One of the best books about Allen and his work is ‘Woody Allen on Woody Allen: In Conversation with Stig Björkman’. It was actually the book that I read when first discovering Allen’s movies and it offered a great insight into his thoughts and inspirations, likes and dislikes, and all related to the films themselves. An excellent series of discussions and certainly a great deal more fulfilling than any director’s commentary or behind the scenes EPK.
As for the points raised by “KNDY”; all that biographical stuff is pointless in appreciating any film. I mean, it’s all speculation and gossip really. Richard Brody’s book on Godard for example is arguably guilty of turning the filmmaker’s career into a kind of soap-opera; simplifying themes and disregarding completely relevant plot-points, references and political elements in favour of a “oh, he and Anna Karina had an argument that day so he decided to punish her character” style approach. It’s almost as if he wants Godard to be dismissed as an artist.
All that kind of stuff is just pure tabloid; and like any tabloid exposé, belongs in the rubbish bin.
I don’t think you could argue von Trier at all, actually. He’s incredibly focused on the visual look of his work and the response that it elicits from an audience.
Obviously, his earlier work – such as The Element of Crime and Europa – is some of the most skilfully stylised cinema of its era, and no one could possibly say that he wasn’t, at that point at least, interested in the visual aspects of what cinema could achieve. However, even with films like Breaking the Waves, The Idiots and Dancer in the Dark, the look of those films is incredibly important. It might seem sloppy or deliberately haphazard when compared to a Fellini or a Hitchcock, but it’s still used with a conscious intent.
For example, you don’t think the visual look of Dogville is absolutely essential to the telling of that story and the way an audience might approach it? Reducing the town to chalk-lines on a blacked-out stage so that every simultaneous scene is viewable; every action or reaction taking place literally under the collective nose of the town’s residents, accusing them, making them part of a greater conspiracy; or turning the place itself into an anonymous “every-town” that we can project our own particular prejudices onto.
And what about Dancer in the Dark; the contrasts there between the spiralling, unfocused, uncontrollable handheld footage of the “real-life” sequences juxtaposed against the carefully composed, richly coloured, almost mechanical montages that make up the musical numbers; illustrating the break between reality and fantasy in a way that is incredibly conventional, but also done in a way that is new and modern; something that could only have been achieved through the use of digital video.
The visual look of Antichrist speaks for itself.
Beyond that, I think most contributors to this thread are mistaking subtlety for disinterest, especially when it comes to people like Rohmer and Leigh. Just because they’re not showing off with it, or producing work that is as glossy or conventionally “cinematic” as a Ridley Scott thriller, doesn’t mean they consider the visual look to be unimportant. The look of a film like Pauline at the Beach for example is incredibly nuanced. The still, observational aspect of the framing, the composition, the use of near-natural lighting, the colour schemes and the setting itself are all extremely important elements in telling that story.
The same can be said of Leigh. Compare the look of a film like Naked with the more recent Happy-Go-Lucky and see how he uses colour and location. The desolate, nigh time, near-monochromatic look of Naked against the bright, colourful, late summer feel of Happy-Go-Lucky. Even the choice of framing: Naked in 1.85:1 compared to the 2.35:1 of Happy-Go-Lucky. One is tight, closed in; the other is wide open, making room for other characters.
N.B. Someone attempted to submit this film five months ago, but it seems to have been lost in the shuffle. Hopefully this will bring a little attention to it.
why is woody allen against special features on DVDs almost 3 years ago
One of the best books about Allen and his work is ‘Woody Allen on Woody Allen: In Conversation with Stig Björkman’. It was actually the book that I read when first discovering Allen’s movies and it offered a great insight into his thoughts and inspirations, likes and dislikes, and all related to the films themselves. An excellent series of discussions and certainly a great deal more fulfilling than any director’s commentary or behind the scenes EPK.
As for the points raised by “KNDY”; all that biographical stuff is pointless in appreciating any film. I mean, it’s all speculation and gossip really. Richard Brody’s book on Godard for example is arguably guilty of turning the filmmaker’s career into a kind of soap-opera; simplifying themes and disregarding completely relevant plot-points, references and political elements in favour of a “oh, he and Anna Karina had an argument that day so he decided to punish her character” style approach. It’s almost as if he wants Godard to be dismissed as an artist.
All that kind of stuff is just pure tabloid; and like any tabloid exposé, belongs in the rubbish bin.
Go to Comment
Someone Help Me Understand Godard!!! almost 3 years ago
“Is full-length ‘narrative’ film the best way to convey his ideas?”
Obviously, yes. Why wouldn’t it be?
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Befrielsesbilleder (1982)
Dir: Lars von Trier
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Winstanley (1975)
Dirs: Kevin Brownlow, Andrew Mollo
NB: I submitted this on Sunday, so technically it should be last month, but I forgot to make a post about it on the June thread.
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The White Bus (1967)
Dir: Lindsay Anderson
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
A Letter to Freddy Buache (1982)
Dir: Jean-Luc Godard
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Book of Mary (1984)
Dir: Anne-Marie Miéville
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Le Vent d’est (1970)
Dir: Groupe Dziga Vertov, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Gérard Martin
Go to Comment
great directors with whome visuals are not that important almost 3 years ago
I don’t think you could argue von Trier at all, actually. He’s incredibly focused on the visual look of his work and the response that it elicits from an audience.
Obviously, his earlier work – such as The Element of Crime and Europa – is some of the most skilfully stylised cinema of its era, and no one could possibly say that he wasn’t, at that point at least, interested in the visual aspects of what cinema could achieve. However, even with films like Breaking the Waves, The Idiots and Dancer in the Dark, the look of those films is incredibly important. It might seem sloppy or deliberately haphazard when compared to a Fellini or a Hitchcock, but it’s still used with a conscious intent.
For example, you don’t think the visual look of Dogville is absolutely essential to the telling of that story and the way an audience might approach it? Reducing the town to chalk-lines on a blacked-out stage so that every simultaneous scene is viewable; every action or reaction taking place literally under the collective nose of the town’s residents, accusing them, making them part of a greater conspiracy; or turning the place itself into an anonymous “every-town” that we can project our own particular prejudices onto.
And what about Dancer in the Dark; the contrasts there between the spiralling, unfocused, uncontrollable handheld footage of the “real-life” sequences juxtaposed against the carefully composed, richly coloured, almost mechanical montages that make up the musical numbers; illustrating the break between reality and fantasy in a way that is incredibly conventional, but also done in a way that is new and modern; something that could only have been achieved through the use of digital video.
The visual look of Antichrist speaks for itself.
Beyond that, I think most contributors to this thread are mistaking subtlety for disinterest, especially when it comes to people like Rohmer and Leigh. Just because they’re not showing off with it, or producing work that is as glossy or conventionally “cinematic” as a Ridley Scott thriller, doesn’t mean they consider the visual look to be unimportant. The look of a film like Pauline at the Beach for example is incredibly nuanced. The still, observational aspect of the framing, the composition, the use of near-natural lighting, the colour schemes and the setting itself are all extremely important elements in telling that story.
The same can be said of Leigh. Compare the look of a film like Naked with the more recent Happy-Go-Lucky and see how he uses colour and location. The desolate, nigh time, near-monochromatic look of Naked against the bright, colourful, late summer feel of Happy-Go-Lucky. Even the choice of framing: Naked in 1.85:1 compared to the 2.35:1 of Happy-Go-Lucky. One is tight, closed in; the other is wide open, making room for other characters.
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Death and the Compass (1992)
Dir: Alex Cox
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Three Businessmen (1998)
Dir: Alex Cox
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Billy the Kid and the Green Baize Vampire (1987)
Dir: Alan Clarke
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Offence (1973)
Dir: Sidney Lumet
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Dr. Plonk (2007)
Dir: Rolf de Heer
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Other Side of the Underneath (1972)
Dir: Jane Arden
N.B. I submitted this at the end of last month, but forgot to post the image in the thread.
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Orchid Gardener (Orchidégartneren, 1977)
Dir: Lars von Trier
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Killing Car (1993)
Dir: Jean Rollin
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Lost In New York (Perdues dans New York, 1989)
Dir: Jean Rollin
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Escapees (Les paumées du petit matin, 1981)
Dir: Jean Rollin
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
A Film Like Any Other (Un film comme les autres, 1968)
Dir: Jean-Luc Godard
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Pravda (1970)
Dir: Groupe Dziga Vertov, Paul Burron, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Henri Roger
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Struggle in Italy (Lotte in Italia, 1971)
Dir: Groupe Dziga Vertov, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Comment ça va? (How’s It Going?, 1978)
Dir: Jean-Luc Godard, Anne-Marie Miéville
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Tranceformer – A Portrait of Lars von Trier (1997)
Dir: Stig Björkman, Fredrik von Krusenstjerna
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Black Jack (1979)
Dir: Ken Loach
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
The Gamekeeper (1980)
Dir: Ken Loach
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Poor Cow (1967)
Dir: Ken Loach
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Looks and Smiles (1981)
Dir: Ken Loach
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Dean Spanley (2008)
Dir: Toa Fraser
N.B. Someone attempted to submit this film five months ago, but it seems to have been lost in the shuffle. Hopefully this will bring a little attention to it.
Go to Comment
FILM DATABASE SUBMISSION JULY 2010 almost 3 years ago
Buffet froid (Cold Cuts, 1979)
Dir: Bertrand Blier
Go to Comment