, I hate doing this, because we’re challenging R.C. as if what he’s on about can be examined as a system, which is not the case. He’s describing tendencies. Maurice Pialat is closer to the embodiment of these tendencies than Rafelson by a light year, but even in his case, there are pretty clear divergences.
….tendencies
That actually makes sense – when one talks about objectivity, it is a tendency away from subjectivity, not a destination.
Robert: Nice bump!
Matt: You seem to be thinking Carney asks for realism in the sense of films about working or middle class characters dealing with their everyday problems. You’re right that this isn’t necessary for a good film, and it’s not what Carney demands. Again, it’s the style that matters.
He wants films to keep the “real mystery” of life. Leigh’s characters are obviously heightened and in some places close to caricature, but they’re also totally unique. Leigh finds meaning by putting these differing personalities together, bumping them against each other and comparing them.
That’s not the best or only way to make a film, but it does mean Leigh won’t spell everything out for the audience with moody lighting over the character we’re not meant to like or dutch angles when he wants us to be confused.
And yes, symbolism is on the surface, but it points towards deep thoughts that aren’t expressed. Hence, the important place is not the here and now but off in your own head.
Are we supposed to know these films from the way they are made, or a can we tell by viewing?
If you’re talking about pragmatic vs. visionary film, you can read Carney’s essay and it should be pretty easy to spot the differences (watching the way The Graduate moves between the two modes could be instructive). It’s completely to do with what is on the screen and how we’re being told the story.
If you’re asking whether or not Carney will like a film, that’s a tougher question and should of course be somewhat irrelevant. :)
Here’s the interview you’re talking about: http://www.edrants.com/_mp3/segundo238.mp3
It’s pretty embarrassing. If someone can mount a defense of this way of watching films, I’d love to hear it.
Thanks, Fraser-Orr.
-Matt: You seem to be thinking Carney asks for realism in the sense of films about working or middle class characters dealing with their everyday problems.-
Well, yes, we’re pigeon-holing him a bit by referring only to specific texts, however, he does seem to suggest that middle-class, suburban realities are an essential part of a “pragmatic” film:
“Pragmatic films, almost without exception, are stories of ordinary wives and husbands and children living in middle-class homes in suburban neighborhoods, shopping in the malls, or holding nine-to-five jobs.”
Well I’d imagine he’s describing the films that exist, rather than prescribing what has to be in a pragmatic film.
Still, I don’t recall a Cassavetes character shopping in a mall, so I’m entirely sure what he’s on about here.
Yes, I thought it was a strange assertion to drop in at the end of that essay.
I had the pleasure of taking a course with Ray Carney during my time at BU so I have a bit of insight to the man…
First of all, the way he comes off in interviews is really not the way he is at all in person. I can honestly say I’ve never met a more honest and genuine person in my life. He holds specific beliefs, yes, but he’s not opposed to other viewpoints. In fact, many of the students in the class challenged him on quite a few topics and he didn’t just close them off if he didn’t like what was being said. However, he always challenged students to back up their points with evidence from the texts.
This was an American Studies class so we didn’t solely watch films. It was about book-to-film translations. But we watched things like The Maltese Falcon and Bogdanovich’s Daisy Miller – stuff you wouldn’t think Carney would like if you solely read his website. While I got the sense that he had some problems with these films, he also praised many aspects of them. We also read quite a bit of Henry James, John Cheever and The Old Man in the Sea. Through it all his passion for art and teaching was infectious. By far the best course I’ve ever taken.
Ultimately my point is this: whether you agree or not with Carney on all his points is irrelevant. I know many disagree on the merits of Capra (I personally love him) or the flaws of Hitchcock (Hitchcock’s OK but I prefer many others). I don’t think the role of a critic is to be 100% right all the time and Carney is not infallible. But the larger points he brings up about film culture and especially the way its taught in schools is very valid, I think. And while he might go after the Coens or Hitchcock or Tarantino, I think that’s mostly because those are the most popular sacred cows for film critics. Regardless, the knee-jerk reaction of many to simply dismiss anyone who badmouths filmmakers like this only serves to prove his point that many in the industry are narrow-minded and unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints.
Thanks for the insight, Justin!
@Matt, Fraser…
What’s really interesting is that the essay on the website is an excerpt from the longer piece published in A Modern Mosaic: Art and Modernism in the United States. When he posted it he must have posted an earlier draft than what is published in the final piece. In the book the full length version amends that sentence to read as follows:
“Pragmatic films, almost without exception, are stories of ordinary people with all the emotional confusions and cross-purposes of ordinary life.”
There is no mention of housewives, malls, middle-class, or suburban living in the final essay. Carney must have realized how problematic that statement was before publication but not before posting on his site. No wonder he says the internet is a waste:)
He is definitely not saying that a film based in a mansion or on a space ship cannot be pragmatic and brilliant.
No wonder he says the internet is a waste:)
Oh, uh, the net made him do it …lol
“Pragmatic films, almost without exception, are stories of ordinary people with all the emotional confusions and cross-purposes of ordinary life.”
Yes, ^ that’s much more consistent with the rest of the piece.
-I think that’s mostly because those are the most popular sacred cows for film critics-
I think that’s probably true, Justin. I do think, however, that sometimes it comes of as relatively empty (in comparison to some of the other aspects of his work) posturing that relies on a lot of theatrical gesturing . . . the critical equivalent of the very sort of thing it seems like he wouldn’t like in a film. As I’ve said earlier, I like many of the films he writes about positively, and I can certainly understand the appeal his approach holds for many. At this point in my life, though, I like my criticism as bit more subtle and supple.
^Mm, fair point. It can come off as a bit over-the-top at times. Personally I tend to enjoy Carney’s positive criticism much more than his negative stuff. Although I do think he does it mainly because he sees the way it plays out in the classroom. Even in his own college (a dept. he used to RUN btw), he is up against professors who teach films in the most shallow way possible (I know, I took their courses). So he feels he needs to be loud to match the strength of the many, many people who disagree.
He says it better than I can at this link: http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/aboutrc/letters56text.shtml . The letter from Brett G. and the response addresses Hitchcock in particular. Essentially he says “Hitchcock doesn’t need anyone to defend him. Many other filmmakers do.”
Yes.
I’m just gonna bump this and see what happens.
Heh. Fraser, I have to say I certainly didn’t expect this thread to return, well, not unless Robert did it of course,,,
OMG ! IT LIVES !
Has RC made any new entries on his blog?
If you link there, I’m sure I could find something to go’round about.
Has everyone noticed Gummo on his Selected Masterworks of Film Art
Matt Parks
^ Aside from merely being another iteration of Carney’s position, how does any of that refute the specific objections raised in the course of the preceding eleven pages of this thread? If you’ll take the time to read back through the whole discussion, you’ll see that nearly all of the discussion is based on instances of Carney’s actual writing, so how have we moved the discussion forward by introducing the passage quoted above?